Intergroup Relations

Messick, David M.; Mackie, Diane M.

doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.40.020189.000401

Cited by 593 publications

(332 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

305

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Women's stronger need to learn the out-group's characteristics could be held as responsible for their better performances with the public environments. On the other hand, Messick & Mackie (1989), and Linville, Fischer & Salovey (1989), advocate a 'dependency interpretation' in which group subordination accounts for the more differentiated and complex representations of lowstatus group members about high-status group members.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

They all look alike, but so do we … sometimes: Perceptions of in‐group and out‐group homogeneity as a function of sex and context

Lorenzi‐Cioldi

1993

British J Social Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The impact of gender on perceptions of group homogeneity was assessed using a memory paradigm. In the main experimental conditions, male and female subjects were presented with 12 pairs of photographs and gendered silhouettes. The photographs portrayed a series of environments (e.g. a kitchen) in public settings (e.g. a restaurant) and in domestic ones (e.g. at home). The connection of settings and gender of silhouettes varied across subjects. In control conditions, all silhouettes were of the same sex or were geometrical forms (triangles and squares). The subjects memorized the pairs of photographs and targets, and then had to reconstruct them. The experiment addressed three hypotheses. The categorization effect: within-category errors would exceed betweencategory errors, especially when gender was used as a categorization criterion. The out-group homogeneity effect: within-category errors concerning the out-group would be greater than those concerning the in-group. The social status effect: men would display more out-group homogeneity than women. Results provided evidence for the categorization and the out-group homogeneity hypotheses. They also supported to some extent the social status hypothesis. Different styles of processing of information were suggested by men's and women's performances. Men consistently displayed the outgroup homogeneity bias, whereas women did not. Women took into account the kind of setting: they made more errors when matching the male or the female silhouettes to the domestic settings (the stereotypical in-group settings) than when matching these silhouettes to the public settings (the stereotypical out-group settings). Finally, sex-typing measures about the self were related to the subjects' behavioural performances, especially for women.Out-groups tend to be perceived as less variable and less differentiated than in-groups:They all look alike, but we don't. Several explanations of this out-group homogeneity effect have been proposed. Some of them stress the perceivers' familiarity with in-group members (Linville, Salovey & Fischer, 1986), others focus on the nature of the intergroup interactions (e.g. Wilder, 1984) and others on individuals' cognitive processes (e.g. Park & Rothbart, 1982; see Quattrone, 1986, for a review).Despite the abundance of arguments sustaining the pervasiveness of this effect, authors do not consistently argue in favour of the out-group homogeneity effect. Self-categorization theory, for instance, posits an equal balance of in-group and out-group homogeneities *Requests for reprints. 112Fabio Lorenzi-Cioldi when intergroup comparisons between oneself and others are concerned (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher & Wetherell, 1987). Moreover, inspection of the empirical literature reveals a puzzling pattern of results. Perceptions of out-group homogeneity vary greatly in magnitude and sometimes in-groups are more homogeneous than out-groups. Various mediating factors which account for these inconsistencies have been reported: interpersonal attraction (Stephan, 1977...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Namely, low-status out-groups are often perceived as more homogeneous than high-status out-groups (see Messick & Mackie, 1989).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

They all look alike, but so do we … sometimes: Perceptions of in‐group and out‐group homogeneity as a function of sex and context

Lorenzi‐Cioldi

1993

British J Social Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite that little is known about such a potential moderating role of the outgroup perception, a considerable body of research has shown a tendency to perceive the outgroup as homogeneous (as compared with the ingroup), and the consequences of this perception in terms of increased stereotyping and prejudice towards outgroup members (e.g., Linville, Salovey and Fischer, 1986;Messick and Mackie, 1989;Park, Judd and Ryan, 1991;Quattrone, 1986). Some authors argue that the outgroup homogeneity effect is due to the application of outgroup stereotype to each outgroup member, which facilitates the development of generalized negative attitudes (Park et al, 1991) and aggressive behaviour towards outgroups (Wilder, 1978).…”

