Ann. Rev. Psychol. 1989. 40:45-81 Copyright 1989by AnnualReviews Inc. All rights reserved
INTERGROUP RELATIONS Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1989.40:45-81. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft on 09/07/06. For personal use only.
David M. Messick
and Diane M. Mackie
Department of Psychology, University of California,Santa Barbara, California 93106
INTRODUCTION When people are judged, either singly or together, on the basis of group memberships, intergroupprocesses are involved. This review, whichfollows those of Tajfel (1982) andBrewer &Kramer (1985), is structuredto highlight four researchfoci currentlyreceivingintense attention. Thestudy of intergroup relations, like many other areas of research in social psychology,has acquireda distinctly cognitive tone. We accentuate this cognitive atmosphere both to portraycurrent thinking about intergroup processesandto signal ouroptimism that the cognitive approach will fruitful45 0066-4308/89/0201-0045502.00
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1989.40:45-81. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft on 09/07/06. For personal use only.
ly augment traditional approaches. The backbone of the chapter is the study of the way information about groups (categories) and their members is represented mentally. This approach promises fresh ideas about improving relations between groups and mayelucidate underlying processes. Wereview the effect of categorization on the perceptionof the variability or heterogeneityof group members. Also important is the effect of categorization on tendencies to differentiate behaviorally betweenmembers of different categories, particularly in-group and out-group members.Weaddress the difficult but crucial issue of extracting principles from this research that can be applied to improve the relations amonggroups. Weconclude by noting some inroads that intergroup theory has made in other research domains, and by listing some research questions that appear especially timely.
COGNITIVE REPRESENTATIONS OF SOCIAL CATEGORIES
Cognitive representations of groups are assumed to be multiple-element (typically a category label, attributes, and/or exemplars)structures with both horizontal links, connectingrelated concepts at a similar level of generality, and vertical ones, reflecting the hierarchical progression from moreto less inclusive categories. The encoding and retrieval of these representations is assumed to underlie judgments about groups and group members, which in turn guide intergroup behavior. In this section we review recent modelsof the information stored in category representations, progress in uncoveringtheir cognitive and affective content, and the implications for intergroup perception of classification at subordinate compared to superordinate categories.
Models of Category Representation
Category representations have traditionally been conceptualized as a category label linked to an abstracted prototypeor list of the features assumed to be true of the group as a whole(the group stereotype). Suchgroup-level information is assumedto derive from social learning or from multiple experiences with individual category members,about whom information is not stored (Posner & Keele 1968; Reed 1972). Prototype models of social stereotypes have been widely used in social psychology, and the storage of knowledgeabout a group as central-tendency information has been assumedto play a major role in stereotyped judgments. However, people can make estimates about how variable a group is, so prototype models must be complementedor supplanted by models that include variability information (E. E. Smith & Medin1981; Posner & Keele 1968). Mixedmodels (Estes 1986; Hayes-Roth & Hayes-Roth1977; Fried Holyoak 1984; Flannagan et al 1986), in which both central-tendency and
frequency information are stored, and pure exemplar models(Hintzman1986; Medin& Schaffer 1978; Elio & Anderson1981), in which only information about individual category members is stored, have recently been proposed as better representations of social categories (Linville et al 1986, 1988; Park Hastie 1987; Rothbart & John 1985; Smith & Zarate 1988). Linvilles (Linville et al 1986, 1988) multiple-exemplar model includes both specific instances of the category and abstracted subtypes. In contrast to the use of prototypes, in whicha single abstracted set of features is stored about a category, this approach suggests that individual exemplarsas well as abstracted subtypes might be stored. Judgmentsabout the group as a whole (including variability judgments) are made by retrieving and integrating information about exemplars. Rothbart (1988; Rothbart & John 1985) also proposed that judgmentsabout a groups attributes maybe madeby integrating those "episodes" from memory most strongly associated with the category label (Wilder & Shapiro 1984; Lord et al 1984). Although pure exemplar models have proven useful for studying group variability, mixedmodelsseem more appropriate for several reasons (Lingle et al 1984; Smith& Zarate 1988). First, strict prototype and strict exemplar modelsboth predict a substantial relation betweenjudgmentsof the group as a whole and judgments of individual group members.However,Park & Hastie (1987) found judgmentsabout the variability of individual (out)group bers to be unrelated to judgments about the group as a whole (Allison Messick 1985; Judd & Park 1988; although there are problems in comparing judgmentsat the different levels). Second, whereasvariability judgmentspose problemsfor strict prototype models, strong versions of exemplar modelsare inconsistent with the possibility that at least somejudgmentsabout groups are madeand stored as information is received (on-line), rather than on the basis of retrieval alone (Park Hastie 1987). Whenperceivers form coherent impressions of targets as information is received, incongruent information is likely to receive extra processing and thus be differentially recalled (Hastie 1980; Srull 1981). Such effects have been found wheninformation about cohesive, close-knit groups (such as political caucusesand fraternities) is received, but not when information about loosely related groups or aggregatesis processed (Srull et al 1985; Wyeret al 1984; see also Stem et al 1984). These findings suggest that on-line processing of coherent group-level impressions might occur for cohesive groups perceived as a unit, but not for aggregates. Group-level judgmentsabout aggregates, in which consistency is not expected, are therefore more likely to be memory based and subject to retrieval biases. For example,distinctiveness-based illusory correlations [the perception of a relationship between, for example, category membership and a particular feature, whenno such relationship exists (Hamilton &Sherman
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1989.40:45-81. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft on 09/07/06. For personal use only.
1988)] appear to be based on the overrecall of cooccurrences of distinctive targets and distinctive events [such as minority group members performing infrequent behaviors (Acorn et al 1988; Arkes & Rothbart 1985; Hamiltonet al 1985; Regan & Crawley 1984)]. These findings suggest that coherent impressions of laboratory groups labelled merely GroupA or GroupB are not formed on-line. However, illusory correlations do not develop whensubjects are explicitly told to form an impression of the group (Pryor 1986; Sanbonmatsu et al 1987). These findings suggest that group judgmentsare not always based on exemplarretrieval, but can occur via on-line processing. Third, pure exemplar modelscannot explain the social learning of grouplevel information ("big boys dont cry," "boys will be boys") in contrast learning from direct experience. Smith &Zarate (1988, Exp. 2) showedthat learning a group prototype before encountering individual exemplars increased use of prototype information in later judgments, while subjects who received information in the opposite order were morelikely to use exemplars. Similarly, Park & Hastie (1987, Exp. 2) found lower estimates of group variability when subjects received prototype before exemplar information than whenthe same information was presented in the opposite order. Someevidence regarding the factors that determine storage and use of exemplar compared to group-level information has appeared. In general, categorization cues, which highlight the group as a unit, appear to reduce incorporation of individual exemplarinformation into representations (Taylor et al 1978; Nesdale et al 1987; Miller 1986), whereasdrawing attention to individual members increases their inclusion. McCann et al (1985) found that heterogeneousstimulus groups (differing on g~nderand race and thus interfering with perception of the group as a unit) producedmoreclustering of recall by person (suggesting the presence of exemplarstructures in the representation) than homogeneous groups. Smith & Zarate (1988) found that structions to form an impression of each individual member increased use of exemplar information (comparedto memory instructions), although all subjects showedequally good learning of the groups prototypical attributes. Familiarity with particular targets might also be expectedto increase inclusion of exemplar information in representations (Hampson 1983; Pryor & Ostrom 1981; Pyror et al 1982). On the other hand, processing constraints such as time pressure or information overload are likely to increase formation of category-level representations (Medinet al 1984; Rothbart et al 1978). As noted above, exemplar-based representations produce memory-based judgmentsof greater variability, are moreeasily elaborated and differentiated than prototype representations, and are thus morelikely to produce veridical social perception. However because exceptions or inconsistent exemplarsare easily dealt with by subclassification in exemplar-based representations, exceptional features maybe less likely to become closely associated with the
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1989.40:45-81. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft on 09/07/06. For personal use only.
category label (Rothbart &Lewis 1988). In addition, on-line estimates group variability may be more accurate than judgments based on exemplar retrieval; if this is the case, a reduction in on-line group-level judgments caused by the increased processing of exemplars necessary to produce exemplar-basedrepresentations mayreduce accurate perception. Content of Group Representations
Investigation of the content of group representations has alwaysbeenhindered by the possibility of response biases, particularly in post-Civil Rights Movement Americansociety. For example, recent evidence from survey studies suggests that white Americans stereotypes of Blacks are becomingless prejudiced in content and less negative in affect (see Dovidio & Gaertner 1986). These results have been challenged by the argumentthat, although white Americans comply with egalitarian norms in rejecting blatant stereotypes, their underlyingattitudes and stereotypes are at worst unchanged and at best marked by unacknowledged ambivalence. Whites attitudes toward Blacks have been portrayed as markedby conflict betweenegalitarian values and unacknowledged negative feelings (Gaertner & Dovidio 1986b), betweenbeliefs that racism is bad and beliefs that Blacks are makingunfair demands now that most inequalities have been addressed (Kinder 1986; McConahay 1986), and between the positive and negative affect about them that has been internalized (Katz et al 1986). Social cognition techniques hold some promise of eliciting information about category content in a mannerthat is relatively nonreactive. For example, subjects maymakeevaluative (How good is this?) or nonevaluative (Is this a real word?) judgments or simple responses (Namethis word aloud) about trait words (AMBITIOUS, LAZY) displayed after presentation of category label (WHITES, BLACKS). Faster response times of such judgmentsindicate greater associative strength betweencategory labels and traits varying in stereotypicality and affect (Gaertner &McLaughlin 1983; Dovidio et al 1986). Thesestudies have shown that traits traditionally associated with Black and White stereotypes (Katz &Braly 1933) are still associated with category labels, suggesting that attitudes and beliefs have not changed markedly.In addition, positive adjectives are moreclosely associated with the category Whites, although evidence that negative traits are still moreclosely associated with the category Blacks is mixed(Gaertner &McLaughlin 1983; Dovidio et al 1986). Despitethese indications that for white students traditionally related adjectives are still closely associated with Blackand Whitecategories and that the category White is the more positive, these techniques have methodological and conceptualproblems.Tasksdiffer in the extent to whichthey are reactive, and delays between presentation of prime words and presentation of target
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1989.40:45-81. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft on 09/07/06. For personal use only.
words (stimulus onset asynchrony, SOA)plus the repetitive nature of the tasks might provide ample opportunity for respondents to pre-managetheir responses. Manipulation of SOA mayhelp distinguish automatic and attentional consequencesof category activation on responding (Neely 1977; Fazio et al 1986), as a more sensitive indicant of response management.In paradigm that reduces response management concerns, Devine (1986) found that subjects primed(outside of consciousawareness)with the content of their Black stereotypes (musical, ostentatious, but not including hostility-related words) were more likely to interpret a later ambiguousact as aggressive, suggesting that the idea of aggression is elicited by activation of the Black category. Onthe other hand, finding that activation of traditionally stereotypic attributes facilitates some responses mayshow only that the cultural stereotype is known,but not necessarily endorsed (Devine 1986). Multiple representations of groups mayexist, any or all of which maybe activated under different circumstances. If somecategory labels automatically activate particular content, but other material is available to override it attentionally, the cognitive, motivational, and contextual factors that inhibit or override activation of one category in favor of another becomeimportant. In this regard, Gaertner & Dovidio(1986b) note that clear normative pressures can produceeither discrimination (Larwood et al 1984) or the lack of it; but when situational normsare vague, discrimination increases (Frey &Gaertner 1986). Similarly, stereotypic judgmentsincrease under conditions of task difficulty or complexity (Bodenhausen & Wyer 1985; Bodenhausen & Lichtenstein 1987; cf Futoran & Wyer 1986) and time pressure (Freund et al 1985; Krnglanski & Freund 1983). Definitive interpretation of responselatency studies also awaits morejudicious choice Of both category (prime) and attribute (target) words. The latter need to be chosen so that affective valence and degree of association with a particular category can be independently manipulated if possible. Use of multiple target and multiple subject groups is important both to distinguish such effects as in-group/out-group bias (although see Sagar &Schofield 1980) and majority/minority status from the effects of specific representations, and because somecolors (black) elicit associations that are similar to those produced by the corresponding group name(Blacks; Frank &Gilovich 1988). Other work continues to explore the possibility that the content of stereotypes consists not only of abstract trait concepts but includes visual images (Brewer 1988; Brewer et al 1981; Lynn et al 1985), behavioral associations, physical features, typical beliefs, attitudes, and feelings (Andersen & Klatzky 1987; Hymes1986). For example, Deaux & Lewis (1983, 1984) identified four componentsof gender stereotypes--traits, role behaviors, physical characteristics, occupational preferences--and traced the inferential links among them. Traits continue to be of interest because, like
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1989.40:45-81. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft on 09/07/06. For personal use only.
typical beliefs, preferences, etc, they are unobserved inferences (Rothbart Park 1986) that perceivers seem prone to make about groups even when external constraints are present (Allison & Messick1985; Mackie& Allison 1987; Worth et al 1987). Recentresearch has also investigated howaffect is associated with category structures. Fiske &Pavelchak (1986) have argued that summary affect (derived previously fromintegrating affectively laden category features) is stored with category labels and is activated whenthe category is activated: Activation of affect thus dependson the degree to whicha stimulus fits a stored category. Fazio (Fazio et al 1986) has shown that somecategories (especially those with whichwe have extensive direct experience) automatically activate the linked positive or negative affect. Thesedevelopments mayhelp integrate contradictory findings about whether and whenaffective reactions to groups overwhelm or are overwhelmed by cognitive content and whether affect influences judgments independently of or in concert with cognition (Bodenhausen 1988; Brown& Geis 1984; Jackson &Sullivan 1987; Jackson et al 1987; Taylor &Falcone 1982; Triplet & Sugarman1987). The automatic activation of affective material associated with a group category mayhave both cognitive and motivational influence.s on further processing, resulting in the increased use of heuristics and biases (Isen Daubman 1984; Stephan & Stephan 1985; Wilder & Shapiro 1988). Stephan & Stephan (1985; Dijker 1987) have suggested that intergroup interactions accompanied by negative affect [such as anxiety resulting from ignorance and scant previous contact (Stephan & Stephan 1985)] will involve greater reliance on heuristics that promotecategory-level rather than individualized judgments [as might arousal (Kim & Baron 1988.)]. Stephan & Stephan present data indicating that the anxiety expressedby Hispaniccollege students about interaction with Anglosis negatively related to the frequency of intergroup contacts and positively related to assumeddissimilarity, stereotyping, and xenophobia.Affect can also influence whichof several features will be utilized by the perceiver in makinginitial judgments (Forgas & Bower 1987)as well as further recategorizations (Erber 1985), and it can act as a in making other evaluative judgments (Schwarz & Clore 1988). Superordinate and Subordinate Categories
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1989.40:45-81. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft on 09/07/06. For personal use only.
