Showing papers on "Ingroups and outgroups published in 1994"
TL;DR: In this paper, the role of degree of identification with a group (Americans) and level of collective self-esteem as determinants of outgroup derogation under identity-threatening and nonthreatening conditions was investigated.
Abstract: A structural equation model tested the role of degree of identification with a group (Americans) and level of collective self-esteem as determinants of outgroup derogation under identity-threatening and non-threatening conditions. High identification and reductions in collective self-esteem following a threat to that identity lead to outgroup derogation, but level of collective self-esteem did not predict outgroup derogation in the no-threat condition. The consequences of derogating both threat-relevant (Russians) and threat-irrelevant nationalities for subsequent self-esteem were assessed. As predicted by social identity theory, higher amounts of derogation of the threat-relevant outgroup in the identity-threatened condition elevated subsequent collective self-esteem. Derogation of threat-irrelevant outgroups did not have this positive esteem consequence; in fact, increased derogation of irrelevant outgroups reduced subsequent self-esteem. In the no-threat condition, amount of derogation directed towards either type of outgroup did not significantly influence subsequent self-esteem, with the overall pattern being opposite to what was observed in the threat condition. Implications for theories concerning self-processes as instigators of outgroup derogation and the consequences of intergroup comparisons for collective self-esteem are discussed.
723 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the role of social comparison processes and attributions of responsibility play in translating social inequality into beliefs about personal and collective entitlement, and the importance of entitlement as an explanatory construct in understanding the ways in which members of different social groups react to their socially distributed outcomes.
Abstract: Publisher Summary This chapter highlights the role that social comparison processes and attributions of responsibility play in translating social inequality into beliefs about personal and collective entitlement. The chapter illustrates the importance of entitlement as an explanatory construct in understanding the ways in which members of different social groups react to their socially distributed outcomes. This chapter organizes into a systematic framework current knowledge about the psychological antecedents and consequences of beliefs about entitlement. The chapter addresses the ways in which social comparison processes and attributions contribute to the development of a lesser sense of personal entitlement among members of objectively disadvantaged groups. Social comparison biases tend to prevent awareness of disadvantage, and attribution biases tend to legitimize disadvantage. As a result, what “is” has a marked tendency to become what “ought” to be. These processes are illustrated through a program of research on the origins of gender differences in personal entitlement to pay. Gender differences in entitlement are proposed to underlie the finding that women and men typically do not differ in their life, job, or marital satisfaction, despite situations at work and at home that are disadvantageous for women compared to the situations of men. The chapter considers the reason for members of other disadvantaged groups; for example, African—Americans; expressing discontent with their objectively unjust situations. The situational and personal factors that prompt people to compare with advantaged outgroups and that lead them to question the legitimacy of outcome distributions result in elevated entitlement among the disadvantaged and correspondingly higher levels of discontent.
557 citations
TL;DR: The authors reviewed evidence on the black sheep effect: subjects judge likable ingroup members more positively than similar outgroup members, while judging unlikable inggroup members more negatively than similar outliers.
Abstract: In this chapter we review evidence on the ‘black sheep effect’: subjects judge likable ingroup members more positively than similar outgroup members, while judging unlikable ingroup members more negatively than similar outgroup members. We attempt to relate these findings to traditional research on group uniformity (Cartwright & Zander, 1968; Festinger, 1950), and to more recent research on social identity (Hogg & Abrams, 1988), and outgroup homogeneity (Park, Judd, & Ryan, 1991). The general idea is that the black sheep effect operates to preserve a positive social identity. It is an outcome of subjective representations of a normative pressure towards ingroup uniformity.
467 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, a survey study involving 1,357 students attending a multi-cultural high school explored how the features identified by the contact hypothesis reduce intergroup bias, in part because they alter cognitive representations of the student body from different groups to a more inclusive ingroup.
Abstract: This survey study involving 1,357 students attending a multi-cultural high school explored how thefeatures identified by the contact hypothesis reduce intergroup bias. Specifically, the study examined predictions derived from the common ingroup identity model that equal status, cooperative interdependence, interaction and egalitarian norms reduce bias, in part, because they alter cognitive representations of the student body from different groups to a more inclusive ingroup. The survey measured students'impressions of thefeatures of contact at school, their representations of the student body (e.g., as one group or different groups), and bias in their affective reactions and overall attitudinal favorability toward groups at school. In general, reductions in bias were predicted by stronger common ingroup representations, weaker representations of two groups, and ethnic/racial identities that included a superordinate American identity. Furthermore, as predicted, cognitive representations (e.g., as one group...
