A Social Psychology of National and International Group Relations

Journul of Social Issues, Vol. 54, No. 4, 1998, pp. 831-846

A Social Psychology of National and International Group Relations

John F. Dovidio” Colgtrte UriiversiQ

Geoffrey Maruyama Uriivertir?, of Minnesota

Michele G. Alexander Ohio Stute Urziversi~ (it Mmsjieield

This concluding article provides Lr,framework for a social ps~~chological analysis of intergroup conflict and conflict resolution. The framework highlights the individual and intergroup factors that shape the nature of perceptions of intergroup relations and group representations, and describes how these perceptions lead to cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses toward groups. Included in the framework are the metatheoretical, theoretical, and practical contributions of the articles in this issue toward understanding intergroup relations. The potential and responsibility c~social psychologists to move beyond the laboratoiy to applied national and international issues is also discussed.

The articles in this issue, representing the common theme of “Understanding and Resolving National and International Group Conflict,” address a rich variety of intergroup issues ranging from intranational racial and ethnic bias to international discord. Although each makes an independent contribution to the issue, taken together they also make general metatheoretical, theoretical, and practical contributions. Metatheoretically, beyond the individual value of each article, the articles in this issue collectively help establish the conceptual and practical validity of a social

Preparation of this article was facilitated by NIMH Grant MH 48721 to the first author. *Correspondence concerning this article should be directed to John F. Dovidio, Department of Psy-

chology, Colgate University, Hamilton, NY 13346 (e-mail JDovidio~mail.colgate.edu). 831

0 I99X The Socicty for the Paychdogical Study 01 Sucinl Iswe\

832 Dovidio, Maruyama, and Alexander

psychological analysis of national and international group conflict and conflict resolution. Theoretically, they identify common themes and shared underlying processes despite diverse manifestations of bias and conflict. Practically, they suggest productive strategies for the reduction of conflict. In this concluding article, we briefly review each of these three collective contributions in order.

A Social Psychological Perspective on Intergroup Relations

For many contemporary social psychologists, the application of social psychology to issues of intergroup conflict seems reasonable and intellectually as well as socially responsible. The theme of the SPSSI conference from which these papers were drawn, “Using Theory and Research to Address National and Interna- tional Social Issues,” supports the legitimacy of this approach. Nevertheless, others may question the appropriateness of a social psychological approach to these issues. Social psychology has historically focused on the study of individuals. In one of the founding texts of the discipline, Floyd Allport (1924) wrote:

Social Psychology as a Science of the Individual. Impressed by the closely knit and reciprocal nature of social behavior, some writers have been led to postulate a kind of“co1lective mind” or “group consciousness” as separate from the minds of individuals of whom the group is com- posed. . . . The standpoint ofthis book may be concisely stated as follows. There is no psychology of groups which is not essentially and entirely a psychology of individuals. Social psychology must not be placed in contradistinction to the psychology of the individual; it is part of the psychology ofthe individval. . . . Psychology in all its branches is a science of the individual. To extend its principles to larger units is to destroy their meaning. (p. 4)

The emphasis on the individual in social psychology continues today. In a contemporary social psychology text, Baron, Byrne, and Johnson (1998) define social psychology as “the scientific field that seeks to understand the nature and causes of individuul behavior and thought in social situations” (p. 4, italics added). The fundamental question is thus whether the study of individuals can contribute to the understanding of national and international group processes, regardless of whether the processes represent systematic but largely informal action (e.g., racial bias among students within a classroom) or reflect formal policy (e.g., national policy toward immigration or toward other nations).

We are convinced that social psychology can make meaningful, significant contributions in this arena for three solid reasons that relate to the role of individuals in intergroup contact, the range of processes and levels of analysis social psychology encompasses, and the unique perspective on policy that social psychology offers. First, whether the issue is racial bias in the classroom or formal negotiations between representatives of nations, individuals, their thought processes, and the manifestations of those processes in interpersonal interactions are a fundamental aspect of intergroup and international dynamics. When one is interacting with an individual from a different social group, automatic cognitive and social processes, such as social categorization, can bias interactions and can maintain or even

Social Psychology of Group Relations 833

intensify preexisting conflict. The clearer the group boundaries between individuals during social interaction, the more likely social judgment processes associated with intergroup perception are to arise (Brewer, 1979; Gaertner, Mann, Dovidio, Murrell, & Pomare, 1990; Wilder, 1978; Worchel, 1986).

The types of interactions that individuals from different social groups have with each other may shape intergroup behavior. Three articles included in this issue speak to the importance of examining interpersonal social interactions for understanding intergroup dynamics and for resolving intergroup conflict. In their analysis of how individual students cope with interracial stress in the classroom, Marcus-Newhall and Heindl find that students who perceive a positive interracial climate tend to consider positive/approach coping strategies more effective than negative/avoidance strategies when interacting with outgroup members. These findings can be applied to designing programs that will teach students to use effective interaction styles that will ultimately improve intergroup relations within the classroom. Pettigrew’s analysis of social psychological application to international affairs describes Herbert Kelman’s use of social psychological principles for conflict resolution between Arab and Israeli representatives in formal negotiations. Kelman’s interactive problem-solving workshops between Arabs and Israelis involve interactions within small groups containing representatives from both fac- tions. Given that interpersonal processes are fundamental to international conflict resolution, these interpersonal social interactions are intended to help both sides achieve productive negotiations.

