Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Intergroup Relations and Strategies of Minorities

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Social Developmental Construction of Violence and Intergroup Conflict

Abstract

This chapter addresses how asymmetric status positions work out in intergroup relations. In particular, the chapter focuses on one of the possible ways in which disadvantaged groups can deal with their situation: Social creativity. This chapter introduces social identity theory, which is fundamental for the understanding of asymmetric intergroup relations. Much in line with Tajfel’s thinking, in a study on children from different ethnic backgrounds the authors present evidence how under some circumstances social creativity can contribute to the upholding of the status quo. The authors also present empirical results from several studies in which they demonstrate how minorities are able to hold views on social reality, particularly on more inclusive superordinate categories, that are specifically, and very systematically distinct from the views held by their dominant majority outgroups. With that they provide evidence for the so far neglected emancipative potential of social creativity in studies with members of ethnic minorities in Portugal, with members of a strong belief minority (Evangelic Protestants in Portugal), and one study with people from two regions, Lisbon and Porto, the latter the allegedly “rival” of Lisbon. They claim that—compared to the alternative strategy of open social competition with the powerful outgroup—social creativity has been underestimated as a strategy of social change.

Inter-group relations is a two-way affair. This means that to improve relations between groups both of the interacting groups have to be studied.

Lewin (1946, p. 151)

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    However, there are psychological boundaries for social mobility, such as high ingroup identification that prevents people from trying to change their group membership, especially when such membership is chosen (e.g., Jetten and Branscombe 2009).

  2. 2.

    Ingroup projection is similar to, but not the same as, the false consensus effect (Ross et al. 1977) and social projection (Allport 1924; Krueger 2007). At a group level, it corresponds to an overestimation of ingroup prototypicality (Kessler and Mummendey 2009; Mark and Edward 1995), and differs from social projection not only theoretically but also empirically (Bianchi et al. 2009; Machunsky et al. 2009). Whereas, ingroup projection describes a generalization process that is made from the ingroup to the superordinate category (of attributes and values) with important implications for intergroup evaluation (intergroup level), social projection implies a generalization of the individual self to the ingroup (see also Waldzus 2009) and is relevant for the representation of an ingroup’s prototype (interpersonal level).

  3. 3.

    Other predictors have also been tested, though it is not our purpose to discuss them deeply: intergroup threat (Ullrich et al. 2006), conditions of information processing (e.g., Machunsky and Meiser 2009, 2013; Rosa and Waldzus 2012), and group goals (Sindic and Reicher 2008).

  4. 4.

    Complexity as it was conceptualized within ingroup projection research is conceptually different from (work-group) diversity as it is defined in organizational science (e.g., van Knippenberg et al. 2004): Generally, the latter refers to two major aspects, social category diversity, that is, differences in visible attributes (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity, age), and informational/functional diversity, which is related to less detectable attributes (e.g., educational background). Diversity in that sense corresponds to characteristics of the members, which is also closer to the idea of variability or heterogeneity postulated by several researchers (e.g., Judd et al. 1995; Park and Judd 1990). The focus is mainly on differences between (sub)groups rather than a particular representation of a given superordinate category (e.g., organization).

  5. 5.

    More recently, Bianchi et al. (2009, Study 2) showed that ingroup projection depends not only on the valence of the superordinate category, but also on the valence of the ingroup: participants (German students) were first asked to think about Germans in general, then, the positivity of the image of such category was manipulated. Following Schwarz et al. (1991) half of the participants were asked to write down three positive aspects of Germans (positive ingroup image condition), and the other half to write down twelve positive aspects of the same group (less positive ingroup image condition); note that the method is based on the difficulty that members will have to list twelve instead of only three positive aspects. Participants displayed more ingroup projection, that is, they considered their ingroup to be more relatively prototypical, in the positive ingroup image condition than in the less positive image condition.

  6. 6.

    When interpreting these results one has to take into account that the dimension of improvement in the future fitted the minorities self-stereotype (i.e., being strong in industrial production). Corresponding to the adaptive nature of prototypicality, judgments would not expect the same results for dimensions that do not fit the self-stereotype of the minority.

