Matthew J. Hornsey

Assimilation and Diversity: An Integrative Model of Subgroup Relations:

A model of sociostructural relations among subgroups within a superordinate category is presented. Contextualized by discussion of political and social psychological models of intergroup contact, we extend principles of social identity theory to address structural differentiation within groups. Subgroup identity threat plays a pivotal role in the nature of subgroup relations, as do the social realities of specific subgroup relations (i.e., inclusiveness, nested vs. crosscutting categories, leadership, instrumental goal relations, power and status differentials, subgroup similarity). Our analysis suggests that subgroup identity threat is the greatest obstacle to social harmony; social arrangements that threaten social identity produce defensive reactions that result in conflict. Social harmony is best achieved by maintaining, not weakening, subgroup identities, and locating them within the context of a binding superordinate identity.

The Individual Within the Group: Balancing the Need to Belong With the Need to Be Different

Many theorists have wrestled with the notion of how people balance their need to be included in social groups with their need to be different and distinctive. This question is particularly salient to researchers from the social identity perspective, who have traditionally viewed individual differentiation within groups as being inimical to group identification. In this article we present a number of strategies that people can use to balance their need to belong and their need to be different, without violating social identity principles. First, drawing from optimal distinctiveness theory, we discuss 4 ways in which the need for belonging and the need to be different can be resolved by maximizing group distinctiveness. We then discuss 4 ways in which it is possible to achieve individual differentiation within a group at the same time demonstrating group identification. These strategies are discussed and integrated with reference to recent empirical research and to the social identity perspective.

Subgroup Relations: A Comparison of Mutual Intergroup Differentiation and Common Ingroup Identity Models of Prejudice Reduction

Two studies examined relations between groups (humanities and math-science students) that implicitly or explicitly share a common superordinate category (university student). In Experiment 1, 178 participants performed a noninteractive decision-making task during which category salience was manipulated in a 2 (superordinate category salience)×2 (subordinate category salience) between-groups design. Consistent with the mutual intergroup differentiation model, participants for whom both categories were salient exhibited the lowest levels of bias, whereas bias was strongest when the superordinate category alone was made salient. This pattern of results was replicated in Experiment 2 (N = 135). In addition, Experiment 2 demonstrated that members of subgroups that are nested within a superordinate category are more sensitive to how the superordinate category is represented than are members of subgroups that extend beyond the boundaries of the superordinate category.

The Contact Caveat : Negative Contact Predicts Increased Prejudice More Than Positive Contact Predicts Reduced Prejudice

Contact researchers have largely overlooked the potential for negative intergroup contact to increase prejudice. In Study 1, we tested the interaction between contact quantity and valence on prejudice toward Black Australians (n = 1,476), Muslim Australians (n = 173), and asylum seekers (n = 293). In all cases, the association between contact quantity and prejudice was moderated by its valence, with negative contact emerging as a stronger and more consistent predictor than positive contact. In Study 2, White Americans (n = 441) indicated how much positive and negative contact they had with Black Americans on separate measures. Although both quantity of positive and negative contact predicted racism and avoidance, negative contact was the stronger predictor. Furthermore, negative (but not positive) contact independently predicted suspicion about Barack Obama’s birthplace. These results extend the contact hypothesis by issuing an important caveat: Negative contact may be more strongly associated with increased racism and discrimination than positive contact is with its reduction.

Criticizing Groups from the Inside and the Outside: An Identity Perspective on the Intergroup Sensitivity Effect

Research on group criticism has demonstrated that criticisms are received less defensively when made by an ingroup member than when made by an outsider (the intergroup sensitivity effect). Three experiments tested the extent to which this effect is driven by social identity concerns or by judgments of how experienced the source of the criticism is. In Experiments 1 and 2, Australians who criticized Australia (ingroup critics) were met with less defensiveness than were foreigners who criticized Australia (outgroup critics), regardless of the amount of experience the foreigner had with Australia. Furthermore, the effects of speaker type on evaluations were mediated by perceptions of the extent to which the criticisms were intended to be constructive but not by perceptions of experience. Finally, Experiment 3 indicated that although experience does not help outgroup critics, a lack of experience can hurt ingroup critics. Recommendations are provided as to how people can reduce defensiveness when making group criticisms.

