Hedy Greijdanus

Steeling Ourselves: Intragroup Communication while Anticipating Intergroup Contact Evokes Defensive Intergroup Perceptions

Two experiments investigated the role of intragroup communication in intergroup conflict (de-)escalation. Experiment 1 examined the effects of intragroup communication (vs. individual thought) and anticipated face-to-face intergroup contact (vs. no anticipated face-to-face intergroup contact). The group discussions of stigmatized group members who anticipated face-to-face intergroup contact revolved more around intergroup hostility. This boosted ingroup identification and increased social creativity but also led to steeling (a hardening of perceived intergroup relations). In Experiment 2, new participants listened to the taped group discussions. The discussions of groups anticipating face-to-face intergroup contact evoked more intergroup anxiety-related discomfort than discussions of groups not anticipating face-to-face intergroup encounters. Together, these results support the idea that steeling is a defensive reaction to prepare for an anxiety-arousing intergroup confrontation. Although steeling is also associated with positive consequences such as increased ingroup solidarity and social creativity, this hardened stance may be an obstacle to conflict de-escalation.

The polarizing effects of group discussion in a negative normative context: Integrating societal-, group-, and individual-level factors

In this research, we investigate how a negative (or hostile) norm regarding minorities at the societal level can fuel polarization between majority subgroups at the local level. We hypothesize that rapid social change in the form of polarization results from the interplay between small group processes and perceptions of society at large. By employing a novel analytic approach that uses variances to capture non‐linear societal change, we were able to study polarization processes. In three studies among high school and university students (N = 347), we manipulated the majority norm about a minority category (positive vs. negative). Subsequently, participants read about a minority members ambiguous behaviour and evaluated this target. All studies used a similar paradigm, but they varied in whether or not participants discussed the ambiguous behaviour within local groups. Results showed that the majority norm at the societal level affected perceptions of the minority members behaviour when people discussed this behaviour in a local majority group but not when they reflected on it individually. Specifically, group discussions led to polarization between local groups within a broader social category, but only in the context of a negative majority norm. This effect was predicted by the a priori perception of the local group norm. Results are discussed in terms of the integration of society‐ and group‐level processes when studying the development of intergroup attitudes and practical implications for the coarsening climate of the societal debate about current societal issues.