All in this together? Group representations and policy support

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

www.elsevier.com/locate/jesp

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 44 (2008) 808–817

All in this together? Group representations and policy support q

Ann M. Beaton a,*, John F. Dovidio b, Nadine Leger a

a School of Psychology, Universite de Moncton, Moncton, NB, Canada E1A 3E9b Departement of Psychology, Yale University, 2 Hillhouse Avenue, New Haven CT 06520-8205, USA

Received 2 August 2006; revised 21 June 2007Available online 12 July 2007

Abstract

The present research explored the relationship between how Canadians perceived the quality of intergroup contact with Americansand their support for different antiterrorism policies, considering the potential mediating role of intergroup representations specified inthe Common Ingroup Identity Model. Canadian students (n = 360) completed questionnaires that assessed their perceptions of the qual-ity of intergroup contact with Americans, group representations, and reactions to various policies tied to the war against terror. Specif-ically, we tested a model of how perceptions of the quality of intergroup contact, along the dimensions specified by the ContactHypothesis, predict different representations of the two groups (Canadians and Americans), and then how these different representationspredict reactions to antiterrorist policies. Structural equation modeling analysis supported the predictions, revealing the pivotal role ofgroup representations for policy views.� 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Common Ingroup Identity Model; Contact Hypothesis; Antiterrorist policy attitudes

‘‘Living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an

elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the

beast, if I can call it that, one is affected by every twitch

and grunt.’’ (P.E. Trudeau, March 25, 1969, Addressingthe Press Club in Washington, D.C.)

Relations between nations are often complex, even whenthe countries are neighbors with a long history of peacefulcoexistence and social contact between their citizens. Forinstance, 24% of Canadians seek more distant relationswith the U.S., 34% want closer ties, and 41% support thestatus quo (Center for Research & Information on Canada,2004). One reason for these diverse responses involves pro-cesses of social identity. Some Canadians have relied heav-ily on a contradistinction with Americans as a centralbuttress of their national identity, whereas others, perhaps

0022-1031/$ - see front matter � 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2007.07.002

q This research was sponsored by a grant to the first author from theSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (No. 410-03-1621). A grant from the National Science Foundation (No. BCS-0613218)provided support to the second author.

* Corresponding author. Fax: +1 506 858 4768.E-mail address: [email protected] (A.M. Beaton).

because they perceive basic commonalities between thecountries, have maintained unwavering sympathy andadmiration for their southern neighbor (Gatehouse, 2002;Lalonde, 2002). The present research examined how per-ceptions of intergroup contact relate to the way that Cana-dian citizens socially categorize their nation relative toanother nation, the United States, which then systemati-cally influences their support for national policy.

The Contact Hypothesis proposes that intergroup con-tact under specified conditions (e.g., in a cooperative con-text) systematically reduces bias between groups (Allport,1954; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Recent research, however,has emphasized the importance of perceptions of the qual-ity of contact beyond the mere frequency of contact (Dov-idio, Gaertner, & Kawakami, 2003) and moved beyondsimply attempting to specify the conditions that reduce biasto focusing on the processes underlying this relationship,such as those involving social categorization (see Pettigrew,1998). From the social categorization perspective, the issueto be addressed is how intergroup contact can be structuredto alter inclusive-exclusive collective representations of oth-ers. One such approach, the Common Ingroup Identity

mailto:[email protected]

A.M. Beaton et al. / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 44 (2008) 808–817 809

Model (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000), relies heavily on prin-ciples of social categorization and identity to emphasize thecentral role of the categorization process in shaping inter-group behavior and attitudes (Tajfel & Turner, 1979).

According to the Common Ingroup Identity Model(Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000), perceptions that the qualityof intergroup contact is negative are associated with a dif-ferent-groups representation emphasizing intergroup dif-ferences. As research conducted among Canadians hasfound, a focus on intergroup differences with Americansleads to ingroup bias (Lalonde, 2002). However, percep-tions that quality of intergroup contact is positive relateto lower bias by altering the initial cognitive representa-tion from members of different groups, which promotesintergroup bias, to either decategorized representations(i.e., as separate individuals) or recategorized representa-tions (i.e., as common group members). With decategori-zation, group boundaries are degraded, and bias isreduced because favoritism toward ingroup members isdiminished (Gaertner, Mann, Murrell, & Dovidio, 1989).In this instance, we expect that Canadians who perceiveintergroup contact as more positive would more likelyview themselves and Americans as separate and distinctindividuals.

Recategorization can take two forms. First, two distinctsocial entities can be combined to form a single superordi-nate category, that is, one inclusive group. For instance, ifCanadians perceive the quality of contact positively, theymay include Americans within the superordinate categoryof North Americans. However, recategorization does notnecessarily require that members relinquish their formeringroup identity. When contact conditions are viewed ina favorable light, a second form of recategorization canalso emerge. Members maintain their initial ingroup iden-tity within the context of a superordinate category, a‘‘dual-identity’’ or a ‘‘two subgroups in one group recate-gorization’’ (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000). In this case, adual-identity would imply that Canadians experience botha Canadian and an inclusive North American group repre-sentation. When people recategorize others who were for-merly seen as separate group members in terms of acommon group membership, entirely or in part, their atti-tudes toward former outgroup members are more positive.This is due to the fact that the processes that lead to favor-itism toward ingroup members would now be directedtoward former outgroup members (see Gaertner & Dovid-io, 2000).