Also, the contribution by Goodwin, Operario, and Fiske in this issue emphasizes two interpersonal phenomena, situational control and dominance, that maintain intergroup conflict and hierarchies during social interaction. Evidently, during interactions with subordinates, individual power holders and highly dominant individuals are motivated to stereotype subordinates and to ignore counterstereotypic information in order to maintain status, thereby sustaining intergroup conflict and misperception. The diverse approaches taken in these three articles highlight the importance of individual social interaction for understanding intergroup relations.

A second reason why social psychology can contribute-and in fact can make truly unique contributions-to understanding national and international conflict and its resolution is that contemporary social psychology bridges intrapsychic processes (e.g., social cognition and stereotyping), individual behavior (e.g., discrimination), and collective action (e.g., support for national policies of exclusion). Whereas other disciplines may focus primarily on the role of social and political institutions, social psychology considers the interaction between interpersonal dynamics and intergroup relations.

The distinction between interpersonal and intergroup processes is a fundamental one in social psychology. Historically, as Floyd Allport’s quote suggests, social psychology has emphasized intraindividual processes and interpersonal behavior. Nevertheless, there is also deep social psychological tradition in the conceptions of


social groups and on how group membership influences impressions formed of individual members (e.g., G. Allport, 1954; Katz & Brdly, 1933; Tajfel, 1969). This work has mainly considered how social groups are perceived and evaluated.

Recent theory and research have explicitly explored how individually based and group-based impressions may represent distinct processes or reflect a more continuous blend of processes. Brewer (1988), for example, has proposed “a dual process model of impression formation.” The primary distinction in this model is between two types of processing: person-based and category-based. Following the traditional theories of forming impressions of individuals, person-based processing is bottom-up. This process is data driven, involving the piecemeal acquisition and integration of information that begins “at the most concrete level and stops at the lowest level of abstraction required by the prevailing processing objectives” (Brewer, 1988, p. 6). Category-based processing, in contrast, proceeds from global to specific; i t is top-down. In top-down processing, category-based subjective expectations influence how external reality is perceived and experienced. Accord- ing to Brewer, category-based processing is more likely to occur than person-based processing, because social information is typically organized around social catego- ries. Fiske and Neuberg (1990) have presented an alternative model concerning “a continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes.” According to this model, “people form impressions of others through a variety of processes that lie on a continuum reflecting the extent to which the per- ceiver utilizes a target’s particular attributes” (Fiske & Neuberg, p. 2). At one end of the continuum are category-based processes, in which category membership deter- mines impressions with minimal attention to individual attributes. At the other end of the continuum are individuating processes, in which individual characteristics, but not group membership, influence impressions.

Social Identity Theory (Tajfel &Turner, 1979) and Self-categorization Theory (Turner, 1985) also view the distinction between personal identity and social identity as acritical one. According to Social Identity Theory, people’s identities are sig- nificantly shaped by their memberships in groups-their social identity. Because people strive to maintain or enhance a positive self-concept, they are motivated to view their ingroup more favorably than outgroups. When the positive distinctiveness of one’s own group is not salient or is not reflected in the existing basis of comparison, members who maintain an identification with their group may seek alternative dimensions for comparison that favor the ingroup or may attempt to regain feelings of positive distinctiveness by more active means. They may develop negative attitudes toward the other groups, show enhanced allegiance to their own group (e.g., producing ethnocentrism), or directly discriminate against other groups to regain a realistic advantage. Research on Social Identity Theory has indicated that these forms of ingroup identification and bias are stronger among high-status than low-status group members (Ellemers, Doosje, van Knippenberg, & Wilke, 1992; Mullen, Brown, & Smith, 1992). Additionally, a key factor in understanding


the extent of such ingroup bias and discrimination is the legitimacy of group status (see Bettencourt & Bartholow, this issue).

Self-Categorization Theory (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) is similar to Social Identity Theory but is a more general theory of inter- and intragroup processes and places greater emphasis on the cognitive processes involved. Self-Categorization Theory also makes a fundamental distinction between personal and collective identity, but these are seen more as different levels on a continuum rather than as qualitatively distinct and mutually exclusive states. When personal identity is salient, an individual’s needs, standards, beliefs, and motives primarily determine behavior. In contrast, when people’s social identity is activated, “people come to perceive themselves more as interchangeable exemplars of a social category than as unique personalities defined by their individual differences from others” (Turner et al., p. 50). Under these conditions, collective needs, goals, and standards are primary. For example, Verkuyten and Hagendoorn ( 1998) found that when individual identity was made salient, individual differences in authoritarianism were the major predictor of Dutch students’ prejudice against Turkish migrants. In contrast, when social identity (i.e., national identity) was primed, ingroup stereotypes and standards primarily predicted attitudes toward Turkish migrants. Thus, whether a person’s personal or collective identity is more salient critically shapes how a person perceives, interprets, evaluates, and responds to situations and to others. Because international conflict and conflict resolution are both interpersonal and intergroup phenomena, understanding them requires a knowledge of both personal processes, reactions, and identity, and collective processes, action, and identity.