Despite suggestions that the simultaneousactivation of horizontally linked concepts (such as gender, race, and age) might produceinteractive effects judgments (Deaux & Lewis 1984; Futoran & Wyer 1986), little is known about relationships among horizontal structures. There has been increased interest in whethercategory representations include diagnostic attributes that distinguish the group from other categories at the samelevel of generality (particularly groups with whichthe target category is frequently contrasted),
rather than only typical traits [(Klayman& Ha 1987; Trope &Bassok 1982; Trope & Mackie1987); see also the role of the social frame of reference in ascertaining the prototypical memberof a category (Turner 1987)]. For example,the attributes thought to be prototypical of university professors may be different dependingon whether they are compared to research scientists or to high school teachers. This possibility has important implications for categorization. First, match of a target to a category prototype or exemplar mightnot be sufficient for categorization if alternative categories havesimilar features or members.In this case, the importance of nonprototypical but diagnostic features increases (Trope & Mackie1987). Second, it maybe that prototypes are more flexible than earlier use of the concept connoted; rather than a prototype being a constant array of features equally activated by the category label, certain features or particular exemplarsmaybe differentially activated by alternative categories considered for classification. Suchideas are consistent with notions of gender and ethnic identity as socially negotiated (Deaux & Major 1987). Moreattention has been paid to the nature and organization of vertically linked category structures. Most current conceptualizations assume some hierarchical, progression from broad social categories (such as Blacks, Whites, females, males) through increasingly specific subcategories (such streetwise Black, Connecticut Yankee, career woman,macho man) with individualized structures of particular individuals as the lowest level of the hierarchy [although exemplar information can of course be associated with category labels at any level in the structure (Billig 1985;Fiske 1988;Miller Brewer 1986; Rothbart 1988; cf Brewer 1988)]. Considerable attention has been paid to the nature of subtypes, for at least two reasons. First, the possibility that middle-level structures mightconstitute a basic level of categorization [as in the nonsocial domain(Rosch 1978)] and thus carry the burden of social prediction has generated a focus on subtypes (Andersen &Klatzky 1987; Ashmore et al 1984; Brewer et al 1981; Deaux Kite 1988; Deaux & Lewis 1984; Deaux et al 1985a,b; Hamilton & Trolier 1986; Trzebinski 1985; Trzebinski et al 1985; Weber&Crocker 1983). Social subtypesare easily activated (even by indirect instructions), easily generated, and organize category-relevant information in memory [as shownby clustering in recall (Martin 1987; Noseworthy & Lott 1984; Walker & Antaki 1986)]. It has been suggested that subtypes are richer [although Deaux et al (1985b) found no evidence for this; see also Rothbart & John (1985)], visualizable (Brewer1988), more internally coherent, and characterized closer associations betweencategory labels and associated attributes (Crocker &Park 1988) and affect (Fiske 1988) than broader social categories. Onthe other hand, vertically related social structures are not strictly hierarchical (Deauxet al 1985b;Lingle et al 1984), unless only prototypical
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1989.40:45-81. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft on 09/07/06. For personal use only.
exemplars are considered (Hampsonet al 1986). "Subordinate" categories ("business woman") are often distinct from generic superordinate concepts ("woman") and perhaps from logical conjunctions of superordinate categories [such as "woman" and "business executive" (Brewer 1988)]. They exhibit numerousidiosyncratic and distinctive associations (Andersen & Klatzky 1987;see also Pryor et al 1984), domain specific effects (Linville et al 1986, 1988; Weber & Crocker 1983), and between-category overlap (Deaux Lewis 1983, 1984; Deauxet al 1985b). For example, because manygeneric labels, like "American," are male oriented (Eagly &Kite 1987), the degree overlap between these generic and subordinate categories ("American athlete," for example) maybe higher for male categories than for female categories (Deaux et al 1985b); and categorization of women might be more easily influenced by context than is categorization of men(Deaux &Major 1987; Eagly & Steffen 1984). Similar effects might be expected in the category structures of dominantversus minority groups. All of these features suggestthat no basic level of categorizationexists for social stimuli: Thelevel of social categorization that maximizeswithin-category similarity and between-categorydifferences and thus has descriptive and predictive superiority for a particular task will vary across social situations and contexts (Lingle et al 1984; Turner 1987). A second reason for interest in subtypes is the assumptionthat the most detailed subtypingresults in individualization of the target, "accurate" social perception, and by implication, improved intergroup relations. Rothbart & John (1985; Hampson et al 1986) have argued that there is a trade-off between the numberof attributes that a category predicts and howwell it predicts them. Broadcategories (such as gender stereotypes) link manytraits to the category label but only loosely, so that the certainty that any member of a category has the trait is reduced. In contrast, membersof more specific subcategories are morecertain to have the (fewer) attributes associated with category membership. Subordinate categories are therefore seen as more accurate predictors of fewer attributes (see also Andersen&Klatzky 1987), and beliefs about these attributes association with the category maybe hard to change (Miller &Turnbull 1986). Both Rothbart & John (1985) and Sears (1983) note that individual members of groups are reacted to more positively than the group as a whole, suggesting the benefits of individualized processing. Locksleyet al (1982) argued that stereotypic beliefs might be overridden by individuating information about a single target (Heilman 1984; Miller 1986) because perceivers fall prey to the base-rate fallacy and underutilize prior probabilities. However Rasinski et al (1985) demonstratedthat subjects in fact underrevised their ownprior probabilities in the face of the new information, particularly diagnostic information (Bodenhausen & Wyer1985; Deaux & Lewis 1984; Jackson & Cash 1985; Nisbett et al 1983; Wyer
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1989.40:45-81. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft on 09/07/06. For personal use only.
& Martin 1986). Krueger& Rothbart (1988) demonstrated that the diagnostic strength of both category and target information combineadditively in judgments: Target information overrode initial categorization only whencategory information was nondiagnostic for the required judgmentand individuating information was both stable and diagnostic (see also Hinsz et al 1988). Given the difficulty of eliminating category effects from information processing completely, categorizations of the target at increasingly specific sublevels mayhave the best chance of reducing any prejudicial effects of categorybased processing. Despite any benefits that subcategorization might have for intergroup perception, there is increasing agreement that social targets initially activate primary or primitive generic categories such as race, gender, and age [although there is little direct evidence of this (Brewer1988;Bruner1957a,b; Fiske & Neuberg 1988; Taylor 1981)]. For example, gender identification apparently requires less extensive processing than trait judgments(Bower Karlin 1974), and it interferes with subject-target similarity judgmentson other dimensions(Brewer 1988). Such primitive categorization has considerable influence in that it constrains the range of subcategories that may subsequently be activated (Brewer 1988). It mayinhibit subtype activation entirely (Rothbart &John 1985) unless motivation and capacity for increased processing are present (Fiske & Neuberg 1988; Langer et al 1985; Rodin 1987). Frequentactivation of these primitive categories increases their likelihood of subsequent activation (Higgins et al 1985), further enhancing the priority of superordinate categorization over subtype classification. When subcategorization does occur, the level at which it ceases has been studied in terms of fit or matchbetweentarget features and category features (Bruner 1957a,b; see Fiske &Neuberg1988, Oakes1987 for reviews) and the perceivers motivation (Fiske & Neuberg 1988; Neuberg & Fiske 1987; Omoto& Borgida 1988). Categories are activated and becomesalient when they are matchedby behaviorsand attributes present in the target, relative to other targets and other categories available. Oakes(1987) has highlighted the importance of the perceivers social goals in determining fit, arguing that immediate goals sometimes undermine the influence of features such as infrequency, rarity, and novelty that reportedly makesomecategories automatically distinctive (Oakes &Tumer 1986; Nesdale & Dharmalingam1986; Nesdale et al 1987; cf McGuireet al 1978; Taylor 1981). In general, the presence of category-consistent features in the target confirms categorization at the initial level, whereas the presence of inconsistent features makes recategorization or subtyping more probable (Fiske &Neuberg1988; Fiske et al 1987; Heilman 1984; Rothbart 1988; Rothbart & John 1985; see also Hoffman 1986).
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1989.40:45-81. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft on 09/07/06. For personal use only.
Annual Reviews www.annualreviews.org/aronline INTERGROUP RELATIONS THE OUT-GROUP HOMOGENEITY EFFECT 55
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1989.40:45-81. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft on 09/07/06. For personal use only.
When asked to judge the variability of social groups, people judge groups to whichthey do not belong to be morehomogeneous than in-groups (Linville et al 1986, 1988; Mullen & Hu 1989; Quattrone 1986; Wilder 1984b). Even whenthe perceived group is held constant (Judd & Park 1988; Worth et al 1987), it is seen as more variable by its own members than by membersof other groups. Evidencefor this effect has been found with different conceptualizations and measurementsof homogeneity(see Linville et al 1986, 1988; Mullen Hu 1989; Quattrone 1986 for reviews), with real and minimal groups (Simon & Brown1987; Judd & Park 1988; Worth et al 1987). Perceived homogeneity has been associated with polarized evaluative judgments about group members [(Linville &Jones 11980); although this mayhold only when the dimensions of evaluation are correlated (Judd & Lusk 1984)], with more confident member-to-group and group-to-member inferences (Quattrone Jones 1980; Nisbett et al 1983), and with increased intergroup bias (Wilder 1978). Considerable effort has therefore been directed at understanding how the cognitive representations of in-groups and out-groups differ so as to influence judged variability. In-group vs Out-group Representations
Linville (Linville et al 1986, 1988) used an exemplarmodelof group representations to explain whyin-groups are seen as more variable than outgroups. In this view, variability judgments dependon (a) the retrieval individual exemplarsfrommemory, and (b) the use of an availability heuristic to estimate the shapeof the groupdistribution. Linville distinguishes between variability (the degree to which group members are seen as being dispersed) and differentiation (the likelihood of distinguishing among group members on a particular attribute). Whereas variability reflects the spread of a distribution, differentiation reflects the number of attribute levels and their likelihood. Becauseincreased contact with a group increases the numberof exemplarsas well as the number of waysin which they differ, such contact should increase both perceived variability and differentiation. Because people have more contact with in-group than out-group members,according to Linville, the former are seen as more differentiated and variable. There is evidence from computersimulations of the modelthat exposure to multiple exemplarsincreases perceiveddifferentiation, and to a lesser extent, variability (Linville et al 1988, Exp. 1). Theseresults are consistent with the known statistical relationships among variability, dimensional complexity, and sample size. In addition, Linville et al (1988 Exp. 2) showedout-group
homogeneityeffects in groups where more in-group than out-group members were known (such as with age cohorts and nationality), but not whenacquaintance included approximately equal numbers of in-group and out-group members (genders). Moreimportantly, increased familiarity over time with the samein-group (college class) resulted in greater differentiation (Exp. There are reasons to suspect that the numberof in-group and out-group exemplars knownis not the sole mediator of the homogeneity effect. First, with no knowledge, perceivers seem to assume homogeneity in minimal out-groups (Judd & Park 1988; Quattrone 1986; Worth et al 1987) compared to minimal in-groups, although the difference appears primarily due to exaggerations of out-group homogeneity(Mullen & Hu 1989). One could argue that there is always one knownin-group exemplar, the self. Second, group size contributes to subjects judgments of variability independently of exemplarretrieval. For example,subjects estimates of the variability of minimal in-groups and out-groups of various sizes (where the self was the only exempl~that could be retrieved) showa positive relationship to size of the group (Simon & Brown 1987). A group of 50 seems more variable than group of 5. Third, there is no simple relationship between the number of group members reportedly known and variability estimates (Jones et al 1981; Linville 1982). Fourth, out-group homogeneityeffects have been reported with gender groups, where equal familiarity is assumed(Carpenter &Ostrom 1985; Park & Rothbart 1982). For these reasons it appears that how information about in-group and out-group membersis processed maybe as important as how many members from each group are encountered. In particular, variability estimates are sensitive to whether information about individual exemplarsis distinguished and differentiated in the group representation (see section above; Linville et al 1986). Representations of in-groups, for instance, involve moredifferentiation of individual members than representations of the out-group. Park & Rothbart (1982) have demonstrated that more information about distinctive (sub)category membershipsof individual in-group, comparedto out-group, members can be recalled. Whereas women recall the gender of male and female targets equally,well, for example, they are more likely to remember also the occupationof the female(in-group) than the male (out-group) targets. It is not clear whetherthis reflects encodingor retrieval differences (Judd Park 1988; Park &Rothbart 1982; Rothbart 1988; Rothbart & John 1985), although both imply differences in in-group and ou~-grouprepresentations. Information about in-group membersis also more likely than information about out-group membersto be organized by individuals (as measured by clustering of individual items in recall) (Carpenter &Ostrom1985; Sedikides &Ostrom1987). Thus factors that influence individuation of group members
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1989.40:45-81. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft on 09/07/06. For personal use only.