The basic propositions of the Common Ingroup IdentityModel for understanding intergroup bias have receivedsupport in research with enduring groups as well as withlaboratory groups (Eller & Abrams, 2003, 2004; Gaertner& Dovidio, 2000, for a review; Gonzalez & Brown, 2003;Nier, Gaertner, Dovidio, Banker, & Ward, 2001). How-ever, almost all of the research on the Common IngroupIdentity Model has focused on the effects of group repre-sentations on intergroup attitudes (cf. Dovidio, Gaertner,Validzic, & Matoka, 1997; Klandermans, Sabucedo, &

Rodriguez, 2004; Nier et al., 2001). Intergroup contactdoes not necessarily translate into intergroup actions ororientations. For example, Jackman and Crane (1986)demonstrated that whereas greater intergroup contact pre-dicted more positive attitudes and feelings of Whitestoward Blacks in the U.S., contact had limited, frequentlynonsignificant, relationships with racial policy views. Morerecent research has also yielded mixed results. Brown,Brown, Jackson, Sellers, and Manuel (2003) found a posi-tive relationship between the amount of Whites’ contactwith Blacks on athletic teams and support for racial prefer-ences in college scholarships but not for government sup-port for Blacks in general. Jackman and Crane (1986)speculated that the differential effects of intergroup contacton intergroup bias and racial policy views was likely relatedto different underlying dynamics involved in the interper-sonal orientation associated with Whites’ attitudes towardBlacks and the group-level orientation of racial policyviews.

Pursuing Jackman and Crane’s (1986) arguments aboutthe importance of collective orientations for policy sup-port, we explored the role of one potential group-level con-sequence of perceptions of intergroup contact, grouprepresentations, on social policy support. Specifically, thepresent study examined the possibility that the strengthsof the different representations identified in the CommonIngroup Identity Model—one-group, dual-identity (i.e.,two groups within one), different-groups, and separate-individuals representations—can relate to Canadians’ dif-ferent orientations toward national and international poli-cies within the context of the war against terror. In general,we hypothesized that the relationship between intergroupcontact and social policy support can better be understoodby examining how groups are perceived in relation to oneanother and how these group-level representations maponto the nature of specific social policies. The social poli-cies we examined all related to the issue of combating ter-rorism but differed systematically in the proposedmechanisms.

In the wake of the terrorist attacks in the U.S., Australia,Spain and England, Canadians are now more than everfaced with the challenge of implementing policies and pro-grams designed to counter all forms of potential terroriststrikes. For Canadians, the political issue has not beenwhether new policies are needed to protect against terroristattacks, but rather the debate has focused on how Canadashould work with the U.S. to ensure intercontinental secu-rity (Canada Privy Council, 2004; Hamilton, 2005). Accord-ing to national polls, Canadians express mixed views on bi-national antiterrorist policies. Their support for harmonizedmilitary, immigration and security measures varies widely(Parkin, 2002) and reflects different priorities. Some Canadi-ans oppose these measures for fear that they may result indiminished national and cultural sovereignty (Parkin,2002). All in all, Canadians are divided on how they wishto relate with Americans in an effort to safeguard NorthAmerica from the threat of terror.

810 A.M. Beaton et al. / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 44 (2008) 808–817

In general, social categorization can account for atti-tudes toward different courses of action when groups arecompelled to work or live together. More specifically,employees from different ethnic backgrounds (Huo, Smith,Tyler, & Lind, 1996) or residents of multi-ethnic communi-ties (Huo, 2003) who identify strongly with a superordinatecategory (i.e., the work organization or as Americans) aremore likely to support courses of action that promote posi-tive relationships with others within the self-relevant socialgroup. For instance, results of a survey study revealed thatthe more strongly Whites identified with a superordinategroup membership (i.e., Americans), the more support theyexpressed for affirmative action to benefit minorities (Smith& Tyler, 1996, Study 1); the more strongly minority groupmembers identified with a superordinate identity, that it,their work organization, the more important harmoniousrelationships was to them relative to personal gains (Huoet al., 1996). Thus, recategorization into a more inclusivesuperordinate category leads individuals to support direc-tives that foster affinities among members of their referencegroup.

Research to date, however, has not fully explored theinfluence of each level of group representations, as pre-sented in the Common Ingroup Identity Model, on policypreferences. Thus, the present investigation builds uponprevious research on intergroup contact and policy supportby examining group-level mediators. Theoretically, thepresent research extends previous work on the CommonIngroup Identity Model by focusing on the ways that thedifferent types of cognitive representations of the groupscan influence different kinds of responses, specifically onesrelated to national policy. Previous research on the Com-mon Ingroup Identity Model has typically examined theeffects of inclusive (i.e., one-group and dual-identity) repre-sentations, relative to exclusive (i.e., different-groups) rep-resentations on a particular response, most usuallyevaluations of ingroup and outgroup members (Gaertner& Dovidio, 2000). We propose that the various representa-tions identified in the Common Ingroup Identity Modelpredict alternative action tendencies, which can be reflectedin social policies. In this sense, the present study representsa first comprehensive test of the influence of all of the dif-ferent group representations specified in the model on atti-tudes toward social policies.

