Amélie Mummendey

Social Discrimination and Tolerance in Intergroup Relations: Reactions to Intergroup Difference:

In this article, we present a theoretical approach to social discrimination on the one hand and intergroup relations characterized by tolerance and plurality on the other hand. Central to the analysis is the question of how members deal with intergroup difference. If the outgroups difference is judged to be nonnormative and inferior, devaluation, discrimination, and hostility are likely responses toward the outgroup. Judging the outgroups difference to be normative or positive leads to acceptance and appreciation of this group. Following self-categorization theory, the criteria—being norms and values for judging intergroup differences—are derived from the superordinate category that is perceived to include both groups. More specifically, they are derived from the prototype, or representation, of this inclusive category. Social discrimination results from the generalization of ingroup attributes to the inclusive category, which then become criteria for judging the outgroup. Tolerance, on the other hand, is conceptualized as either a lack of inclusion of both groups in a higher order category or as the representation of the inclusive category in such a way as to also include the other group and designate it as normative.

Does contact reduce prejudice or does prejudice reduce contact? A longitudinal test of the contact hypothesis among majority and minority groups in three European countries.

A widely researched panacea for reducing intergroup prejudice is the contact hypothesis. However, few longitudinal studies can shed light on the direction of causal processes: from contact to prejudice reduction (contact effects) or from prejudice to contact reduction (prejudice effects). The authors conducted a longitudinal field survey in Germany, Belgium, and England with school students. The sample comprised members of both ethnic minorities (n = 512) and ethnic majorities (n = 1,143). Path analyses yielded both lagged contact effects and prejudice effects: Contact reduced prejudice, but prejudice also reduced contact. Furthermore, contact effects were negligible for minority members. These effects were obtained for 2 indicators of prejudice: negative intergroup emotions and desire for social distance. For both majority and minority members, contact effects on negative emotions were stronger when outgroup contacts were perceived as being typical of their group. Contact effects were also mediated by intergroup anxiety. This mediating mechanism was impaired for minority members because of a weakened effect of anxiety on desire for social distance. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.

Nationalism and patriotism: National identification and out‐group rejection

It is argued that the differentiation between nationalism and patriotism proposed in the literature can be seen as analogous to judgments based on different types of comparisons: intergroup comparisons with other nations are associated with intergroup behaviour that corresponds to nationalism, whereas temporal or standard comparisons are linked with behaviour that corresponds to patriotism. Four studies (N = 103, 107, 96 and 105) conducted in Germany and Britain examined the hypothesis that national identification and in-group evaluation only show a reliable relationship with out-group rejection under an intergroup comparison orientation. Participants were primed with either an intergroup comparison, a temporal comparison or no explicit comparison orientation. A subsequent questionnaire assessed in-group (own country) identification, in-group evaluation (i.e. national pride) and rejection of national out-groups. Across all four studies, both in-group identification and in-group evaluation show a stronger correlation with out-group derogation if participants were primed with an intergroup comparison orientation compared to temporal and control conditions. Results are discussed with regard to nationalism and patriotism as well as Hinkle and Browns (1990) model on relational vs. autonomous orientations.

Superordinate identities and intergroup conflict: The ingroup projection model

This chapter summarises results from a research programme on the psychological basis of tolerance and discrimination in intergroup relations, with particular consideration of the role of superordinate identities. According to the ingroup projection model, a relevant superordinate group provides dimensions and norms for comparisons between ingroup and outgroup. Groups gain positive value or status when they are considered prototypical for the (positively valued) superordinate group. Group members tend to generalise (project) distinct ingroup characteristics onto the superordinate category, implying the relative prototypicality of their ingroup. To the extent that outgroup difference is regarded as a deviation from the ethnocentrically construed prototype it is evaluated negatively. Our research studied consequences and determinants of ingroup projection, as well as moderators of its implications. The findings contribute to a deeper understanding of the processes involved in intergroup discrimination and indicate new pathways for the reduction of prejudice, towards mutual intergroup appreciation and tolerance.

Towards tolerance: Representations of superordinate categories and perceived ingroup prototypicality

According to Mummendey and Wenzel (1999), group members tend to perceive their ingroup, relative to an outgroup, as more prototypical of the superordinate category encompassing both groups. Hence, they tend to regard the outgroup as deviating from the norms of the superordinate category. Factors that inhibit perception of relative ingroup prototypicality should thus promote intergroup tolerance. In two experiments, the representation of the superordinate category was manipulated. Both an undefinable prototype (Experiment 1; N=63) and a complex representation (Experiment 2; N=88) led to a decrease in relative ingroup prototypicality. Dual identification with the ingroup and the superordinate category increased relative ingroup prototypicality, which was negatively correlated with positive attitudes towards the outgroup. The findings supported Mummendey and Wenzel’s assumptions about the conditions that lead to intergroup tolerance.