A third argument for the value of a social psychological perspective on intergroup and international relations involves the distinct contributions to national and international policy that social psychology offers. Pettigrew ( 1988) make this argument cogently:

Social psychology makes its distinctive contribution by explaining the links between the individual and situational levels ofanalysis. To be sure, other social sciences work at both the individual and the structural levels, but they do not consider situational mediation systemati- cally. In doing so, social psychology provides both distinctive variables and distinctive ex- planations, largely missing from the analyses of other social sciences. (p. 207)

Nevertheless, Pettigrew notes that one of the unique aspects of social psychology-the fact that it is an inductive science with emphasis on theory development based on experimentation-may have limited its actual contribution to social policy development. Pettigrew (1 988) writes:

A largely deductive science, such as economics, has many advantages in policy. Consider econometric models. They can he impressive, even elegant, in their mathematical precision. . , . And since these deductive models usually use already existing data. econometric models can be specially shaped to policy makers‘ immediate needs. . . . However, such deductive, made-to-order models have major problems. . , . Especially worrisome to social


psychologists are the many fundamental assumptions about individual behavior that are de monstrably wrong. (p, 2 I 1 )

Thus, although its promise has yet to be fully realized, social psychology has the potential to make important contributions to the development of policy, international as well as social, that can complement the contributions of other disciplines.

Jones’s Psychological Critical Race Theory (this issue) makes the case for the contribution of social psychology not only to the national dialogue on race but also to the development of new social policies. Jones proposes that the persistence of racial inequities in several domains of well-being, such as education, labor force participation, and poverty, is due to cognitive and affective psychological processes that sustain inequality. Jones addresses the apparent paradox of race-related public policy, which contrasts a color-blind approach with a race-conscious perspective, and illustrates how color-blind policy is not effective and is, in a practical sense, unattainable. Instead, it is necessary to acknowledge race’s continuing influence on social outcomes and, as Jones contends, social policies to alleviate inequities based on race should “use race to get beyond race.” Additionally, as Sinclair, Sidanius, and Levin (this issue) note, current social policy (e.g., the repeal of affirmative action laws in some states) may be hierarchy-enhancing, thereby weakening subordinate groups’ attachments to American society, widening the ethnic divide, and perpetu- ating intergroup conflict. These authors propose that the solution to intergroup conflict is to establish hierarchy-attenuating programs and policies in the social system. Thus, as Pettigrew (1 988; see also his article in this issue) proposes, social psychology’s emphasis on how intrapsychic cognitive and affective factors mediate personal reactions and intergroup dynamics offers truly distinctive and valuable insights for understanding national and international processes such as conflict and conflict resolution.

Social Psychological Theory and Intergroup Relations

As we mentioned earlier, although the articles in this issue cover a broad range of topics from racial bias in the United States to issues of identity in Northern Ire- land and Quebec independence in Canada, they reflect many common theoretical themes. In particular, they all implicate the fundamental mediating role of psychological processes in understanding diverse manifestations of intergroup relations. For example, the article by Esses, Jackson, and Armstrong emphasizes the role of perceived group competition on intergroup orientations; the contribution by Wittig and Grant-Thompson focuses on the relation between perceptions of intergroup contact as satisfying the conditions specified by the Contact Hypothesis and the suc- cessful reductions in intergroup bias; and the article by O’Connor examines the role of group identity on positions relating to Quebec independence and on efforts to convince the public to share the group’s interpretation of intergroup relations and consequent position for action. Consideration of the role of individual perception


and interpretation in mediating intergroup attitudes and behavior is uniquely in the domain of social psychology.

But how do the specific contributions to this issue collectively make a theoretical contribution to understanding and resolving intergroup conflict, particularly given their diverse topics and methodologies? Certainly, existing approaches such as Self-categorization Theory or models of category-based impressions that we discussed earlier are directly relevant to the articles in this issue. But given the common themes of the present articles, an even more focused perspective may be possi- ble. Borrowing from these approaches, we illustrate a general, potentially integrative framework in Figure 1.

In this framework, we propose that intergroup conflict may be rooted in actual competition for limited resources (e.g., realistic group conflict; see articles by Esses et al. and by Sinclair et al. in this issue) or in psychological types of conflict that are more abstract and symbolic. The latter types of conflict may involve individual needs for self-esteem and positive collective identity (as proposed by Social Iden- tity Theory and Self-Categorization Theory; see articles by Cassidy & Trew and by Bettencourt & Bartholow in this issue) or by perceived threats to cherished values,

Group Relations

Realistic (Resource)

Conflict

Identity Relations

Symbolic Threats

Mediating Perceptions

Perceptions of Group Interdependence/

Independence

0 Group Representations

(e.g., One Group, Two Groups, Two Groups Within One,

Conseauences

Cognitive (e.g., Stereotypes)

Affective/ Evaluative

(e.g., Attitudes)

Behavioral (e.g., Personal or

Institutional Discrimination)

Fig. 1. Integrative framework of intergroup conflict


beliefs, and social order (for example, prolife and prochoice movements; see also symbolic approaches to bias, e.g., Sears, 1998).