In the present research, Canadian college students com-pleted a survey that assessed their perceptions of the inter-group contact with Americans and their representations ofthe nations (see Gaertner, Rust, Dovidio, Bachman, &Anastasio, 1994, 1996). In addition, respondents were askedtheir level of endorsement to various policies tied to the waragainst terror. Policy descriptions reflected measures meantto focus on citizens outside of North America to prevent ter-rorism (i.e., North American force, Canadian force) or mea-sures to combat terrorism that focus on North Americanresidents (i.e., citizen management initiatives). The NorthAmerican force policy reflected a joint effort between Can-ada and the United States in which, for example, ‘‘Canadian

armed forces would team up with the American armedforces to take part in a joint North American force.’’ TheCanadian force policy focused on contributions by Canadato combat terrorism generally, for instance by deploying‘‘special forces units in strategic areas around the worldwhere terrorists are known to operate.’’ Indeed, some haveclaimed that Canada needs to participate in the NorthAmerican security mission by adopting means to preventterrorism from infiltrating the U.S. from the north and byinvesting in its military capabilities (Nunez, 2004). Citizenmanagement initiatives were individual-focused mecha-nisms, such as phone-tapping, to curtail terrorism.

Based on previous findings (Dovidio et al., 2003; Gaert-ner et al., 1994, Gaertner, Rust, Dovidio, Bachman, &Anastasio, 1996), we predicted that Canadians who per-ceived the quality of intergroup contact with citizens ofthe United States more positively would relate to lower sal-ience of original group boundaries. Specifically, more posi-tive perceptions of contact were expected to predict greaterendorsement of the nations as represented by a one-groupidentity, a dual-identity, and as separate individuals, as wellas to predict less endorsement of the representation of thenations as two different groups. Previous studies (Dovidio,Gaertner, & Validzic, 1998; Eller & Abrams, 2003, 2004)have also revealed significant correlations among specificgroup representations. One-group representations posi-tively correlated with dual-identity and separate-individualsrepresentations and negatively related to different-grouprepresentations. Therefore, based on these findings, we haveadded these expected relationships to our statistical model.

We further hypothesized that these cognitive representa-tions of intergroup boundaries would predict support forpolicies associated with different strategies to wage thewar on terror. In general, we expected that each represen-tation would best predict the antiterrorist policy whosemechanisms corresponded most closely to the type of inter-group relation reflected in the representation. Specifically,we predicted that more inclusive, one-group representationswould primarily mediate support for a unified form of col-laboration with Americans, the North American force. Wepredicted that greater endorsement of a different-groups

representation, which is associated with intergroup distrust(Insko, Kirchner, & Pinter, 2005), would relate negativelyto policies that require a joint partnership with Americans.Therefore, we predicted that greater endorsement of a dif-ferent-groups representation would mediate opposition tostrategies that entail close rapport, involved in the North

American force antiterrorist policy.We further expected that the alternative form of recate-

gorization that maintained the original group identity, thedual-identity representation whereby Canadians valuedboth their subgroup (i.e., national) and shared (i.e., NorthAmerican) memberships, would predict Canadians’engagement to the North American efforts against terror,albeit with the subgroup interests in mind. In a study con-ducted by Eggins et al. (2002, Study 2), positive intergroupfunctioning occurred within a superordinate category when


each subgroup was given the opportunity to achieve andmaintain a positive and distinct social identity. In otherwords, within a dual-identity social categorization, favor-able intergroup outcomes emerge because each subgroupmembership plays an important role in guiding the rela-tions within the context of an overarching shared identity.These authors conclude that ‘‘the most productive out-comes may be obtained via processes that emphasize asuperordinate perspective in the context of a full explora-tion of interparty difference’’ (Eggins, Haslam, & Rynolds,2002, p. 898). We therefore propose that the dual-identitygroup representation would primarily mediate supportfor efforts meant to address Canada’s shared security needswith the U.S. but with a focus on the Canadian force anti-terrorist unique contribution.

Although the separate-individuals representation doesnot translate into positive intergroup collaborative out-comes (Eggins et al., 2002), we hypothesized this form ofrepresentation shapes Canadians’ attitudes toward a differ-ent set of antiterrorist measures, at a different level of socialcategorization. Specifically, we predicted that the separate-individuals representation would primarily mediate theantiterrorism policy focusing on individual North Ameri-can residents, the citizen management initiatives. In addi-tion, a link was expected between the policies thatinvolve mutual collaboration among all parties concernedfor their successful implementation, that is, the North

American force, and citizen management initiatives. Weexamined the overall model of hypothesized relations witha structural equation analysis (see Fig. 1).