References

  • Adorno, T. W., (1954/2003). Beitrag zur Ideologienlehre. In: Soziologische Schriften I, pp. 457–477. Frankfurt a.M: Suhrkamp Taschenbuch Wissenschaft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexandre, J. (2010). Being a minority: Predictors of relative ingroup prototypicality and strategies to achieve social change (Unpublished doctoral thesis). ISCTE-University Institute, Lisbon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexandre, J. D., Monteiro, M. B., & Waldzus, S. (2007). More than comparing with majorities: The importance of alternative comparisons between children from different minority groups. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 7, 201–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allport, F. H. (1924). Social psychology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod, R., & Hammond, R. A. (2003). The evolution of ethnocentric behavior. Chicago, IL: Midwest Political Science Convention.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barreto, M., & Ellemers, N. (2003). The effects of being categorised: The interplay between internal and external social identities. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European Review of Social Psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 139–170). Chichester: Wiley. doi:10.1080/10463280340000045.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barreto, M., & Ellemers, N. (2009). Multiple identities and the paradox of social inclusion. In F. Butera & J. M. Levine (Eds.), Coping with minority status: Responses to exclusion and inclusion (pp. 269–292). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bergsieker, H., Shelton, J. N., & Richeson, J. A. (2010). To be liked versus respected: Divergent goals in interracial interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 248–264. doi:10.1037/a0018474.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bianchi, M., Machunsky, M., Steffens, M., & Mummendey, A. (2009). Like me or like us: Is ingroup projection just social Projection? Experimental Psychology, 56, 198–205. doi:10.1027/1618-3169.56.3.198.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Blanz, M., Mummendey, A., Mielke, R., & Klink, A. (1998). Strategic responses to negative social identity: An empirical sistematization of field data. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 697–729. doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-0992(199809/10)28:5<697::aid-ejsp889>3.0.co;2-#.

  • Blanz, M., Mummendey, A., & Otten, S. (1995). Positive-negative asymmetry in social discrimination: The impact of stimulus-valence, sizeand status-differentials in intergroup evaluations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 34(4), 409–419. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1995.tb01074.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumer, H. (1958). Race prejudice as a sense of group position. The Pacific Sociological Review, 1, 3–7. doi:10.2307/1388607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bobo, L., & Hutchings, V. L. (1996). Perceptions of racial group competition: Extending Blumer’s theory of group position to multiracial social context. American Sociological Review, 61, 951–972. doi:10.2307/2096302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boen, F., Vanbeselaere, N., & Wostyn, P. (2010). When the best become the rest: The interactive effect of premerger status and relative representation on postmerger identification and ingroup bias. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 13(6), 461–475. doi:10.1177/1368430209350746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandt, M. J. (2013). Do the disadvantaged legitimize the social system? A large-scale test of the status–legitimacy hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(5), 765–785. doi:10.1037/a0031751.