The perception of resource and psychological threat then shapes perceptions of the nature of group interdependencelindependence and group representations. Sherif (1966) proposed in his theory of intergroup relations that the functional relations between groups is the critical factor determining intergroup relations (see also Esses et A’s article in this issue). Not only is the distinction between cooperative and competitive interdependence fundamental, but distinctions between different types of competition may also be important. For instance, competition may be framed in terms of a zero-sum relationship; a gain by the outgroup necessarily means a loss to the ingroup (for example, see Esses et al. and O’Connor in this issue). Alternatively, intergroup relations may be perceived as threatening but with the possibility of more independent outcomes: What the outgroup does may have little actual or psychological implication for the ingroup. In fact, under these cir- cumstances group differences may at times be advantageous, to the extent that the different groups can potentially offer different and complementary skills to address common group problems (see Dovidio, Gaertner, & Validzic, 1998; Hew- stone & Brown, 1986). Thus, whereas perceptions of immediate zero-sum outcomes typically produce overt conflict, the perception of non-zero-sum outcomes may result in other intergroup adjustments, such as segregation, that permit coexis- tence between groups (although not necessarily with equal access to resources, as historically has been the case with respect to race in the United States), or more subtle types of biases.

In addition to perceptions of intergroup interdependencelindependence, representations of the members of the groups are a critical mediating factor in subsequent intergroup relations. Moreover, perceptions of intergroup interdependence and group representations may reciprocally influence each other, thus providing a link between realistic group conflict and social identity perspectives. For instance, recent approaches have extended research on the Contact Hypothesis by attempting to understand theoretically how the diverse factors (such as intergroup cooperation) specified by the hypothesis may operate through common underlying processes and mechanisms (e.g., Brewer & Miller, 1984; Miller, Brewer, & Edwards, 1985; Stephan & Stephan, 1984, 1985). For example, researchers have proposed that many of the factors specified by the Contact Hypothesis reduce bias by reducing the salience of the intergroup boundaries, that is, through decategorization. According to this perspective, under the conditions specified by the Contact Hypothesis, intergroup interaction can individuate members of the outgroup by revealing variability in their opinions (Wilder, 1978) or can produce personalizing interactions with the exchange of more intimate information (Brewer & Miller, 1984; Milleret al., 1985). The Common Ingroup Identity Model (Gaertner, Dovidio, Anastasio, Bachman, & Rust, 1993), an alternative approach, also proposes that influencing the ways in which group members conceive of group boundaries can reduce intergroup bias and


conflict, but through recategorization rather than decategorization. Recategoriza- tion involves using an alternative, superordinate social category to think about both the ingroup and the outgroup.

These approaches rely heavily on the social categorization perspective of intergroup behavior (Brewer, 1979; Brown & Turner, 198 1 ; Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and recognize the central role of social categorization, particularly in terms of ingroup/outgroup distinctions, in creating intergroup bias. Categorization of a person as an ingroup member rather than as an outgroup member has been demon- strated to produce more positive evaluations (Brewer, 1979; Messick & Mackie, 1989; Tajfel, 1969) and perceptions of greater belief similarity (Brown, 1984; Brown & Abrams, 1986; Hogg & Turner, 1985; Stein, Hardyck, & Smith, 1965; Wilder, 1984). It has also been shown to improve memory for positive information about others (Howard & Rothbart, 1980) and to reduce attributions of personal responsibility for negative outcomes (Hewstone, 1990).

Decategorization strategies, in which people are encouraged to abandon intergroup distinctions and to conceive of each person as a separate individual, reduce bias by eliminating the impact of ingroup favoritism. In contrast, recategorization strategies attempt to harness and redirect the forces of ingroup favoritism. By rede- fining original outgroup members as ingroup members, the cognitive and motivational processes that initially contributed to intergroup bias and conflict may now operate in favor of establishing more harmonious intergroup relations. More inclu- sive conceptions of the group memberships (i.e., representations as members of one common group) can have positive effects on intergroup relations over and above perceptions of cooperative intergroup relations (Gaertner, Mann, Dovidio, Murrell, & Pomare, 1990).

Moreover, groups do not necessarily have to forsake their separate group identities entirely to benefit from a common group identity; members may possess a dual identity, conceiving of the groups as separate entities but within a larger group identity (e.g., as African Americans), and still benefit from their common group connection (Gaertner et a]., 1993). In fact, developing a dual identity may be particularly effective for generalizing the positive effects of intergroup contact to reducing bias toward the outgroup as a whole. The common ingroup identity acti- vates processes that lead to the reduction of bias, whereas the recognition of partici- pants’ separate group identity provides the associative link for these forces to generalize to other members of the group not present during the contact situation.