Method

Participants

A total of 360 Canadian undergraduate students (59.2%women, 36.9% men, 3.9% gender unspecified) completed a

Fig. 1. Postula

survey on their attitudes toward Americans and the war onterror.

Procedure

Participants, who volunteered for the study, completed aquestionnaire in a large classroom. The questionnaire wasframed as a study on attitudes toward Americans and opin-ions concerning the war on terror. Items were presented toreflect the different components of the postulated model.Unless otherwise indicated, participants were invited toreact to items with a 7-point rating scale, whereby ‘‘1’’referred to ‘‘not at all’’ and ‘‘7’’ represented ‘‘absolutely.’’Correlations among variables and descriptive statisticsare presented in Table 1.

Contact conditions

To represent the contact conditions posited in the Con-tact Hypothesis (Allport, 1954), perceptions of intergroupcontact conditions included items originally developed byGreen, Adams, and Turner (1988). These items have beenused in their original and adapted forms in previousresearch on the Common Ingroup Identity Model anddeemed critical for reducing bias (Gaertner et al., 1994,1996; see Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000). These 18 itemsreflected the following conditions of contact (see Table 2for a complete list of items): (a) equal status (b) cooperativeinterdependence (c) degree of interaction between thegroups and (d) supportive norms. On the basis of Petti-grew’s (1998; Pettigrew and Tropp, 2006) reformulationof intergroup contact theory, which identifies intergroupfriendship as an additional fundamental element of inter-group contact that can successfully reduce bias, two itemsassessing intergroup friendship were also included as anelement of perceptions of the contact conditions. For the20-item scale, higher scores represented more favorableperceptions of intergroup contact (Cronbach alpha = .78).

ted model.

Table 1Correlations, means (M), standard deviation (SD), skewness and kurtosis of all latent variables

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Contact Conditions — .34** .38** �.20** .33** .29** .25** .17**

One-group — .31** �.41** .45** .32** .24** .26**

Dual-identity — .04 .15** .20** .18** .12*

Different-groups — �.15** �.10 �.04 �.11*

Separate-individuals — .23** .09 .14*

North American force — .58** .47**

Canadian force — .60**

Citizen management initiatives —

M 4.47 3.58 4.32 4.67 5.57 4.29 4.03 3.70SD 0.57 1.40 0.91 1.17 1.30 1.25 1.12 1.28Skewness �.08 .04 �.10 �.47 �1.19 � .51 �.29 �.09Kurtosis .11 �.59 .53 .40 1.59 .30 .23 �.01

* p < .05.** p < .01.

Table 2Contact conditions items

1. The United Nations deals fairly with Canadian and American governments (equal status)2. Canadian and U.S. governments are treated equally by the United Nations (equal status)3. Canadians in general are treated fairly by the U.S. government (equal status)4. Americans in general are treated fairly by the Canadian government (equal status)5. In general, within North America, Canadians and Americans are treated equally (equal status)6. Americans and Canadians have much in common (cooperative interdependence)7. Americans and Canadians need each other (cooperative interdependence)8. Americans and Canadians have important things to offer each other (cooperative interdependence)9. I have many opportunities to interact with other Americans (degree of interaction)10. My Canadian friends would think badly of me if they knew I had American friends (degree of interaction)*

11. I would talk to an American student only if I had to (degree of interaction)*

12. The United Nations encourages good relations between the U.S. and Canada (supportive norms)13. The Canadian government values good relations with the U.S. (supportive norms)14. The Canadian government considers fair trade with the U.S. as important (supportive norms)15. The Canadian government considers the U.S. as a valuable ally (supportive norms)16. The American government values good relations with Canada (supportive norms)17. The American government considers fair trade with Canada as important (supportive norms)18. The American government considers Canada as a valuable ally (supportive norms)19. I would like to have more Americans as my friends (friendship)20. How many Americans would you count among your friends?** (friendship)

* Score was reversed.** Possible options were: 0 American friends, 1–3 American friends, 4–6 American friends, 6 or more American friends.


Cognitive representations of intergroup boundaries

Participants were also asked about their different repre-sentations of the relationship between Canadians andAmericans. Based on previous work (Gaertner et al.,1994, 1996), each four group representation was assessedwith two items: (a) one-group (‘‘The distinction betweenCanadians and Americans is artificial. We are all NorthAmericans now’’; ‘‘I don’t think of people in terms of beingCanadians or Americans, only as people who are now partof one group—North Americans’’); (b) dual-identity(‘‘Canadians and Americans are different groups, butworking together to strengthen North America’’; ‘‘I believethat Canadians and Americans can have separate identi-ties, but only when they are also committed to NorthAmerica’’); (c) different-groups (‘‘Canadians and Ameri-cans are basically separate groups’’; ‘‘Canadians are differ-ent in fundamental ways than Americans’’); and (d)

separate-individuals (‘‘I do not see people as Canadiansor Americans, only as unique individuals’’; ‘‘Whether aperson is a Canadian or an American is unimportant; allthat matters is who they are as a person’’).

Policy support

The items relating to policy support were designed torepresent support for three types of efforts relating to per-sonal and national security: North American force, Cana-dian force, and citizen management initiatives.