should influence perceived homogeneity, independently of the number of exemplars known. Motivational Factors
Several plausible motivations to differentiate amongindividuals are conceptually independent of group membership.First, the possibility of future interaction has been shownto lead to more complexrepresentations, and if future interaction is morelikely with the in-group than the out-group, differences in complexity should result (Fiske & Neuberg1988). However,this seems more relevant to laboratory groups, for example, than to gender groups, since men have ample incentive to distinguish amongwomen,and vice versa. Second,targets uponwhom one is dependentare likely to be moredifferentiated. Althoughdependency is also often associated with in-group members, less powerful or minority groups must often dependon specific knowledge of the majority out-groups preferences, behaviors, values, etc. Thus more complex representations about a majority out-group might be formed by members of a minority in-group, not only because the majority is greater in number,but also because the in-group minority is dependenton them(Linville et al 1986). At the sametime, perceived in-group homogeneity might be an adaptive response to boost solidarity for a threatened minority ingroup (Simon & Brown1987). Simon&Brownassigned subjects to groups (based ostensibly on performance of perceptual tasks) and manipulated the majority and minority numerical status of the in-group and the out-group. Subjects made estimates of the range of in-group and out-group scores (a measure of variability that is positively correlated with group size) on dimensionsthat differed in their relevance to the classification task. Out-grouphomogeneity was perceived only whenthe in-group was a majority: When the in-group was a minority, in-group homogeneitywas found. Althoughthe minimalnature of the situation reduced true dependency,a dependency interpretation of these results is consistent with other findings. Sedikides & Ostrom(1986) found more individualized representation of a high-status group (sophomores) both in-group and lower status out-group (freshmen) members.[A status interpretation mayalso help explain the increased differentiation of male, comparedto female, targets noted by Linville et al (1988).] Interactions involving competition and cooperation may also influence differentiation of the in-group and out-group (Quattrone 1986; Wilder1981). Although competition is usually associated with increased perception of out-group homogeneity [(Judd & Park 1988); and perhaps of in-groups as well (Simon&Brown 1987)], it need not alwaysresult in undifferentiated views
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1989.40:45-81. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft on 09/07/06. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1989.40:45-81. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft on 09/07/06. For personal use only.
the out-group. Consider a situation of high intergroup conflict in which the best strategy for preservation of the in-group involves differentiating the out-group. The enemytroops makeone last desperate charge towards ones ownline. Under such conditions, motivation would be high to identify a commanding officer, whose death will maximally undermine success of the attack. Intergroup competition could thus increase incentives for out-group differentiation. Consistent with this possibility, Judd &Park found that intergroup competition actually increased the amountof information recalled about individual out-group members. The self as a member of the in-group ensures that there is always at least one in-group exemplar for whom a detailed and differentiated cognitive structure exists. As noted above, this fact provides an explanation of outgroup homogeneityeffects in minimal groups because one in-group exemplar is always available, even if no out-group exemplars are. The self is also a readily accessible exemplar, and thus mayhave disproportionate influence on group judgments(Rothbart et al 1984; Judd & Park 1988). In addition, Park Rothbart (1982) suggest that differentiation of in-group membersat more specific levels occurs in order that other in-group membersmaybe distinguished from the self, although this idea awaits direct testing. The contribution of the self to increased heterogeneity of the in-group maythus be mediated by both cognitive and motivational processes. Other Processing Effects
In criticizing exemplar models, Park & Hastie (1987) have argued that variability judgments about a group can be made on-line and thus maynot dependtotally on recall of exemplars. [Linville et al (1988) acknowledge that group judgments made frequently might be stored and retrieved without recalculation.] This raises the issue of whether variability judgmentsabout in-groups or out-groups are morelikely to be madeon-line, and if so, whether on-line judgments are any more likely to reflect greater variability than memory-based judgments. If on-line judgments are more likely for in-groups than out-groups, and if on-line judgments reflect greater variability than memory-based judgments, this would provide a processing explanation for the out-group homogeneity effect. Currently, there is no definitive evidence for either of these suppositions. There maybe more at stake in processing in-group than out-group information, and this might lead to more on-line processing. On the other hand, on-line variability judgments about nonmembership groups has also been reported under laboratory conditions (Park & Hastie 1987). Similarly, it is not clear whether on-line or memorybased judgmentsare more accurate indicators of actual group variability. As noted above, on-line judgmentsare not influenced by retrieval biases and, for this reason, might be moreaccurate. Onthe other hand, the exemplarsthat are
likely to have a recall advantage(consistent, salient, or extreme ones, for example)are also the ones likely to receive on-line attention and to overcontribute to on-line judgments.In addition, it is possible that expectations that in-groups are variable and out-groups homogeneous directs attention towards differentiating information about the in-group and awayfrom such information about the out-group (Worth 1988). Under many conditions, therefore, on-line judgments may not differ markedly from memory-based judgments. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1989.40:45-81. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft on 09/07/06. For personal use only.
INTERGROUP BIAS Tajfel et al (1971) discovered that the merecategorization of a group of boys into two subgroups, subgroups that were randomly determined by trivial preferences, was sufficient to elicit behavior from the boys that favored members of their newly defined in-group over out-group members (intergroup bias). This discovery challenged the idea that intergroup discrimination resuited froma real conflict of interest between the two groups(Sherif 1967). also initiated a voluminous research effort to replicate and clarify the bias. Brewer (1979), Tajfel (1982), and Brewer & Kramer (1985) have reviewed much of this work,leaving little doubtthat the trivial or random classification of a group of people into two subgroupsis sufficient to induce people in one of the subgroupsto favor others in that group relative to those in the other group. In this summary of recent work on the intergroup bias, we focus first on theoretical and then on methodological issues.
Theoretical Issues The most prominent theory guiding research on intergroup bias is social identity theory (SIT) (e.g. Tajfel &Turner 1986). In brief, social identity theory proposes that peoples self-evaluations are shaped in part by their group memberships. Furthermore, as part of a pervasive need to maintain positive self-regard, people want to view the groups to whichthey belong in a positive light. Because it is the relative position of ones owngroup in contrast to another that is important, self-esteem can be enhancedif people can makea favorable comparison of their owngroup to another. Intergroup bias or discrimination, according to SIT, is such a favorable comparison. TheSIT interpretation of intergroup bias is difficult to test. It may be true that people want to maintain positive self-esteem and that they view membership groups positively, but it remains to be shown that these are the causes of intergroup bias. A direct test of such a causal relation is, in fact, hard to imagine. However, SIT does indirectly imply that an act of intergroup discrimination should increase the actors self-esteem. Oakes & Turner
(1980) report an experimentthat claims to demonstratejust this. Subjects who were categorized into two subgroups and whohad a chance to makeallocations that favored in-group members,manifested higher subsequent selfesteem scores than subjects whowere similarly categorized, but whohad no opportunity to makea group-favoring choice (cf Wagneret al 1986). Noting that this experiment lacked someessential controls, Lemyre&Smith (1985) attempted to test the self-esteem hypothesis more adequately. Subjects were either categorized into two subgroupsor not, and roughly half tile members of each group were given a chance to makeintergroup point allocations before measuresof self-esteem were collected. For the other half of the subjects, measuresof self-esteem were taken before the subjects were given the opportunity to discriminate. The results indicated that subjects whohad been categorized and who had displayed intergroup discrimination had higher self-esteem scores than subjects whohad been categorized but whohad not had the chance to discriminate. While this finding provides support for SIT, an additional finding was unexpected. Subjects whowere simply categorized showedlower self-esteem scores than noncategorized subjects. As Lemyre & Smithnote, mere categorization in these minimal-groupstudies maythreaten self-esteem and intergroup discrimination may restore it. If minimal categorization creates a challenge to self-esteem, and if intergroup bias is a consequence of that threat, the generalizability of studies using such categorization manipulations will be severely restricted [although similar effects of trivial and important categorization have been found (Moghaddam &Stringer 1986)]. Numerous studies using SIT as an interpretive frameworkhave provided only mixedevidence for other key derivations from the theory. Brown et al (1986) found little evidence of a positive association betweenthe degree in-group identification and the extent of positive intergroup differentiation. Suchresults can be explained by hypothesizing that the relationship will be mediated by the saliency of group membership and the security of in-group identity (Smith 1985). However,studies examiningthe idea that discrimination wouldbe greater to the extent that group memberships were madesalient did not discover much support for SIT. Both Ng (1986) and Sachdev Bourhis (1985) found bias for nonsalient groups only, and Sachdev&Bourhis (1987) foundwfo salience effects. Similarly, studies investigating the effects status on discrimination have yielded conflicting results. Sachdev&Bourhis (1987) found that high- and equal-status groups discriminated more than low-status groups, whereas Finchilescu (1986) found that groups assigned low status were more discriminatory. Ng(1985) found no differences in bias as a function of group status~ Espinoza & Garza (1985) report that minority group members(Hispanics) who are in a numerical minority in a group, discriminate more (are more competitive) than majority group members
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1989.40:45-81. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft on 09/07/06. For personal use only.
Annual Reviews www.annualreviews.org/aronline INTERGROUP RELATIONS 61 Hispanics in a majority. Simon& Brown(1987) claim that a group in numerical minority discriminates by enhancingits perception of its relative homogeneity[although Park & Rothbart (1982) and Linville & Jones (1980) found no relationship betweenperceptions of homogeneity and evaluation]. Simon& Brownfailed to find evidence of direct discrimination by the minority. Animportant study that failed to find support for SIT was reported by Vanbeselaere (1987). At issue in this study was the effect of crosscategorizing subjects into two different sets of subcategories. SIT offers no obvious reason whysuch cross-categorization should reduce intergroup bias, but Deschamps & Doise (1978) reported data suggesting that it did. Vanbeselaeres experiment, designed to correct possible flaws that Brown& Turner (1979) noted in the Deschamps &Doise procedures, closely replicated the original results: Simultaneously categorizing subjects on two crossed dimensions eliminated intergroup bias, measuredboth by performanceevaluations and by general attitude questions. Although Vanbeselaere offers no theoretical rationale for this result, it is clearly incompatible with SIT, since in-group members apparently feel no need to maketheir owngroup positively distinct from any of the others. AlthoughSIT has been responsible for almost single-handedly reviving intergroup research, invoking the concept of selfesteem has not provided a definitive understanding of in-group discrimination (see also Taylor & Moghaddam 1987). Morerecently Turner (1987) has described a self-categorization theory (SCT) that is broader than SIT and from which SIT may be derived. SCT appears to place greater emphasis than SIT on the nature of categorization processes per se. In this sense the theory reflects an earlier concernwith the effects of perceptual accentuation (Tajfel & Wilkes 1963; Doise 1978; Eiser & Stroebe 1972). According to Turner, people perceive themselves to be members of somegroups within a hierarchical structure of categories. Humansare distinguished from nonhumans. Within humans, different groupings are distinguished on the basis of relative intraclass similarities and interclass differences. Finally, within groups, the unique properties of individuals are differentiated. Categorization leads to perceptual distortions in that objects in the same category appear more similar to one another and more different from objects in another category than they wouldif not categorized (see Wilder1986afor review; Herringer &Garza1987). In addition, groupingsthat contain the self are special. Not only are they easily activated, they are also positively regarded. Theypossess "positive distinctiveness." Ethnocentrism at the group level is analogousto self-esteem at the individual level. Perceptual accentuation effects coupled with positive regard for the ingroup might well contribute to ethnocentrism. Perceptual accentuation effects
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1989.40:45-81. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft on 09/07/06. For personal use only.
on distinguishing dimensions maygeneralize to evaluative dimensions, or evaluative judgments might be accentuated or polarized whendistinguishing and evaluative dimensionsare correlated (Doise 1978; Eiser &Stroebe 1972; Judd & Lusk 1984). Such an interpretation might explain Vanbeselaeres 1987 results by arguing that cross-classifying people simultaneously on two dimensions reduces or eliminates the perceptual distortion that simple categorization induces, and that without the perceptual distortion, the evaluative gradient disappears. In summary,nearly 20 years after the discovery that mere categorization producedintergroup bias, an adequate theory of the phenomenon has yet to be developed. Both perceptual accentuation effects and self-esteem maintenance seemlikely to be part of the story, but empirical findings have not definitively clarified their necessaryor sufficient roles. Anotherfactor, discovered in a different paradigm,is the extent to which people behave, or expect to behave, in terms of their group memberships. McCallumet al (1985) discovered that when dyads played a Prisoners Dilemma Game(PDG), they made more competitive choices than individuals playing the same game. The competitive choice in the PDG not only maximizes the choosers payoff, it also maximizes the choosers competitive advantage, the difference betweenthe choosers payoff and that of the other. McCallumet al (1985) reported a second experiment that ruled out the possibility that groups were simply trying to maximize their owngains. Thus groups seemedto have a more competitive orientation than individuals. Insko et al (1987) asked whether the increased group competitiveness was due to the interdependenceof the payoffs of the group members or to the fact that the groups in the McCallum et al study had met only through group representatives. They found that neither of these features could account for the enhanced group competitiveness. Insko et al (1988) next reported that neither mere intragroup contact nor intragroup discussion was sufficient to produce the group competitiveness. However,having to reach an intragroup consensus about the choice that the group memberswould make, even though the intergroup contact was individual, did producethe competitivegroup effect. At this point, the evidence suggests that the major factor involved with this so-called "discontinuity" in competitiveness between individuals and groups (Brown1954) is whether the choices are madeindividually (with or without discussion, visual contact, or payoff sharing), or whetherthey are madefor the group (i.e. whetheron each interaction trial, only one choice is madeby the group or group members). Enhancedcompetition appears to characterize situations in which the group members act in lockstep. These results are consistent with Turners argument that group formation is an antecedent rather than a consequence of such effects, although Insko & Schopler (1987) offer other interpretations.
