Tamar Saguy

Another view of “we”: Majority and minority group perspectives on a common ingroup identity

Drawing on the evidence of the role of social categorisation and identity in the development and maintenance of intergroup biases, research on the Common Ingroup Identity Model (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000) has investigated how modifying the ways that the self and others are categorised can reduce prejudice and discrimination. In this article, we review more recent research that extends our initial formulation of the model by considering more fully alternative forms of recategorisation (a dual identity as well as a one-group representation), the different preferences of majority and minority groups for these different forms of recategorised representations, and the potential implications of these different preferences on the content of intergroup interaction and on the possibilities for social change towards equality.

Beyond Contact: Intergroup Contact in the Context of Power Relations

This work investigated how group-based power affects the motivations and preferences that members of advantaged and disadvantaged groups bring to situations of contact. To measure the preferred content of interactions, desires to address particular topics in intergroup contact were assessed for both experimental groups (Study 1) and real groups (Study 2). As predicted, across both studies, the desire to talk about power was greater among members of disadvantaged than of advantaged groups. This difference was mediated by motivation for change in group-based power. Study 2 further demonstrated that more highly identified members of disadvantaged groups wanted to talk about power more. Members of advantaged groups generally preferred to talk about commonalities between the groups more than about group-based power, and this desire was greater with higher levels of identification. However, perceiving that their groups advantage was illegitimate increased the desire of advantaged group members to address power in intergroup interactions.

Interacting Like a Body Objectification Can Lead Women to Narrow Their Presence in Social Interactions

The present experiment tested the impact of sexual objectification on women’s behavior in social interactions. We predicted that when objectified, women would narrow their social presence by spending little time talking, particularly when interacting with men. Participants (males and females) gave an oral introduction of themselves to an alleged interaction partner (male or female). Objectification was manipulated by having participants believe their bodies were either visually inspected or not inspected during this introduction. Specifically, participants introduced themselves through a closed-circuit device in one of three conditions: body (videotaped from the neck down), face (videotaped from the neck up), or audio (no videotaping). Women who were in the body condition and thought they were interacting with men spent less time talking than participants in all other groups. In addition, the majority of women disliked the body condition, indicating that they found having their bodies gazed at aversive. Implications for women’s behavior in mixed-sex contexts are discussed.

How group-based emotions are shaped by collective emotions: evidence for emotional transfer and emotional burden.

Extensive research has established the pivotal role that group-based emotions play in shaping intergroup processes. The underlying implicit assumption in previous work has been that these emotions reflect what the rest of the group feels (i.e., collective emotions). However, one can experience an emotion in the name of her or his group, which is inconsistent with what the collective feels. The current research investigated this phenomenon of emotional nonconformity. Particularly, we proposed that when a certain emotional reaction is perceived as appropriate, but the collective is perceived as not experiencing this emotion, people would experience stronger levels of group-based emotion, placing their emotional experience farther away from that of the collective. We provided evidence for this process across 2 different emotions: group-based guilt and group-based anger (Studies 1 and 2) and across different intergroup contexts (Israeli-Palestinian relations in Israel, and Black-White relations in the United States). In Studies 3 and 4, we demonstrate that this process is moderated by the perceived appropriateness of the collective emotional response. Studies 4 and 5 further provided evidence for the mechanisms underlying this effect, pointing to a process of emotional burden (i.e., feeling responsible for carrying the emotion in the name of the group) and of emotional transfer (i.e., transferring negative feelings one has toward the ingroup, toward the event itself). This work brings to light processes that were yet to be studied regarding the relationship between group members, their perception of their group, and the emotional processes that connect them.

Emotion Regulation and the Cultivation of Political Tolerance: Searching for a New Track for Intervention

The goal of the current project is to integrate psychological research on emotion regulation with the study of democratic practices in general and political intolerance in particular. We hypothesized that the use of a well-established emotion regulation strategy, cognitive reappraisal, would be associated with lower levels of group-based negative emotions toward one’s least-liked group and lower levels of political intolerance toward that group. Preliminary data based on nationwide survey conducted among Jews in Israel show that the tendency to reappraise negative emotions during war is associated with more tolerant attitudes. In studies 1 and 2, we experimentally manipulated reappraisal, and this led to reduced levels of political intolerance toward Palestinian Citizens of Israel (study 1) and toward one’s least-liked group (study 2). These effects were transmitted via a decrease in negative emotions in both studies, as well as by an increase in support for general democratic values in Study 2.