North American force

Support for a unified North American antiterrorist cam-paign was measured with four items. Respondents wereasked to react to strategies designed to form the followingfour different agencies: a North American armed force unit(‘‘To combat terrorism, we would combine Canadian and


American armed forces to create a new ‘‘Department ofNorth American Defense’’ (D.N.A.D.) whereby Americansand Canadians would combine their military resources andcapabilities to work as one North American militaryunit.’’), a North American immigration unit (‘‘To combatterrorism, we would create a new ‘‘Department of NorthAmerican Immigration’’ (D.N.A.I.) whereby Americansand Canadians would combine their immigration servicesto work as one North American unit to manage immigra-tion and asylum policies and border controls.’’), a NorthAmerican intelligence unit (‘‘To combat terrorism, wewould create a new ‘‘Directorate of North American Intel-ligence’’ (D.N.A.I.) whereby Americans and Canadianswould combine their intelligence agencies to work as oneNorth American intelligence unit.), and a North Americansecurity unit (‘‘To combat terrorism, we would create anew ‘‘Department of North American Security’’(D.N.A.S.) whereby Americans and Canadians wouldcombine their national security agencies to work as oneunit designed to protect North American security.’’).Greater agreement with items represented higher levels ofendorsement for North American joint antiterrorist efforts(Cronbach alpha = .80).

Canadian force

Respondents were presented with four different Cana-dian efforts designed to combat terrorism. Two items dealtwith military initiatives (‘‘To combat terrorism, Canadawould strengthen its military capabilities by increasinginvestment into military equipment and operations.’’;‘‘To combat terrorism, Canada would deploy special forcesunits in strategic areas around the world where terroristcells are known to operate.’’). In addition, two itemsassessed attitudes toward Canadian antiterrorist immigra-tion practices (‘‘To combat terrorism, the Canadian gov-ernment would be given the power to hold foreignerswho violate immigration laws, for 48 h, without havingto present a charge against them.’’; ‘‘To combat terrorism,the Canadian government would be given the power totrack foreign students who have arrived in Canada. Forinstance, a foreign student tracking system would ensurethat the student has in fact enrolled in school.’’). Higherscores on these items reflect more support for Canadianefforts (Cronbach alpha = .70).

Citizen management initiativesIndividual-focused initiatives were also included in the

questionnaire. Respondents were invited to react to mea-sures designed to confer greater powers to governments(‘‘To combat terrorism, the Canadian government wouldbe given more leeway by overruling courts or overridingcivil liberties for the sake of security.’’) and to the police(‘‘To combat terrorism, the police would be conferrednew powers of detention and investigation such as phonetapping, wiretapping or preventive arrests in an event ofsuspected terrorists.’’). Higher scores represent greater sup-port for initiatives meant to focus on individual citizens.

Data analyses

A structural equation model was conducted with theEQS for Windows (version 6.1) statistical package. Theraw data was submitted to the robust maximum likelihoodestimation technique to test the postulated model. Thisanalysis yields a chi-square statistic, a measure of discrep-ancy between observed and model-implied covariances,commonly known to be a direct function of sample size.Specifically, the chi-square, although grounded in largesample theory, underestimates the fit of models tested withsample sizes over 200 participants, even when differencesbetween sample and model-implied covariances are trivial(Kline, 2005). Consequently, researchers have advocatedfor a more pragmatic approach to the evaluation processby turning to practical fit indices (Hu & Bentler, 1999;McDonald & Ho, 2002). The normed chi-square statistic(Bollen, 1989; Kline, 2005) and three goodness-of-fit statis-tics were selected due to their ability to resist sample bias(Hu & Bentler, 1999) and account for parsimony (Kline,2005). A normed chi-square under 2.0 represents a reason-able fit (Bollen, 1989). The selected goodness-of-fit statis-tics included the robust comparative-fit-index (RCFI), thenon-normed fit index (NNFI) and the root-mean squareerror of approximation (RMSEA). Hu and Bentler (1999)propose that cut-off values which reveal a good fit to thedata are .95 for the RCFI, and NNFI and values below.06 for the RMSEA.

Results

Ten multivariate and univariate outliers were detectedand deleted from the data set. Consequently, the analyseswere conducted with a total of 350 participants.

The full structural equation model yields an acceptablefit to the data (S-Bv2 (216) = 270.98, p = .007; Normed S-Bv2 (216) = 1.3; RCFI = .96; NNFI = .95; RMSEA = .03)with one modification added to the measurement model(see Table 3). Specifically, a correlation was added betweenthe error terms for the variables Degree of interaction andFriendship. We expect that this relationship is due to theinterpersonal relationship implicit and common to bothcontact conditions. Results of the measurement modelare presented in Table 2. The standardized solution ofthe structural model is presented in Fig. 2. All path andmeasurement coefficients are statistically significant(p < .05).