    Google Scholar 

  • Branscombe, N. R., & Ellemers, N. (1998). Coping with group-based discrimination: Individualistic versus group-level strategies. In J. K. Swim & C. Stangor (Eds.), Prejudice: The target’s perspective (pp. 243–266). New York: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Broman, C. L., Mavaddat, R., & Hsu, S.-Y. (2000). The experience and consequences of perceived racial discrimination: A study of African Americans. The Journal of Black Psychology, 26, 165–180. doi:10.1177/0095798400026002003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R. J. (1978). Divided we fall: An analysis of relations between sections of a factory workforce. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 395–430). London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608–630. doi:10.1037//0033-295x.96.4.608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dafflon, A. C. (1999). Perception d’homogénéité dans les groupes: Effects des positions statutaires respectives. In J. L. Beauvois, N. Dubois, & W. Doise (Eds.), La construction sociale de la personne (pp. 147–171). Grenoble, France: PUG.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deaux, K. (2006a). To be an immigrant. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deaux, K. (2006b). A nation of immigrants: Living our legacy. Journal of Social issues, 62, 633–651. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2006.00480.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deaux, K., Reid, A., Martin, D., & Bikmen, N. (2006). Ideologies of diversity and inequality: Predicting collective action in groups varying in ethnicity and immigrants status. Political Psychology, 27, 123–146. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2006.00452.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demoulin, S., Leyens, J-Ph, & Dovidio, J. F. (Eds.). (2009). Intergroup misunderstandings: Impact of divergent social realities. London: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deschamps, J. C., Vala, J., Marinho, C., Costa Lopes, R., & Cabecinhas, R. (2005). Intergroup relations, racism and attributions of natural and cultural traits. Psicologia Politica, 30, 27–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Devos, T., & Banaji, M. (2005). American = white? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 447–466. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.447.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Devos, T., Gavin, K., & Quintana, F. (2010). Say “Adios” to the American Dream: The interplay between ethnic and national identity among Latino and Caucasian Americans. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16, 37–49. doi:10.1037/a0015868.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Dixon, J., Levine, M., Reicher, S., & Durrheim, K. (2012). Beyond prejudice: Are negative evaluations the problem? Is getting us to like one another more the solution? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35(6), 411–425. doi:10.1017/S0140525X11002214.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Doane, A. W. (1997). Dominant group ethnic identity in the United States. The Sociological Quarterly, 38, 375–397. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.1997.tb00483.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, K., McGarty, C., Bliuc, A.-M., & Lala, G. (2005). Understanding Cyberhate: Social competition and social creativity in online white supremacist groups. Social Science Computer Review, 23, 68–76. doi:10.1177/0894439304271538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., John, M.-S., Halabi, S., Saguy, T., Pearson, A. R., et al., (2009). Majority and minority perspectives in intergroup relations: The role of contact, group representations, threat, and trust in intergroup conflict and reconciliation. In A. Nadler, T. E. Malloy, & Fisher, J. D. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup reconciliation (pp. 227–254). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellemers, N. (2001). Individual upward mobility and the perceived legitimacy of intergroup relations. In J. T. Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy. Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice and intergroup relations (pp. 205–222). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellemers, N., & Barreto, M. (2001). The impact of relative group status: Affective, perceptual, and behavioural consequences. In R. Brown & S. Gaertner (Eds.), The blackwell handbook of social psychology (pp. 324–343). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellemers, N., van Rijswijk, W., Roefs, M., & Simons, C. (1997). Bias in intergroup perceptions: Balancing group identity with social reality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(2), 186–198. doi:10.1177/0146167297232007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farley, J. E. (2005). Majority-minority relations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feddes, A. R., Monteiro, M.-B., & Justo, M. G. (2013). Subjective social status and intergroup attitudes among ethnic majority and minority children in Portugal. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 32(2), 125–140. doi:10.1111/bjdp.12025.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • FRA—European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2009). EU-MIDIS Technical ReportMethodology, Sampling and Fieldwork. Retrieved from http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/eu-midis/index_en.htm.

  • FRA—European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2012). EU-MIDIS Technical Report Methodology, Sampling and Fieldwork. Retrieved September 17, 2012 from http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/2214-FRA-2012_Annual_Activity_Report_2011_EN.pdf.