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1989.40:45-81. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft on 09/07/06. For personal use only.
Methodological Issues Thecentral issue to be discussed in this section has to do with the variety of dependentvariables that have been used to measure intergroup bias. Before reviewing these measures, however, we note a pervasive but problematic characteristic of nearly all of the experiments that have investigated this phenomenon. This common element is a symmetryin the manipulation of the independentvariable. In research with categorization the symmetry is that the subjects are typically categorized into 2 (or more)groups, makingit impossible to determine if the bias emanatesfrom individuals whohave been categorized in a common group, or if it is directed towardothers whohave been so categorized, or, of course, both. In the PDG experiments summarized above, the symmetry is that both groups of subjects in an experimental condition are governedby the samerules (e.g. there are no conditions in which individuals play against group representatives). Thusit is impossible to say whetherthe increased level of competition associated with group respondingresults from the fact that the others are respondingas a unit, or becauseones owngroupis doing so. Of somerelevance to this issue is the study of Rehm et al (1987), whofound that handball teams composed of 11-year-old boys whowere given bright orange jerseys to wear during the gamewere moreaggressive than their opponents whowore only their personal street clothes. Enhancingthe group identity of one of the groups appeared to increase the competitivenessof the boys in that group. This kind of study, in whichmembership in a single group is spotlighted, is muchneeded. Intergroup bias has been observed with an impressive array of dependent variables. Rating measures include performance evaluations (see Hinkle Schopler 1986 for a review; Sachdev &Bourhis 1987; Vanbeselaere 1987), attributions (Bond et al 1985; Brown& Wade1987; Stewart et al 1985), general evaluative ratings (Brewer&Silver 1978), and trait ratings (Rosenbaum& Holtz 1985). Behavioral measures have included direct moneyor point allocations (Ng 1985, 1986), allocations madeusing the Tajfel matrixes (TMs), which Bourhis &Sachdev (1986) have carefully explained (Brewer Silver 1978; Finchilescu 1986; Sachdev& Bourhis 1985), allocations made using the Brewer& Silver matrixes (BSMs) (Brewer &Silver 1978; Herringer & Garza 1987), allocations made using the multiple alternative matrixes (MAMs) (Bornstein et al 1983a,b), and choices in the PDGand (McCallumet al 1985; Insko et al 1987, 1988). This broad spectrum dependent measures would be reassuring about the pervasive nature of the intergroup bias if the evidence suggestedthat these measuresall assessed the samething. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Brewer & Silver (1978), for instance, used the BSMs,TMs, and general evaluative ratings to assess bias as a result of categorization and intergroup orientation. Whileboth of the behavioral measuresindicated less bias with a
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1989.40:45-81. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft on 09/07/06. For personal use only.
cooperative than with a competitive or independentorientation, the evaluative ratings showeda small bias that was constant across orientations. Ng(1985) found no evidence of bias with direct monetaryallocations to in-group and out-group members,but whensubjects were asked howto weight two tasks to determine payments, they tended to place a greater weight on the task on which the in-group was superior. The most controversial divergence of measures is with the use of the TMsand the MAMs (see Bomstein et al 1983a,b and Turner 1983a,b). Typical results with the TMssuggest that intergroup bias results from trying to achieve an in-group payment that is as large as possible (maximum in-group profit or MIP)and trying to achieve payment that is larger than the payment to the out-group regardless of absolute size (maximizing the difference or MD).The typical MAM findings show prevalence of maximizing the joint payoff for the two groups, so long as the in-group gets more than the out-group (maximizing joint gain with owngroup ahead, or MJO), and very little MIPand MD. The experimental study of intergroup discrimination faces the basic chore of developing a comprehensive theory of its dependent variables, and of determining what the various indexes measure and how they relate to one another and to other theoretical concepts. Here we mentiona few ideas that maybe useful in this pursuit. Oneof the first studies indicating that there mightbe importantdifferences between methods of measuring intergroup bias was reported by LaPiere (1934). While this study is frequently cited in research on the connection betweenattitudes and behavior (see, for instance, Ajzen 1987), it is rarely seen in contemporarystudies of intergroup bias. This classic study should serve as a reminderthat measuresof attitudes towarda group do not necessarily predict behavior toward that group. As we noted in a previous section, recent research suggests that attitudes toward racial or ethnic out-groups may nowbe more complicated than they once were. Gaertner &Dovidios (1986b) concept of aversive racism, implies that although people mayhold negative views of racial minorities, they also condemn racial prejudice and shun overtly racist behavior. Similarly, subjects in mere categorization experiments rarely discriminate maximallyagainst the out-group~their choices are "tempered with fairness" (Wilder 1986a:312)-suggesting either an ambivalence toward discrimination or the presence of normative controls on the magnitudeof discrimination. In both the attitude and behavioral domains, therefore, there appear to be impediments to the direct assessment of intergroup bias that wouldargue in favor of the use of moreindirect unobtrusive measures. Ng(1985) attributed to such factors the failure to find discrimination with direct allocations when he did find it with an indirect measure. In allocation studies, people maynot only be reluctant to discriminate
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1989.40:45-81. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft on 09/07/06. For personal use only.
overtly, their allocations may be influenced by a variety of factors other than group membership(Leventhal 1976). Ng (1986) has shown equity effects, larger allocations to groups that performed better, that tend to override intergroup bias. When group performance is equal, direct allocations also tend to be equal (Ng 1985). Moreover,whena variable like status is manipulated by varying perceived performance (e.g. Sachdev & Bourhis 1987), self-assigned performance (e.g. Finchilescu 1986), or actual performance (e.g. Ng1986), allocations mayreflect performancedistinctions rather than group discrimination. Thus, if a high-status group (which is always paired with a low-status group) showsintergroup discrimination and a low-status group showsa "negative" bias (see Sachdev&Bourhis 1987), the implication is simply that both groups give moreto the group that did better than to the group that did worse. In cases like this, techniques are neededthat allow for the simultaneous assessment of tendencies to reward good performance and tendencies to overreward ones owngroup. Bourhis &Sachdev(1986) persuasively argue that the TMs are sensitive the subtle effects of merecategorization. However, in the studies reported by McCallum et al (1985), Insko et al (1987), and Insko et al (1988), manipulations that wouldhave had the effect of categorizing the subjects into those on one side of the corridor and those on the other did not result in increased competition. When competition did occur in these studies it was more blatant and overt than that manifestedin simple categorization experiments. So, just as it is necessary to use different instruments to measuretemperatures from widely different sections of the temperaturescale, it maybe that the TMs and the PDG are most appropriate for studying intergroup orientations that differ in their intensity. Thecultivation of this idea wouldrequire that the situations and manipulations, as well as dependent variables, be ordered on a scale of severity or intensity. It wouldthen be possible to test the proposalthat certain kinds of measuresare moreappropriate for somekinds of situations than for others. Finally, we applaud the kind Of exchangethat occurred between Bornstein et al (1983a,b) and Turner (1983a,b). It can only be beneficial to examine such detail the possible goals or strategies of subjects in categorization experimentsand the relationship of these goals to the set of choices available. The issues that were raised in these papers run deeper than those raised in manyrecent articles because they deal with the bedrock questions of how theoretical concepts (like discrimination) are expressed in behavior. One reason why the relative superiority of the MAMs and TMswas not definitively resolved stems from different assumptionsthat Bornstein et al and Turner makeabout the set of motives, goals, or strategies that subjects can pursue in minimal-groupexperiments. Both Bornstein et al and Turner seem to accept the premise that subjects will choosethe option that best satisfies
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1989.40:45-81. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft on 09/07/06. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1989.40:45-81. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft on 09/07/06. For personal use only.
their goals. They seem to differ with regard to assumptions that they make about what those goals can be. Bomsteinet al appear to hold that the goals must be one of seven orientations that include MIP, MD,and MJO.While Turner is somewhatvague, he views these goals as "continuous variables" (Turner 1983a:358), which we take to mean evaluative strategies in which trade-offs can be madebetweenone pure strategy and others (e.g. a willingness to exchangesomeamountof in-group payoff for an increase in relative advantage, or to give up some relative advantage to gain something in fairness). This dispute is not about the connectionof underlying theoretical states (strategies or orientations) to choices, but rather about the possible theoretical states themselves. In view of the complexity that has been observed in studies of peoples choices of payoffs for themselves and others (MacCrimmon & Messick 1976; Messick & Sentis 1985; Lurie 1987), we see no reason to restrict the set of theoretically possible goals to the finite set proposed by Bomstein et al. Trade-offs among"pure" states are surely possible. The exchangebetweenTurner and Bomsteinet al illustrates the major point of this section: Careful thought about dependent variables often leads to central conceptual issues.
IMPROVING INTERGROUP RELATIONS
Fromits very inception, the study of intergroup relations has aimednot only to understandbut also to improveintergroup relationships. In this section, we reviewrecent contributions towardthis goal. Ourfirst focus is on the role that intergroup contact mayplay, after which we mention contributions madeby other approaches.
Intergroup Contact The contact hypothesis is the proposal that under the right circumstances, direct interpersonal contact betweenmembers of two antagonistic groups will lead to a reduction in the negativity of intergroup attitudes (Allport 1954). Whilethis principle "aspired to the role of dragon slayer" (Stephan 1987:15) early on, it has acquired the qualities of a "bag lady . . . encumbered with excess baggage" (Stephan 1987:17) or of a "laundry list" (Pettigrew 1986:171). This metamorphosis appears to have resulted from the accumulation of facts about the conditions under whichintergroup contact does or does not have beneficial consequences,with little parallel development of theory (Hewstone & Brown 1986b). Several authors have recently attempted redress this imbalance. Indeed, the last few years havewitnessed an explosion of theoretical articles about intergroup contact (Brewer& Miller 1984; Hew-
stone & Brown1986b; Pettigrew 1986; Rothbart & John 1985; Stephan 1985, 1987; Stephan & Stephan 1985; Wilder 1986a,b; Worchel 1986). Pettigrew (1986) has noted that the theoretical frailty of the contact hypothesis is common to other social psychological theories. It is logically loose, narrowly cognitive, statically focused on isolated rather than cumulative impacts, and mute about generality. Pettigrew documentsthese charges by reference to the chapters in Hewstone& Browns (1986) important volume and, in so doing, he mapsfruitful directions for conceptual development. At a minimum, theoretical developmentrequires the organization of the multitude of variables that are known to influence the effectiveness of intergroup contact. Twoindependentbut similar efforts have recently appeared (Hewstone &Brown1986b; Stephan 1987). Both of these highlight broader contextual factors, situational details, and the kinds of psychological processes that are evoked. Hewstone&Brownattribute great significance to whether the contact is interpersonal or intergroup, and they further examine the perceptual and attributional consequencesof the contact as well as outcomejudgments. Both the intergroup-interpersonal distinction and the relatively detailed attention afforded to outcomesunderscore the importanceof the issue of generalizing from interpersonal contact to changes in intergroup attitudes. The process of generalizing from interpersonal contacts to intergroup attitudes is a central issue for theory and research. Brewer & Miller (1984) propose that intergroup contact will be maximallysuccessful whenthe group or category memberships of the participants are as inconspicuousas possible and whenthe interaction is intimate. Decategorization, according to these authors, is promotedby differentiation among out-group members as well as the personalization of intergroup contact. Miller et al (1985) and Miller Brewer(1986) summarizeresearch supporting this position. The objective decategorizationwouldappear to be a society that is devoidof cultural, racial, or other intergroup differences--a colorblind society. A numberof theorists have questioned the desirability of this as a societal goal. Schofield (1986) notes that suppressingrace as a meaningful topic in a biracial public school in the United States not only obscured real differences betweenblack and white children--so that when classes were organized according to performance level, for instance, the groupings tended to be racially homogeneous--but also created an atmosphere in which it was taboo for children as well as teachers to discuss racial similarities and differences. Berry (1984) and Hewstone& Brown(1986b) note that intergroup homogenization maybe not only impossible but also undesirable: impossible because the activation of primitive categories like race or gender maybe automatic, and undesirable becauseof the attendant loss of subcultural differences that enrich the texture
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1989.40:45-81. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft on 09/07/06. For personal use only.