400 citations
TL;DR: This article found that outgroups were less persuasive than ingroups when group memberships were made salient by having subjects commit themselves to groups, which is consistent with self-categorization theory.
Abstract: Previous theories of both social influence and persuasion have maintained a dichotomy between influence which is seen as thoughtful, grounded in objective reality and is longlasting, and influence which is impressionistically based and involves more superficial processing. Many theorists have suggested that groups are influential by means of the latter form of influence. Itfollowsfrom such a perspective that differences in the persuasive power of ingroups and outgroups should be mediated by peripheral cues rather than the persuasive nature of the message. In two experiments (Ns = 129 and 90) it was found that outgroups were less persuasive than ingroups when group memberships were made salient by having subjects commit themselves to groups. This is inconsistent with the traditional view but consistent with self-categorization theory. There was also evidence of more accurate recall by subjects in the salient ingroup condition. These effects are evidence against the view that group-based processing involves peripheral processing of the message.
188 citations
TL;DR: The authors used social identity theory to identify two characteristics of a workgroup that should increase its resistance to a merger, i.e., strong cohesion and successful performance, and found that more successful groups were less enthusiastic and displayed stronger biases.
Abstract: Workers involved in a business merger often display strong ingroup/outgroup biases that can threaten the merger's success. Social identity theory helps to explain why and when such problems will occur. Using that theory, strong cohesion and successful performance were identified as two characteristics of a workgroup that should increase its resistance to a merger. An experiment involving mergers between small task groups was conducted to test this claim. Each group's cohesion and performance was used to predict its enthusiasm for a merger before it occurred, and any ingroup/outgroup biases that it displayed afterwards. Cohesion was unrelated to either of these measures, but as we predicted, more successful groups were less enthusiastic and displayed stronger biases. Relative rather than absolute success was an especially good predictor of merger resistance. The results were discussed within the context of social identity theory, which generated several suggestions for further research on business mergers.
176 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that manipulations of identifiability do not only affect the salience of social identity but also have strategic consequences for the expression of in-group stereotypes.
Abstract: This paper builds upon Reicher's (1984a) model of deindividuation by arguing that manipulations of identifiability do not only affect the salience of social identity but also have strategic consequences for the expression of in-group stereotypes. Increasing the visibility of group members to a powerful out-group should decrease the ability of those members to express any aspects of their identity which would meet resistance from the out-group. A preliminary study found that making supporters of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament individually identifiable to a powerful out-group only affects the incidence of stereotypic behaviours which would be punishable by that out-group. In the main study, science students taking a psychology course are either defined as ‘scientists’ or as ‘students’. They are then asked to complete a questionnaire about the psychology course consisting of items where difference from a staff norm would either be unpunishable or punishable. On the punishable items, the ‘science’ stereotype is compatible with the staff position, while the ‘student’ stereotype is incompatible. As expected, increased visibility of subjects to academic staff decreases conformity to the in-group stereotype for those defined as students but does not affect the behaviour of those defined as scientists. What is more, this pattern of results only holds for the punishable items. However, contrary to expectations, on the unpunishable items, increased visibility increases conformity to the in-group stereotype for both groups. Taken together, the two experiments confirm that immersing individuals in a group where they are anonymous to outsiders not only predisposes them to act in terms of social identity but also blunts out-group power in such a way as to allow full expression of that identity.
163 citations
TL;DR: This article found that writing groups may be problematic for ESL students from collectivist cultures (e.g., Japan, the People's Republic of China) in at least three ways: writing groups, as used in many English as a Second Language (ESL) composition classrooms, would be familiar to ESL students, where group work is common in school both as a means of knowledge acquisition and as a vehicle for reinforcing the group ethic.
159 citations
TL;DR: This paper showed that subjects who are more identifiable to a powerful outgroup will moderate the expression of those aspects of ingroup identity which differ from the outgroup position and which would be punished by the out group.
