The importance of social structure and social interaction in stereotype consensus and content: is the whole greater than the sum of its parts?

Stott, Clifford; Drury, John

doi:10.1002/ejsp.183

Cited by 59 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…First, it was examined whether the ethnic majority and minority group differ in their perceptions and meanings of the intergroup structure. Second, we examined the three sociostructural variables in relation to different identity management strategies, rather than only in relation to group identification (e.g., Ellemers et al, 1990), stereotypes (e.g., Stott & Drury, 2004), or group evaluations (e.g., Lalonde & Silverman, 1994). We focused on in-group and out-group identification, on status-relevant and irrelevant stereotype dimensions, and on feelings towards multiple out-groups.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In conditions of perceived impermeability, however, relatively negative out-group stereotypes were found. Similarly, among low-status participants, Stott and Drury (2004) found relatively positive conceptions of the out-group in permeable conditions, whereas in impermeable conditions, the out-group was perceived more negatively and the in-group more positively.…”

mentioning

confidence: 84%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Intergroup structure and identity management among ethnic minority and majority groups: the interactive effects of perceived stability, legitimacy, and permeability

Verkuyten

Reijerse

2006

Euro J Social Psych

104

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper is an examination, in a natural setting, of the interactive effects of perceived stability, legitimacy, and group permeability on group identification, stereotypes, and group feelings among Turkish-Dutch and ethnically Dutch participants. The findings strongly support predictions derived from the social identity perspective. For the Turkish-Dutch, a legitimate interethnic structure meant rather unstable relations and permeable group boundaries. For the Dutch, the same structure implied stability and impermeability. For the Turkish-Dutch, a response pattern of individual mobility was found: if they viewed ethnic intergroup relations as legitimate and stable, permeability was negatively related to Turkish identification as well as to less stereotyping on the dimension defining Turkish identity. It was also related positively to Dutch identification and in-group bias in relation to other ethnic minority groups. For the Dutch participants, higher perceived legitimacy was associated with stronger in-group identification and more positive in-group evaluation. Additionally, in a legitimate context, stability was, for them, related to a lower stereotyping of the Turkish out-group on statusrelevant dimensions and more negative feelings towards ethnic out-groups in general. Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Social identity theory (SIT, Tajfel & Turner, 1979) provides a contextual framework for understanding intergroup relations among high-and low-status groups. The theory proposes that the operation of cognitive and motivational processes depends on ideological and structural features of the social world (Reicher, 2004;Turner, 1999). The cognitive process of social categorization and the striving for positive distinctiveness that motivate identity management strategies can explain why people show, for example, competitive in-group favoritism but do not explain when people show such favoritism, and how people show social competition (Rubin & Hewstone, 2004). SIT specifies three sociostructural variables that, interactively, would influence people's responses to status hierarchies. Specifically, beliefs about the stability and legitimacy of the status system and the nature of the group boundaries

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 84%

Intergroup structure and identity management among ethnic minority and majority groups: the interactive effects of perceived stability, legitimacy, and permeability

Verkuyten

Reijerse

2006

Euro J Social Psych

104

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Power is an emergent property of human social relationships, not something that stands outside of them, and power relations can take as many concrete and nuanced forms as the social relationships they express. If one looks at the evidence for the supposed generic effects of holding power we find that these effects are either restricted to just one kind of power process or disappear as soon as the values, beliefs, goals of the powerful are varied and/or the nature of the social relationship is varied (Dépret & Fiske, 1999;Kipnis, 1972;Lee-Chai, Chen, & Chartrand, 2001;Overbeck & Park, 2001;Reynolds, Oakes, Haslam, Nolan, & Dolnik, 2000;Rind & Kipnis, 1999;Stott & Drury, 2004;cf. Ellemers, van Rijswik, Bruins, & de Gilder, 1998).…”

Section: The Evils Of Powermentioning

confidence: 99%

Explaining the nature of power: a three-process theory

Turner

2005

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol.

493

430

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Power is an inescapable feature of human social life and structure. This paper addresses the nature of power. The standard theory is that power is the capacity for influence and that influence is based on the control of resources valued or desired by others. However, there have always been problems with this theory and new ones have appeared. The paper summarizes the standard theory and its problems, outlines the different meanings of power and presents a new theory emphasizing group identity, social organization and ideology rather than dependence as the basis of power. It proposes that power is based on persuasion, authority and coercion. A key point is that the theory changes the way these processes have been understood by reversing the causal sequence of the standard theory. The latter argues that control of resources produces power, power is the basis of influence and that mutual influence leads to the formation of a psychological group. The three-process theory argues that psychological group formation produces influence, that influence is the basis of power and that power leads to the control of resources. Implications of the theory for social change, coercion, prejudice and the extent to which power is a social evil are briefly noted. The challenge is to study how power emerges from and functions within social relationships with a definite social, ideological and historical content rather than reifying it as an abstract external force producing generic psychological effects.

show abstract

“…Such re-construal of the loss as moral victory could perhaps be understood as a case of social creativity (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), whereby the dimension of evaluation is changed (from action to moral position) to retain a positive social identity (cf. Klein, Jacobs, Gemoets, Licata, & Lambert, in press, and Stott & Drury, 2004, on the role of communication in collective consensualization of ingroup and outgroup stereotypes).…”

Section: Developing a Hypothesis About Enduring Empowermentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Explaining enduring empowerment: a comparative study of collective action and psychological outcomes

Drury

Reicher

2005

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol.

Self Cite

381

414

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An ethnographic study of two crowd events was carried out in order to develop a hypothesis about the experience of empowerment in collective action. Qualitative comparison of an anti-roads occupation and a mass eviction suggests that empowerment as an outcome of collective action is a function of the extent to which one's own action is understood as expressing social identity, a process we term collective self-objectification. The comparison indicates that empowerment is not reducible to the experience of success. While both events came to be construed by participants as 'victories', their associated emotions (joy versus despair and anger) and rationales for future participation (confidence versus enhanced self-legitimacy) were different. The relation between collective self-objectification and self-efficacy is discussed. Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.'Empowerment' might be defined as a social-psychological state of confidence in one's ability to challenge existing relations of domination. A number of political, anecdotal, historical, autobiographical and journalistic as well as social-scientific accounts have shown that collective action may engender experiences of empowerment, both for the individual participant and for the collective as a whole, typically accompanied by positive affect (e.g. Barker, 1999; Benford & Hunt, 1995, p. 90; Gallacher, 1936, pp. 43, 199; Gregoire & Perlman, 1969, p. 37; Harford & Hopkins, 1984, pp. 92-93; Kelly & Breinlinger, 1996, p. 122; McAdam, 1982, pp. 48-51; Pelton, 1974, p. 134; Piven & Cloward, 1977, pp. 3-4).If the feeling of empowerment endures beyond the collective action itself, it could affect participants' personal lives and motivate involvement in further collective action. The obvious significance of this is in terms of social change. To the extent that people feel increasingly able to participate in collective actions such as protests, demonstrations and other social movement events, then society may change as a result.

show abstract

The importance of social structure and social interaction in stereotype consensus and content: is the whole greater than the sum of its parts?

Cited by 59 publications

References 34 publications

Intergroup structure and identity management among ethnic minority and majority groups: the interactive effects of perceived stability, legitimacy, and permeability

Intergroup structure and identity management among ethnic minority and majority groups: the interactive effects of perceived stability, legitimacy, and permeability

Explaining the nature of power: a three-process theory

Explaining enduring empowerment: a comparative study of collective action and psychological outcomes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About