of society. Thesetheorists take the position that positive beliefs derived from interpersonal encounters will not generalize to the group level unless the intergroup character of the interaction is madesalient (Hewstone& Brown 1986). Suppressing intergroup categorization thus impedes generalization. Rothbart & John (1985) and Wilder (1986b) attack the generalization problem from somewhatdifferent cognitive perspectives. The former view the problem as one of associating new features with a category stereotype. Perhaps because "poor" exemplars of a category are less accessible through the category label for a prejudiced person, a black scientist is morelikely to be stored with the category "scientist" than "black"--they seem to have less impact on judgments about the group. Wilder (1986b) employs informationprocessing concepts to isolate various waysgeneralization could fail. Both, however,discuss the paradoxthat for an impression of a person to generalize to that persons group, the person must be perceived as a "typical" group member, which implies that the person may be encumberedwith negative stereotypical connotations that will retard the formationof a positive impression in the first place (Rothbart &Lewis 1988; Wilder 1984a). As a final illustration of the recent permeation of theory in studies of intergroup contact, we note the chapter by Miller & Davidson-Podgorny (1987). These authors focus on classroom learning situations like Jigsaw (Aronson et al 1978), Learning Together (Johnson & Johnson 1975), TeamsGamesTournament(Edwards et al 1972) that are designed to promote intergroup cooperative learning [see Slavin (1985) for an assessment of these efforts]. The authors tease out implications of three different theoretical positions-~expectation states theory (Cohen 1982), the ignorance model (Stephan &Stephan 1984), and the social categorization model developed Brewer & Miller (1984)--and then compare these implications to the metaanalytic findings of a numberof pertinent studies. A major contribution of the chapter is the application of social psychologicaltheory to this area. Despite the conceptual progress made in the last few years, Pettigrew (1986) warnsthat we mayhave created unreasonably high expectations for the good that intergroup contact can achieve. Whatcan be expected of programs to bring Catholic and Protestant children together briefly in NorthernIreland whenboth denominations insist on separate schools (Trew 1986)? Foster Finchilescu (1986) argue that the Black-White contact that does occur SouthAfrica will do little to alter interracial attitudes so long as an explicitly racial status hierarchy, apartheid, is the law of the land. Reicher (1986:164) espouses the extreme position that research on interracial contact not only offers no hopebut is itself "part of the problem"to the extent that it accepts racial categories, themselvessymptoms of racism, as valid. [In a similar vein, Stein (1988) claims that the odious racial views of the Third Reich were simply lifted from contemporaryscientific thought and not invented by the
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1989.40:45-81. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft on 09/07/06. For personal use only.
National Socialists.] If intergroup contact per se offers only modesthope of improvingintergroup relations, what other alternatives are available?
Other Approaches INSTITUTIONAL AND LEGISLATIVE CHANGE In societies that allocate privileges differentially to different groups, be they Whites versus Blacks, Anglophone versus Francophone, Jewish versus Arab, or Protestant versus Catholic, efforts must be madeto changethe social structure in waysthat will promote intergroup harmony.These changes are probably the most important of all since other efforts to promote intergroup peace are unlikely to succeed in societies that condoneinstitutional discrimination. The elimination of societal barriers betweengroups usually entails the replacementof one set of rules, procedures,and institutions with another set; and it is here that social psychological research can be useful in illuminating the strengths and weaknesses of various alternatives (see, for instance, Gerard & Miller 1975; Brewer & Miller 1984). To the extent that there is a real conflict of interest between two groups, attempts to settle the dispute fairly and efficiently mayprevent the disagreementfrom escalating into intergroup hostility (Pruitt &Rubin1986).It strikes us as curious that the immense literature on conflict management, a literature large enoughto support two scholarly journals--The Journal of Conflict Resolution and The Negotiation Journal--remains by and large apart from the literature on intergroup relations and vice versa. Aninspection of the reference lists of two recently published texts---Social Conflict (Pruitt &Rubin 1986) and Theories oflntergroup Relations (Taylor & Moghaddam 1987)~reveals little common content, despite the fact that dispute management techniques like those described by Fisher &Ury (1981) or Raiffa (1982) may be thought of "preventive" intergroup relations whenapplied to intergroup conflicts (Fisher 1983). Recent books on negotiation and conflict managementhave been published by Lewicki &Litterer (1985), Lewicki et al (1986), Rangarajan (1985), and Roth (1985). Notable exceptions to this insularity are the volume on intergroup conflict edited by Stroebe et al (1988), particularly the chapter by Morley et al (1988), and Worchel & Austins edited book (1986). Conflict management at the international level mayinvolve efforts to understandthe causes, pitfalls, and consequences of foreign policies (Tetlock 1986). Psychologists can contribute to policy formation by studying the psychological consequences of various policy options. Gergen (1974), for example, showedwhyit was naive to expect countries receiving USforeign aid to feel unadulterated gratitude for the aid. Allison &Messick(1985, 1987) CONFLICT RESOLUTION~ BARGAINING~ AND NEGOTIATION
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1989.40:45-81. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft on 09/07/06. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1989.40:45-81. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft on 09/07/06. For personal use only.
have shown that group decisions, such as are made by governments, are assumed to reflect the views of the citizens, evenin situations wherecitizens are perceived to have little influence on governmentdecisions. Government policies and decisions maytherefore become important determinants of peoples beliefs about the compatibility of their interests with those of other nations. Bar-Tal & Geva(1986) pinpoint such belief incompatibility as necessary condition for international conflict. Our position is that the principles of dispute management and conflict resolution need to be explicitly woven into the fabric of intergroup relations. CATEGORIZATION Previous research on intergroup contact has failed to generate great optimism.If the consequencesof c6ntact are unreliable, and if it is not feasible or desirable to eliminate intergroup categories as Brewer& Miller (1984) recommend, what options are left? Wemention several approaches that derive from the emergingfocus on categorization. Wilders (1986b) excellent review is recommended for more detail. Changingthe out-group stereotype As mentioned earlier, direct efforts to changebeliefs and attitudes toward out-groups, either through direct contact or information campaigns, have been carefully analyzed by Rothbart & John (1985) and Wilder (1986a). Both of these analyses focus on the difficulty generalizing from a positive interaction with an out-group member to the out-groupitself. Rothbart &Park (1986) further argue that the nature of trait adjectives associated with stereotypes maymakestereotypes differentially resistant to change. Negative traits in particular are easy to confirm but difficult to disconfirm. Disconfirming evidence may not be available if contact with outgroup membersis avoided. Weakeningintergroup boundaries To the extent that intergroup boundaries are blurred or weakened, intergroup interaction will be morelikely to occur in terms of personal characteristics than category labels, and intergroup bias will be reduced. Intergroup boundaries can be weakenedin manyways, including, for instance, by cross-cutting category membershipsso that an out-group memberin one categorization is an in-group memberon another (Vanbeselaere 1987), by reducing cues to category membership (Worchel 1979), by disrupting the assumed belief dissimilarity to the out-group (Wilder 1986b), and by highlighting superordinate categories (Kramer1988). Gaertner (1985; cited in Gaertner &Dovidio 1986a) reports a study in which the seating pattern of A and B group members was varied from segregated (AAAABBBB), through partially integrated (BAABABBA), to fully integrated (ABABABAB). Membersof the more integrated groups experienced their mergedgroups as a unit, showedless intergroup bias in leader choice,
expressed more satisfaction with group membership, and cooperated more than membersof segregated groups. However,even the assimilation of new members into a single group may evoke categorization. Moreland(1985) found that in the initial stages integration, new members perceived themselves as an in-group and saw the old membersas an out-group, with manyof the attendant consequences of intergroup categorization. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1989.40:45-81. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft on 09/07/06. For personal use only.
Diminishing the intensity of ingroup identification Intergroup boundaries are likely to be more salient whenones membership in the in-group serves important personal goals, including the maintenanceof positive self-regard (Tajfel &Turner 1986). Thus reducing the instrumental importance of group membership,perhaps by providing alternative routes to goal achievement, maydecrease the tendencyto perceive and to interact with others in categorical terms. Weknowof little experimental research on this point.
CONCLUDING COMMENTS Space constraints prevent us from covering all of the important research that has been conductedin recent years. In these concluding remarkswe first note three such domainsthat deserve attention. Intergroup theory, and particularly social identity theory, has helped forge a newsubdiscipline at the interface of language, communication, and social psychology (for reviews see Clark 1985; Giles & Wiemann 1988; Giles et al 1987). The predominant guiding framework in the area has been speech accommodation theory (SAT), which deals with the cognitive, motivational, and affective processes that underlie speech convergence(adaptation to others speech) and divergence (accentuation of linguistic differences). Speech divergence, which can be viewed as a symbolic tactic for maintaining intergroup distinctiveness, might be usefully considered as a moresubtle measure in studies of in-group bias. Anintergroup perspective has also provided an impetus to theory developmentin social influence. Moscovicis(1980) treatment of the issue of minority influence as an intergroup problemand Mugnys (1982) application of SIT to minority persuasionattempts injected social influence research with a vigor it has lacked since the 1950s. This workis thoroughly reviewed in Chaiken& Stangor (1987), Levine & Russo (1987), Maass et al (1987), Moscovici Mugny1987), and Wolf (1987). Referent identity theory (Turner 1982, 1987), which posits that recognition of group membershipis a necessary condition for influence, has had less impact but has been successfully applied to an integrative understanding of group polarization (Mackie1986; Wetherell 1987) and conformity (Hogg & Turner 1987).
Finally, ideas from intergroup relations have begunto seep into the study of group decision-making, in particular in social dilemmasituations (Messick Brewer1983). Whilethe typical focus in this research area is on intragroup behavior, Rapoport & Bornstein (1987) and Bornstein & Rapoport (1988) have examinedsituations in whichtwo groups explicitly competewith regard to the extent of self-sacrificial cooperation their members display. Kramer& Brewer (1984) and Brewer & Kramer (1986) maintained the focus on tragroup behavior and found evidence that subjects displayed more cooperative choices when a superordinate common identity was made salient than whensubordinate subcategories were highlighted. Likewise, Kramer (1988) reports that subjects are less defensive whentheir common category membership (Stanford students) is emphasized than when subordinate categories (Stanford undergraduates and MBA students) are spotlighted. Finally, Dawes (1987) reports very high levels of self-sacrificial cooperationamong groups which (a) discussion of the decision problemis possible and (b) the cooperative benefit goes to members who were randomly chosen to be in the decision-makersgroup. If there is no discussion or if the benefits go to the (randomly selected) membersof the other group, the level of cooperation drops sharply. These studies, which focus on intragroup cooperation, must eventually be meldedwith research on intergroup discrimination to provide a complete picture of relations amongand within groups. Our review of research on intergroup relations leaves us impressedwith the vigor and creativity of the enterprise. Weconcludeby offering an idiosyncratic and admittedly incomplete list of research questions that seemespecially ripe. Are there primitive categories (race, gender, age) that are always activated automatically, and, if so, what are their consequences? Howdo attentional and intentional processes interact with the automaticactivation of social categories? Mustthe fact of categorization imply out-groupprejudice or bias? Is intergroup bias a defensive reaction to categorized others or an offensive initiative of those categorized? What are the interrelationships among various measures of intergroup discrimination and what is their conceptual significance? How can research on conflict management be fused with intergroup research to promotesocial harmony? If progress is madeon only a few of these questions, the next few years of research on intergroup relations will be as fruitful as the last few have been. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The preparation of this chapter was supported in part by a grant, No.MH43041, from NIMH to Diane M. Mackie. Weare grateful to David L. Hamilton for his comments on sections of the chapter, to Terry Boles and HollySchroth for their help in assemblingthe references, and to the graduate students in the Intergroup Relations seminar for their summaries,insights, and criticisms.
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1989.40:45-81. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft on 09/07/06. For personal use only.