Abstract: According to traditional models of deindividuation, lowered personal identifiability leads to a loss of identity and a loss of internalized control over behaviour This account has been challenged by arguing that manipulations of identifiability affect the relative salience of personal or social identity and hence the choice of standards to control behaviour The present study contributes to an extension of this argument according to which identifiability manipulations do not only affect the salience of social identity but also the strategic communication of social identity. Reicher and Lvine (1993) have shown that subjects who are more identifiable to a powerful outgroup will moderate the expression of those aspects of ingroup identity which differ from the outgroup position and which would be punished by the outgroup. Here we seek to show that in addition, subjects who are more identifiable to a powerful outgroup will accentuate the expression of those aspects of ingroup identity which differ from the outgroup position but which would not be punished by the outgroup. This is because, when identifiable, subjects may use such responses as a means of publicly presenting their adherence to group norms and hence as a means of establishing their right to group membership. A study is reported in which 102 physical education students are either identifiable (I) or not identifiable (NI) to their academic tutors. They are asked to respond on a number of dimensions where pilot interviews show the ingroup stereotype to differ from outgroup norms. Expressions of difference from the outgroup position would lead to punishment on some of these dimensions (P items) but would not lead to punishment for others (NP items) The predicted interaction between identifiability and item type is highly significant. As expected, for NP items identifiability accentuates responses which differentiate the ingroup stereotype from outgroup norms. All these results occur independently of shifts in the salience of social identity. The one unexpectedfinding is that, for P items, identifiability does lead to decreased expression of the ingroup stereotype, but the diference does not reach significance. Nonetheless, overall the results do provide further evidence for the complex effects of identifiability on strategic considerations underlying the expression of social identity in intergroup contexts.
120 citations
TL;DR: The authors examined how two groups of Mexicans in the United States (Mexicanos and Chicanos) differ in their social identities and in their cultural adaptations and concluded that differences between immigrants and ethnics are largely the outcome of shifts in reference groups as they compare themselves to a wider array of people who either promote acceptance of devalued social categorizations or in feelings of discontent about their social identity.
Abstract: Past treatments of immigration and ethnicity (and of the relationship between them) tend to ignore processes by which the effects of history and social structure occur at the individual level. Many scholars call for social psychological analyses that show how history and macro-social features of the environment produce individual modes of adaptation to immigration, including the construction and reconstruction of ethnicity as one of the modes. We use a social psychological analysis to tie macro-social characteristics to micro-social characteristics of immediate social contexts to examine how two groups of Mexicans in the United States—Mexicanos and Chicanos—differ in their social identities and in their cultural adaptations. Our results from the analyses of the data in the National Chicano Survey indicate that, as predicted by social identity theory, the differences in the structural and historical conditions experienced by immigrants and ethnics result in a more differentiated identity structure for Chicanos than for Mexicanos. The content of the social identities of the two groups also shows important differences according to outgroup comparisons through mastery of the English language. Also consistent with social identity theory, the most problematic social identities—for example, class and race—are the most psychologically powerful in determining cultural adaptations for both groups. In conclusion, differences between immigrants and ethnics are largely the outcome of shifts in reference groups as they compare themselves to a wider array of people who either promote acceptance of devalued social categorizations or in feelings of discontent about one's social identity.
119 citations
TL;DR: This paper examined the construct of dispositional group loyalty as a predictor of willingness to contribute to organizational success and found that individuals with high group loyalty should perform better when their group is being compared to another than when intergroup comparison is lacking.
TL;DR: Turner et al. as mentioned in this paper investigated the social and relational bases of the availability bias and found that the self-relevance of target information would be enhanced where target and perceiver share a common group membership or social identity.
Abstract: The present study investigated the social and relational bases of the availability bias. The availability heuristic refers to the tendency to judge events to be more likely or frequent when instances thereof come more easily to mind (Tversky & Kahneman, 1973). Tversky and Kahneman (1973) cite the example of a tendency to overestimate the risk of road accidents after witnessing an accident because of the availability of such vivid information during judgment. We argue that the availability of information can be a function of the relevance of such information to the perceiver. Following self-categorization theory (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher & Wetherell, 1987) we predicted that the self-relevance of target information would be enhanced where target and perceiver share a common group membership or social identity, providing a basis for assumed similarity. This led to the hypothesis that availability and judgments of risk would be greater when prior information about a road accident implicated an ingroup rat...
TL;DR: The authors explored the role of social comparison processes in fostering contentment among those who are objectively disadvantaged and found that individuals would base judgments of entitlement, performance, and pay satisfaction more on comparisons with ingroup (same-sex) than outgroup (cross-sex), even when both types of comparison information were equally available and made clear the disadvantaged status of the ingroup.