Overall, the findings obtained in the mediation analysiswith structural equation modeling are consistent with pre-dictions. According to results (see Fig. 2), contact condi-tions were associated with all four types of cognitiverepresentations of intergroup boundaries. Canadian partic-ipants who reported having more favorable perceptions ofthe contact conditions with Americans had higher ratingsof one-group, dual-identity, and separate-individuals repre-sentations and lower ratings of the different-group represen-tation of Americans and Canadians. The final model further

Table 3Standardized coefficients and error for the measurement model

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Error

1. Contact conditions

Equal status .66 .75Supportive norms .80 .59Cooperative interdependence .66 .75Degree of interaction .19 .98Friendship .23 .97

2. One-group

One 1 .65 .76One 2 .60 .80

3. Dual-identity

Dual 1 .33 .95Dual 2 .77 .64

4. Different-groups

Sep 1 .46 .89Sep 2 .73 .69

5. Separate-individuals

Ind 1 .65 .76Ind 2 .79 .62

6. North American force

N.A. immigration unit (Unity 1) .71 .70N.A. security unit (Unity 2) .74 .67N.A. intelligence unit (Unity 3) .64 .77N.A. armed force unit (Unity 4) .70 .72

7. Canadian force

Canadian military investment (Can 1) .45 .89Deploy Canadian forces (Can 2) .50 .87Power to detain foreigners (Can 3) .70 .72Power to track foreigners (Can 4) .73 .69

8. Citizen management initiatives

Greater power conferred to governments (Citiz 1) .47 .88Greater power conferred to police (Citiz 2) .43 .90

Correlated measurement error: Degree of interaction, Friendship = .47.

Fig. 2. Standardized solution of the final structural model.


contains the predicted correlations among the group repre-sentations. In turn, all four cognitive representations of theintergroup boundaries have implications on attitudes

toward antiterrorist policies. As expected, the more Cana-dian participants endorsed the one-group representation,the more they supported a combined North American strat-


egy to fight terrorism. Conversely, support for a different-group perspective was associated with opposition to aNorth American antiterrorist strategy. In addition, partici-pants who had higher ratings of a dual-identity had morepositive attitudes toward Canadian antiterrorist contribu-tions. Finally, respondents who reported higher separate-individuals representations endorsed to a greater extentantiterrorist measures that focus on individual citizens. Asexpected, the policies which involve a form of collaboration,the North American security force, and citizen managementinitiatives, were found to be associated.

Because the key measures were assessed within thesame session, alternative models were tested. A first testwas conducted in which the structural paths werereversed. The alternative model had a less than optimalfit to the data, including an increase in the S-Bv2 statistic(S-Bv2 (216) = 323.42, p < .001, DS-Bv2 = 52.44; NormedS-Bv2 = 1.5; RCFI = .91; NNFI = .89, RMSEA = .04).More importantly, the cognitive representations werenot all significantly associated with contact conditionsand policy support did not all predict group representa-tions. A second alternative model was specified by addinga link from the dual-identity representation to the NorthAmerican force as well as a path connecting one-group tothe Canadian force policy. According to results althoughthe model did reveal an improvement in overall fit(S-Bv2 (214) = 252.71, p = .04, DS-Bv2 = 18.27; NormedS-Bv2 = 1.2; RCFI = .97; NNFI = .96, RMSEA = .03),both path coefficients did not reach significance, asrevealed by the z test statistic, which evaluates the impor-tance of path coefficients (dual-identity and North Amer-ican Force, z = 1.38, p > .05; one-group and Canadianforce policy, z = .27, p > .05). In a third alternative model,a parameter between the different-groups representationand the Canadian force policy was added and did notyield a significant result (z = .06, p > .05). Finally, a lastalternative model was assessed whereby a link was addedbetween separate-individuals and the North Americanforce antiterrorist policy. The path coefficient was not sig-nificant (z = �1.01, p > .05). Consequently our finalmodel was retained (see Fig. 2).1

Discussion

Whereas previous research on intergroup contact hasfocused largely on group attitudes (Pettigrew & Tropp,2006) and has found inconsistent relationships with socialpolicy support (Brown et al., 2003; Jackman & Crane,1986), the present study examined how group representa-tions, as outlined in the Common Ingroup Identity Model,can provide conceptual insight into how intergroup contactcan relate to national security policy orientations. As pre-

1 Further analysis was conducted to test an alternative model wherebyeach contact condition represents a latent factor. However, the structuralequation modeling solution did not converge and provided less thanreliable and stable results than in our final model (Fig. 2).

dicted, more favorable perceptions of conditions of inter-group contact were associated with greater endorsementof one-group, dual-identity, and separate-individuals repre-sentations, as well as with less support for different-groupsrepresentations. Group representations were also associ-ated: One-group categorization was positively related todual-identity and separate-individuals but negatively linkedto different-groups. In turn, group representationsaccounted for reactions to antiterrorist policies. Whereasa one-group representation mediated support for a NorthAmerican security force, a different-group representationwas associated with opposition to a united North Ameri-can arrangement. In addition, dual-identity is a uniquemediator for support for a Canadian contribution toaddress North American security needs. Finally, the sepa-rate-individuals representation played an exclusive mediat-ing role in the support for citizen management initiatives.All in all, the findings were in line with predictions, thatthe various representations identified in the CommonIngroup Identity Model mediated the relationship betweencontact conditions and alternative action tendencies withinthe context of the war on terror, and better accounted formodel-fit over and beyond less specific alternative models.