Annual Reviews www.annualreviews.org/aronline
INTERGROUP Literature Cited measurementof social orientations in the minimal group paradigm. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 13:321-50 Bornstein, G., Crum, L., Wittenbraker, J., Harring, K., Insko, C. A. 1983b. Reply to Turners comments.Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 13:369-82 Bornstein, G., Rapoport, A. 1988. Intergroup competition for the provision of step-level public goods: effects of preplay communication. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. In press Bourhis, R. Y., Sachdev, I. 1986. The Taffel Matrices as an Instrument for Conducting Intergroup Research. Hamilton, Ontario: McMaster Univ. Mimeo Bower, G. H., Karlin, M. B. 1974. Depth of processing pictures of faces and recognition memory. J. Exp. Psychol. 103:751-57 Brewer, M. B. 1979. In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: a cognitivemotivational analysis. Psychol. Bull. 86:307-24 Brewer, M. B. 1988. A dual process model of impression formation. Adv. Soc. Cognit. 1:1-36 Brewer, M. B., Kramer, R. M. 1985. The psychologyof intergroup attitudes and behavior. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 36:219-43 Brewer, M. B., Kramer, R. M. 1986. Choice behavior in social dilemmas:effects of social identity, group size, and decision framing. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 50:543-49 Brewer, M. B., Miller, N. 1984. Beyondthe contact hypothesis: theoretical perspectives on desegregation. See Miller & Brewer 1984, pp. 281-302 Brewer, M. B., Silver, M. 1978. Ingroup bias as a function of task characteristics. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 8:393-400 Brewer, M. B., Dull, V., Lui, L. 1981. Perceptions of the elderly: stereotypes as prototypes. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 41:656-70 Brown, R. J. 1954. Mass phenomena. In Handbook of Social Psychology, ed. G. Lindzey, 2:833-76. Cambridge, Mass: Addison-Wesley Brown,R. J., Turner, J. C. 1979. The crisscross categorization effect in intergroup discrimination. Brit. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 18:371-83 Brown,R. J., Wade, G. 1987. Superordinate goals and intergroup behavior: the effect of role ambiguityand status on intergroup attitudes and task performance. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 17:131-42 Brown, R. J., Condor, S., Mathews, A., Wade, G., Williams, J. 1986. Explaining intergroup differentiation in an industrial organization. J. Occup. Psychol. 59:27386 Brown, V., Geis, F. L. 1984. Turning lead into gold: evaluations of menand women RELATIONS
73
Acorn, D. A., Hamilton, D. L., Sherman, S. J. 1988. Generalization of biased perceptions of groupsbased on illusory correlations. Soc. Cognit. In press Ajzen, I. 1987. Attitudes, traits, and actions: dispositional prediction of behavior in personality and social psychology. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 20:1-63 Allison, S. T., Messick, D. M. 1985. The group attribution error. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 21:563-79 Allison, S. T., Messick, D. M. 1987. From individual inputs to group outputs and back again: group processes and inferences about members. See Hendrick 1987a, pp. 111-43 Allport, G. W. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge, Mass: Addison-Wesley Andersen, S. M., Klatzky, R. L. 1987. Traits and social stereotypes: levels of categorization in person perception. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 53:235-46 Arkes, H. R., Rothbart, M. 1985. Memory retrieval and contingency judgments. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 49:598-606 Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., Snapp, M. 1978. The Jigsaw Classroom. NewburyPark, Calif: Sage Ashmore, R. D., Del Boca, F. K., Titus, D. 1984. Types of womenand men: yours, mine, and ours. Presented at Ann. Meet. Am.Psychol. Assoc., Toronto Bar-Tal, D., Geva, N. 1986. Acognitive basis of international conflicts. See Worchel & Austin 1986, pp. 118-33 Berry, J. W.1984. Cultural relations in plural societies: alternatives to segregation and their sociopsychological implications. See Miller & Brewer 1984, pp. 11-27 Billig, M. 1985. Prejudice, categorization and particularization: from a perceptualto a rhetorical approach. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 15:79-103 Bodenhausen, G. V. 1988. Effects of social stereotypes on evidence processing: the cognitive basis of discrimination in juridic decision making. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. In press Bodenhausen, G. V., Lichtenstein, M. 1987. Social stereotypes and information processing strategies: the impact of task complexity. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 52:871-80 Bodenhausen, G. V., Wyer, R. S. Jr. 1985. Effects of stereotypes on decision making and information processing strategies. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 48:267-82 Bond, M. H., Hewstone, M., Wan, K.-C., Chiu, C.-K. 1985. Group-serving attributions across intergroup contexts: cultural differences in the explanation of sex-type behaviors. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 15:435-51 Bornstein, G., Crum, L., Wittenbraker, J., Harring, K., Insko, C. A. 1983a. On
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1989.40:45-81. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft on 09/07/06. For personal use only.
Annual Reviews www.annualreviews.org/aronline
74 MESSICK & MACKIE
Doise, W. 1978. Groupsand Individuals: Exleaders and the alchemy of social conplanations in Social Psychology. Camsensus. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 46:811-24 Bruner, J. S. 1957a. Going beyond the inbridge: Cambridge Univ. Press formation given. In Contemporary Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., eds. 1986. Approaches to Cognition, ed. H. Gruber, Prejudice, Discrimination, Racism: Theory G. Terrell, M. Wertheimer, pp. 41-74. and Research. New York: Academic. 337 Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Univ. Press pp. Bruner, J. S. 1957b. Onperceptual readiness. Dovidio, J. F., Evans, N., Tyler, R. B. 1986. Psychol. Rev. 64:123-52 Racial stereotypes: the contents of their Carpenter, S. L., Ostrom, T. M. 1985. The cognitive representation. J. Exp. Soc. Psyperception of outgroup homogeneity:differchol. 22:22-37 ential information organization. Presented Eagly, A. H., Kite, M. E. 1987. Are at Midwest Psychol. Assoc., Chicago stereotypes of nationalities applied to both Chaiken, S., Stangor, S. 1987. Attitudes and womenand men? J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. attitude change. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 53:451-62 38:575-630 Eagly, A. H., Steffen, V. 1984. Gender Clark, H. H. 1985. Language use and lanstereotypes stem from the distribution of guage users. See Lindzey & Aronson 1985, women and meninto social roles. J. Pers. 1:179-231 Soc. Psychol. 46:735-54 Cohen, E. G. 1982.. Expectation states and Edwards,K. J., DeVries, D. L., Snyder, J. P. interracial interaction in school settings. 1972. Games and teams: a winning comAnn. Rev. Sociol. 8:209-35 bination. Simulation and Games3:247-69 Crocker, J., Park, B. 1988. The consequences Eiser, J. T., Stroebe, W.1972. Categorization of social stereotypes. In The Buffalo Symand Social Judgment. London: Academic posium on Decision Making and InformaElio, R., Anderson, J. R. 1981. Effects of tion Processing, ed. R. Cardy, J. M. Newcategory generalizations and instance simman, S. Puffer. In press ilarity on schemaabstraction. J. Exp. PsyDawes, R. M. 1987. Not me or thee but we. chol. Hum. Learn. Mem. 7:397-417 Erber, R. 1985. Choosing among multiple Paper presented at llth SPUDM Conf., categories: the effects of moods on category Cambridge, England accessibility, inference, and interpersonal Deaux, K., Kite, M. E. 1988. Gender and cognition. In Woman and Society: Social affect. PhDthesis. Carnegie-Mellon Univ. Espinoza, J. A., Garza, R. T. 1985. Social Science Research Perspectives, ed. B. B. Hess, M. M. Ferree. Beverly Hills, Calif: group salience and interethnic cooperation. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 21:380-92 Sage. In press Deaux, K., Lewis, L. L. 1983. Components Estes, W. K. 1986. Array models for category learning. Cogn. Psychol. 18:500-49 of gender stereotypes. Psychol. Doc. 13: 25-34 Fazio, R. H., Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Powell, M. C., Kardes, F. R. 1986. Onthe automatDeaux, K., Lewis, L. L. 1984. The structure of gender stereotypes: interrelationships ic activation of attitudes. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 50:229-38 among components and gender label. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 46:991-1004 Finchilescu, G. 1986. Effect of incompatibility between internal and external group Deaux, K., Major, B. 1987. Putting gender membership criteria on intergroup behavior. into context: an interactive modelof genderEur. J. Soc. Psychol. 16:83-87 related behavior. Psychol. Rev. 94:369-89 Deaux, K., Kite, M. E., Lewis, L. L. 1985a. Fisher, R. J. 1983. Third party consultation as Clustering and gender schemata: an una methodof intergroup conflict resolution. certain link. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. J. Conflict Resolut. 27:301-34 Fisher, R., Ury, W. 1981. Getting to Yes: 11:387-98 Deaux, K., Winton, W., Crowley, M., Lewis, Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. L. L. 1985b. Level of categorization and Boston: HoughtonMifflin content of gender stereotypes. Soc. Cognit. Fiske, S. T. 1988. Brewers dual process mod3:145-67 el and Fiske et als continuummodel. Adv. Deschamps, J.-C., Doise, W. 1978. Crossed Soc. Cogn. 1:65-76 category membershipsin intergroup relaFiske, S. T., Neuberg, S. L. 1988. A continuum model of impression formation: tions. In Differentiation Between Social Groups, ed. H. Tajfel. London: Academic from category-based to individuating proDevine, P. G. 1986. Automatic and controlled cesses as a function of information, motivation, and attention. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. processes in stereotyping and prejudice. PhDthesis. Ohio State Univ. 23:1-108 Dijker, A. G. M. 1987. Emotionalreactions to Fiske, S. T., Pavelchak, M. A. 1986. Cateethnic minorities. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. gory-based versus piecemeal-based affec17:305-26 tire responses: developments in schema-
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1989.40:45-81. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft on 09/07/06. For personal use only.
Annual Reviews www.annualreviews.org/aronline
INTERGROUP RELATIONS triggered affect. See Sorrentino & Higgins 1986, pp. 167-203 Fiske, S. T., Neuberg, S. L., Beattie, A. E., Milberg, S. J. 1987. Category-based and attribute-based reactions to others: someinformational conditions of stereotyping and individuating processes. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 23:399-427 Flannagan, M.J., Fried, L. S., Holyoak,K. J. 1986. Distributional expectations and the induction of category structure. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem.Cogn. 12:241-56 Forgas, J. P., Bower, G. H. 1987. Mood effects on person-perception judgments. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 53:53-60 Foster, D., Finchilescu, G. 1986. Contact in a non-contact society: the case of South Africa. See Hewstone& Brown1986a, pp. 119-36 Frank, M. G., Gilovich, T. 1988. The dark side of self- and social perception: black uniforms and aggression in professional sports. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 54:74-85 Freund, T., Kruglanski, A. W., Schpitizajzen, A. 1985. The freezing and unfreezing of impression primacy: effects of the need for structure and the fear of invalidity. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 11:479-87 Frey, D., Gaertner, S. L. 1986. Helping and the avoidance of inappropriate interracial behavior: a strategy that can perpetuate a non-prejudiceself-image. J. Pets. Soc. Psychol. 50:1083-90 Fried, L. S., Holyoak, K. J. 1984. Induction of category distributions: a frameworkfor classification learning. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 10:234-57 Futoran, G. C., Wyer, R. S. Jr. 1986. The effects of traits and gender stereotypes on occupational suitability judgmentsand the recall of judgmentrelevant information. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 22:475-503 Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F. 1986a. Prejudice, discrimination, and racism: problems, progress, and promise. See Dovidio & Gaertner 1986, pp. 315-32 Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F. 1986b. The aversive form of racism. See Dovidio & Gaertner 1986, pp. 61-89 Gaertner, S. L., McLaughlin,J. P. 1983. Racial stereotypes: associations and ascriptions of positive and negative characteristics. Soc. Psychol. Q. 46:23-30 Gerard, H., Miller, N. 1975. School Desegregation. NewYork: Plenum Gergen, K. J. 1974. Towarda psychology of receiving help. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 4:187-93 Giles, H., Wiemann,J. 1988. Language, social comparison, and power. In Handbook of Communication, ed. C. R. Berger, S. Chaffee, pp. 350-84. NewburyPark: Sage Giles, H., Mulac, A., Bradac, J. J., Johnson, 75
P. 1987. Speech accommodation theory: the first decade and beyond. In Communication Yearbook, ed. M. L. McLaughlin, 10:1348. Beverly Hills: Sage Hamil, R., Wilson, T. D., Nisbett, R. E. 1980. Insensitivity to sample bias: generalizing from atypical cases. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 39:578-89 Hamilton, D. L., ed. 1981. Cognitive Processes in Stereotyping and Intergroup Behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Hamilton, D. L., Sherman,S. J. 1988. Illusory correlations: implications for stereotype theory and research. In Stereotypes and Prejudice: Changing Conceptions, ed. D. Bar-Tal, C. F. Graumann,A. W. Kruglanski, W. Stroebe. NewYork: SpringerVerlag. In press Hamilton, D. L., Troller, T. K. 1986. Stereotypes and stereotyping: an overview of the cognitive approach. See Dovidio & Gaertner 1986, pp. 127-63 Hamilton, D. L., Dugan, P. M., Trolier, T. K. 1985. The formation of stereotypic beliefs: further evidence for distinctivenessbased illusory correlation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 48:5-17 Hampson,S. E. 1983. Trait ascription and depth of acquaintance: the preference for traits in personalitydescriptionsandits relation to target familiarity. J. Res. Pers. 17:398-411 Hampson, S. E., John, O. P., Goldberg, L. R. 1986. Category breadth and hierarchical structure m personality: studies of asymmetries in judgments of trait implications. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 51:37-54 Hastie, R. 1980. Memory for behavioral informationthat confirmsor contradicts a personality impression. In Person Memory: The Cognitive Basis of Social Interaction, ed. R. Hastie, T. Ostrom, E. Ebbesen, R. Wyer, D. Hamilton, D. Carlston, pp. 15577. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Hayes-Roth, B., Hayes-Roth, F. 1977. Concept learning and the recognition and classification of exemplars. J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 16:321-38 Heilman, M. E. 1984. Information as a deterrent against sex discrimination: the effects of applicant sex and informationtype on preliminary employment decisions. Org. Behav. Hum. Perform. 33:174-86 Hendrick, C., ed. 1987a. Reviewof Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 8. Newbury Park: Sage. 294 pp. Hendrick, C., ed. 1987b. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 9. Newbury Park: Sage. 256 pp. Herringer, L. G., Garza, R. T. 1987. Perceptual accentuation in minimal groups. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 17:347-52 Hewstone, M., Brown, R., eds. 1986a. Con-
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1989.40:45-81. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft on 09/07/06. For personal use only.