  • Goffman, E. (1968). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. London: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guerra, R., Rebelo, M., Monteiro, M. B., Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W., Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2010). How should intergroup contact be structured to reduce bias among majority and minority group children? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(4), 445–460. doi:10.1177/1368430209355651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guinote, A., Mouro, C., Pereira, M. H., & Monteiro, M. B. (2007). Children’s perceptions of group variability as a function of status. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31, 97–104. doi:10.1177/0165025407073930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gumplowicz, L. (1883). Der Rassenkampf: Sociologische Untersuchungen [The racial struggle: Sociological studies]. Innsbruck, Austria: Wagner’sche Universitäts-Buchhandlung.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gumplowicz, L. (1887). System socyologii [System of sociology]. Warsaw, Poland: Spolka Nakladowa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, A., Judd, C., & Park, B. (2010). Thinking about group differences: Ideologies and national identities. Psychological Inquiry, 21, 120–126. doi:10.1080/1047840X.2010.483997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hehman, E., Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Mania, E. W., Guerra, R., Wilson, D. C., & Friel, B. M. (2012). Group status drives majority and minority integration preferences. Psychological Science, 23, 46–52. doi:10.1177/0956797611423547.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hogg, M. A., Cooper-Shaw, L., & Holzworth, D. W. (1993). Group prototypicality and depersonalized attraction in small interactive groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 452–465. doi:10.1177/0146167293194010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins, N., & Kahani-Hopkins, V. (2006). Minority group members’ theories of intergroup contact: A case study of British Muslims’ conceptualizations of ‘Islamophobia’ and social change. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 245–264. doi:10.1348/014466605x48583.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000). Assimilation and diversity: An integrative model of subgroup relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 143–156. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0402_03.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howarth, C., Wagner, W., Kessi, S., & Sen, R. (2012). The politics of moving beyond prejudice. Behavioral and Brain Science, 20, 27–28. doi:10.1017/S0140525X12001240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Imhoff, R., Dotsch, R., Bianchi, M., Banse, R., & Wigboldus, D. H. J. (2011). Facing Europe: Visualizing spontaneous in-group projection. Psychological Science, 22(12), 1583–1590. doi:10.1177/0956797611419675.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jetten, J., & Branscombe, N. R. (2009). Minority group identification: Responses to discrimination when group membership is controllable. In F. Butera & J. M. Levine (Eds.), Coping with minority status: Responses to exclusion and inclusion (pp. 155–176). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jetten, J., Branscombe, N. R., & Spears, R. (2002). On being peripheral: Effects of identity insecurity on personal and collective self-esteem. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 105–123. doi:10.1002/ejsp.64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1–27. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881–920. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Judd, C. M., Park, B., Ryan, C. S., Brauer, M., & Kraus, S. (1995). Stereotypes and ethnocentrism: Diverging interethnic perceptions of African American and White American youth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 460–481. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.3.460.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kalkan, K., Layman, G., & Uslaner, E. (2009). “Bands of others?”Attitudes toward muslims in contemporary American society. Journal of Politics, 71, 1–16. doi:10.1017/s0022381609090756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kessler, T., & Mummendey, A. (2009). Why do the not perceive us as we are? Ingroup projection as a source of intergroup misunderstanding. In S. Demoulin, J.-P. Leyens, & J. F. Dovidio (Eds.), Intergroup misunderstandings. Impact of divergent social realities (pp. 135–152). New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, J. I. (2007). From social projection to social behaviour. European Review of Social Psychology, 18, 1–35. doi:10.1080/10463280701284645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemaine, G. (1974). Social differentiation and social originality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 4, 17–52. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420040103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemaine, G., Kastersztein, J., & Personnaz, B. (1978). Social differentiation. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of inter-group relations (pp. 269–300). London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts; selected papers on group dynamics. Gertrude W. Lewin (Ed.). New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorenzi-Cioldi, F. (1988). Individus dominant et groupes dominés. Grenoble: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machunsky, M., & Meiser, T. (2009). Ingroup projection as a means to define the superordinate category efficiently: Response time evidence. Social Cognition, 27(1), 57–76. doi:10.1521/soco.2009.27.1.57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Machunsky, M., & Meiser, T. (2013). Cognitive components of ingroup projection. Social Psychology, 45(1), 15–30. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Machunsky, M., Meiser, T., & Mummendey, A. (2009). On the crucial role of mental ingroup representation for ingroup bias and the ingroup prototypicality-ingroup bias link. Experimental Psychology, 56, 156–164. doi:10.1027/1618-3169.56.3.156.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Major, B., & O’Brien, L. (2005). The social psychology of stigma. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 393–421. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070137.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Major, B., & Schmader, T. (2002). Legitimacy and the construal of social disadvantage. In J. T. Jost, & B. Major (Eds.), The Psychology of Legitimacy. Emerging Perspectives on Ideology, Justice and Intergroup Relations (pp. 176–204). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mark, A., & Edward, L. (1995). The role of self in the false consensus effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 28–47.doi:10.1006/jesp.1995.1002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, K. (1872/1969). Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Frankfurt a.M: Ullstein.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meireles, C. S. (2007). Tolerance in intergroup relations: Cognitive representations reducing ingroup projection (Unpublished master thesis). ISCTE-Lisbon University Institute, Portugal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mlicki, P. P., & Ellemers, N. (1996). Being different or being better? National stereotypes and identifications of Polish and Dutch students. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 97–113. doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-0992(199601)26:1<97:aid-ejsp739>3.3.co;2-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monteiro, M. B., Guerra, R., & Rebelo, M. (2009). Reducing prejudice: Common Ingroup and Dual Identity in unequal status intergroup encounters. In S. Demoulin, J. P. Leyens, & J. F. Dovidio (Eds.), Intergroup misunderstandings: Impact of divergent social realities (pp. 273–290). Psychology Press: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, K. R., Fast, N., & Ybarra, O. (2009). Group status, perceptions of threat, and support for social inequality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 201–210. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.09.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moscovici, S., & Personnaz, B. (1980). Studies in social influence V: Minority influence and conversion behavior in a perceptual task. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 270–282. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(80)90070-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mumendey, A., & Schreiber, H.-J. (1984). “Different” just means “better”: Some obvious and some hidden pathways to ingroup favouritism. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 1–16. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1984.tb00652.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mummendey, A., & Wenzel, M. (1999). Social discrimination and toleramce in intergroup relations: Reactions to intergroup difference. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 158–174. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0302_4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oldmeadow, J. A., & Fiske, S. T. (2010). Social status and the pursuit of positive social identity: Systematic domains of intergroup differentiation and discrimination for high- and low-status groups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(4), 425–444. doi:10.1177/1368430209355650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Outten, R., & Schmitt, M. T. (2014). The more “intergroup” the merrier? The relationship between ethnic identification, coping options, and life satisfaction among South Asian Canadians. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/ Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, Advanced Online Publication, 12, 1–10. doi:10.1037/a0035907.