Perceptions of group relations and cognitive representations of the memberships, in turn, can influence cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses to the groups. Perceptions of competitive interdependence. for example, may produce negative affective responses as a result of unpleasant interactions or undesirable outcomes that become associated with members of the outgroup (Lott & Lott, 1974), creating negative attitudes and feelings toward members of the outgroup and toward the outgroup as a whole. Balance and dissonance theories (see Worchel,


1986) as well as self-perception theory (Bem, 1972) suggest that engaging in competitive interaction may produce consonant negative attitudes toward the outgroup. Conversely, positive interdependence with outgroup members, such as cooperation or coping with mutual threat, may generate balance-restoring positive attitudes and feelings toward the outgroup and thus reduce bias and conflict. As the research of Gaertner et al. (1990) demonstrates, a cognitive representation of the memberships can have independent effects on cognitive, affective, and behavioral reactions. For instance, Dovidio et al. (1997) found that independent of perceptions of cooperative or competitive intergroup relations, the more people perceived themselves as members of a common group, the more positive their attitudes toward outgroup members and the more self-disclosing and helpful they were to outgroup members. Because self-disclosure and helping typically produce reciprocal responses from others, these behaviors may have longer term, reverberating effects for resolving conflict between groups.

We note that individual contributions to this issue introduce other frameworks for understanding intergroup conflict and its resolution. Esses et al., for example, describe a model in which resource stress and group salience contribute to perceptions of group competition and consequent behavioral adjustments. The articles included in this issue by Goodwin et al. and by Sinclair et al. offer conceptualiza- tions of important factors in maintaining stereotypes and intergroup conflict at the interpersonal and group levels, respectively. The framework we have described in this concluding chapter is not meant to supersede or undermine these other models. On the contrary, the framework we have presented was designed to build upon these and other models described in the articles in the issue. As such, it is truly “work in progress.” It is compatible with the work presented in this issue-on which it was based-as well as other existing data. It remains open to question how productively it guides new research and how well it will account for new data. Nevertheless, the heuristic value of this framework for conceptually summarizing the commonalities across the different contributions to this issue supports our fundamental contention that understanding and resolving intergroup conflict are well within the theoretical scope of social psychology. In the next section, we consider the implications for social psychological theory in general and the articles contained in this issue in particular for understanding and resolving national and international conflict.

Practical Contributions

One of the major challenges of social issues research is to combine development and refinement of theory with practical importance. That is, social issues research not only must meet the requirement of being sound methodologically while addressing topics of conceptual interest, it must also balance the control of environmental features found in experimental settings against the greater external validity of natural settings. In the language of Schon (1993, the dilemma is one of

Social Psychology of Group Relations 84 1

choosing between the swamp and the high ground. namely, selecting relevance (problems of greatest human concern) or selecting rigor (problems that are manage- able). To the extent that the overriding choice is relevance, there are difficulties inherent in designing “messy” research.

The present articles, although varying in the extent to which they employ naturalistic settings, all have selected a topic of social relevance, conflict. Some social scientists see selection of applied problems as a means for testing theories as unnec- essary, as introducing obstacles that lessen rigor, and even as creating ambiguity in results. Others, however, who believe that one of scientists’ preeminent responsi- bilities is to address the practical problems of society, see research focusing on a combination ofcontrolled and applied settings as necessary. The latter focus is most often attributed to Kurt Lewin (e.g., 1946), who coined the term action research. Action research was designed for researchers who want to be involved with the application of their scientific interests and discoveries. In his words, “The research needed for social practice . . . is . . . comparative research on the conditions and effects of various forms of social action, and research leading to social action” (Lewin, 1948, pp. 202-203). Problems studied grow out of community life; in action research’s ideal form, action researchers engage with those communities on an ongoing basis. Action research consists of more than one cycle of problem identification, planning and implementation (action steps) of an intervention, interpretation of findings, and problem redefinition (e.g., Chein, Cook, & Harding, 1948; Lewin, 1946).

In sum, action research sets a standard that is infrequently met even in applied research, for it requires long-term investment in collaborative research. Further, partnerships cannot thrive unless they result in mutual gain, yet the long-term interests of researchers often diverge from the needs and interests of practitioners. In other words, part of the challenge for researchers is that moving to action research seems inevitably to force them to move beyond their primary conceptual interests and search for relevant theories. Although the goal of this section is not to impose impossible constraints on the articles in this issue, it is important to recognize that appliedresearch is anchored on one end by work that is characterized by a sustained partnership with practitioners, flexibility and adaptability in selection of theories to address important social problems, and cycles ofresearch, reflection, and redesign.

So how does action research get applied to topics like national and international conflict? It is easy to see in today’s world a broad sampling of international and intranational conflicts that exert major influence on the quality of life people lead. Therefore, few should be surprised to see an issue of the Journal devoted to the study of conflict. The articles in this issue represent a range of issues that have cap- tured public attention. They examine international conflicts from the Middle East to Europe as well as intranational conflicts in Northern Ireland, the United States, and Canada. Action research may take a variety of forms, ranging from basic research designed so that it contributes directly to theory to applied research that develops


effective practical strategies for intervention. Action research involves a continuum of study, with theoretical research on social issues at one end and intervention and evaluation research at the other. The remainder of this section therefore briefly reviews how each of the different articles in this issue makes its contribution as action research.