Annual Reviews www.annualreviews.org/aronline 76
MESSICK & MACKIE judgments: the effects of gender role attitudes on ratings of likability, adjustment, and occupational potential. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 13:45-52 Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. 1975. Learning Together and Alone: Cooperation, Competition and Individualization. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Jones, E. E., Wood,G. C., Quattrone, G. A. 1981. Perceived variability of person characteristics in in-groups and out-groups: the role of knowledge and evaluation. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 7:523-28 Judd, C. M., Lusk, C. M. ~984. Knowledge structures and evaluative judgments. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 46:1193-1207 Judd, C. M., Park, B. 1988. Outgroup homogeneity: judgmentsof variability at the individual and group levels. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 54:778-88 Katz, D., Braly, K. W. 1933. Racial stereotypes of one hundredcollege students. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 28:280-90 Katz, I., Wackenhut, J., Hass, R. G. 1986. Racial ambivalence, value duality, and behavior. See Dovidio & Gaertner 1986, pp. 35-60 Kim, H.-S., Baron, R. S. 1988. Exercise and the illusory correlation: does arousal heighten stereotypic processing? J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 24:366-80 Kinder, D. R. 1986. The continuing American dilemma: white resistance to racial change 40 years after Myrdal. J. Soc. Issues 42:151-71 Klayman,J., Ha, V. W. 1987. Contirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing. Psychol. Rev. 94:211-28 Kramer, R. M. 1988. Windows of vulnerability or cognitive illusions? Cognitive processes and the nuclear arms race. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. In press Kramer, R~ M., Brewer, M. B. 1984. Effects of group identity on resource use in a simulated commonsdilemma. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 46:1044-57 Krueger, J., Rothbart, M. 1988. The use of categorical and individuating information in making inferences about personality. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. In press Kruglanski, A. W., Freund, T. 1983. The freezing and unfreezing of lay-inferences: effects of impressional primacy, ethnic stereotyping, and numerical anchoring. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 19:448-68 Langer, E. J., Bashner, R. S., Chanowitz, B. 1985. Decreasing prejudice by increasing discrimination. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 49:113-20 LaPiere, R. T. 1934. Attitudes versus actions. Soc. Forces 13:230-37 Larwood, L., Gutek, B., Gattiker, U. E. 1984. Perspectives on institutional dis-
tact and Conflict in Intergroup Encounters. Oxford/New York: Basil Blackwell. 231 PP. Hewstone, M., Brown, R. 1986b. Contact is not enough:an intergroup perspective on the contact hypothesis. See Hewstone & Brown 1986a, pp. 1-44 Higgins, E. T., Bargh, J. A., Lombardi, W. 1985. Nature of priming effects on categorization. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mere. Cogn. 11:59~59 Hinkle, S., Schopler, J. 1986. Bias in the evaluation of in-group and out-group performance. See Worchel & Austin 1986, pp. 196-212 Hinsz, V. B., Tindale, R. S., Nagao, D. H., Davis, J. H., Robertson, B. A. 1988. The influence of the accuracy of individuating information on the use of baserate information in probability judgment. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 24:127-45 Hintzman, D. L. 1986. "Schema abstraction" in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychol. Rev. 93:411-28 Hoffman, M. L. 1986. Affect, cognition, motivation. See Sorrentino & Higgins 1986, pp. 244-80 Hogg, M. A., Turner, J. C. 1987. Social identity and conformity:a theory of referent informational influence. In Current Issues in European Social Psychology, ed. W. Doise, S. Moscovici, Vol. 2:ll0~-I Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press Hymes, R. W. 1986. Political attitudes as social categories: a new look at selective memory. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 51:23341 Insko, C. A., Schopler, J. 1987. Categorization, competition, and collectivity. See Hendrick 1987a, pp. 213-51 Insko, C. A., Hoyle, R. H., Pinkley, R. L., Hong, G., Slim, R. M. 1988. Individualgroup discontinuity: the role of a consensus rule. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. In press Insko, C. A., Pinkley, R. L., Hoyle, R. H., Dalton, B., Hong, G. 1987. Individual versus group discontinuity: the role of intergroup contact. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 23:250-67 Isen, A. M., Daubman,K. A. 1984. The influence of affect on categorization. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 47:1206-17 Jackson, L. A., Cash, T. F. 1985. Components of gender stereotypes: their implications for inferences on stereotypic and nonstereotypic dimensions. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 11:326-44 Jackson, L. A., Sullivan, L. A. 1987. Cognition and affect in evaluations of stereotyped group members. Presented at Soc. Exp. Soc. Psychol., Charlottesville, Va. Jackson, L. A., MacCoun, R. J., Kerr, N. L. 1987. Stereotypes and nonstereotypic
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1989.40:45-81. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft on 09/07/06. For personal use only.
Annual Reviews www.annualreviews.org/aronline
INTERGROUP crimination and resistance to change. Group Organ. Stud. 9:333-52 Lemyre, L., Smith, P. M. 1985. Intergroup discrimination and self-esteem in the minimal group paradigm. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 49:660-70 Leventhal, G. S. 1976. Fairness in social relationships. In Contemporary Social Psychology, ed. J. Thibaut, J. Spence, R. Carson, pp. 209-39. MorfistownNJ: General Learning Press Levine, J. M., Russo, E. M. 1987. Majority and minority influence. See Hendrick 1987a, pp. 13-54 Lewicki, R. J., Litterer, J. A. 1985. Negotiation. Homewood, II1: Richard D. Irwin, Inc. Lewicki, R. J., Sheppard, B. H., Bazerman, M. H. 1986. Research in Negotiation in Organizations, Vol. 1. Greenwich, Conn: JAI Press Lindzey, G., Aronson, E., eds. 1985. Handbook of Social Psychology, Vols. 1, 2. New York: Random House Lingle, J. H., Altom, M. W., Medin, D. L. 1984. Of cabbages and kings: assessing the extendibility of natural object conceptmodels to social things. In Handbook of Social Cognition, ed. R. Wyer, T. Srull, 1:71117. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Linville, P. W. 1982. Self-complexity as a cognitivebuffer against stress-related illness and depression. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 52:663-76 Linville, P. W., Jones, E. E. 1980. Polarized appraisals of out-group members.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 38:689-703 Linville, P. W., Fischer, G. W., Salovey, P. 1988. Perceiveddistributions of the characteristics of ingroup and outgroup members. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. In press Linville, P. W., Salovey, P., Fischer, G. W. 1986. Stereotyping and perceived distributions of social characteristics: an application to ingroup-outgroup perception. See Dovidio& Gaertner 1986, pp. 165-208 Locksley, A., Hepburn, C., Ortiz, V. 1982. Onthe effect of social stereotypes on judgments of individuals: a commenton Grant and Holmess "The integration of implicit personality theory, schemasand stereotypic images". Soc. Psychol. Q. 45:270-73 Lord, C. G., Lepper, M. R., Mackie, D. 1984. Attitude prototypes as determinants of attitude-behavior consistency. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 46:1254-66 Lurie, S. 1987. A parametric modelof utility for two-persondistributions. Psychol. Rev. 94:42-60 Lynn, M., Shavitt, S., Ostrom, T. 1985. Effects of pictures on the organization and recall of social information. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 49:1160-68 Maass, A., West, S. G., Cialdini, R. B. 1987. RELATIONS 77
Minority influence and conversion. See Hendrick 1987a, pp. 55-79 MacCrimmon,K. R., Messick, D. M. 1976. A framework for social motives. Behav. Sci. 21:86-100 Mackie,D. 1986. Social identification effects in group polarization. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 50:720-28 Mackie, D. M., Allison, S. T. 1987. Group attribution errors and the illusion of group attitude change. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 23:460-80 Martin, C. L. 1987. A ratio measure of sex stereotyping. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 52:489-99 McCallum,D. M., Harring, K., Gilmore, R., Drenan, S., Chase, J. P. 1985. Competition and co-operation between groups and individuals. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 21:301-20 McCann, C. D., Ostrom, T. M., Tyner, L. K., Mitchell, M. L. 1985. Person perception in heterogeneousgroups. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 49:1449-59 McConahay, J. B. 1986. Modern racism, ambivalence, and the modem racism scale. See Dovidio & Gaertner 1986, pp. 91-126 McGuire, W. J., McGuire, C. V., Child, P., Fujioka, T. 1978. Salience of ethnicity in the spontaneous self-concept as a function of ones ethnic distinctiveness in the social environment. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 36:511-20 Medin, D. L., Schaffer, M. M. 1978. Context theory of classification learning. Psychol. Rev. 85:207-38 Medin, D. L., Altom, M. W., Murphy, T. D. 1984. Given versus induced category representations: use of prototype and exemplar information in classification. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 10:333-52 Messick, D. M., Brewer, M. B. 1983. Solving social dilemmas:a review. In Reviewof Personality and Social Psychology, ed. L. Wheeler, P. Shaver, 4:1144. Beverly Hills: Sage Messick, D. M., Sentis, K. P. 1985. Estimating social and nonsocial utility functions from ordinal data. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 15:389-99 Miller, C. T. 1986. Categorization and stereotypes about men and women. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 12:502-12 Miller, D. T., Turnbull, W. 1986. Expectancies and interpersonal processes. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 37:233-56 Miller, N., Brewer, M. B., eds. 1984. Groups in Contact: The Psychology of Desegregation. NewYork: Academic. 316 pp. Miller, N., Brewer, M. B. 1986. Categorization effects on ingroup and outgroupperception. See Dovidio & Gaertner 1986, pp. 209-30 Miller, N., Davidson-Podgorny, G. 1987.
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1989.40:45-81. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft on 09/07/06. For personal use only.
Annual Reviews www.annualreviews.org/aronline
78 MESSICK & MACKIE Oakes, P. J., Turner, J. C. 1980. Social categorization and intergroup behaviour: does minimal intergroup discrimination makesocial identity morepositive? Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 10:295-301 Oakes, P. J., Turner, J. C. 1986. Distinctiveness and the salience of social category memberships: is there an automatic perceptual bias towards novelty. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 16:325-44 Omoto, A. M., Borgida, E. 1988. Guess who might be coming to dinner? Personal involvementand racial stereotypes. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. In press Park, B., Hastie, R. 1987. Perception of variability in category development: instanceversus abstraction-based stereotypes. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 53:621-35 Park, B., Rothbart, M. 1982. Perception of out-group homogeneityand levels of social categorization: memory for the subordinate attributes of in-group and out-group members. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 42:1051-68 Pettigrew, T. F. 1986. The intergroup contact hypothesis reconsidered. See Hewstone & Brown1986a, pp. 169-95 Posner, M. I., Keele, S. W. 1968. On the genesis of abstract ideas. J. Exp. Psychol. 77:353-63 Pruitt, D. G., Rubin, J. Z. 1986. Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate, and Settlement. NewYork: RandomHouse. 213 pp. Pryor, J. B. 1986. The influence of different encodingsets uponthe formation of illusory correlations and group impressions. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 12:216-26 Pryor, J. B., Ostrom, T. M. 1981. The cognitive org.anization of social information: a converging operations approach. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 41:628-41 Pryor, J. B., Kott, T. L., Bovee, G. R. 1984. The influence of information redundancy upon the use of traits and persons as organizing categories. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 20:246-62 Pryor, J. B., Simpson, D. D., Mitchell, M., Ostrom, T. M., Lydon, J. 1982. Structural selectivity in the retrieval of social information. Soc. Cognit. 1:336-57 Quattrone, G. A. 1986. Onthe perception of a groups variability. See Worchel& Austin 1986, pp. 25-48 Quattrone, G. A., Jones, E. E. 1980. The perception of variability within ingroups and outgroups: implications for the law of small numbers. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 38:141-52 Raiffa, H. 1982. The Art and Science of Negotiation. Cambridge Mass: Harvard Univ. Press Rangarajan, L. M. 1985. The Limitation of Conflict: A Theory of Bargaining and Negotiation. NewYork: St. Martins Press
Theoretical models of intergroup relations and the use of cooperative teams as an intervention for desegregated settings. See Hendrick 1987b, pp. 41-67 Miller, N., Brewer, M. B., Edwards, K. 1985. Cooperative interaction in desegregated settings: a laboratory analogue. J. Soc. Issues 41(3):63-81 Moghaddam, F. M., Stringer, P. 1986. "Trivial" and "important" criteria for social categorization in the minimal group paradigm. J. Soc. Psychol. 126:345-54 Moreland, R. 1985. Social categorization and the assimilation of "new" group members. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 48:1173-90 Morley, I. E., Webb, J., Stephenson, G. M. 1988. The resolution of conflict. See Stroebe et al 1988, pp. 117-34 Moscovici, S. 1980. Towarda theory of conversion behavior. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 13:209-39 Moscovici, S., Mugny,G., eds. 1987. Psychologie de la Conversion. Delval: Cousset Mugny, G. 1982. The Power of Minorities. London: Academic Mullen, B., Hu, L.-T. 1989. Perceptions of ingroup and outgroup variability: a metaanalytic integration. In Basic and Applied Social Psychology. In press Neely, J. H. 1977. Semantic priming and reo tdeval from lexical memory:roles of memory, inhibitionless spreading activation and limited-capacity attention. J. Exp. Psychol. 106:226-54 Nesdale, A. R., Dharmalingam, S. 1986. Category salience, stereotyping and person memory. Aust. J. Psychol. 38:145-51 Nesdale, A. R., Dharmalingam,S., Kerr, G. K. 1987. Effect of subgroup ratio on stereotyping. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 17:35356 Neuberg, S. L., Fiske, S. T. 1987. Motivational influences on impression formation: outcome dependency, accuracy driven attention, and individuating processes. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 53:431-44 Ng, S. H. 1985. Biases in reward allocation resulting from personal status, group status, and allocation procedure. Aust. J. Psychol. 37:297-307 Ng, S. H. 1986. Equity, intergroup bias and interpersonal bias in rewardallocation. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 16:239-55 Nisbett, R. E., Krants, D. H., Jepson, C., Kunda, Z. 1983. The use of statistical heuristics in everydayintuitive reasoning. Psychol. Rev. 90:339-63 Noseworthy, C. M., Lott, A. J. 1984. The cognitive organization of gender-stereotypic categories. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 10:474-81 Oakes, P. J. 1987. The salience of social categories. See Turner 1987, pp. 117-41
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1989.40:45-81. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft on 09/07/06. For personal use only.