    Google Scholar 

  • Outten, H. R., Schmitt, M. T., Garcia, D. M., & Branscombe, N. R. (2009). Coping options: Missing links between minority group identification and psychological well-being. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 58, 146–170. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00386.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paladino, M. P., & Vaes, J. (2009). Ours is human: On the pervasiveness of infrahumanization in intergroup relations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48(2), 237–251. doi:10.1348/014466608x322882.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Park, B., & Judd, C. M. (1990). Measures and models of perceived group variability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 173–191. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.59.2.173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peker, M., Crisp, R. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2010). Predictors of ingroup projection: The roles of superordinate category coherence and complexity. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 13, 525–542. doi:10.1177/1368430209360205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Reactions toward the new minorities of Western Europe. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 77–103. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Prislin, R., & Filson, J. (2009). Seeking conversion versus advocating tolerance in pursuit of social change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 811–822. doi:10.1037/a0016169.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reicher, S. D., & Hopkins, N. (2001). Self and nation: Categorization, contestation and mobilisation. London: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Richeson, J., & Craig, M. (2011). Intra-minority intergroup relations in the twenty-first century. Daedalus, 140, 166–175. doi:10.1162/daed_a_00085.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richman, L. S., & Leary, M. R. (2009). Reactions to discrimination, stigmatization, ostracism, and other forms of interpersonal rejection: A multimotive model. Psychology Review, 116, 365–383. doi:10.1037/a0015250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosa, M. (2011). The beame in thine owne eye: Motivational underpinnings of ethnocentric prototypicality judgments in secure and insecure intergroup relations (Unpublished doctoral thesis). ISCTE-Lisbon University Institute, portugal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosa, M., Alexandre, J., & Waldzus, S. (2011, June). The future belongs to us: Conditions for minorities to claim superiority. Oral communication for the 16th general meeting of the European association of social psychology. Stockholm (Sweden) 12th-16th July 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosa, M., & Waldzus, S. (2012). Efficiency and defense motivated ingroup projection: Sources of protoypicality in intergroup relations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 669–681. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.12.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosch, E., Mervis, C., Gray, W., Johnson, D., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382–439. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(76)90013-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977). The false consensus effect: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 279–301. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(77)90049-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, M., & Hewstone, M. (2004). Social identity, system justification and social dominance: Commentary on Reicher, Jost, and Sidanius et al. Political Psychology, 25, 823–844. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00400.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, C. S., Hunt, J. S., Weible, J. A., Peterson, C. R., & Casas, J. F. (2007). Multicultural and colorblind ideology, stereotypes, and ethnocentrism among black and white Americans. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 10, 617–637. doi:10.1177/1368430207084105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saroglou, V., Lamkaddem, B., van Pachterbeke, M., & Buxant, C. (2009). Host society’s dislike of the Islamic veil: The role of subtle prejudice, values and religion. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33, 419–428. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2009.02.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, M. T., & Branscombe, N. R. (2002). The meaning and consequences of perceived discrimination in disadvantaged and privileged social groups. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European Review of Social Psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 167–199). Chichester, England: Wiley. doi:10.1002/0470013478.ch6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, M. T., Ellemers, N., & Branscombe, N. R. (2003). Perceiving and responding to gender discrimination at work. In S. A. Haslam, D. van Knippenberg, M. J. Platow, & N. Ellemers (Eds.), Social identity at work: Developing theory for organizational practice (pp. 277–292). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, H., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatka, H., & Simons, A. (1991). Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 195–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shelton, J. N. (2000). A re-conceptualization of how we study issues of racial prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 374–390. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0404_6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sibley, C. (2010). The dark duo of post-colonial ideology: A model of symbolic exclusion and historical negation. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 4, 106–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sidanius, J., Levin, S., Federico, M., & Pratto, F. (2001). Legitimizing ideologies: The social dominance approach. In J. T. Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 307–331). UK, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sindic, D., & Reicher, S. (2008). The instrumental use of group prototypicality judgements. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1425–1435. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.05.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, M., Tanke, E. D., & Berscheid, E. (1977). Social perception and interpersonal behavior: On the self-fulfilling nature of social stereotypes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 656–666. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.35.9.656.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spears, R., Jetten, J., & Doosje, B. (2001). The (il)legitimacy of ingroup bias: From social reality to social resistance. In J. T. Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations. UK, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613–629. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.52.6.613.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African-Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69(5), 797–811.doi. 10.1037//0022-3514.69.5.797.