The articles in this issue vary a great deal in the approaches they take. Those approaches reflect the range of research described above, from laboratory studies with college undergraduates to more naturalistic field studies. On the basic end are studies by Goodwin et al., Sinclair et al., Esses et al., and Bettencourt and Bartholow designed more to extend conceptual perspectives. They present practical implications of their work: for example, intriguing suggestions that (a) superiors might be more effective if they are dependent upon their subordinates, (b) university environ- ments change majority students’ awareness of their own group dominance, with uncertain effects upon society, (c) even positive messages about marginal groups like immigrants may well be ineffective if the target audience is made up of individuals who are dominance oriented, and (d) low-status numerical minorities may be particularly inclined to work collectively to attempt to change the status struc- ture. Given the nature of the studies, however, those implications typically are untested by the articles.

Three other articles sit between the prior articles and the more naturalistic ones. O’Connor’s article provides a detailed analysis of how language variations were used to frame different arguments and perspectives about Quebec independence. It nevertheless involves no intervention, and differs from the prior articles primarily in focus rather than being much more action oriented, for it also provides suggestions and offers implications about practice that are untested. The work of Cassidy and Trew sits in the middle on a basidapplied domain, for it samples college students who are involved in the conflict in Northern Ireland. It provides practical information that helps understand that population and that can be applied with a fair degree of confidence to that population in designing interventions. Jones’s article is a call for new action-oriented research that builds from a common set of principles and understandings, Psychological Critical Race Theory. Jones draws on an array of basic as well as applied social psychological research in building his case, and calls for continuation of basic research coupled with focused applied and action research in building knowledge that can drive policy.

Finally, three articles focus on more applied research. Wittig and Grant- Thompson and Marcus-Newhall and Heindl report on studies conducted in applied settings. Their work in both their studies is much more problem based and less oriented toward refinement of theory as a central objective. At the same time, neither study can be viewed as atheoretical or as having no potential for shaping theory. Both sets of researchers draw from Contact Theory (e.g., Amir, 1976) in developing their underlying conceptual model. Wittig and Grant-Thompson report on an evaluation of an intervention designed to reduce intergroup conflict and prejudice,


whereas Marcus-Newhall and Heindl use Contact Theory principles to examine student ratings of interracial climate and the coping strategies they use to deal with interracial stress in the classroom. In both instances, continued support for Contact Theory was found. Finally, Pettigrew’s article, through its focus on Kelman’s work, provides the clearest case of action-oriented research in action. Kelman persisted in addressing the application of conflict resolution principles to Arab-Israeli conflicts. His work spanned a long period of time and involved iterations of theory to application to analysis to redesign that were advocated by Lewin.

In summary, the articles in this issue share a practical interest in processes of conflict, yet bring to that interest arange of conceptual and practical approaches that nicely illustrates the variety of ways practical problems can be addressed. More- over, although each article represents action research, each involves a different balance of theory and application. Some focus primarily on conceptual advancement while giving less attention to practical applications or policy implications. Others focus on applied problems in naturalistic settings, emphasizing more the translation of theory into application than breaking entirely new theoretical ground. The bal- ancing of theory and application in each study reflects the trade-offs researchers need to make in designing applied work; applied researchers must make their work practically important while also keeping it of interest to their colleagues who focus on basic research issues. Taken together, the articles in this issue demonstrate the diversity and scope of work that falls within the domain of “SPSSI-type research.”

Conclusion

Although social psychology has its roots in the study of individuals, it has matured as a discipline to consider a broader range of phenomena at different levels of analysis. In addition, although maintaining its scientific and theoretically inductive orientation, social psychology’s scope legitimately includes efforts to understand and ameliorate social problems. Action research, such as that reflected in each of the contributions to this issue, can emphasize general theoretical issues or applications of theory in specific contexts.

The study of national and international conflict, however, poses unique challenges to social psychology. Individuals and small groups can be studied directly in the laboratory; nations cannot. Conditions of contact between individuals and small groups can be readily manipulated; contact between nations and racial and ethnic groups outside the laboratory cannot be controlled. Informed by theory, bias between representatives of groups may be effectively reduced in controlled settings, but large-scale social biases may remain. On the one hand, these may be seen as fundamental limitations to a social psychology of national and international group relations. On the other hand, they may be viewed as important challenges to social psychological theory and research that, if addressed self-consciously, can extend


social psychological theory in new ways and can produce new applied strategies and policies for resolving conflict.

