Lay Theories and Intergroup Relations

Abstract

Lay theory research on intergroup relations has rapidly grown over the past two decades. Drawing on articles in this Special Issue, we showcase the latest developments. First, we define lay theories, addressing the extent of overlap with scientific theories and differences among lay theories in terms of type of representation, level of articulation, frequency of activation and use, range of applicability, and degree of universality. Second, we describe advances in the understanding of the functions of lay theories. Third, we review the far-reaching implications of lay theories for group and intergroup processes. Fourth, we discuss the movement toward comparing and contrasting related lay theories. Taken together, these articles suggest the study of lay theories provides a fuller understanding of intergroup relations

Not Just for Stereotyping Anymore

“…People endorsing racial essentialism partition their social world into discrete racial categories that cannot be combined or altered (Bastian, Loughnan, & Koval, 2011;Hong, Chao, & No, 2009). The resulting stability, order, and uniformity in categorization allow individuals to make relatively quick social judgments and enjoy a heightened sense of simplicity, predictability, and control (Keller, 2005;Levy, Chiu, & Hong, 2006). Given the functional utility of such categorical thinking in providing meaning and coherence (Webster & Kruglanski, 1997), we expected that once activated, the essentialist mindset would lead to a habitual reluctance to consider or merge alternative frames and perspectives that oppose conventional knowledge more generally.…”

Prospects for Group Processes and Intergroup Relations Research: A Review of 70 Years' Progress

“…Since its inception there have been special issues on Information Processing in Groups (Brauner & Scholl, 2000); Social Identity Processes in Organizations (van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2001); Intergroup Contact (Dovidio, Gaertner, & Kawakami, 2003); Evolutionary Approaches to Group Research (Kameda & Tindale, 2004); the Inaugural Group Processes and Intergroup Relations pre-conference from the annual SPSP meeting (Gaertner, Hogg, & Tindale, 2005); Intergroup Relations: Its Linguistic and Communicative Parameters (Reid & Giles, 2005); Lay Theories and Intergroup Relations (Levy, Chiu, & Hong, 2006); Diversity and Intergroup Relations within Organizations (Ensari, Christian, & Miller, 2006); Intergroup Emotions (Giner-Sorolla, Mackie, & Smith, 2007); and, most recently, Social Neuroscience (Prentice & Eberhardt, 2008), with forthcoming special issues on Music and Self-Regulation. In fact, the next review of group processes and intergroup relations research may look very different as the scope and capacity for new approaches expands to such as social neuroscience, evolutionary psychology, multi-level modeling, and the many social identity and intragroup processes researchers move to the organizational fi eld and beyond.…”

Public versus Private Voice

“…Similar to other implicit theories (Chiu, Hong, & Dweck, 1997;Levy, Chiu, & Hong, 2006;M. Ross, 1989), implicit voice theories are cognitive structures or knowledge schemas that help individuals to process information and interpret their own and others' behaviour.…”