“How European am I?”: Prejudice Expression and the Presentation of Social Identity

Klein, Olivier; Licata, Laurent; Azzi, Assaad Elia; Durala, Ioanna

doi:10.1080/15298860309025

Cited by 26 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Baumeister, 1982;Schlenker, 1980). For instance, individuals consider the group membership of the audience before expressing prejudiced views or opinions (Crandall, Eshelman, & O'Brien, 2002;Klein, Licata, Azzi, & Durala, 2003). Furthermore, Tetlock (1981) showed that participants' public attributions for their actions seemed tailor-made to create favorable impressions in others.…”

Section: The Importance Of the Context Of Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Keeping it to Ourselves: Effects of Audience Size and Composition on Reactions to Criticisms of the Ingroup

Elder

Sutton

Douglas

2005

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Criticism is an important aspect of communication within and between groups, but reactions to criticism of groups have been little studied. Past research has shown that criticism elicits greater sensitivity when made by an outgroup member, compared to an ingroup member. Two experiments were conducted to examine how this intergroup sensitivity effect (ISE) is affected by the context of the criticism. Experiment 1 showed that the ISE occurs in a private context, but disappears when it is clear that the criticism is made to a large public audience. Experiment 2 investigated intragroup criticism and manipulated both audience size and audience composition. Results showed that ingroup criticism elicited greater sensitivity and less favorable evaluations of the speaker when made to an outgroup rather than an ingroup audience. The results highlight strategic considerations and tacit protocols governing the criticism of groups.

show abstract

Section: The Importance Of the Context Of Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Keeping it to Ourselves: Effects of Audience Size and Composition on Reactions to Criticisms of the Ingroup

Elder

Sutton

Douglas

2005

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, research on symbolic self-completion theory suggests that individuals use symbols and other socially-recognized indicators to communicate aspects of their desired personal identity or self-image to others (Braun & Wicklund, 1989;Gollwitzer & Kirchhof, 1998;Wicklund & Gollwitzer, 1981). Likewise, research suggests that individuals are more likely to display particular identity-relevant behaviors (e.g., prejudicial statements against an outgroup) when they are motivated to convey to others an impression of themselves as good ingroup members (Klein, Licata, Azzi, & Durala, 2003;Klein, Spears, & Reicher, 2007;Noel, Wann, & Branscombe, 1995). At the group level, we might therefore expect that-if symbols can indeed make groups seem more united and intimidating-group members would be more likely to create and display group identity symbols when they are motivated to convey that impression of their group to others (for instance, when they are in a competitive rather than cooperative context).…”

Section: What Motivates the Use Of Symbols?mentioning

confidence: 99%

On the psychological function of flags and logos: Group identity symbols increase perceived entitativity.

Callahan¹,

Ledgerwood²

2016

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Group identity symbols such as flags and logos have been widely used across time and cultures, yet researchers know very little about the psychological functions that such symbols can serve. The present research tested the hypotheses that (a) simply having a symbol leads collections of individuals to seem more like real, unified groups, (b) this increased psychological realness leads groups to seem more threatening and effective to others, and (c) group members therefore strategically emphasize symbols when they want their group to appear unified and intimidating. In Studies 1a–1c, participants perceived various task groups as more entitative when they happened to have a symbol. In Study 2, symbols not only helped groups make up for lacking a physical characteristic associated with entitativity (physical similarity), but also led groups to seem more threatening. Study 3 examined the processes underlying this effect and found that group symbols increase entitativity by increasing perceived cohesiveness. Study 4 extended our results to show that symbols not only shape the impressions people form of novel groups, but also change people’s existing impressions of more familiar and real-world social groups, making them seem more entitative and competent but also less warm. Finally, Studies 5a and 5b further expand our understanding of the psychological function of symbols by showing that group members strategically display symbols when they are motivated to convey an impression of their group as unified and threatening (vs. inclusive and cooperative). We discuss implications for understanding how group members navigate their social identities.

show abstract

“…Some of their norms are antagonistic to those of the EU-such as their friendly attitudes toward Serbia and Yugoslavia during the Kosovo war and the widespread prejudice toward the Turks (which is inconsistent with the norms of tolerance supposed to govern the EU). Klein, Licata, Azzi, and Durala (2003) conducted a study to understand how Greeks would adjust their expressed attitude toward the Turks, a potential source of conflict between the two allegiances, as a function of whether they addressed an audience of prototypical EU members or of Greeks. Klein et al hypothesized that participants' response to this situation would depend on their level of identification with Europe.…”

Section: Identity Consolidation In the Context Of A Double Identitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Identity Performance: Extending the Strategic Side of SIDE

Klein

Spears²,

Reicher

2007

Pers Soc Psychol Rev

Self Cite

323

356

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article extends the social identity model of deindividuation effects (SIDE) by considering the various ways in which relations of visibility to an audience can affect the public expression of identity-relevant norms (identity performance). It is suggested that social identity performance can fulfill two general functions: Affirming, conforming, or strengthening individual or group identities (the identity consolidation function) and persuading audiences into adopting specific behaviors (the mobilization function). The authors report evidence supporting these two functions of identity performance both in intragroup and intergroup contexts. They argue that through these functions, social identity performance plays a major role in the elaboration and coordination of social action. Finally, and building on this framework, the authors consider the ways through which social identity performance can be used in the very construction of social identity.

show abstract

“How European am I?”: Prejudice Expression and the Presentation of Social Identity

Abstract: We propose that the expression of prejudice may be used for publicly validating a social identity. This assumption was investigated in a Greek political context.

Cited by 26 publications

References 39 publications

Keeping it to Ourselves: Effects of Audience Size and Composition on Reactions to Criticisms of the Ingroup

Keeping it to Ourselves: Effects of Audience Size and Composition on Reactions to Criticisms of the Ingroup

On the psychological function of flags and logos: Group identity symbols increase perceived entitativity.

Social Identity Performance: Extending the Strategic Side of SIDE

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About