As we suggested at the beginning of this article, we believe that it is both intellectually and socially responsible for social psychologists to move beyond the laboratory to applied settings, beyond theory to policy, and beyond individual interaction to national and international issues. We are not alone. More than 50 years ago Kurt Lewin identified the valuable potential of social psychological theory in guiding practical applications. SPSSI, as an organization, is dedicated to bridging theory and application. As stated on the inside cover of this and all current issues of The Journal of Social Issues: “SPSSI is governed by Kurt Lewin’s dictum that ‘there is nothing so practical as a good theory.’ In various ways, the Society seeks to bring theory into focus on human problems of the group, the community, and the nation, as well as the increasing important ones that have no national boundaries.” This issue and the SPSSI convention on which it was based were intended to help fulfill that mission.

References

Allport, F. ( 1924). Sociul psychology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Allport. G. W. ( 1 954). The nutiire ofprejudice. Cambridge. MA: Addison-Wesley. Amir, Y. (1976). The role of intergroup contact in change of prejudice and ethnic relations. In P. A. Katz

(Ed.), Towards the elirninurion ofrucism (pp. 245-308). New York: Pergamon. Baron, R . A., Byrne. D., &Johnson, B. T. (1998). Exploring . s~~[ , i~~ /p . sycho l [~gy (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn

and Bacon. Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimenral sociulpsv-

chology (Vol. 6, pp. 1-62). New York: Academic Press. Brewer, M. B. ( 1979). Ingroup bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analy-

sis. fsychological Bulletin, 86. 307-324. Brewer, M. B. (1988). A dual process model of impression formation. In T. K. Srull& R . S. Wyer(Eds.),

Advances in .social cognition (Val. I , pp. 1-16). Hillsdale. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Brewer, M. B., &Miller, N. (1984). Beyond the contact hypothesis: Theoretical perspectives on deseg-

regation. In N. Miller & M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in contact: Thepsychdogy qfdesegrega- rion (pp. 28 1-302). Orlando FL: Academic Press.

Brown, R . J. (1984). The effects of intergroup similarity and cooperative vs. competitive orientation on intergroup discrimination. British Journal q fSoc id Psychology, 2 I , 2 1-33.

Brown, R . J . . & Abrams, D. (1986). The effects of intergroup similarity and goal interdependence on intergroup attitudes and task performance. Journul cfExperimenta1 Social fsychologv, 22,78-92.

Brown, R. J . , &Turner, J. C. (1981). Interpersonal and intergroup behavior. In J. C. Turner & H. Giles (Eds.), Intergroup behavior (pp. 33-64). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Chein. I., Cook, S. W., & Harding, J. (1948). The field of action research. Americun Psychologisf, 3, 43-50.

Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L.. & Validzic, A. (1998). Intergroup bias: Status, differentiation, and a com- man ingroup identity. Journal offersonality and Social f.sychology, 75, 109-120.

Dovidio, J . F.. Gaertner, S. L., Validzic, A,, Matoka, A.. Johnson, B., & Frazier, S. ( I 997). Extending the benefits of recategorization: Evaluations, self-disclosure, and helping. Journal ofExperimental Social Psychology, 33, 401420.

Ellemers, N.. Doosje, B. J., van Knippenberg, A,, & Wilke, H. (1992). Status protection in high status minority groups. Europeun Journal uf’Social Psychology, 22, 123-140.


Fiske, S. T. & Neuberg, S. L. ( 1990). A continuum model of impression formation: From category based to individuatingprocesses as afunction of information, motivation, and attention. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advrmces in experimenfal social psvcho/ogs (Vol 23, pp. 1-74). San Diego, CA: Aca- demic Press.

Gaertner. S. L., Dovidio, J. F.. Anastasio. P. A,, Bachman, 8 . A,, &Rust, M. C. (1993). The Common In- group Identity Model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European Review qfSociul Psychology (Vol. 4. pp. 1-26). London: Wiley.

Gaertner. S. L., Mann, J . A,, Dovidio. J. F., Murrell, A. J., & Pomare, M. (1990). How does cooperation reduce intergroup bias'? Joouriwl r~fPer.sorzrrlit?; trnd Social Psychology, 59, 692-704.

Hewstone, M. (1990). The ultimate attribution error'? A review of the literature on intergroup attributions. European Journal qf Sociul Psychology, 20, 3 1 1-335.

Hewstone, M., &Brown, R. J. (1986). Contact is not enough: An intergroup perspective on the "Contact "In M. Hewstone and R. Brown (Eds.), C~~rzrtic'taridcn~fZicf in intergroup enc'oun-

Hogg, M. A,. & Turner, J. C. (1985). Interpersonal attraction, social identification and psychological

Howard, J. M., & Rothbart, M. ( I 980). Social categorization for in-group and out-group behavior. Jour-

Katz, D., & Braly, K. W. (1933). Racial stereotypes of one hundred college students. Journul qfAhnor-

Lewin, K. ( 1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal ofSociu1 Issues, 10. 3 4 4 6 . Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social problems. New York: Harper Brothers. Lott. A. J . , & Lott, B. E. (1974). The role of reward in the formation of positive interpersonal attitudes. In

T. Huston (Ed.). Fourzdutiorz.s ofinferpersorial urtruction (pp. I7 1-1 89). New York: Academic Press.

Messick, D. M., & Mackie. D. M. (1989). Intergroup relations. Aiiriual Rebsiew [f Psykology, 40, 45-8 1.