Insecure Status Relations Shape Preferences for the Content of Intergroup Contact

Recent work demonstrated that whereas high-status and low-status group members seek to address cross-group commonalities during intergroup contact, members of low-status groups show a greater desire to discuss status differences between the groups. Drawing on social identity theory, the current research investigated the combined influence of status legitimacy and status stability on these contact preferences. In Study 1, perceived stability and perceived legitimacy were measured among members of a high-status ethnic group in Israel. In Study 2, group status, status stability, and status legitimacy were experimentally manipulated in a U.S. sample. Although they generally preferred to discuss commonalities over status differences, across studies high-status group members’ willingness to discuss status differences increased when they perceived the hierarchy as illegitimate but stable. By contrast, low-status group members were particularly inclined to address status differences and least interested in discussing commonalties, when the hierarchy was illegitimate and unstable.

Believing in "making a difference" to collective efforts : Participative efficacy beliefs as a unique predictor of collective action

When rational actors believe that their group can achieve its goals through collective action (i.e., when they have strong group efficacy beliefs), they should not participate in it because they expect little benefit from their own participation. Paradoxically, however, research shows that individuals are more likely to participate when their group efficacy beliefs are stronger. In contrast to approaches that explain this paradox by invoking different psychological mechanisms (e.g., group identity, group-based anger), we provide a novel efficacy-based explanation by introducing the notion of participative efficacy beliefs (i.e., beliefs that one’s own actions will “make a difference” to collective efforts aimed at achieving group goals). Three correlational studies supported the construct and predictive validity of participative efficacy beliefs across different samples and contexts. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of this notion for the psychology of collective action and social change.

Exposure to Outgroup Members Criticizing Their Own Group Facilitates Intergroup Openness

A major barrier to conflict resolution is group members’ tendency to hold on to the ingroup’s narrative of the conflict and reject the outgroup’s perspective. In the current research, we propose that voicing internal criticism to an outgroup crowd can undermine such orientations and foster intergroup openness. Across four experiments, Israeli Jews who were exposed to a Palestinian criticizing Palestinians were more open to the Palestinians’ perspective of the conflict, than those not exposed to the criticism. This effect was obtained when the criticism was related (Study 1) and unrelated (Study 2) to the conflict, and was consistently mediated by increased hope about the future relations between the groups. Study 3 showed that the effect is more pronounced among those who believe that groups can change. Study 4 established that perceptions about the outgroup as open-minded underlie the effect of ingroup criticism on hope, and further demonstrated downstream effects of openness.

Beliefs About the Malleability of Immoral Groups Facilitate Collective Action

Although negative out-group beliefs typically foster individuals’ motivation for collective action, we propose that such beliefs may diminish this motivation when people believe that this out-group cannot change in its very essence. Specifically, we tested the idea that believing in the malleability of immoral out-groups (i.e., targets of collective action) should increase collective action tendencies through group efficacy beliefs. Study 1 revealed that the more strongly participants believed that immoral out-groups could change as a function of contextual influences, the stronger their collective action tendencies were due to increased group efficacy. In Study 2, we experimentally replicated these findings using a manipulation of individuals’ beliefs about immoral out-groups being potentially malleable (vs. fixed). We discuss implications of our findings with an eye on the literature on collective action and implicit beliefs and on the promotion of civic engagement more broadly.

Power, negotiations, and the anticipation of intergroup encounters

This review places intergroup encounters in a broad framework which considers the context in which such encounters take place, and in particular, the power dynamics at play. We address different forms of encounters, spanning from interpersonal interactions (not focused on intergroup aspects) to political negotiations between the groups’ representatives, and argue for a deeper consideration of power asymmetries in examining such encounters. We argue that because high- and low-power group members have different motivations for change in the status quo, they differ in their expectations from intergroup encounters and in the types of encounters they prefer. We describe relevant research while considering moderating factors such as the legitimacy and stability of the power dynamics. We also identify remaining gaps and topics requiring further research. This work has both conceptual and practical implications for the prospects of promoting both positive attitudinal change as well as changes to the hierarchical status quo.