Abstract: This study explored the role of social comparison processes in fostering contentment among those who are objectively disadvantaged. We focus on how comparisons can produce gender differences in personal entitlement, perceptions of one's own performance, and pay satisfaction. We hypothesized that individuals would base judgments of entitlement, performance, and pay satisfaction more on comparisons with ingroup (same-sex) than outgroup (cross-sex) others, even when both types of comparison information were equally available, unavoidable, and made clear the disadvantaged status of the ingroup. As predicted, the amount students felt they were entitled to be paid, how well they thought they had performed (women only), and how satisfied they were with their pay were all influenced more by same-sex than cross-sex comparison information. The implications of these results for the tolerance of injustice among disadvantaged groups are discussed.
TL;DR: In this article, the authors report two studies which evaluate practically-oriented programs of interprofessional contact involving doctors and social workers, and highlight four sets of dependent measures: background perceptions, ingroup and outgroup ratings, knowledge, and judgements about work with outgroup partners and experienced contact.
Abstract: We report two studies which evaluate practically-oriented programmes of interprofessional contact involving doctors and social workers. The evaluation is based on the ‘contact hypothesis’ in intergroup relations, and highlights four sets of dependent measures: background perceptions, ingroup and outgroup ratings, knowledge, and judgements about work with outgroup partners and experienced contact. Consistent with the contact hypothesis, both studies revealed an improvement in outgroup attitudes, evidence of mutual intergroup differentiation (acknowledged superiority of ingroup and outgroup on independent dimensions), and increased outgroup knowledge. Greater change in Study 2 is interpreted in terms of its longer duration, and the opportunity it provided for contact with multiple outgroup members, compared with a single outgroup partner in Study 1. These findings from field studies are consistent with results from published laboratory experiments.
TL;DR: The authors found that stereotypes, symbolic beliefs, emotions, and past experiences are far from redundant, and each factor is, indeed, an important predictor of prejudicial attitudes, and that the relatively more negative attitudes held by individuals high in authoritarianism are predicted best by symbolic beliefs.
Abstract: It was proposed that, in addition to stereotypic beliefs (beliefs that typical members of the outgroup possess certain characteristics or traits), prejudice (or negative attitudes toward outgroups) is based on symbolic beliefs (beliefs that typical members violate cherished traditions, customs, and values) as well as on emotions and past experiences that are associated with the outgroup. In several studies (the first of which is presented in the present paper) we have found that (1) although related, stereotypes, symbolic beliefs, emotions, and past experiences are far from redundant, and (2) each factor is, indeed, an important predictor of prejudicial attitudes. Thus, there would appear to be more to prejudicial attitudes than stereotypic beliefs. We have also discovered that the relatively more negative attitudes held by individuals high in authoritarianism are predicted best by symbolic beliefs. The implications of these results for understanding the development and reduction of prejudice are discussed.Traditionally, social psychologists have believed there is a strong relation between prejudice and stereotypes. Some have proposed that prejudicial attitudes are based on, or are the result of, stereotypical beliefs. Others have suggested that stereotypical beliefs justify, or rationalize, prejudicial attitudes. If I (along with everybody else in my reference group) believe Afro - Canadians to be lazy and stupid, it would make sense for me to evaluate Afro - Canadians unfavourably. Conversely, if, for some other reason, I were to evaluate Afro - Canadians unfavourably, I might then be motivated to believe that Afro - Canadians are lazy and stupid.This conceptualization, especially the notion that prejudice is based on stereotypes, is consistent with the way attitudes, in general, have been conceptualized in recent years by social psychologists. Perhaps the most prominent theory of attitudes has been that proposed by Martin Fishbein and Icek Ajzen (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). According to Fishbein and Ajzen, attitudes (which they define as our feelings or affective responses to an attitude object) are based upon evaluative beliefs. In this view, our attitudes toward a group are based upon the evaluative implications of the characteristics or traits we attribute to the group, which seems to me to be the same as saying that the amount of our prejudice is based onthe extent to which we endorse the stereotype of the group.Recently, several attitude theorists, myself included, have suggested a slightly modified view of the attitude concept. For example, I (Zanna & Rempel, 1988) have proposed that affective and evaluative responses should no longer be considered synonymous (cf. Abelson, Kinder, Peters, & Fishe, 1982) and that attitudes should be viewed as evaluations based on, or developed from, three general classes of information: (1) affective information or the emotions associated with the attitude object, (2) cognitive information or the beliefs associated with the attitude object, and (3) information concerning past behaviours or behavioural intentions. [I've further suggested, again along with others (e.g., Eagly & Chaiken, 1993), that evaluations or attitudes influence three modes of response, including affective, cognitive and behavioural responses.]When evaluations are based primarily on (utilitarian or instrumental) beliefs about the attitude object, this view can be reduced to something like the formulation proposed by Fishbein and Ajzen. When evaluations are based primarily on affects produced by or associated with the attitude object, this view can resemble the formulation proposed by Bob Zajonc (Zajonc, 1980). Finally, when evaluations are based on inferences from past behaviour, this view can be similar to Daryl Bem's theory of self - perception (Bem, 1972).In any event, if attitudes are not always entirely based upon the sort of utilitarian or instrumental beliefs suggested by the Fishbein and Ajzen model, then prejudicial attitudes are perhaps not always based entirely upon stereotypical beliefs. …
TL;DR: The authors examined the effects of three major (contact, conflict, and social identity) theories of intergroup hostilities on three outgroup hostility components (behavioral intentions, affective reactions, and cognitive evaluations) across three ethnic groups (Whites, Blacks, and Asians).