This study extends previous research on the CommonIngroup Identity Model by going beyond the evidence thatrecategorization can produce more favorable intergroupattitudes to demonstrate that each type of representationin the model can influence support for different types ofantiterrorism policies. Adding a level of greater conceptualcomplexity, our findings indicate that different representa-tions can simultaneously mediate the strength of supportfor different national policies relating to combating terror-ism and that the different representations identified in themodel (one-group, dual-identity, different-groups, and sep-arate-individuals representations) map onto theoretically-linked reactions. Practically, the present work illustratesthat responses to other groups may be multifaceted, repre-senting a mixture of different responses, beyond simply asummative evaluation. The extension of this line ofresearch to policy endorsement is also valuable because,as Mackie and Smith (1998), who reviewed research raisingquestions about the links among cognitions, evaluations,and behavior, concluded that ‘‘the time is ripe for socialpsychologists to look more closely at the relations betweenintergroup cognitions and intergroup behavior, and theirimplications for intergroup relations’’ (p. 424). The presentresearch provides such evidence and helps illuminate howthe relationship between intergroup contact and social pol-icy support can be more fully understood by consideringthe mediating role of group representations and the specificdynamics, not simply the ultimate goal, of particular socialpolicies. These responses can have further impact on inter-group relations; social policies can affect the subsequentnature of intergroup contact, setting in motion processesthat will shape intergroup relations in the future.

These findings should be viewed as a glimpse, within agiven point in time, of an intergroup process of shifting


affinities and networks across time (Pettigrew, 1998). Inparticular, we found that within the same set of partici-pants, the extent to which people experienced relationsbetween Canadians and Americans as one-group, twogroups working together (a dual-identity), different-groups,or separate- individuals differentially predicted support forpolicies to combat terrorism. As public opinion polls sug-gest, group representations fluctuate. For instance, follow-ing the September 11 2001 terrorist attacks, Canadiansreported greater affinity with Americans than prior to thetragedy (Parkin, 2002). To better understand how grouprepresentations and ensuing support for national policiesand priorities change, we believe further work is neededit to consider how ‘‘larger societal setting of the situation’’(Pettigrew, 1998, p. 76) affects intergroup perceptions andattitudes. For instance, common adversity (Dovidioet al., 2004) has been found to affect intergroup percep-tions. The next step is to examine whether these factorsare powerful enough to account for shifts in the perceptionof the aggregate, over and beyond contact conditionswithin the context of the global war on terror.

A further promising path of enquiry is to expand on thenature of contact conditions. As research has revealed,contact does not have to be exclusively intimate or directto produce an effect on intergroup perceptions (Wright,Aron, McLaughlin-Volpe, & Ropp, 1997). In fact, thereis evidence that direct contact or exposure through mass-mediated communication can effect intergroup bias (Schi-appa, Gregg, & Hewes, 2005). Whether mass-media expo-sure to members of an outgroup is sufficiently powerfulto predict perceptions of group representations and ensu-ing reactions to policies and social orientations has yet tobe investigated. This investigation can be particularlyappealing for members of social groups who have limitedopportunity for interpersonal contact.

In summary, the present study reveals the impact ofintergroup affinity and discord on policy orientations.Findings from this study support the Common IngroupIdentity Model and uncover its ability to account for atti-tudes toward national policies on the war against terror.Favorable perceptions of contact conditions and grouprepresentations are factors which help us better understandhow some Canadians come to conclude that in an era ofglobal terror, we are indeed, all in this together.

References

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York:Wiley.

Brown, K. T., Brown, T. N., Jackson, J. S., Sellers, R. M., & Manuel, W.J. (2003). Teammates on and off the field? White student athletes.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 1379–1403.

Canada Privy Council (2004). Securing an open society: Canada’s nationalsecurity policy. Ottawa: Government of Canada (online) RetrievedNovember 5, 2005, from http://www.natsecurenat_e.pdf.

Center for Research and Information on Canada (2004). Relations withthe United States and international objectives. (online) Retrieved

November 5, 2005, from http://www.cric.ca/en_re/portraits/archives.html.

Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Kawakami, K. (2003). The ContactHypothesis: The past, present, and the future. Group Processes and

Intergroup Relations, 6, 5–21.Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Validzic, A. (1998). Intergroup bias:

Status, differentiation, and a common ingroup identity. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 109–120.Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Validzic, A., & Matoka, K. (1997).

Extending the benefits of recategorization: Evaluations, self-disclosure,and helping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 401–420.

Dovidio, J. F., ten Vergert, M., Stewart, T. L., Gaertner, S. L., Johnson, J.D., Esses, V. M., et al. (2004). Perspective and prejudice: Antecedentsand mediating mechanisms. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

30, 1537–1549.Eggins, R. A., Haslam, S. A., & Rynolds, K. J. (2002). Social identity and

negotiation: Subgroup representation and superordinate consensus.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 887–899.