  • Stephan, C. W., & Stephan, W. G. (1985). Two social psychologies: An integrative approach. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Subasic, E., Reynolds, K. J., & Turner, J. (2008). The political solidarity model of social change: Dynamics of self-categorization in intergroup power relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 330–352. doi:10.1177/1088868308323223.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sumner, W. (1906). Folkways: A study of the sociological importance of usages, manners, customs, mores, and morals. Boston: Ginn and Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H. (1978). Social categorization, social identity and social comparison. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups (pp. 61–76). London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory on of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tseung-Wong, N., & Verkuyten, M. (2010). Intergroup evaluations, Group indispensability and prototypical judgments: A study in Mauritius. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 13, 621–638. doi:10.1177/1368430210369345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behaviour. In E. J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 2, pp. 77–122). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, J. C. (1999). Current issues in research on social identity and self-categorization theories. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content. Oxford, UK & Cambridge, USA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A Self-Categorization Theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, J. C., & Reynolds, K. J. (2001). The social identity perspective in intergroup relations: Theories, themes and controversies. In M. B. Brewer & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Self and social identity (pp. 259–277). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Twenge, J. M., & Crocker, J. (2002). Race and self-esteem: Meta-analyses comparing Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and American Indians and comment on Gray-Little and Hafdahl (2000). Psychological Bulletin, 128, 371–408. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.128.3.371.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ufkes, E. G., Otten, S., Van der Zee, K. I., Giebels, E., & Dovidio, J. F. (2012). Urban district identity as a common ingroup identity: The different role of ingroup prototypicality for minority and majority groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 706–716. doi:10.1002/ejsp.1888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ullrich, J., Christ, O., & Schlüter, E. (2006). Merging on mayday: Subgroup and superordinate identification as joint moderators of threat effects in the context of European Union’s expansion. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 857–876. doi:10.1002/ejsp.319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Knippenberg, D., de Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1008–1022. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • van Leeuwen, E., van Knippenberg, D., & Ellemers, N. (2003). Continuing and changing group identities: The effects of merging on social identification and ingroup bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 679–690. doi:10.1177/0146167203029006001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Verkuyten, M. (2000). The benefits to social psychology of studying ethnic minorities. European Bulletin of Social Psychology, 12, 15–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verkuyten, M. (2005). Ethnic group identification and group evaluations among minority and majority groups: Testing the multiculturalism hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 121–138. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.1.121.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Verkuyten, M., & Brug, P. (2004). Multiculturalism and group status: The role of ethnic identification, group essentialism and protestant ethic. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 647–661. doi:10.1002/ejsp.222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verkuyten, M., & Reijerse, A. (2008). Intergroup structure and identity management among ethnic minority and majority groups: The interactive effects of perceived stability, legitimacy, and permeability. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(1), 106–127. doi:10.1002/ejsp.395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldzus, S. (2009). The ingroup projection model. In S. Otten, T. Kessler, & K. Sassenberg (Eds.), Intergroup relations: The role of motivation and emotion (pp. 41–60). London, UK: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldzus, S. (2010). Complexity of superordinate self-categories and ingroup projection. In R. J. Crisp (Ed.), The psychology of social and cultural diversity (pp. 224–254). Wiley-Blackwell: Malden.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Waldzus, S., & Mummendey, A. (2004). Inclusion in a superordinate category, ingroup prototypicality, and attitudes towards outgroups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 466–477. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2003.09.