TL;DR: This article investigated aspects of Greek and English language use among some second and third generation bilinguals living in the Australian urban social context of Adelaide, where the dynamic process of code interaction has created a sociolinguistic continuum that is used to define ingroup memberships.
Abstract: The dynamic processes involved in language use and development of a given bilingual/cultural group within a monolingually‐dominant society necessitate constant language modification for the bilinguals, the consequence of which is modification of their cultural identity (self‐ or other‐defined). The degree of modification of self‐identity of a bilingual in a multicultural society can be correlated with the disappearances/appearances of aspects of language use which may wane and wax in relation to a dynamically‐shared culture. In other words, cultural identity may be perceived by an individual as the result of an on‐going process of logogenesis. The present study investigates aspects of Greek and English language use among some second, and third generation bilinguals living in the Australian urban social context of Adelaide, where the dynamic process of code interaction has created a sociolinguistic continuum that is used to define ingroup memberships. This process establishes levels of self‐catego...
TL;DR: The authors found that those officers who identified most strongly with peers also tended to report lower levels of alienation from the community groups, in conjunction with unremarkable levels of authoritarianism and perceived stress in the sample, challenges the stereotype of the ethnocentric, authoritarian, and stressed out police officer.
Abstract: Reports of community alienation and high ingroup identification in the police suggest that they are a particularly ethnocentric group. To empirically test this hypothesis, a sample of urban police officers was surveyed to ascertain their social identity pattern. Results indicated a high level of peer solidarity, community alienation differentiated on the basis of race and social class, and the perception that the source of alienation lies more with the community than with the officers themselves. A central finding was that those officers who identified most strongly with peers also tended to report lower levels of alienation from the community groups. This finding, in conjunction with unremarkable levels of authoritarianism and perceived stress in the sample, challenges the stereotype of the ethnocentric, authoritarian, and stressed out police officer. Results are placed within a novel framework for understanding the police solidarity phenomenon, and implications for police-community relations are discussed.
TL;DR: In this article, subjects classified as more or less xenophobic allocated resources to SWISS nationals (ingroup) and foreign residents (outgroup) in three intergroup judgement modes: negative interdependence, independence, and positive inter-dependency.
Abstract: Subjects classified as more or less xenophobic allocated resources to SWISS nationals (ingroup) and foreign residents (outgroup) in three intergroup judgement modes: negative interdependence, independence and positive interdependence. When both groups were assessed together as a single beneficiary (positive interdependence) they were allocated more resources than those provided to the outgroup under negative interdependence or independence. More xenophobic subjects, however gave less resources to both groups together under positive interdependence than to the ingroup under independence. In contrast, less xenophobic subjects allocated to both groups together a similar amount as to the ingroup under independence. These results suggest that, depending on their initial attitudes towards the outgroup, individuals will categorize a superordinate entity either more as an ingroup or more as an outgroup.
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present two empirical studies of adolescents' peer-groups and inter-group processes and make a distinction between evaluative and descriptive aspects of judgments and polarization of judgments.