Miller, N., Brewer, M. B., & Edwards, K. (1985). Cooperative interaction in desegregated settings: A laboratory analog. Jouniul cf Social Issues, 41(3). 63-75.

Mullen. B., Brown, R., & Smith, C. (1992). Ingroup bias as a function of salience, relevance, and status: An integration. Europenn Journal of Sociul Psychology, 22, 103-1 22.

Pettigrew, T. F. ( 1988). Influencing policy with social psychology. Journul of Social Is.c.ues, 44(2), 205-219.

Schon. D. A. (1995). Knowing-in-action: The new scholarship requires a new epistemology. Change (Nov.-Dec.), 27-34.

Sears, D. 0. (1998). Racism and politics in the United States. In J. L. Eberhardt & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Confronting racism: The problem nnd the respon.se (pp. 76-1 00). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sherif, M. (1966). 111 colltmoii predicanzent. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. Stein, D. D., Hardyck, J. A,, & Smith, M. B. (1965). Race and belief: An open and shut case. Journcil of

Personalit?; and Social Psychology, 1, 28 1-289. Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1984). The role of ignorance in intergroup relations. In N. Miller &

M. B. Brewer (Eds.). Gr0up.c. i n contact: The psychology ojdesegregution (pp. 229-257). Or- lando, FL: Academic Press.

t e n (pp. 1 4 4 ) . Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.

group formation. European Journal qfSocial Psycholog!, 15, 5 1-66,

nal of Personrrlit?; und Social Psychology, 38, 301-3 10.

riztrl and Social Psychology, 28, 280-290.

Stephan, W.G.,&Stephan,C. W. (1985).Intergroupanxiety. Jouriiulr~SocialIssues, 41(3), 157-175. Tajfel, H. (1969). Cognitive aspects of prejudice. Journal ofSocia1 Issues, 25(4), 79-97. Tajfel, H., &Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S.

Worchel (Eds.), The social psychohgy qf intergroup relations (pp. 33118). Monterey, CA: BrooksKole.

Turner, J. C. [ 1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behavior. In E. J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in groirpprocesses (Vol. 2, pp. 77-1 22). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A,, Oakes. P. J., Reicher. S. D.. & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering theso- cia/ group: A se~-categorizatiori theor?. Oxford: Blackwell.

Verkuyten. M., & Hagendoorn, L. (1998). Prejudice and self-categorization: The variable role of authoritarianism and in-group stereotypes. Personalit?; ond Social Ps.vchology Bulletin, 24, 99-1 10.


Wilder, D. A. ( I 978). Reducing intergroup discrimination through individuation of the outgroup. Jour- nal qf Personalir?; and Social Psychology, 36, 136 1-1 314.

Wilder, D. A. ( 1984). Predictions of belief homogeneity and similarity following social categorization. British Jourrial ofSociu1 Psychology, 23. 323-333.

Worchel, S. W. (1986). The role of cooperation reducing intergroup conflict. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.). The social psvchology of intergroup relations (pp. 288-304). Chicago: Nelson Hall.

JOHN F. DOVIDIO is Charles A. Dana Professor of Psychology at Colgate Univer- sity. At Colgate, he has served as the Chair of the Department of Psychology, Director of the Division of University Studies, and Director of the Division of Natural Sciences and Mathematics. He has been Editor of Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin and is currently Associate Editor of Group Processes and Intergroup Relations. He is a Fellow of the American Psychological Association and of the American Psychological Society. He is President-Elect of SPSSI for 1998-1 999. His research interests are in stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination; social power and nonverbal communication; altruism and helping. He shared the 1985 Gordon Allport Intergroup Relations Prize with Samuel L. Gaertner for their work on aversive racism.

GEOFFREY MARUYAMA is Professor of Educational Psychology and Assistant Vice President for Multicultural and Academic Affairs at the University of Minne- sota. His administrative duties include responsibility for working with collegiate and precollegiate programs designed to increase the university’s diversity. In addition, since September 1997 he has served the St. Paul Public Schools as Interim Director of Research, Evaluation, and Assessment. This job, in which he directs the testing and assessment programs of the district and the program evaluation and research efforts within the district, was set up collaboratively between the St. Paul Schools and the College of Education and Human Development. He currently is SecretaryRreasurer of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues.

MICHELE G. ALEXANDER received her Ph.D. in psychology from Texas A&M University in 1996 and is currently an Assistant Professor of Psychology at The Ohio State University at Mansfield. Her research interests include intergroup conflict, conflict management, and the association between stereotyping and behavior, with specific emphasis on racial and gender stereotyping. At present, she is investi- gating the generic stereotypes that outgroups have of each other and the factors responsible for activating these stereotypes. She is also examining the effects of conflict management styles on stereotyping and physiological processes during interracial encounters. Additionally, she has explored how social roles and stereotypes for men and women contribute to gender differences in behavior, particularly emotional behavior.

A Social Psychology of National and International Group Relations

Documents

Transcript of A Social Psychology of National and International Group Relations