Intergroup Similarity and Subgroup Relations: Some Implications for Assimilation:

Two studies examined the effects of perceptions of similarity on relations between subgroups (humanities and math-science students) that share an active superordinate category (University of Queensland student). Participants (N = 82) performed a non-interactive task during which perceptions of intersubgroup similarity (high or low) and level of categorization (at the superordinate level or at the superordinate and subgroup levels simultaneously) were manipulated ina2X2 between-groups design. Consistent with social identity theory, participants who had been categorized exclusively at the superordinate level discriminated more against a similar subgroup than a dissimilar one. However, when the subgroup and superordinate categories were activated simultaneously, a trend emerged that was consistent with the similarity-attraction hypothesis. A similar interaction emerged in Study 2 (N = 265), in which perceptions of similarity were measured rather than manipulated. The results were interpreted in terms of the motivation to retain ingroup distinctiveness.

What Happens When Groups Say Sorry: The Effect of Intergroup Apologies on Their Recipients

Despite the increased incidence of intergroup apology in public life, very little empirical attention has been paid to the questions of whether intergroup apologies work and if so, why. In a series of experiments, Australians read scenarios in which Australian interests had been harmed by an outgroup. Participants were then told that the outgroup had either apologized or had not apologized for the offense. Although the presence of an apology helped promote perceptions that the outgroup was remorseful, and although participants were more satisfied with an apology than with no apology, the presence of the apology failed to promote forgiveness for the offending group. This was the case regardless of whether the effectiveness of apology was measured cross-sectionally (Experiment 1) or longitudinally (Experiment 2). It was also the case when the apology was accompanied by victims advocating forgiveness (Experiment 3) and was independent of the emotionality of the apology (Experiment 4). In contrast, individuals who apologized for intergroup atrocities were personally forgiven more than those who did not apologize (Experiment 4). Theoretical and applied implications are discussed.

Theorizing Gender in the Face of Social Change: Is There Anything Essential About Essentialism?

The authors examine how beliefs about the stability of the social hierarchy moderate the link between sexism and essentialist beliefs about gender and how the expression of essentialist beliefs might reciprocally affect the social structure. Studies 1 (N = 240) and 2 (N = 143) presented gender-based inequality as stable, changing, or changed. In both studies, sexism was positively associated with essentialism only among men and only when inequality was presented as changing. Study 3 (N = 552) explored the possible consequences of expressing essentialist theories for social change. Exposure to essentialist theories increased both mens and womens acceptance of inequality. Exposure further increased mens support for discriminatory practices and boosted their self-esteem. These patterns demonstrate that although essentialism is linked to prejudice, this link is itself not essential. Rather, essentialism may be invoked strategically to protect higher status when this is threatened by change and may be successful in so doing.

Subgroup differentiation as a response to an overly-inclusive group: A test of optimal distinctiveness theory

Optimal distinctiveness theory (ODT; Brewer, 1991, 1993a,b) argues that people can respond to membership of an over ly inclusive group by engaging in a drive for subgroup distinctiveness. To test this, 280 subgroup members (humanities and maths-science students) rated the extent to which they perceived their superordinate group university of Queensland to be inclusive. After performing a task designed to activate their superordinate category membership, participants completed a questionnaire assessing inter-subgroup attitudes. Consistent with ODT, ratings of superordinate inclusiveness explained a moderate amount of variance in subgroup bias (5-8 per cent), such that the more inclusive the superordinate category was seen to be, the more bias was demonstrated. The results are discussed in terms of their relevance for ODT and their implications for promoting subgroup harmony. Copyright (C) 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

When group members admit to being conformist: The role of relative intragroup status in conformity self-reports

Five studies examined the hypothesis that people will strategically portray the self as being more group influenced the more junior they feel within the group. Among social psychologists (Study 1), ratings of self-conformity by group members were greater when the status of the participant was low than when it was high. These effects were replicated in Studies 2, 3, and 4 in which relative intragroup status was manipulated. In Study 3, the authors found junior group members described themselves as more conformist than senior members when they were addressing an ingroup audience, but when they were addressing an outgroup audience the effect disappeared. Furthermore, junior members (but not senior members) rated themselves as more conformist when they were led to believe their responses were public than when responses were private (Study 5). The discussion focuses on the strategic processes underlying low-status group members’ self-reports of group influence and the functional role of conformity in groups.