Abstract: This paper presents two empirical studies of adolescents' peer-groups and inter-group processes. It is argued that the assumption according to which ingroup judgments tend to be more favourable than those about outgroups is too general. Social comparisons are hypothesized to depend largely on relative status of ingroup and outgroups. While members of superior groups are expected to favour their own group and to discriminate the outgroup, members of inferior or equal status groups are hypothesized to distinguish between ingroup and outgroup but not to discriminate the outgroup. In the first study it was predicted that members of superior groups would feel close to their group and distant from the outgroup, whereas members of equal status groups would feel close to their group but also relatively close to the outgroup. These predictions were confirmed. The closer highly identified members of equal status groups felt to be to their group the less distant they also perceived themselves to be to the outgroup. In the second study a distinction was made between evaluative and descriptive aspects of judgments and polarization of judgments. Social categorization processes were observed in evaluative components of judgments and in polarization of judgments. Descriptive components were not used to discriminate between ingroup and outgroups but just to illustrate differences between their respective activities and programmes.
TL;DR: The authors examined cognitive representations of ingroups and outgroups of varying relative group size in the context of the category verification paradigm, where subjects have to decide the category membership for prototypic and non-prototypic exemplars of (ingroup and outgroup) social categories.
Abstract: Two studies examined cognitive representations of ingroups and outgroups of varying relative group size. These cognitive representations were examined in the context of the category verification paradigm, wherein subjects have to decide the category membership for prototypic and nonprototypic exemplars of (ingroup and outgroup) social categories. The results of both studies confirm the prediction that the smaller group is subject to greater prototype cognitive representation, whereas the larger group is subject to greater exemplar cognitive representation. Discussion considers the implications of these results for some paradoxes of intergroup behavior, andfor stereotyping in general.
TL;DR: In this article, the authors tested alternative hypotheses regarding intergroup attribution patterns derived from the ethnocentric, the asymmetrical and the stereotype-based models of intra-group attribution, and the results largely supported the streotype-based model: Members of both groups made internal attributions for stereotype consistent positive behavior and external attibutions for stereotype inconsistent positive behavior, for both the ingroup and the outgroup.
Abstract: The study tested there alternative hypotheses regarding intergroup attribution patterns derived from the ethnocentric, the asymmetrical, and the stereotype-based models of intergroup attribution. Junior high school pupils (284 males and 298 females) from majority and minority groups in Israel were asked to make internal-external attributions regarding three different competencies awarded to an ingroup or outgroup member. The results largely supported the streotype-based model: Members of both groups made internal attributions for stereotype-consistent positive behavior and external attibutions for stereotype-inconsistent positive behavior, for both the ingroup and the outgroup.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors investigated the effects of three independent variables, personal status (high, low, neutral), group status and private collective self-esteem (CSE), on the effect of personal status on group status.
Abstract: In this study the authors investigated the effects of three independent variables, personal status (high, low, neutral), group status (high, low, neutral) and private collective self-esteem (CSE), ...
TL;DR: In this paper, two alternative hypotheses were explored: Compared with uncontrollable settings, ingroup bias will decrease (2a) or increase (2b) in controllable settings.
Abstract: We expected that, when group members cannot control their group membership, majority members show ingroup favouritism on task-relevant dimension, whereas minority members were expected to show ingroup favouritism on task-irrelevant dimension (hypothesis I) In addition, it was expected that intergroup comparisons will change when group membership changes from uncontrollable to controllable. Based on Social Identity Theory, two alternative hypotheses were explored: Compared with uncontrollable settings, ingroup bias will decrease (2a) or increase (2b) in controllable settings. Ninety-two subjects were divided into four groups (minority versus majority, controllable versus uncontrollable group membership), allegedly on the basis of their essay writing style. The results supported the first hypothesis. Hypothesis 2a received support among the majority members and hypothesis 2b among the minority members. The findings are discussed in terms of Social Identity Theory and the effect the perceived control of group membership and the dimension may have on intergroup comparisons.
01 Jan 1994
01 Jan 1994
TL;DR: This paper used language to mark off external boundaries but also internal lines; not only to praise the ingroup and isolate the outgroup but also to single out renegades, those who break cultural ranks to identify with outgroups.
Abstract: Language can be used not only to mark off external boundaries but also internal lines; not only to praise the ingroup and isolate the outgroup but also to single out renegades?those of the ingroup who break cultural ranks to identify with outgroups. The labels used for outgroups and for renegades express a fear of contamination, a disapproval of those who dissent or betray the ingroup. (Khleif 1979:161)