Eller, A., & Abrams, D. (2003). Gringos in Mexico: Cross-sectional andlongitudinal effects of language school-promoted contact on inter-group bias. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6, 55–75.

Eller, A., & Abrams, D. (2004). Come together: Longitudinal comparisonsof Pettigrew’s reformulated intergroup contact model and the Com-mon Ingroup Identity Model in Anglo-French and Mexican-Americancontexts. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 229–256.

Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The

common ingroup identity model. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.Gaertner, S. L., Mann, J. A., Murrell, A. J., & Dovidio, J. F. (1989).

Reduction of intergroup bias: The benefits of recategorization. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 239–249.Gaertner, S. L., Rust, M. C., Dovidio, J. F., Bachman, B. A., & Anastasio,

P. A. (1994). The contact hypothesis: The role of a common ingroupidentity on reducing intergroup bias. Small Groups Research, 25,224–249.

Gaertner, S. L., Rust, M. C., Dovidio, J. F., Bachman, B. A., &Anastasio, P. A. (1996). The Contact Hypothesis: The role of acommon ingroup identity on reducing intergroup bias amongmajority and minority group members. In J. L. Nye & A. M.Brower (Eds.), What’s social about social cognition? (pp. 230–360).CA: Sage: Newbury Park.

Gatehouse, J. (2002). November 25. America lite: Is that our future?Maclean’s, 18–22.

Gonzalez, R., & Brown, R. (2003). Generalization of positive attitude as afunction of subgroup and superordinate group identifications inintergroup contact. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33,195–214.

Green, C. W., Adams, A. M., & Turner, C. W. (1988). Development andvalidation of the School Interracial Climate Scale. American Journal of

Community Psychology, 16, 241–259.Hamilton, L.H. (2005). Global realities: American power in an uncertain

world. The C.Warren Goldring Annual Lecture on Canada-U.S.relations. (online). Retrieved May 27, 2006, from http://www.theca-nadianinstitute.ca/e/goldring_lectures/gl_2005.html.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariancestructure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives.Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

Huo, Y. J. (2003). Procedural justice and social regulation acrossgroup boundaries: Does subgroup identity undermine relationship-based governance? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29,336–348.

Huo, Y. J., Smith, H. J., Tyler, T. R., & Lind, A. (1996). Superordinateidentification, subgroup identification, and justice concerns: Is sepa-ratism the problem? Is assimilation the answer? Psychological Science,

7, 40–45.Insko, C. A., Kirchner, J. L., & Pinter, B. (2005). Interindividual-

intergroup discontinuity as a function of trust and categorization: Theparadox of expected cooperation. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 88, 365–385.

http://www.natsecurenat_e.pdf

http://www.cric.ca/en_re/portraits/archives.html

http://www.cric.ca/en_re/portraits/archives.html

http://www.thecanadianinstitute.ca/e/goldring_lectures/gl_2005.html

http://www.thecanadianinstitute.ca/e/goldring_lectures/gl_2005.html


Jackman, M. R., & Crane, M. (1986). ‘Some of my best friends areBlack. . .’: Interracial friendship and Whites’ racial attitudes. Public

Opinion Quarterly, 50, 459–486.Klandermans, B., Sabucedo, J. M., & Rodriguez, M. (2004). Inclusiveness

of identification among farmers in The Netherlands and Galicia(Spain). European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 279–295.

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling

(2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.Lalonde, R. N. (2002). Testing the social identity-intergroup differentia-

tion hypothesis: ‘‘We’re not American eh!’’. British Journal of Social

Psychology, 41, 611–630.Mackie, D. M., & Smith, E. R. (1998). Intergroup cognition and

intergroup behavior’’ Crossing the boundaries. In C. Sedikides, J.Schopler, & C. A. Insko (Eds.), Intergroup cognition and intergroup

behavior (pp. 423–450). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M.-H. R. (2002). Principles and practice in

reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7,64–82.

Nier, J., Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Banker, B., & Ward, C. M. (2001).Changing interracial evaluations and behavior: The effects of acommon ingroup identity. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 4,299–316.

Nunez, J. R. (2004). Canada’s global role: A strategic assessment of itsmilitary power. Parameters, 34, 75–93.

Parkin, A. (2002). Security vs. sovereignty: The evolution of publicopinion after September 11. Centre for Research and Information onCanada. Presented at the conference entitled: September 11th 2001:The impact and aftermath for Canada and Canadians. September 12-14, 2002, Ottawa, Ontario.

Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of

Psychology, 49, 65–85.Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of Intergroup

Contact Theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90,751–783.

Schiappa, E., Gregg, P. B., & Hewes, D. E. (2005). The parasocial contacthypothesis. Communication Monographs, 72, 92–115.

Smith, H. J., & Tyler, T. R. (1996). Justice and power: When willjustice concerns encourage the advantaged to support policieswhich redistribute economic resources and the disadvantaged towillingly obey the law? European Journal of Social Psychology, 26,171–200.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroupconflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of

intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.Wright, S. C., Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., & Ropp, S. A. (1997).

The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendshipsand prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73,73–90.

All in this together? Group representations and policy support

Documents

Transcript of All in this together? Group representations and policy support