Positive–Negative Asymmetry in Social Discrimination

Minimal group experiments showed that mere categorization of individuals into arbitrary social groups can be sufficient to elicit ingroup favouritism. This effect has been qualified by demonstrating a positive–negative asymmetry in social discrimination: categorization into minimal, laboratory groups was sufficient to elicit ingroup favouritism in allocations of positive stimuli, but not in allocations of negative ones. Different explanatory perspectives for this valence-specific asymmetry in intergroup behaviour were tested. An integrative perspective linking normative, cognitive and motivational aspects is proposed. This perspective also implies a critical analysis and re-framing of traditional theorizing on categorization effects in minimal intergroup situations.

The Ingroup as Pars Pro Toto: Projection From the Ingroup Onto the Inclusive Category as a Precursor to Social Discrimination:

In an approach to intergroup discrimination and tolerance, it is assumed that the outgroup’s difference from the ingroup is evaluated with reference to the prototype of the higher-order category that includes both groups. Two correlational studies yielded evidence that (a) group members tend to perceive their ingroup as relatively prototypical for the inclusive category (projection), (b) members highly identified with both ingroup and inclusive category (dual identity) tend to project most, and (c) relative prototypicality is related to negative attitudes toward the outgroup. The latter relation was further specified in Study 3, manipulating the valence of the inclusive category. Projection was related to more negative attitudes toward the outgroup when the inclusive category was primed positively but to more positive attitudes when it was primed negatively. The meaning of dual identities for intergroup relations is discussed.

Socio‐structural characteristics of intergroup relations and identity management strategies: results from a field study in East Germany

In a field study in East Germany, predictions by Social Identity Theory concerning relations among socio-structural characteristics of intergroup relations (stability, legitimacy, permeability) and identity management strategies (e.g. social competition) were examined. In general, East Germans were expected to consider their status position as inferior compared to West Germans. Moreover, depending on whether they regard such a status difference as legitimate or illegitimate, as stable or unstable, and whether they perceive group boundaries as permeable or impermeable, East German participants should differ with respect to identity management strategies such as change of status relations, change of categorization, change of comparison dimension, change of comparison object and change of group membership. Five hundred and seventeen participants from different regions of East Germany completed a questionnaire on various aspects of life satisfaction. A path model including stability, legitimacy and permeability as predictors, ingroup identification as mediator and identity management strategies as criteria was tested. Results are mainly in line with assumptions on main effects derived from Social Identity Theory. However, some extensions and clarifications with respect to assimilation situations seem to be adequate. In addition, results show that ingroup identification can be regarded as a powerful mediator between perceived intergroup relations and identity management strategies. Copyright

Intergroup Discrimination in Positive and Negative Outcome Allocations: Impact of Stimulus Valence, Relative Group Status, and Relative Group Size

Three studies investigated the determination of social discrimination by the valence of stimuli that are allocated between groups. The studies were based on either the minimal group paradigm or a more reality-based laboratory intergroup setting, with stimulus valence, group status, and group size as factors and with pull scores on Taifel matrices as dependent variables. In general, the results showed that group members did not discriminate against the out-group when allocating negative stimuli, where as for positive stimuli the typical in-group bias was found. However, those participants whose positive social identity was threatened by assigning them to inferior or minority groups showed an increased willingness to favor the in-group over the out-group in the allocation of both positive and negative stimuli.

Vicarious intergroup contact effects: Applying social-cognitive theory to intergroup contact research

This contribution examines the role of vicarious contact (observing in-group members having successful cross-group contact) as a tool to improve intergroup relations. Expanding previous research on indirect intergroup contact, vicarious contact (1) integrates and applies concepts of social-cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986) to the field of intergroup contact research; (2) broadens the study of indirect contact effects to the observation of successful cross-group interactions; and (3) proposes to increase people’s intention for direct cross-group contact. Two video-based experiments indicate that vicarious contact improves attitudes towards the out-group and increases participants’ willingness to engage in direct cross-group contact. These studies provide evidence that the relation between vicarious contact and intergroup attitudes (and willingness to engage in direct contact) is sequentially mediated by self-efficacy expectancy and perceived intergroup uncertainty. Implications of these findings for further research on the (indirect) contact hypothesis and their application will be discussed.