Section: The Role Of Outgroup Homogeneitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Heterogeneity of Ingroup Identity and Anti-Immigrant Prejudice: The Moderating Role of RWA and Outgroup Homogeneity

Frederic

Falomir‐Pichastor

2018

rips

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Past research has shown that a heterogeneous (vs. homogeneous) ingroup identity can lead to more outgroup derogation amongst people high on conservative values (Roccas and Amit, 2011) and group identification (Falomir-Pichastor and Frederic, 2013). In three studies we tested the hypotheses that a heterogeneous ingroup identity leads to greater derogation towards immigrants among nationals' high on RWA, and when immigrants constitute a homogeneous (vs. heterogeneous) outgroup. In all studies we assessed RWA. We manipulated the heterogeneity (vs. homogeneity) of ingroup identity in Studies 1-2 and kept the heterogeneous condition constant in Study 3, we also manipulated outgroup heterogeneity (vs. homogeneity) in Studies 2-3. Finally, outgroup derogation was assessed through two different prejudice scales (Studies 1-2) and an intergroup discrimination scale. Results provided consistent evidence in support of the hypotheses. We discuss the implications of these findings regarding social identity theory and intergroup relations.

show abstract

“…Different aspects such as ethnocentrism, stereotyping, and perceptions of threat play an important role in the way this ranking is built, and mirror the interrelated social psychological and structural processes that shape group identities (Emessik & Mackie, 1989;Hraba et al, 1989;Stephan & Stephan, 1985). Members of high-status groups have access to antagonistic, normative, and ideologic intergroup representations that maintain and reinforce their privileged position by means of conventional processes of symbolic influence (Lorenzi-Cioldi & Clémence, 2001;Staerklé, Clémence & Spini, 2011).…”

Section: *) Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Representaciones esquemáticas de minorías étnicas en jóvenes universitarios

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Título: Representaciones esquemáticas del contacto con minorías étnicas en jóvenes universitarios. Resumen: el presente estudio hace un análisis de las representaciones cognitivas sobre minorías étnicas en una muestra de jóvenes universitarios españoles. Como hipótesis general se señala que las diferencias de estatus social percibidas ejercen un papel relevante en tales representaciones y en las expectativas de contacto. En varias entrevistas grupales los participantes fueron cuestionados sobre sus experiencias, conocimientos y expectativas asociadas a las interacciones con miembros de grupos étnicos minoritarios. La información recabada fue analizada a partir de un cruce de técnicas cualitativas y cuantitativas para verificar las dimensiones subyacentes en sus respuestas. Los resultados confirmaron esta hipótesis mostrando distintas nociones de contacto (ej., positivo, negativo) asociadas a las representaciones de las minorías según su posición en la escala social percibida. Los hallazgos son discutidos en cuanto a su implicación para futuras intervenciones de contacto intergrupal. Palabras clave: Contacto intergrupal; esquemas cognitivos; minorías étni-cas; prejuicio; identidad social. Abstract:This study analyzes the cognitive representations of ethnic minorities in a sample of Spanish undergraduate students. As a general hypothesis it was predicted that perceived differences in social status shape these representations and expectations for contact. In consecutive group interviews, participants were quizzed about their knowledge, experiences and expectations associated with social interactions with people belonging to ethnic minority groups. The information obtained from the participants was analyzed by using a mixture of quantitative and qualitative techniques in order to discover underlying dimensions in their responses. The results confirmed our prediction by displaying different associations between different types of contact (e.g., positive, negative) and the representations of minorities according to their position in the perceived social hierarchy. Findings are discussed in terms of their potential implications for contact interventions.

show abstract

Intergroup Relations

Cited by 593 publications

References 0 publications

They all look alike, but so do we … sometimes: Perceptions of in‐group and out‐group homogeneity as a function of sex and context

They all look alike, but so do we … sometimes: Perceptions of in‐group and out‐group homogeneity as a function of sex and context

Heterogeneity of Ingroup Identity and Anti-Immigrant Prejudice: The Moderating Role of RWA and Outgroup Homogeneity

Representaciones esquemáticas de minorías étnicas en jóvenes universitarios

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About