Annual Reviews www.annualreviews.org/aronline
INTERGROUP Rapoport, A., Bornstein, G. 1987. Intergroup competition for the provision of binary public goods. Psychol. Rev. 94:291-99 Rasinki, K. A., Crocker, J., Hastie, R. 1985. Another look at sex stereotypes and social judgments:an analysis of the social perceivers use of subjective probabilities. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 49:317-26 Reed, S. K. 1972. Pattern recognition and categorization. Cognit. Psychol. 3:382-407 Regan, D. T., Crawley, D. M. 1984. Illusory correlation and stereotype formation: Replication and extension. Presented at Ann. Meet. Am.Psychol. Assoc., Toronto, Canada Rehm,J., Steinleitner, J., Lilli, W. 1987. Wearing uniforms and aggression: a field experiment. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 17:35760 Reicher, S. 1986. Contact, action and racialization: someBritish evidence. See Hewstone & Brown 1986a, pp. 152-68 Rodin, M. J. 1987. Who is memorable to whom: a study of cognitive disregard. Soc. Cognit. 5:144-65 Rosch, E. 1978. Principles of categorization. In Cognition and Categorization, ed. E. Rosch, B. B. Lloyd, pp. 27-48. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Rosenbaum, M. E., Holtz, R. 1985. The minimal intergrou~ discrimination effect: out-group derogation, not in-group favorability. Presented at Ann. Meet. Am. Psychol. Assoc., Los Angeles Roth, A. E. 1985. GameTheoretic Models of Bargaining. NewYork: Cambridge Univ. Press Rothbart, M. 1988. Categorization and impression formation: capturing the minds flexibility. Adv. Soc. Cognit. 1:139-44 Rothbart, M., John, O. P. 1985. Social categorization and behavioral episodes: a cognitive analysis of the effects of intergroup contact. J. Soc. Issues 41:81-104 Rothbart, M., Lewis, S. 1988. Inferring cateo gory attributes from exemplar attributes: geometric shapes and social categories. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. In press Rothbart, M., Park, B. 1986. On the confirmability and disconfirmability of trait concepts. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 50:131-42 Rothbart, M., Dawes,R. M., Park, B. 1984. Stereotyping and sampling biases in intergroup perception. In Attitudinal Judgment, ed. J. R. Eiser, pp. 109-33. New York: Springer-Verlag Rothbart, M., Fulero, S., Jensen, C., Howard, J., Birrell, B. 1978. From individual to group impressions:availability heuristics in stereotype formation. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 14:237-55 Sachdev, I., Bourhis, R. Y. 1985. Social categorization and power differentials in RELATIONS
79
group relations. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 15:415-34 Sachdev, I., Bourhis, R. Y. 1987. Status differentials and intergroup behavior. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 17:277-93 Sagar, H. A., Schofield, J. W. 1980. Racial behavioral cues in black and white childrens perceptions of ambiguouslyaggressive acts. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 39:590-98 Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Sherman, S. J., Hamilton, D. L. 1987. Illusory correlation in the perception of individual and groups. Soc. Cognit. 5:1-25 Schofield, J. W. 1986. Causes and consequencesof the colorblind perspective. See Dovidio & Gaertner 1986, pp. 231-53 Schwarz, N., Clore, G. L. 1988. Howdo I feel about it? The information function of affective state. In Affect, Cognition, and Social Behavior, ed. K. Fiedler, J. Forgas. Toronto: Hogrefe International, pp. 44-62 Sears, D. O. 1983. The person-positivity bias. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 44:233-50 Sedikides, C., Ostrom, T. M. 1986. Status and ingroup/ outgroup membership as determinants of person organization. Presented at Ann. Meet. Midwest Psychol. Assoc., Chicago Sedikides, C., Ostrom, T. M. 1987. Familiarity as a mediatorof the outgrouphomogeneity effect. Presented at Ann.Meet. Midwest Psychol. Assoc., Chicago Sherif, M. 1967. Group Conflict and Cooperation. London: Rgutledge & Kegan Paul Simon, B., Brown, R. 1987. Perceived homogeneity in minority-majority contexts. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 53:703-11 Slavin, R. E. 1985. Cooperative learning: applying contact theory in desegregated schools. J. Soc. Issues 41(3):45-62 Smith, E. E., Medin, D. L. 1981. Categories and Concepts. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Univ. Press Smith, E. R., Zarate, M. 1988. Exemplarbased models of social categorization. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. In press Smith, P. 1985. Language, the Sexes and Society. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Sorrentino, R. M., Higgins, E. T., eds. 1986. The Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social Behavior. New York: Guilford Press Srull, T. K. 1981. Person memory: sometests of associative storage and retrieval models. J. Exp. Psychol.: Hum. Learn. Cogn. 9: 550-59 Srull, T. K., Lichtenstein, M., Rothbart, M. 1985. Associative storage and retrieval processes in person memory. J. Exp. Psychol.: Learn. Mem. Cogn. 11:316-45 Stein, G. J. 1988. Biological science and the roots of Nazism. Am. Sci. 76:50-58
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1989.40:45-81. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft on 09/07/06. For personal use only.
Annual Reviews www.annualreviews.org/aronline
80 MESSICK & MACKIE tion gathering. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 43: 22-34 Trope, Y., Mackie, D. M. 1987. Sensitivity to alternatives in social hypothesis testing. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 23:445-59 Trzebinski, J. 1985. Action-oriented representations of implicit personality theories. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 48:1266-78 Trzebinski, J., McGlynn, R. P., Gray, G., Tubbs, D. 1985. The role of categories of an actors goals in organizing inferences about a person. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 48:1387-97 Turner, J. C. 1982. Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In Social Identity and Intergroup Relations, ed. H. Tajfel, pp. 15-40. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press Turner, J. C. 1983a. Somecomments on . . . the measurement of social orientations in the minimal group paradigm. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 13:351-67 Turner, J. C. 1983b. A second reply to Bornstein, Crum, Wittenbraker, Harring, Insko, and Thibaut on the measurementof social orientations. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 13:38387 Turner, J. C. 1987. Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-categorization Theory. New York: Basil Blackwell Vanbeselaere, N. 1987. The effects of dichotomous and crossed social categorization upon intergroup discrimination. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 17:143-56 Wagner, U., Lampen, L., Syllwasschy, J. 1986. In-group inferiority, social identity and out-group devaluation in a modified minimal group study. Brit. J. Soc. Psychol. 25:15-23 Walker, P., Antaki, C. 1986. Sexual orientation as a basis for categorization in recall. Brit. J. Soc. Psychol. 25:337-39 Weber, R., Crocker, J. 1983. Cognitive processes in the revision of stereotypic beliefs. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 45:961-77 Wetherell, M. 1987. Social identity and group polarization. See Turner 1987, pp. 14270 Wilder, D. A. 1978. Perceiving persons as a group: effects on attributions of causality and beliefs. Soc. Psychol. 13:253-58 Wilder, D. A. 1981. Perceiving persons as a group: categorization and intergroup relations. See Hamilton 1981, pp. 213-58 Wilder, D. A. 1984a. Intergroup contact: the typical memberand the exception to the role. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 20:177-94 Wilder, D. A. 1984b. Predictions of belief homogeneity and similarity following social categorization. Brit. J. Soc. Psychol. 23: 323-33 Wilder, D. A. 1986a. Social categorization: implications for creation and reduction of
Stephan, W. G. 1985. Intergroup relations. See Lindzey & Aronson 1985, 2:599-658 Stephan, W. G. 1987. The contact hypothesis in intergroup relations. See Hendrick 1987b, pp. 13-40 Stephan, W. G., Stephan, C. W. 1984. The role of ignorance in intergroup relations. See Miller & Brewer 1984, pp. 229--55 Stephan, W. G., Stephan, C. W. 1985. Intergroup anxiety. J. Soc. Issues 41:157-75 Stem, L. D., Marrs, S., Millar, M. G., Cole, E. 1984. Processing time and the recall of inconsistent and consistent behaviors of individuals and groups. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 47:253-62 Stewart, M. S., Ryan, E. B., Giles, H. 1985. Accentand social class effects on status and solidarity evaluations. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 11:98-105 Stroebe, W., Kruglanski, A. W., Bar-Tal, D., Hewstone, M., eds. 1988. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Conflict. New York: Springer-Vedag. 198 pp. Tajfel, H. 1982. Social psychology of intergroup relations. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 33:1-39 Tajfel, H., Turner, J. C. 1986. Anintegrative theory of intergroup relations. See Worchel & Austin 1986, pp. 7-24 Tajfel, H., Wilkes, A. L. 1963. Classification and quantitative judgement. Brit. J. Psychol. 54:101-13 Tajfel, H., Flament, C., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. F. 1971. Social categorization and intergroup behavior. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 1:149-77 Taylor, D. M., Moghaddam, F. M. 1987. Theories of Intergroup Relations: International Social Psychological Perspectives. NewYork: Praeger. 223 pp. Taylor, S. E. 1981. A categorization approach to stereotyping. See Hamilton 1981, pp. 83-114 Taylor, S. E., Falcone, H. T. 1982. Cognitive bases of stereotyping: the relationship between categorization and prejudice. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 8:426-32 Taylor, S. E., Fiske, S. T., Etcoff, N. L., Ruderman,A. J. 1978. Categorical bases of person memory and stereotyping. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 36:778-93 Tetlock, P. E. 1986. Psychological advice on foreign policy: Whatdo we have to contribute? Am. Psychol. 41:557-67 Trew, K. 1986. Catholic-Protestant contact in Northern Ireland. See Hewstone & Brown 1986a, pp. 93--106 Triplet, R. G., Sugarman, D. B. 1987. Reactions to AIDS victims: Ambiguity breeds contempt. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 13: 265-74 Trope, Y., Bassok, M. 1982. Confirmatory and diagnosing strategies in social informa-
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1989.40:45-81. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft on 09/07/06. For personal use only.
Annual Reviews www.annualreviews.org/aronline
INTERGROUP intergroup bias. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 19:291-355 Wilder, D. A. 1986b. Cognitive factors affecting the success of intergroup contact. See Worchel & Austin 1986, pp. 49-66 Wilder, D. A., Shapiro, P. N. 1984. Role of outgroup cues in determining social identity. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 47:342-48 Wilder, D. A., Shapiro, P. N. 1988. A role of competition induced anxiety in limiting the beneficial impact of positive behavior by an outgroup member.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. In press Wolf, S. 1987. Majority and minority influence: a social impact analysis. In Social Influence: The Ontario Symposium, ed. M. P. Zanna, J. M. Olson, C. P. Herman, 5:207-35. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Worchel, S. 1979. Cooperation and the reduction of intergroup conflict: somedetermining factors. In The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, ed. W. G. Austin, S. Worchel, pp. 262-73. Monterey, Calif: Brooks/Cole RELATIONS 81
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1989.40:45-81. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft on 09/07/06. For personal use only.
Worchel, S. 1986. The role of cooperation in reducing intergroup conflict. See Worchel & Austin 1986, pp. 288-304 Worchel, S., Austin, W. G., eds. 1986. Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Chicago: Nelson-Hall. 429 pp. Worth, L. T. 1988. 1"he role of prior expectations and selective information processing in outgroup homogeneity. PhD thesis. Univ. Calif., Santa Barbara Worth, L. T., Allison, S. T., Messick, D. M. 1987. Impact of a groups decision on the perception of ones ownand others attitudes. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 53:673-82 Wyer, R. S. Jr., Martin, L. L. 1986. Person memory: the role of traits, group stereotypes, and specific behaviors in the cognitive representations of persons. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 50:661-75 Wyer, R. S., Bodenhausen,G. V., Srull, T. K. 1984. The cognitive representation of persons and groups and its effect on recall and recognition memory. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 20:445-69
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1989.40:45-81. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft on 09/07/06. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1989.40:45-81. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft on 09/07/06. For personal use only.