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldzus, S., Mummendey, A., & Wenzel, M. (2005). When “different” means “worse”: In-group prototypicality in changing intergroup contexts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 76–83. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2004.05.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldzus, S., Mummendey, A., Wenzel, M., & Boettcher, F. (2004). Of bikers, teachers and Germans: Groups’ diverging views about their prototypicality. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 1–16. doi:10.1348/0144666042037944.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, U., Mummendey, A., & Waldzus, S. (2002). Perceived legitimacy of intergroup status differences: Its prediction by relative ingroup prototypicality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 449–470. doi:10.1002/ejsp.102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenzel, M. (2004). A social categorisation approach to distributive justice. European Review of Social Psychology, 15, 219–257. doi:10.1080/10463280440000035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenzel, M., Mummendey, A., & Waldzus, S. (2007). Superordinate identities and intergroup conflict: The Ingroup Projection Model. European Review of Social Psychology, 18, 331–372. doi:10.1080/10463280701728302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenzel, M., Mummendey, A., Weber, U., & Waldzus, S. (2003). The ingroup as pars pro toto: Projection from the ingroup onto the inclusive category as precursor to social discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 461–473. doi:10.1177/0146167202250913.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wolsko, C., Park, B., Judd, C. M., & Wittenbrink, B. (2000). Framing interethnic ideology: Effect of multicultural and colorblind perspectives on judgments of groups and individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 635–654. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.78.4.635.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Word, C. O., Zanna, M. P., & Cooper, J. (1974). The nonverbal mediation of selffulfilling prophecies in interracial interaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 109–120. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(74)90059-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, S. C., & Baray, G. (2012). Models of social change in social psychology: Collective action or prejudice reduction, conflict or harmony. In J. Dixon & M. Levine (Eds.), Beyond Prejudice: Extending the social psychology of intergroup conflict, inequality and social change (pp. 225–247). Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, S. C., & Lubensky, M. (2009). The struggle for social equality: Collective action versus prejudice reduction. In S. Demoulin, J. P. Leyens, & J. F. Dovidio (Eds.), Intergroup misunderstandings: Impact of divergent social realities (pp. 291–310). New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, S. C., Taylor, D. M., & Moghaddam, F. M. (1990). Responding to membership in a disadvantage group: From acceptance to collective protest. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 58, 994–1003. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.58.6.994.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, S. C., & Tropp, L. R. (2002). Collective action in response to disadvantage: Intergroup perceptions, social identification, and social change. In I. Walker & J. Smith (Eds.), Relative deprivation: Specification, development, and integration (pp. 200–236). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ysseldyk, R., Matheson, K., & Anisman, H. (2010). Religiosity as identity: Toward an understanding of religion from a social identity perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(1), 60–71. doi:10.1177/1088868309349693.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yzerbyt, V., & Corneille, O. (2005). Cognitive process: Reality constraints and integrity concerns in social perception. In J. F. Dovidio, P. Glick, & L. Rudman (Eds.), On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport (pp. 175–191). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL), CIS-IUL, Lisbon, Portugal

    Joana Alexandre, Miriam Rosa & Sven Waldzus

Authors
  1. Joana Alexandre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Miriam Rosa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sven Waldzus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joana Alexandre .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Universidade de Lisboa, Instituto de Ciências Sociais (ICS-UL) Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal

    Jorge Vala

  2. CIS -IUL, Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL), Lisbon, Portugal

    Sven Waldzus

  3. CIS -IUL, Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL), Lisbon, Portugal

    Maria Manuela Calheiros

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Alexandre, J., Rosa, M., Waldzus, S. (2016). Intergroup Relations and Strategies of Minorities. In: Vala, J., Waldzus, S., Calheiros, M. (eds) The Social Developmental Construction of Violence and Intergroup Conflict . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42727-0_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation