SOCI AL I DENTITY, S OCIAL CATEGORI ZATION AND SOCI AL

COMPARI SON I N I NTERGROUP BEHAVI OUR.

I . The t heor et i cal and r es ear ch backgr ound
The pr esent r es ear ch pr oposal i s not bas ed on a t heor y whi ch i s f i rml y
and f i nal l y ar t i cul at ed; it i s not , howev er , an ent i r el y new r esear ch depar t ur e.
For s ome t hr ee or f our year s t her e has been an i nt er l ocki ng devel opment , i n
Br i st ol and el s ewher e, of exper i ment al st udi es and t heor et i cal i deas r el at ed
t o t hem, many of whi ch wer e def i ni t el y post hoc. The ai m of t hi s pr oposal i s
t o enabl e us t o cont i nue t hi s pr oces s wi t h t he hope t hat , at t he end of t he
pr oj ect , we shal l have a mor e sol i d bas i s f or a r espect abl e t heor y.
Soci al ps ychol ogy of i nt er gr oup r el at i ons has not f ar ed t oo wel l i n t he
l ast t hi rt y year s or s o. Char act er i st i cal l y, i n t hei r chapt er on "Gr oup pr oces s es "
i n t he Annual Rev i ew of Ps y chol ogy , Ger ar d and Mi l l er (1967) devot ed t o it a
dozen l i nes or s o i n a t ext of about 40 pag es . The i mpact of t hes e f ew l i nes
i s: (a) t hat i ndeed ver y l i t t l e exper i ment al wor k on i nt er gr oup pr oces s es i s
bei ng done; and (b) t hat t hi s i s due t o t he met hodol ogi cal di f f i cul t i es of
cr eat i ng i nt er gr oup si t uat i ons i n t he l abor at or y.
The maj or t r ends can be br i ef l y char act er i zed as f ol l ows devel opment s
f rom var i ous ver s i ons of t he f r ust r at i on- aggr essi on hypot hes i s wel l r epr es ent ed,
f or ex ampl e, by t he wor k of Ber kowi t z ( e . g . 1962, 1965); and t he quasi -
exper i ment al st udi es of gr oups i n conf l i ct der i vi ng f rom t he wor k of Sher i f
( e . g . 1966). I n addi t i on, t her e have been s ome i sol at ed st udi es about t he
eval uat i on of i ngr oups and out gr oups ( e . g . Bas s & Dunt emann, 1963; Doi s e,
1969; Fer guson & Kel l ey, 1964; Peabody , 1968; Rabbi e & Hor wi t z, 1969;
Rabbi e & Wi l k e ns , 1971; Wi l s on & Kat ayani , 1968; Wi l son & Mi l l er , 1960)
whi ch t oget her , howev er , di d not amount t o a cl ear - cut t heor et i cal adv ance
i n t he f i el d. The r i ch t r adi t i on of t he wor k on pr ej udi ce i ni t i at ed soon af t er
t he war i n t he Uni t ed St at es (Ador no et a l . 1950) was mai nl y, i f not excl us i vel y,
f ocus ed on t he genes i s of host i l e and di scr i mi nat or y at t i t udes and behavi our ;
t he s ame i s t r ue of t he wor k on st er eot ypes and ot her cogni t i ve as pect s of
pr ej udi ce, al t hough t her e have been s cmo at t empt s t o r el at e t hi s wor k t o mor e
a
gener al as pect s of cogni t i ve f unct i oni ng ( e . g . Al l por t , 1954; Campbel l , 1967;
Taj f el , 1959; Taj f el , 1969a).
Independent l y of t he det ai l of t he var i ous appr oaches t o t he ps ychol ogy
of i nt er gr oup r el at i ons , one gener al st at ement about t hem can be made whi ch
does not (as it appear s t o t he pr esent wri t er) do t hem i nj us t i ce. They f ocus ed
on i nt er gr oup pr oces s es t aki ng as t hei r poi nt of depar t ur e at t i t udes and
behavi our t owar ds t he out gr oups . In s ome c as es , as i n t he wor k on f r ust r at i on
and aggr es s i on, t hes e out gr oup at t i t udes and behavi our wer e s een as an
i ns t ance of a mor e gener al l aw of human mot i vat i on, i n s ome s ens e pr el i mi nar y
t o any s oci al cont ext (cf . Taj f el , 1972a). In ot her s, s uch as t he wor k of
Sher i f , t he emphas i s has been on t he devel opment of out gr oup at t i t udes , and
al most epi phenomenal l y , of i ngr oup af f i l i at i ons. Bot h t he i ngr oup and out gr oup
at t i t udes wer e s een as a r esul t of emer gi ng s oci al nor ms , di r ect l y due t o an
expl i ci t i nt er gr oup conf l i ct of goal s . Thi s conf l i ct was not onl y cl ear l y expl i ci t
t o t he s ubj ect s ; it was al s o cl ear l y def i ned as s uch by t he exper i ment er s; t he
cr eat i on of i t and t he st udy of i t s r esul t s wer e t he ai ms of t he r es ear ch.
Muc h of t he ar gument t o f ol l ow can be s ai d t o be bas ed on a si mpl e
st at ement : i n or der f or t he member s of an i ngr oup t o be abl e t o hat e or di sl i ke
an out gr oup, or t o di scr i mi nat e agai ns t i t , t hey must f i rst have acqui r ed a
s ens e of bel ongi ng t o a gr oup whi ch i s cl ear l y di st i nct f r om t he one t hey hat e,
di s l i ke, or di scr i mi nat e agai ns t . Muc h of t he t r adi t i on i n t he l i t er at ur e (not
onl y i n s oci al ps ychol ogy) as cr i bes t he acqui si t i on of t hi s s ens e of bel ongi ng
t o t he exi s t ence of out gr oups per cei ved as t hr eat s , common enemi es , et c. A
weaker pr oposi t i on i n t he s ame t r adi t i on i s t hat t he exi s t ence of s uch out gr oups
at l east cont r i but es t o, or i ncr eas es , t he i nt ensi t y of i ngr oup af f i l i at i ons . The
exi s t ence or st r engt h of t he i ngr oup ar e t hus s een as phenomena der i ved f rom
t he r el at i ons bet ween t he i ngr oup and i t s out gr oups. In s ome c as e s , t hi s
cons i st s of pr es umed i nt r agr oup ef f ect s of var i ous ki nds of di r ect or pr oj ect ed
out gr oup host i l i t y; i n ot her s , it i s s een as a di r ect r esul t of an "obj ect i ve"
conf l i ct of i nt er est s bet ween t he gr oups . The emphas i s r emai ns t he s ame.
Ther e i s no doubt t hat t hi s out gr oup- i ngr oup s equence of at t i t udes and
behavi our has a gr eat deal of val i di t y, bot h i nt ui t i vel y and as a r esul t of a
gr eat mas s of empi r i cal ev i dence. But t he emphasi s- under s t andabl e as it has
- 2 -
been, mai nl y f or s oci al r eas ons - i s t oo one- s i ded. An adequat e soci al
ps ychol ogi cal t heor y of i nt er gr oup behavi our must t ake i nt o account bot h
causal di r ect i ons: f rom i ngr oup pr oces s es t o out gr oup behavi our and at t i t udes
as wel l as t he opposi t e one whi ch has been unt i l now t he pr i nci pal obj ect of
t heor y and r es ear ch. Even i f it i s t r ue t hat or i gi nal l y many gr oups ar e cr eat ed
as a common shel t er f or t hei r member s f r om out si de t hr eat s and danger s
(human or not ), it i s equal l y t r ue t hat i n any compl ex soci et y an i ndi vi dual
conf r ont s f r om t t l a begi nni ng of hi s l i f e a compl ex net wor k of gr oupi ngs
whi ch pr es ent s hi m wi t h a net wor k of r el at i onshi ps i nt o whi ch he must fit
hi ms el f . One of t he most i mpor t ant and dur abl e pr obl ems t hat i s pos ed t o an
i ndi vi dual by hi s i nser t i on i nt o soci et y i s t o f i nd, cr eat e and def i ne hi s pl ace
i n t hes e net wor ks . It i s r eas onabl e t o as s ume t hat bot h hi s i ngr oup and
out gr oup at t i t udes and behavi our must be det er mi ned, t o s ome ext ent at l eas t ,
by t hi s cont i nui ng pr oces s of sel f - def i ni t i on.
An ear l y ver s i on of t hes e i deas l ed t o t he f i rst exper i ment s we conduct ed
i n Br i st ol s ome t hr ee or f our year s ago (Taj f el , 1970a; Taj f el et a l . 1971).
Thei r ai m was t o es t abl i s h mi ni mal condi t i ons i n whi ch an i ndi vi dual wi l l , i n
hi s behav i our , di st i ngui sh bet ween an i ngr oup and an out gr oup. In or der t o
cr eat e s uch mi ni mal condi t i ons we at t empt ed t o el i mi nat e f r om t he exper i ment al
si t uat i ons al l t he var i abl es t hat nor mal l y l ead t o i ngr oup f avour i t i sm or
di scr i mi nat i on agai ns t t he out gr oup: f ace- t o- f ace i nt er act i on; conf l i ct of
i nt er est s; any possi bi l i t y of pr evi ous host i l i t y; any "ut i l i t ar i an" or i nst r u
ment al l i nk bet ween t he s ubj ect s ' r es pons es and t hei r sel f - i nt er est . In
addi t i on, we enabl ed t he s ubj ect s t o chos e amongs t a var i et y of st r at egi es i n
t hei r r es pons es , some of whi ch wer e mor e "t Rt i oaal '1or "us ef ul 1' t han cr eat i ng
a di f f er ent i at i on bet ween t he gr oups . The subj ect s f i rst per f or med a r el at i vel y
t r i vi al t as k (gues s i ng number s of dot s i n r api dl y pr oj ect ed cl us t er s , or
expr es si ng pr ef er ence f or t he pai nt i ngs of one of t wo f ai r l y abst r act pai nt er s ,
Kl ee and Kandi ns ky ). They t hen wor ked separ at el y i n i ndi vi dual cubi cl es .
Thei r t ask was t o deci de (on a number of payment mat r i ces) about di vi si on of
poi nt s wor t h money bet ween t wo ot her s ubj ect s . They knew what was t hei r
own gr oup member s hi p (under - or over - est i mat i on of dot s ; or pr ef er ence f or
one or t he ot her pai nt er ), and t he gr oup member s hi p of t hos e bet ween whom
\
- 3 -
I *
%
t hey wer e di vi di ng t he money; but t hose ot her s wer e des i gnat ed by code
number s , and t hei r i dent i t y was unknown. The r esul t s wer e ver y hi ghl y
si gni f i cant i n t he di r ect i on of awar di ng mor e money t o member s of t he "i ngr oup".
In t he s econd set of exper i ment s , t he mat r i ces wer e so const r uct ed t hat we
coul d as s es s t he separ at e "pul l " of sever al var i abl es on t he deci s i ons . Thes e
var i abl es wer e: maxi mum j oi nt pr of i t ( i . e . t he st r at egy of awar di ng t he
maxi mum j oi nt amount on each mat r i x, s o t hat al l t he subj ect s t oget her - who
knew each ot her wel l bef or e t he exper i ment s - coul d get t he gr eat est pos s i bl e
amount of money out of t he exper i ment er ^; maxi mum pr of i t f or member s of t he
i ngr oup; maxi mum di f f er ence i n f avour of t he i ngr oup at t he pr i ce of sacr i f i ci ng
bot h t he above advant ages ; and f ai r ness of choi ces . Of t hes e var i abl es , t he
f i rst - maxi mum j oi nt pr of i t - exer t ed har dl y any pul l on t he deci s i ons ;
maxi mum i ngr oup pr of i t was i mpor t ant , but somet i mes not near l y as i mpor t ant
as achi evi ng maxi mum di f f er ence i n f avour of t he i ngr oup. Fai r ness was al s o
a si gni f i cant var i abl e and ser ved t o moder at e t he ex c es s es of i ngr oup
f avour i t i sm.
Two si mpl e and over l appi ng expl anat i ons ar e avai l abl e t o account f or
t hes e r esul t s, a "nor mat i ve" one and a "l ear ni ng" one. The f i rst i s t hat our
school boy s ubj ect s , aged 15 t o 16 y ear s , s aw t he si t uat i on as one of "t eam
compet i t i on" i n whi ch one shoul d make one's own t eam wi n at what ever cos t .
The s ec ond, t hat - i n a new si t uat i on - t hey engaged i n i ngr oup behavi our
whi ch had been r ei nf or ced on count l ess occas i ons i n t he pas t . Bot h t hes e
expl anat i ons ar e s ens i bl e; t hey ar e al s o qui t e "uni nt er es t i ng" - uni nt er est i ng
becaus e not genui nel y heur i s t i c. If our subj ect s had chos en st r at egi es of
choi ces l eadi ng t o maxi mum j oi nt pr of i t , t he s ame expl anat i ons coul d st i l l
s er v e, i n one f or m or anot her . If t hey had chos en onl y t he st r at egy of f ai r ness
wi t hout t hat of i ngr oup f avour i t i sm, one coul d st i l l "expl ai n ' t hei r r es pons es
st ar t i ng f r om nor ms and pr evi ous r ei nf or cement s. My ar gument i s not t hat
t hes e expl anat i ons ar e i nval i d. It i s r at her t hat , i n addi t i on t o t hei r capaci t y
t o expl ai n i ndi scr i mi nat el y al l ki nds of r es ul t s , t hey ar e at a l evel of gener al i t y
whi ch pr event s t hem f rom ser vi ng as a poi nt of depar t ur e f or new and mor e
sear chi ng i ns i ght s about i nt er gr oup pr oces s es .
- 4 -
It i s t he choi ce by t he s ubj ect s of t hes e par t i cul ar nor ms bas ed on t hes e
par t i cul ar r ei nf or cement s whi ch def i nes t he pr obl em and pr ovi des a depar t ur e
for some r es ear ch ques t i ons about t he psychol ogy of i nt er gr oup r el at i ons .
Thi s i s par t i cul ar l y so i n v i ew of t he f act t hat t he r esul t s have s i nce been
r epl i cat ed i n sever al exper i ment s bot h i n Br i t ai n (Bi l l i g, 1972; Bi l l i g & Taj f el ,
1973; Taj f el & Bi l l i g, 1973; Tur ner , 1973b) and el s ewher e (Deut s ch et a l . ,
1971; Doi s e , et al . . 1972; Sol e et a l . , 1973).
The pr obl ems of an i ndi vi dual 's sel f - def i ni t i on i n a soci al cont ext ,
br i ef l y ment i oned abov e, can be r est at ed i n t er ms of t he not i on of soci al
i dent i t y. Wo need t o post ul at e t hat , at l eas t i n our ki nds of soci et i es -, an
i ndi vi dual st r i ves t o achi ev e a sat i sf act or y concept or i mage of hi ms el f . Thi s
was one of t he bas es of Fes t i nger 's t heor y of soci al compar i s on (1954).
Fes t i nger , howev er , was al most excl us i vel y concer ned wi t h s oci al compar i s ons
made bet ween i ndi vi dual s and wi t h eval uat i ons of ones el f and ot her s made by
means of t hes e i nt er - i ndi vi dual compar i s ons . Thi s i nt er - i ndi vi dual emphas i s
negl ect s an i mpor t ant cont r i but i ng as pect of an i ndi vi dual 's sel f - def i ni t i on:
t he f act t hat he i s a member of numer ous soci al gr oups and t hat t hi s member
shi p cont r i but es, posi t i vel y or negat i vel y, t o t he i mage t hat he has of hi ms el f .
Four l i nked concept s wi l l be empl oyed i n or der t o pr oceed wi t h t hi s
di s cus s i on. They ar e: soci al cat egor i zat i on, soci al i dent i t y, s oci al compar i
son and^ps ychol ogi cal di s t i nct i v enes s .) * ^ cf l et * *
The pr oces s of cat egor i zat i on, as it i s us ed by t he human i ndi vi dual i n
or der t o syst emat i BO and si mpl i f y hi s envi r onment , pr esent s cer t ai n t heor et i cal
cont i nui t i es f r om t he r ol e pl ayed by cat egor i zi ng i n per cept ual act i vi t i es t o
i t s r ol e i n t he or der i ng of one's soci al envi r onment . For our pur pos e, soci al
cat egor i zat i on can be under st ood as t he or der i ng of soci al envi r onment i n t er ms
of s oci al cat egor i es , t hat i s of gr oupi ngs of per s ons i n a manner whi ch i s
meani ngf ul t o t he s ubj ect . Ther ef or e, i n our di s cus s i on t he t er m gr oup"
denot es a cogni t i ve ent i t y t hat i s meani ngf ul t o t he subj ect at a par t i cul ar
poi nt Of t i me and must be di st i ngui shed f r omt he way i n whi ch t he t er m "gr oup '1
i s us ed i n much of t he soci al ps ychol ogi cal Ut er at ur e wher e it denot es an
"obj ect i ve" (most of t en f ace- t o- f ace) r el at i onshi p bet ween a number of peopl e.
In ot her wor ds , soci al cat egor i zat i on i s a pr oces s of br i ngi ng t oget her soci al
- 5 -
obj ect s or event s i n gr oups whi ch ar e equi val ent wi t h r egar d t o an i ndi vi dual 's
act i ons , i nt ent i ons , at t i t udes and s ys t ems of bel i ef s .
The s econd concept we must i nt r oduce her e i s t hat of s oci al i dent i t y.
For our pur pos es we shal l under st and soci al i dent i t y as t hat par t of an
i ndi vi dual 's sel f - concept whi ch der i ves f r om hi s knowl edge of hi s member s hi p
of a soci al gr oup (or gr oups) t oget her wi t h t he emot i onal s i gni f i cance at t ached
t o t hat member s hi p.
Soci al cat egor i zat i on must t her ef or e be cons i der ed as a sys t em of or i en
t at i on whi ch cr eat es and def i nes t he i ndi vi dual 's own pl ace i n s oci et y. As
Ber ger (1966) wr ot e: "Ever y soci et y cont ai ns a r eper t oi r e of i dent i t i es t hat i s
par t of t he "obj ect i ve knowl edge" of i t s member s '1( p. 106). "Soci ot y not onl y
def i nes but cr eat es ps ychol ogi cal r eal i t y. The i ndi vi dual r eal i s es hi ms el f i n
soci et y - t hat i s , he r ecogni zes hi s i dent i t y i n soci al l y def i ned t er ms and
t hes e def i ni t i ons become r eal i t y as he l i ves i n soci et y" ( p. 107).
Sever al cons equences r egar di ng gr oup member s hi p f ol l ow upon t hi s
"r ecogni t i on of i dent i t y i n soci al l y def i ned t er ms ". They can be des cr i bed
as f ol l ows:
a) It can be as s umed t hat an i ndi vi dual wi l l t end t o r emai n a member of
a gr oup and s eek member s hi p of new gr oups i f t hes e gr oups hav e s ome cont r i
but i on t o make t o t he pos i t i ve as pect s of hi s soci al i dent i t y; i . e . t o t hose
as pect s of i t f r om whi ch he der i ves s ome sat i sf act i on.
b) If a gr oup does not sat i sf y t hi s r equi r ement , t he i ndi vi dual wi l l t end
t o l eav e it unl es s
(i) l eavi ng t he gr oup i s i mpos s i bl e f or s ome "obj ect i ve"r eas ons or ,
(ii) it conf l i ct s wi t h i mpor t ant val ues whi ch ar e t hems el ves a par t of
hi s accept abl e soci al i dent i t y.,
c) If l eavi ng t he gr oup pr es ent s t he di f f i cul t i es j ust ment i oned, t hen at
l east t wo sol ut i ons ar e pos s i bl e:
(i) t o change one's i nt er pr et at i ons of t he at t r i but es of t he gr oup so
t hat i t s unwel come f eat ur es ( e . g . l ow st at us) ar e ei t her j ust i f i ed or
made accept abl e t hr ough a r ei nt er pr et at i on;
(ii) t o accept t he si t uat i on f or what it i s and engage i n soci al act i on
whi ch woul d l ead t o des i r abl e changes i n t he si t uat i on. (Of cour s e,
t her e may be var i ous combi nat i ons of (i) and (ii) , s uch a s , for
ex ampl e, when t he negat i ve at t r i but es ar e j ust i f i ed and soci al act i on
t o r emove t hem i s under t aken at t he s ame t i me).
d) No gr oup l i ves al one - al l gr oups i n soci et y l i ve i n t he mi dst of ot her
gr oups . In ot her wor ds , t he "pos i t i ve as pect s of soci al i dent i t y i n (a) abov e,
and t he r ei nt er pr et at i on of at t r i but es and engagement i n s oci al act i on i n (c)
abov e, onl y acqui r e meani ng i n r el at i on t o, or i n compar i s ons wi t h, ot her
gr oups .
It i s t hi s compar at i ve per s pect i ve t hat l i nks soci al cat egor i zi ng wi t h
s oci al i dent i t y. In hi s t heor y of s oci al compar i son pr oces s es , Fest i nger
(1954) hypot hes i zed t hat "t her e ex i s t s , i n t he human or gani s m, a dr i ve t o
eval uat e hi s opi ni ons and hi s abi l i t i es ". Hi s s econd maj or hypot hes i s i n t he
s ame paper was t hat "t o t he ext ent obj ect i ve, non- soci al means ar e not
av ai l abl e, peopl e eval uat e t hei r opi ni ons and abi l i t i es by compar i s on r es pec
t i vel y wi t h t he qpi ni ons and abi l i t i es of ot her s ". But t her e ar e s ome di f f i cul t i es
wi t h t he concept i on t hat s oci al compar i s ons onl y t ake pl ace "t o t he ext ent t hat
obj ect i ve non- soci al means ar e not av ai l abl e". Fes t i nger 's exampl e i s t hat
"one , coul d, of cour s e, t est t he opi ai on t hat an obj ect , was f r agHe by hi t t i ng
it wi t h a hammer ". I can conf i r m t he opi ni on t hat a bed i s f or l yi ng- down- on
by l yi ng down on it unt i l I di scover t hat t hi s par t i cul ar bed i n t hi s par t i cul ar
r oom of t he cast l e bel onged t o t he Duke of Ur bi no and i s most def i ni t el y not
f or l yi ng- down- on. Ver y of t en, t he "obj ect i ve non- soci al means t hat may
appear t o an obser ver t o be avai l abl e f or t he t est i ng of opi ni ons do not have
much val i di t y unl es s t hey ar e us ed i n conj unct i on wi t h t he s i gni f i cance t hat
t hey acqui r e i n t hei r soci al set t i ng. The cas es whi ch l i e out si de t hi s r ange
ar e usual l y t r i vi al i n t he anal ys i s of soci al behavi our . In addi t i on, soci al
r eal i t y can be as "obj ect i ve" as i s non- soci al r eal i t y, and conver sel y "obj ec
t i vi t y" can be as "s oc i a l 1as it i s "phy s i c al ". In s ome cul t ur es , t hunder and
l i ght ni ng ar e as i ndi sput abl y si gns of anger of super nat ur al power s as t hey ar e
bur st s of s ound and l i ght .
The cr i t er i on of "obj ect i vi t y" cannot be bas ed on cl ass i f yi ng phenomena
as bei ng of a "s oci al " or a non- s oci al '1nat ur e, wi t h t he pr es umed at t endant
cons equence t hat opi ni ons about t hem can be t est ed r es pect i vel y by "s oci al "
or by "non- s oci al " means . It can i ns t ead be def i ned i n t er ms of t he awar e
nes s (or t he degr ee of s ubj ect i ve pr obabi l i t y) t hat t her e exi st al t er nat i ves t o
t he j udgement one i s maki ng. A l ow (or ni l ) pr obabi l i t y t hat al t er nat i ves, t o
- 7 -
one's opi ni ons exi st ma^ be due t o t he cons i st ency over t i me i n t he checki ng
of t hes e opi ni ons t hr ough non- soci al moans , as i n Fes t i nger 's exampl e of
f r agi l i t y and hammer ; but it may al s o be due t o t he ver y hi gh soci al cons ens us
about t he nat ur e of a phenomenon, i ndependent l y of whet her t he phenomenon
i s t hought of as bei ng "phy s i c al ", "nat ur al 11or "s oc i al ". It i s undoubt edl y
t r ue t hat cer t ai nt y can ver y of t en be mor e easi l y r eached about t he phys i cal
t han about t he soci al means of t es t i ng, but t hi s i s not a t heor et i cal di st i nct i on
bet ween what appear s and does not appear as 'obj ect i ve r eal i t y". It cannot
be sai d t hat a human or gani sm t ur ns t owar ds soci al means of val i dat i ng
opi ni ons onl y when non- soci al means f or doi ng s o ar e not av ai l abl e. Ther e
ar e many ex ampl es , bot h i n t he hi st or y of s ci ence i n our own cul t ur e and i n
t he s ys t ems of knowl edge of ot her cul t ur es , of pr ocedur es whi ch f ol l ow t he
opposi t e cour s e; i . e ; . t hey do not us e t he means of "phy s i cal " t est i ng whi ch
ar e, i n pr i nci pl e, avai l abl e becaus e of t he ver y hi gh (or compl et e) soci al
cons ens us about t he nat ur e of a phenomenon.
Ther ef or e, "s oci al compar i s on pr oces s es " have an even wi der r ange of
appl i cat i on t hanFes t i nger was wi l l i ng t o as s i gn t o t hem. The r ange of appl i
cat i on i ncl udes bot h t he soci al cont ext (or si gni f i cance) of "non- s oci al "
t es t i ng, and t he cas es wher e t he hi gh s oci al cons ens us about t he nat ur e of a
phenomenon i s suf f i ci ent t o conf er t he mar k of "obj ect i vi t y" on opi ni ons about
i t . In hi s t heor y, Fest i nger was mai nl y concer ned wi t h t he s oci al t est i ng of;
opi ni ons about char act er i st i cs of i ndi v i dual s , and wi t h t he r esul t i ng "r el at i ve
si mi l ar i t y i n opi ni ons and abi l i t i es among per s ons who as s oci at e wi t h one
anot her (at l eas t on t hos e opi ni ons and abi l i t i es whi ch ar e r el evant t o t hat
ass oci at i on) ". The t heor y was pr i mar i l y addr es s ed at t he wi t hi n- gr oup ef f ect s
of t he pr oces s of s oci al compar i s on (s uch as pr es sur es t owar ds uni f or mi t y i n
a gr oup) whi l e "compar i s ons wi t h member s of a di f f er ent st at us gr oup, ei t her
hi gher or l ower may s omet i mes be made on a phant asy l evf el , but ver y r ar el y
i n r eal i t y". Though Fest i nger qual i f i es t hi s st at ement by addi ng t hat compar i
s ons bet ween gr oups t hat di f f er ar e not compl et el y el i mi nat ed, t he f ocus of
hi s di s cus s i on r emai ns on i ndi vi dual s compar i ng t hems el ves wi t h ot her
i ndi vi dual s .
On t he bas i s of our di s cus s i on so f ar , we ar e now abl e t o make t wo
gener al st at ement s about s oci al cat egor i zat i on i nt o gr oups i n r el at i on t o i t s
- 8 -
f unct i on "as a sys t em of or i ent at i on whi ch cr eat es and def i nes t he i ndi vi dual 's
own pl ace i n s oci et y ". The f i rst concer ns t he "obj ect i ve r eal i t y" of compar i
sons f ocusi ng on an i ndi vi dual as an i ndi vi dual and compar i s ons bas ed on an
i ndi vi dual 's member s hi p of a par t i cul ar soci al gr oup. Wi t h r egar d t o t he f i rst
i s s ue, it can be sai d t hat t he onl y "r eal i t y" t est s t hat mat t er wi t h r egar d t o
gr oup char act er i st i cs ar e t est s of soci al r eal i t y. The char act er i st i cs of one's
gr oup as a whol e (s uch as i t s s t at us, i t s r i chnes s or pover t y, i t s ski n col our
or i t s abi l i t y t o r each i t s ai ms) achi ev e most of t hei r s i gni f i cance i n r el at i on
t o per cei ved di f f er ences f r om ot her gr oups and t he val ue connot at i on of t hese
di f f er ences . For ex ampl e, economi c depr i vat i on acqui r es i t s i mpor t ance i n
soci al at t i t udes , i nt ent i ons and act i ons mai nl y when it becomes 'r el at i ve
depr i vat i on"; eas y or di f f i cul t ac c es s t o means of pr oduct i on and consumpt i on
of g oods , t o benef i t s and oppor t uni t i es becj pme ps ychol ogi cal l y sal i ent
mai nl y i n r el at i on t o compar i s ons wi t h ot her gr oups; t he def i ni t i on of a gr oup
(nat i onal , r aci al or any ot her) makes no s ens e unl es s t her e ar e ot her gr oups
ar ound. A gr oup becomes a gr oup i n t he s ens e of bei ng per cei ved as havi ng
common char act er i st i cs or a common f at e onl y becaus e ot her gr oups ar e
pr esent i n t he envi r onment .
Thus , t he ps ychol ogi cal as pect s and cons equences of t he member s hi p of
a gr oup ar e capabl e of any ki nd of a def i ni t i on onl y becaus e of t hei r i nser t i on
i nt o a mul t i - gr oup st r uct ur e. Cons equent l y , t he soci al i dent i t y of an i ndi vi dual
concei ved as hi s "knowl edge t hat he bel ongs t o cer t ai n soci al gr oups t oget her
wi t h s ome emot i onal and val ue s i gni f i cance t o hi m of hi s member s hi p can
onl y be def i ned t hr ough t he ef f ect s of soci al cat egor i zat i ons segment i ng an
i ndi vi dual 's soci al envi r onment i nt o hi s own gr oup and ot her s. A soci al gr oup
wi l l , t her ef or e, be capabl e of pr eser vi ng i t s cont r i but i on t o t hos e as pect s of
an i ndi vi dual 's s oci al i dent i t y whi ch ar e posi t i vel y val ued by hi m onl y i f it
manages t o keep i t s posi t i vel y val ued di s t i nct i venes s f r om ot her gr oups . It
i s t r ue, of cour s e, t hat somet i mes an i ndi vi dual may wi s h f or hi s own gr oup
t o be mor e si mi l ar t han it i s t o cer t ai n ot her gr oups; t hi s i s us ual l y s o when
t hes e gr oups ar e cons i der ed as ''super i or 1' or "bet t er " i n s ome r es pect s .
Howev er , t he f act t hat an i ndi vi dual may wi s h f or hi s gr oup t o be mor e l i ke
anot her i n cer t ai n r espect s means t hat , i n t hes e r es pect s . hi s own gr oup i s
- 9 -
- 10 -
not adequat el y f ul f i l l i ng i t s f unct i on of cont r i but i ng t o posi t i vel y val ued
s oci al i dent i t y. Ther ef or e, i f it i s t r ue t hat s oci al compar i s ons on t he i ndi
vi dual l evel f oc us , as Fest i nger s t at ed, on cnmi ng cl oser t o and as s oci at i ng
wi t h t hos e who ar e si mi l ar t o us , soci al compar i s ons bet ween gr oups ar e
f ocus ed on t he es t abl i s hment of di s t i nct i venes s bet ween one's own and
ot her gr oups.
The f i rst st udi es on soci al cat egor i zat i on by t he appl i cant and hi s
col l eagues , br i ef l y s ummar i zed ear l i er i n t hi s pr opos al , pr ovi ded - at bes t -
s ugges t i ve ev i dence t hat some pr oces s es wer e at wor k i n an i nt er gr oup
si t uat i on whi c h, des pi t e t hei r l eadi ng t o st r ong i nt er gr oup di f f er ent i at i on
t hr ough t he behavi our of t he s ubj ect s , coul d not be at t r i but ed ei t her t o
pr evi ous host i l i t y, or t o an "obj ect i v e" cur r ent conf l i ct of i nt er est s bet ween
t he gr oups , or t o a si mpl e ver s i on of t he s ubj ect s ' sel f - i nt er est . Thes e
st udi es wer e i n no s ens e exper i ment a cr uces ; but r at her , t hey ser ved as
cr ut ches f or f ur t her t hi nki ng about t he i s s ues i nvol ved. In addi t i on, an
i mpor t ant met hodol ogi cal pr obl em had t o be deal t wi t h bef or e t he s ubj ect s '
behavi our coul d be s een as a cons equence of soci al cat egor i zat i on i nt o
gr oups r at her t han of i nt er - i ndi vi dual si mi l ar i t y whi ch wa s , i n t hes e exper i
ment s , as s oci at ed wi t h t hi s cat egor i zat i on; i . e . t he cr i t er i on f or gr oup
member s hi p was a si mi l ar i t y bet ween t he subj ect s i n t hei r per f or mance i n
t he f i rst par t of t he exper i ment s . Ther e i s a good deal of ev i dence (cf .
Byr ne, 1971, f or a summar y) t hat i nt er - i ndi vi dual si mi l ar i t i es, even when t hey
ar e f ai r l y t r i vi al , do l ead t he subj ect s i n const r i ct ed exper i ment al si t uat i ons
t o " pr e f e r t hos e who ar e mor e "l i ke" t hem.
For t hi s r eas on, f ur t her exper i ment s wer e conduct ed i n or der t o at t empt
a separ at i on bet ween t he var i abl es of i nt er - i ndi vi dual si mi l ar i t y and of
"pur e cat egor i zat i on i nt o di chot omous gr oups . In a t wo- by- t wo des i gn,
Bi l l i g (1972; al s o cf . Bi l l i g & Taj f el , 1973) compar ed hi s s ubj ect s ' behavi our
t owar ds ot her s when t hey wer e expl i ci t l y di vi ded i nt o gr oups wi t h t hei r
behavi our when di vi si on i nt o gr oups was not made expl i ci t . He adapt ed f or
hi s pur pos e t he pr ocedur e pr evi ousl y us ed i n t he exper i ment s by Taj f el et a l .
(1971). In t he f i rst par t of Bi l l i g's exper i ment , t he s ubj ect s wer e as ked t o
expr es s t hei r pr ef er ences for one or t he ot her of t wo pai nt er s (I dee and
Kandi nsky) on t he bas i s of a number of r epr oduct i ons of pai nt i ngs whi ch wer e
s hown t o t hem on a s cr een. In t he s econd par t , i n condi t i ons whi ch i ns ur ed
anonymi t y of pr evi ousl y expr es s ed pr ef er ences , each subj ect was as ked t o
awar d poi nt s (whi ch had monet ar y val ue) bet ween t wo anonymous ot her
s ubj ect s who wer e des i gnat ed by code number s ; Ther e wer e f our exper i ment al
condi t i ons . In one condi t i on (cat egor i zat i on and si mi l ar i t y - CS) each subj ct
awar ded poi nt s t o t wo ot her s , one of whom was - n hi s own gr oup, t he gr oup
member s hi p bei ng bas ed on t he pr evi ousl y expr es s ed pr ef er ences (t he "Kl ee
gr oup" or t he "Kandi ns ky gr oup") , and one i n t he ot her gr oup. In t he s econd
condi t i on (cat egor i zat i on wi t hout si mi l ar i t y - CS ) , t he s ubj ect s awar ded poi nt s
t o t wo ot her s who wer e al s o as s i gned t o t wo gr oups (one of whi ch was t he
s ubj ect s own gr oup) but t hi s as s i gnment was expl i ci t l y made r andom, and
had not hi ng t o do wi t h pr evi ousl y expr es s ed pi ct ur e pr ef er ences . In t he t hi r d
y
condi t i on (si mi l ar i t y wi t hout cat egor i zat i on * CS ) , t he subj ect s awar ded poi nt s
t o t wo ot her s whos e code number s i ndi cat ed t hat t hey pr ef er r ed one or t he
ot her pai nt er , but t he not i on of "gr oups " was not i nt r oduced or ment i oned at
any poi nt dur i ng t he exper i ment . In t he f our t h condi t i on (no cat egor i zat i on
A'.
and no si mi l ar i t y - CS) poi nt s wer e awar ded t o t wo ot her subj ect s wi t hout
any r ef er ence ei t her t o gr oup member s hi p or t o pi ct ur e pr ef er ences . The
r esul t s wer e as f ol l ows: i n condi t i ons of CS and CS a si gni f i cant amount of
f avour i t i sm was s hown t owar ds ot her s who wer e i n t he s ame gr oup as t he
s ubj ect maki ng t he awar ds ; i n condi t i on CS , t her e was s ome t endency by t he
s ubj ect s t o f avour t hos e whos e pr ef er ences wer e si mi l ar t o t hei r own, but
t hi s t endency di d not r each t he l evel of st at i st i cal s i gni f i cance; i n condi t i on
CS t her e was no bi as i n f avour of one or t he ot her of t he r eci pi ent s of t he
awar ds . The hi ghl y si gni f i cant r esul t s i n condi t i ons CS r epl i cat ed t hos e
obt ai ned i n t he i ni t i al exper i ment s (Taj f el et a l . , 1971). But our mai n i nt er est
r/ /*/
her e i s i n t he compar i s on bet ween condi t i ons CS and CS . The f avour i t i sm
s hown t owar ds t hos e who wer e as s i gned t o t he subj ect 's own gr oup wi t hout
any r ef er ence t o si mi l ar i t y i n pr ef er ences (t he CS condi t i on) was cons i der abl y
and si gni f i cant l y st r onger t han t he non- si gni f i cant t endency s hown i n t he CS
condi t i on t o f avour t hose who , wi t hout any r ef er ence t o t hei r cat egor i zat i on
i nt o gr oups , wer e si mi l ar t o t he subj ect i n t hei r pr ef er ences .
- 11 -
a /
It cannot be s ai d, of cour s e, t hat t he subj ect s i n condi t i on CS di d not
cat egor i ze as "gr oups " on t he bas i s of si mi l ar i t i es of pr ef er ences . But t he
poi nt of t he exper i ment was t hat t hi s was not an expl i ci t cat egor i zat i on.
Thus , t he i nt r oduct i on of an expl i ci t soci al cat egor i zat i on i n condi t i on CS -
whi ch was not bas ed on any pr evi ous si mi l ar i t i es bet ween t he i ndi vi dual s
i nvol ved - was much mor e ef f ect i ve i n pr oduci ng f avour i t i sm t han t he i nt ro-
duct i on i n condi t i on CS of si mi l ar i t y bet ween i ndi vi dual s whi ch was not
r el at ed t o an expl i ci t s oci al cat egor i zat i on. Thes e concl us i ons wer e
conf i r med i n a st udy by Chas e (1971; al s o cf . Hor ns t ei n, 1972) who empl oyed
a modi f i cat i on of t he pr ocedur es us ed i n t he i ni t i al exper i ment s (Taj f el ,
1970) wi t h gr oups of subj ect s i n Ne w Yor k. As i n Bi l l i g's exper i ment s , no
expl i ci t cat egor i zat i on i nt o gr oups was i nt r oduced; cons equent l y, l i t t l e or
no di scr i mi nat i on was f ound.
Bef or e goi ng f ur t her , it may be wor t hwhi l e t o emphas i ze t he cr uci al
di f f er ences bet ween t he set s of r esul t s we obt ai ned and t hos e obt ai ned i n
pr evi ous wor k whi ch i s t he near est i n i t s concept i ons and met hods t o t he
st udi es des cr i bed her e: Sher i f 's wor k on i nt er gr oup conf l i ct . Sher i f 's ai m
was t o i nves t i gat e t he ef f ect s of an expl i ci t l y and cl ear l y i nt r oduced zer o-
sum conf l i ct bet ween gr oups on out gr oup at t i t udes and t he s ubsequent
behavi our of hi s s ubj ect s . In addi t i on, i ngr oup af f i l i at i on and out gr oup
host i l i t y wor e bot h i nt ensi f i ed t hr ough pr ol onged i nt r agr oup i nt er act i on
bet ween t he s ubj ect s . In our exper i ment s , t her e was no ext er nal l y def i ned
conf l i ct ; i f t her e was compet i t i on ( i . e . act i ons ai mi ng t o di f f er ent i at e
bet ween t he gr oups i n f avour of one's own) , i t was f ul l y and act i vel y br ought
i nt o t he si t ua t i on by t he s ubj ect s t hems el v es , as soon as t he not i on of
"gr oup" was i nt r oduced by t he exper i ment er s . The subj ect s wer e never
t oget her as a "gr oup"; t hey nei t her i nt er act ed nor di d t hey know who was i n
t hei r own gr oup and who i n t he ot her ; t her e we r e no expl i ci t s oci al pr es sur es
on t hem t o act i n f avour of t hei r own gr oup; and i n no way was t hei r own
i ndi vi dual i nt er est engaged i n awar di ng mor e money t o a member of t hei r own
gr oup. On t he cont r ar y, a consi st ent us e of t he maxi mum j oi nt pr of i t st r at egy
woul d have l ed t o al l of t hem r ecei vi ng mor e money f rom t he exper i ment er s .
- 12 -
It i s t he as s umed need f or di f f er ent i at i on (or t he es t abl i s hment of
ps ychol ogi cal di st i nct i venes s bet ween t he gr oups) whi ch s eems t o me t o
pr ovi de, under s ome condi t i ons , t he maj or out come of t he s equence soci al
cat egor i zat i on - soci al i dent i t y - soci al compar i s on. Rel at ed phenomena
can be s hown t o exi st i n a l ar ge var i et y of soci al s i t uat i ons . One maj or
exampl e i s pr ovi ded by t he wi der soci al cont ext s i n whi ch t he not i on of
"r ace" i s us ed as a cr i t er i on f or soci al cat egor i zat i on. For a number of
r eas ons "r ace" has become a val ue- l oaded t er m, a not i on whi ch has "s ur pl us "
val ue connot at i ons . It may t her ef or e be i nst r uct i ve t o i dent i f y t he soci al
si t uat i ons i n whi ch t hi s not i on t ends t o be us ed, or "t he ki nds of soci al
di f f er ent i at i ons i n whi ch subj ect i ve soci al di st i nct i ons have been made"
| l ex, 1969). Accor di ng t o Rex , t hes e ar e as f ol l ows:
"1. The si t uat i on of cul t ur e cont act bet ween peopl es wi t h an adv anced
i ndust r i al and mi l i t ar y t echnol ogy, and hunt er s, past or al i st s and agr i cul t ur
al i st s at l ower l evel s of devel opment .
2. The si t uat i on on a s l ave pl ant at i on.
3. Cl as s si t uat i ons i n t he cl as s i c Mar xi s t or Weber i an s cene i n whi ch
men wi t hi n t he s ame soci et y have di f f er ent degr ees of mar ket power .
4. St at us si t uat i ons i n whi ch t her e i s a concept of hi gher and l ower
but i n whi ch men ar e t hought of as f al l i ng s omewher e on a cr i t er i on of es t eem
r at her t han i n mut ual l y excl us i ve gr oups .
5. Si t uat i ons of et hni c pl ur al i sm i n whi ch gr oups wi t h di f f er i ng cul t ur es
and/or phys i cal char act er i st i cs wor k t oget her i n t he s ame economy but r et ai n
t hei r soci al and cul t ur al i dent i t y.
6. Si t uat i ons i n whi ch a mi nor i t y gr oup occupi es a par i ah or scape- goat
r ol e. " (Rex, 1969, p. 147).
In t hr ee of t hes e s i x s i t uat i ons , val ue di f f er ent i at i ons bet ween gr oups
or i ndi vi dual s ar e expl i ci t l y st at ed ("l ower l evel s of dev el opment ", "cr i t er i on
of e s t e e m", "par i ah"). In t he r emai ni ng t hr ee, t hey ar e not f ar bel ow t he
s ur f ace. What ev er i t s ot her us es may be , t he not i on of "r ace" has become
i n i t s gener al s oci al us age a shor t hand expr es si on whi ch hel ps t o cr eat e,
r ef l ect , enhance and per pet uat e t he per cei ved di f f er ences i n "wor t h" bet ween
human gr oups or i ndi v i dual s . It cont r i but es t o maki ng t hes e di f f er ences as
- 13 -
cl ear - cut and i nf l exi bl e as pos s i bl e. Ther ef or e, i t s appl i cat i on i n t he wi de
r ange of s oci al cont ext s enumer at ed by Rex wi t nes s es t o t he i nt r oduct i on,
whenev er pos s i bl e, of di f f er ent i at i ons i n t er ms of val ue whi ch i ncr eas e t he
di st i nct i venes s of soci al cat egor i es and t hus cont r i but e t o t hei r f unct i on as
a gui de f or s oci al act i on.
Thi s es t abl i s hment of di s t i nct i venes s i s by no means , howev er , conf i ned
t o si t uat i ons connect ed wi t h t he not i on of r ace. It f i nds i t s wa y , f or ex ampl e,
i nt o t he compl ex ef f ect s t hat cul t ur al and soci al r el at i ons have on t he mut ual
compr ehensi on and accept ance by i nt er act i ng gr oups of t hei r l anguages and
di al ect s . Fi s hman (1968) r ecent l y wr ot e, bas i ng hi s st at ement on l i ngui st i c
evi dence f r om We s t Af r i ca, t he Swahi l i r egi on of Cent r al and East Af r i ca ,
Ne w Gui nea, Scandi navi a and Sout h East As i a: "Di v i s i v enes s i s an i deol
ogi cal posi t i on and it can magni f y mi nor di f f er ences ; i ndeed, it can manu
f act ur e di f f er ences i n l anguage as i n ot her mat t er s al most as eas i l y as it
can capi t al i ze on mor e obv i oj s di f f er ences . Si mi l ar l y, uni f i cat i on i s al s o
an i deol ogi zed posi t i on and it can mi ni mi ze seemi ngl y maj or di f f er ences or
i gnor e t hem ent i r el y, whet her t hes e be i n t he r eal m of l anguages , r el i gi on,
cul t ur e, r ac e, or any ot her bas i s of di f f er ent i at i on" ( p. 45). Fi s hman's
"i deol ogi zed pos i t i ons " ar e pos i t i ons i n whi ch si mi l ar i t i es or di f f er ences ,
whi ch coul d i n pr i nci pl e be ent i r el y "neut r al 11( e . g . bet ween l anguages ,
l ands c apes , f l ags , ant hems , pos t age s t amps , f oot bal l t eams and al most
anyt hi ng el se) become endowed wi t h emot i onal s i gni f i cance becaus e t hey
r el at e t o a super or di nat e v al ue, s uch as i s t he cas e wi t h nat i onal i sm i n
Fi s hman's own di s cus s i on.
The pr es ent r es ear ch pr oposal post ul at es t hat t he r eas on f or t hi s
behavi our al and eval uat i ve i nt er gr oup di f f er ent i at i on i s i n t he need t hat t he
subj ect s have t o pr ovi de or der , meani ng and soci al i dent i t y t o t he exper i
ment al si t uat i on; and t hat t hi s need i s f ul f i l l ed t hr ough t he cr eat i on of
i nt er gr oup di f f er ences when s uch di f f er ences do not i n f act ex i s t , or t he
at t r i but i on of val ue t o, and t he enhancement of , what ever di f f er ences t hat
do exisfft.
- 14 -
I
II. Int ar gr oup hypot hes es In socl r J nont ext e
The s equence of soci al cat egor i zat i on - soci al i dent i t y - soci al
compar i s on - psychol ogi cal di st i nct i venes s wi l l now be di s cus s ed f r om t he
poi nt of v i ew of hypot hes es whi ch can be der i ved f r om i t . Thi s wi l l be done
i n t wo st ages : f i r st , i n t er ms of exampl es i n r el at i vel y concr et e soci al
cont ext s whi ch s eem t o pr ovi de i nt ui t i ve suppor . t o t he caus al s equence
out l i ned abov e; and s econd, i n t er ms of r es ear ch hypot hes es whi ch wi l l
gui de t he st udi es ar i si ng f rom t he pr esent pr opos al .
Soci al cat egor i zat i on wi l l be consi der ed her e as t he f i rst l i nk i n t he
s equence (al t hough some soci al si t uat i ons cr eat e a need t o cat egor i ze ar i si ng
out of a var i et y of pr el i mi nar y condi t i ons , i n whi ch cas e t he act of cat egor
i zi ng t he s oci al wor l d i nt o gr oups becomes an ef f ect of t hes e condi t i ons ).
In our exper i ment s whi ch wer e pr evi ousl y des cr i bed, as i n t hose of Sher i f
and i n ot her r el at ed s t udi es , t hi s cat egor i zat i on was pr ovi ded by t he exper i
ment er s . If t he exper i ment er s ' ar bi t r ar y i nt r oduct i on of di chot omous cat e
gor i es l eads t o di f f er ent i al i nt er gr oup behavi our f ol l owi ng t he l i nes of t he
i mpos ed di v i s i ons , one can concl ude t hat t her e i s an appr oxi mat e i dent i t y of
t he exper i ment er s ' and t he s ubj ect s ' st r uct ur i ng of t he soci al wor l d i n t er ms
of di f f er ent gr oups . Thi s i s not a t aut ol ogy, s i nce t her e i s no a pr i or i r eas on
why t he s ubj ect s shoul d behav e i n t er ms of a di vi s i on i nt o gr oups bas ed on
gues s i ng number s of dot s , pr ef er r i ng one or anot her pai nt er or - as i n t he
ext r eme cas e of Bi l l i g's (1972) exper i ment s - on t he t os s of a coi n.
When one l eav es t he "mi ni mal " s i t uat i ons , t he pr obl am of def i ni ng or
i dent i f yi ng t he pr e- exi st i ng cat egor i es becomes much eas i er , s i nce t he
i nf or mat i on about t hem can be obt ai ned ei t her di r ect l y f rom t he s ubj ect s or
by obser vi ng "nat ur al " s i t uat i ons , or - i deal l y - by coor di nat i ng bot h t hes e
sour ces of i nf or mat i on.
Our i nt er est i n t he concept of soci al i dent i t y, as def i ned ear l i er i n
t he pr opos al , i s not i n at t empt s t o des cr i be it for "what it i s " i n a st at i c
s ens e - a daunt i ng t ask whi ch has baf f l ed many soci al sci ent i st s of var i ous
per s uas i ons and f or whi ch one l acks bot h opt i mi sm and t emer i t y. Soci al
i dent i t y i s under st ood her e as an i nt er veni ng caus al mechani s m i n si t uat i ons
- 15 -
of soci al change (cf . Taj f el , 197 2b) - obs er v ed, ant i ci pat ed, f ear ed, des i r ed, or
pr epar ed by t he i ndi vi dual s i nvol ved; and t he ef f ect s of t hes e changes on t hei r
s ubs equent i nt er gr oup behavi our and at t i t udes. Fr om t hi s poi nt of v i ew, t hr ee
cat egor i es of si t uat i ons appear cr uci al :
(i) The badl y def i ned or mar gi nal s oci al si t uat i on of a gr oup, whi ch
pr es ent s t he i ndi vi dual s i nvol ved wi t h di f f i cul t i es of def i ni ng t hei r pl ace i n a
s oci al sys t em;
(ii) The gr oups soci al l y def i ned and cons ens ual l y accept ed as "super i or "
at a poi nt of t i me when t hi s def i ni t i on i s t hr eat ened ei t her by occur r i ng or
i mpendi ng soci al change, or by a conf l i ct of val ues i nher ent i n t he "s uper i or i t y";
(i i i ) The gr oups soci al l y def i ned and consens ual l y accept ed as i nf er i or "
at a poi nt of t i me when - f or what ever r eas ons - ei t her (a) member s of a gr oup
have engaged i n a shar ed pr i se do cons ci ence of t hei r i nf er i or st at us; or (b)
t hey have become awar e of t he f easi bi l i t y of wor ki ng t owar ds al t er nat i ves t o t he
exi st i ng si t uat i on; or a combi nat i on of (a) and (b) , whi ch may al s o i mpl y (a)
l eadi ng t o (b) , or (b) l eadi ng t o ( a) .
The "dy nami c" appr oach t o pr obl ems of soci al i dent i t y adopt ed i n t hi s
di s cus s i on i s bas ed on sever al consi der at i ons. Fi r st , it i s unl i kel y t hat t her e
exi st many exampl es of i nt er gr oup si t uat i ons whi ch ar e st at i c i n t he s ens e t hat
t hey cons i s t of an unchangi ng set of s oci al r el at i onshi ps bet ween t he gr oups .
We ar e, howev er , l es s concer ned her e wi t h soci al si t uat i ons t han wi t h t hei r
ps ychol ogi cal count er par t s; t hes e ar e bound t o be even l es s st at i c. Thi s
becomes qui t e cl ear when one r econs i der s br i ef l y f or t he pur pos e at hand t he
f ocal pr obl em of t hi s pr oposal : t hat of s oci al i dent i t y under st ood as der i vi ng
i n a compar at i ve and "r el at i onal " manner f r om an i ndi vi dual 's gr oup member s hi ps .
For t he pur pos e of our ar gument , one can di st i ngui sh bet ween "s ecur e"
and "i ns ecur e" s oci al i dent i t y. A compl et el y s ecur e soci al i dent i t y woul d i mpl y
a r el at i onshi p bet ween t wo (or mor e) gr oups i n whi ch a change i n t he t ext ur e of
psychol ogi cal di st i nct i venes s bet ween t hem i s not concei v abl e. For an
"i nf er i or " gr oup t hi s woul d i mpl y t he exi s t ence of a t ot al cons ens us about t he
nat ur e and t he f ut ur e of t hei r i nf er i or i t y; i n ot her wor ds , t o f et ur n t o our pr evi ous
di s cus s i on (cf . p. 8 of "s oci al r eal i t y" as r el at ed t o Fes t i nger 's t heor y of
s oci al compar i son (1954) , t her e woul d have t o exi st a compl et e psychol ogi cal
- 16 -
"obj ect i f i cat i on" of a soci al st at us quo wi t h no cogni t i ve al t er nat i ves of any
ki nd avai l abl e t o chal l enge t he exi st i ng s oci al r eal i t y. It i s pos s i bl e t hat
hi st or i ans and s oci al ant hr opol ogi st s coul d pr ovi de some r el evant exampl es i n
compl et el y st abl e and i sol at ed soci et i es ; t hes e exampl es coul d har dl y, howev er ,
f i nd t hei r count er par t i n most of t he cont empor ar y wor l d.
A compl et el y secur e s oci al i dent i t y f or a gr oup cons ens ual l y super i or i s
al most an empi r i cal i mposs i bi l i t y. The ki nd of ps ychol ogi cal di st i nct i venes s
t hat i nsur es t hei r unchal l enged super i or i t y must not onl y be gai ned; it must al s o
be pr es er ved. And it can be pr es er ved onl y i f soci al condi t i ons of di st i nct i venes s
ar e car ef ul l y per pet uat ed, t oget her wi t h t he s i gns and symbol s of di st i nct i ve
st at us wi t hout whi ch t he at t i t udes of compl et e cons ens us about super i or di s t i nc
t i venes s ar e i n t he danger of di si nt egr at i ng. In t hi s s ens e, t her ef or e, even i n
t he most r i gi d oast o sys t em (be it r aci al or any ot her) , t he soci al di st i nct i ons
whi ch may appear ver y st abl e ar e r el at ed t o a cont i nuousl y dynami c psychol ogi cal
si t uat i on i n whi ch a super i or gr oup can never st op wor ki ng at t he pr eser vat i on
of i t s di st i nct i venoss . It i s ver y di f f i cul t t o t hi nk of cas es of i nt er gr oup r el at i ons
whi ch woul d pr es ent except i ons t o t hi s st at ement , apar t per haps f r om i nf ant s
and t eacher s i n a nur ser y s chool . (Thi s al s o happens t o be t he except i on f or
whi ch it i s di f f i cul t t o i magi ne t he possi bi l i t y of a s ust ai ned and soci al l y shar ed
pat t er n of i nt er gr oup di scr i mi nat i on bas ed on host i l i t y).
A mor e ser i ous exampl e can pr obabl y be f ound i n t he not i ons about t he
'nat ur e" and t he r el at i ve r ol es and posi t i ons of men and women pr evai l i ng i n
s ome cul t ur es and s ome hi st or i cal per i ods . In t hes e c as es , t he mas s i v e
accept ance by bot h s i des of cer t ai n ki nds of psychol ogi cal i nt er gr oup di s t i nct i ve
nes s pr event s t he occur r ence of ser i ous and soci al l y shar ed i dent i t y pr obl ems .
It i s , howev er , i nt er est i ng t o s ee t hat as s oon as t hes e accept ed not i ons ar e
ser i ousl y chal l enged, t he i nt er gr oup at t i t udes under go cer t ai n changes whi ch ar e
i n l i ne wi t h t he pr es ent ar gument . The ps ychol ogi cal di f f er ent i at i ons of s ex es ,
as l ong as t hey ar e hi ghl y cons ens ual , ar e not accompani ed by , or r el at ed t o,
at t i t udes of i nt er gr oup host i l i t y; howev er , t he new sear ch by an act i ve mi nor i t y
i n t he "i nf er i or " gr oup of di st i nct i venes s on an equal l evel cr eat es , i n some
c as e s , expl i ci t out gr oup host i l i t y on one s i de and equal l y host i l e def ens i ve
r eact i ons on t he ot her (Doi s e & Wei nber ger , 1973). The i mpact of t he i mpl i ci t
and soci al l y s har ed pr obl ems of i dent i t y whi ch ar e i nvol ved can per haps be
- 17 -
gauged f rom t he ext ent of cover age gi ven by var i ous communi cat i on medi a t o al l
ki nds of sci ent i f i c and pseudo- s ci ent i f i c pr onouncement s about t he "nat ur e" of
ps ychol ogi cal s ex di f f er ences .
For al l t he r eas ons out l i ned abov e, t hi s r esear ch pr oposal wi l l t hus be
concer ned wi t h cas es of i ns ecur e soci al i dent i t y. Thes e wi l l be di s cus s ed i n
t er ms of a t wo- by- t wo t abl e, i n whi ch t he t wo cr i t eri a f or cat egor i zat i on ar e:
cons ens ual l y "s uper i or " ver s us "i nf er i or " gr oups; and t he i ndi vi dual 's abi l i t y
t o "pas s " f r om one gr oup t o anot her .
The f i rst of t hes e cr i t eri a i s j ust i f i ed bec aus e, as wi l l be s een l at er ,
di f f er ent hypot hes es per t ai n t o t he t wo ki nds of gr oups . The s econd cr i t er i on
appear s bas i c on a_ pr i or i gr ounds . In each i ndi vi dual 's l i f e t her e wi l l be si t u
at i ons i n whi ch he ac t s , excl us i vel y or mai nl y, as an i ndi vi dual r at her t han as
a member of a gr oup; t her e wi l l be ot her s i n whi ch he ac t s , excl us i vel y or
mai nl y, i n t er ms of hi s gr oup member s hi p. One of t he i mpor t ant det er mi nant s
of an i ndi vi dual 's choi ce t o act i n t er ms of sel f r at her t han i n t er ms of hi s gr oup
i s what we shal l r ef er t o i n t hi s di s cus s i on as "s oci al mobi l i t y" as cont r ast ed
wi t h "s oci al c hang e". The f or mer r ef er s t o si t uat i ons i n whi ch i t i s r el at i vel y
eas y t o move i ndi vi dual l y f r om one soci al gr oup t o anot her ; so t hat , i f a gr oup
does not cont r i but e adequat el y t o an i ndi vi dual 's soci al i dent i t y, one of t he mor e
obvi ous sol ut i ons f or hi m i s t o mov e, or at t empt t o mov e, t o anot her gr oup.
In t he l at t er cl as s ar e t hos e si t uat i ons i n whi c h, f or what ever r eas ons , "pas s i ng"
f r om one gr oup t o anot her i s ver y di f f i cul t or i mpos s i bl e. It may bo expect ed
t hat , i n t hes e s i t uat i ons , t her e wi l l be many occas i ons ( and const r ai nt s)
l eadi ng an i ndi vi dual t o act as a member of hi s gr oup, or at l east i n t he knowl edge
t hat he i s cat egor i zed as s uch. Soci al change (as di st i nct f rom soci al mobi l i t y)
r ef er s t her ef or e i n t hi s di s cus s i on t o changes i n t he r el at i onshi ps bet ween t he
gr oups as a whol e, t o expect at i ons , f ear s or des i r es of s uch c hanges , t o act i ons
ai mi ng at i nduci ng or pr event i ng t hem, or t o i nt ent i ons and pl ans t o engage i n
t hes e act i ons . The psychol ogi cal count er par t of s oci al change, i n t he l i mi t ed
s ens e of t he t er m adopt ed her e, i s t her ef or e i n t he i ndi vi dual 's awar enes s t hat
many i mpor t ant as pect s of hi s l i f e, i ncl udi ng t he acqui s i t i on or pr eser vat i on of
an accept abl e s oci al i dent i t y, can onl y be bas ed on a change (or r es i s t ance t o
change) i n t he i mage, posi t i on or ci r cums t ances of hi s gr oup as a whol e.
- 18 -
I
The r esul t i ng t wo- by- t wo cl ass i f i cat i on of cas es and pr edi ct i ons ar i si ng
f r om t hem can t her ef or e be pr es ent ed as f ol l ows:
Ins ecur e Int er gr oup s oci al compar i s ons
Condi t i ons conduci ve Condi t i ons conduci ve
t o l eavi ng one's gr oup t o st ayi ng i n one's gr oup
Cons ens ual l y
super i or gr oups
- 19 -
Cons ens ual l y
i nf er i or gr oups
1) Super i or gr oups (Boxes A and B)
I ns ecur e soci al compar i s ons ar i si ng wi t hi n a gr oup whi ch i s cons ens ual l y
def i ned as bei ng of hi gher st at us can bo due t o t wo set s of condi t i ons:
(a) The gr oup's super i or st at us i s t hr eat ened (or per cei ved as t hr eat ened)
by anot her gr oup;
(b) The super i or st at us i s r el at ed t o a conf l i ct of val ues : i . e . it i s
concei ved by s ome as bas ed on unf ai r adv ant ages , var i ous ot her f or ms of
i nj us t i ce, expl oi t at i on, i l l egi t i mat e us e of f or ce, et c.
In t he cas e ( a ) , Box A i s not l i kel y t o cont ai n many i ns t ances as l ong as
t he t hr eat does not become over whel mi ng. It wi l l cont ai n har dl y any i ns t ances
i n si t uat i ons i n whi ch "pas s i ng" i s ver y di f f i cul t ( e . g . an apar t hei d s oci et y).
In Box B one can pr edi ct an i nt ensi f i cat i on of pr ecaut i ons ai mi ng t o keep t he
super i or gr oup i n i t s pos i t i on. On t he l evel mor e speci f i cal l y r el at ed t o t he
pr esent di s cus s i on, t he l evel of s oci al i nt er gr oup compar i s on, one can pr edi ct
t he cr eat i on and us e of new condi t i ons whi ch wi l l enabl e t he super i or gr oup t o
pr es er ve and enhance i t s psychol ogi cal di s t i nct i venes s . Thi s may t ake many
f or ms , s uch as soci al and psychol ogi cal separ at i on of many ki nds , cr eat i on of
a var i et y of di st i nct i ve s y mbol s , et c.
In t he cas e (b) , conf l i ct of v al ues , t wo s ub- cas es must be di s t i ngui s hed:
(i) The conf l i ct of val ues i s of s uch i nt ensi t y t hat it dest r oys t he posi t i ve
cont r i but i on t o s oci al i dent i t y t hat t he gr oup pr ov i des . Thi s i s Box A whi ch
cont ai ns "condi t i ons conduci ve t o l eavi ng one's own gr oup": e . g . upper or
mi ddl e cl as s r evol ut i onar i es , "r enegades " of al l ki nds , et c. Ther e wi l l be
- - - - - - - - ' ' 1
A
- ... .... . ...... .. "
B
c D
.. ___________ ________
her e no di scr i mi nat i on agai ns t t he out gr oup and no host i l i t y agai ns t i t . But t hi s
i s har dl y an i nt er est i ng i nt er gr oup pr edi ct i on si nce gr oup member s hi p i s of t en
cancel l ed f or al l pr act i cal pur pos es , or ev en somet i mes posi t i vel y r ever s ed.
In t he cas e of r ev er s al , t he "r enegades " become s ome of t he most act i ve member s
of t he i nf er i or gr oup and pr es ent , of t en i n an i nt ensi f i ed f or m, t he char act er i st i cs
whi ch wi l l be di s cus s ed l at er i n r el at i on t o Box D.
(ii) The conf l i ct of val ues ex i s t s , but i ngr aui af f i l i at i on i s suf f i ci ent l y
power f ul t o r emai n t he det er mi nant of at t i t udes and behavi our . Thi s i s agai n
Box B. The conf l i ct of val ues can onl y be r esol ved t hr ough f i ndi ng new j ust i
f i cat i ons f or t he mai nt enance of st at us quo. Thi s i s t he condi t i on f or t he
cr eat i on and adopt i on at l ar ge by t he member s of a gr oup of new "i deol ogi es "
( e . g . t he "whi t e man's bur den", t he "i nher ent super i or i t y" due t o unbr i dgeabl e
i nnat e di f f er ences , t he "s av i ng of soul s ', e t c . ) . Thes e i deol ogi es r epr esent
t he cr eat i on of new f or ms of ps ychol ogi cal di st i nct i venes s and t he enhancement
of t hose amongs t t he ol d ones whi ch ar e st i l l s er vi ceabl e. The cl ear er ar e t he
"obj ect i v e" condi t i ons pr event i ng t he l eavi ng of one's gr oup (s uch as r aci al
di f f er ences , power f ul l y s anct i oned r el i gi ous di f f er ences , e t c . ) , t he mor e l i kel y
it i s t hat t he conf l i ct of val ues wi l l r esul t i n t he cr eat i on and wi de and eas y
di f f us i on of t hes e new and enhanced f or ms of psychol ogi cal di s t i nct i venes s .
A not e must be i nser t ed her e so t hat t he anal yt i c di st i nct i ons j ust made do
not di st or t t he ps ychol ogi cal r eal i t i es of t he si t uat i ons whi ch ar e bei ng con
s i der ed. The act i ons and at t i t udes di r ect ed t owar ds t he pr eser vat i on of t he
st at us quo i n t he cas e (a) di s cus s ed abov e ( i . e . t hr eat f rom anot her gr oup)
cont ai n s omet i mes t he s eeds of a "s econdar y " conf l i ct of val ues : an i nt ens i f i
cat i on of di scr i mi nat or y behavi our and of host i l e at t i t udes f ol l owi ng upon t hi s
t hr eat may cl ash wi t h gener al l y accept ed val ues r epr esent i ng t he ''of f i ci al "
i deol ogy of a soci et y s uch a s , f or ex ampl e, Chr i st i an et hi cs . In s uch c as es ,
t her e i s a mer gi ng of t he ef f ect s des cr i bed above f or cas es (a) and (b) (i i ). The
ps ychol ogi cal or i gi ns of t he si t uat i ons ar e, howev er , di f f er ent . In t he cas e (a)
t he i nf er i or gr oup i s per cei ved as a t hr eat t o t he st at us qu o . bot h s oci al and
ps y chol ogi cal , and t he dr i ve t owar ds i ncr eased di s t i nct i venes s ai ms bot h at t he
pr eser vat i on of t he pr evi ousl y exi st i ng di f f er ent i at i ons and (i n s ome cul t ur al
cont ext s) at t he j ust i f i cat i on of consequent act i ons . In t he cas e (b) (ii) t her e
need hot be , at t he or i gi n, a per cept i on of t hr eat t o di s t i nct i venes s s i nce -
- 20 -
as f or ex ampl e, i n t he ear l y col oni al si t uat i ons - t he wi de di f f er ences bet ween
t he gr oups ar e t her e f or al l t o s ee. Ther e may even occur an i deal i zat i on of t he
out gr oup (cf . e . g . Ki er nan, 197 2, about t he myt h of t he "nobl e s av age" i n t he
XVIIIt h cent ur y and l at er) , as l ong as t he myt h- maker s and t hos e who accept
t hei r i mages hav e not hi ng di r ect l y t o do wi t h t he out l andi sh cr eat ur es so
beaut i f ul l y por t r ayed. When, howev er , di r ect i nt er act i on of cer t ai n ki nds
begi ns , i n whi ch what i s done t o some peopl e i s not us ual l y done t o ot her s,
j ust i f i cat i ons and r eas ons must be f ound. Thi s i s , of cour s e, a wel l - known
and wel l - document ed s equence of ev ent s . It s r el at i on t o t he mai n ar gument of
t hi s pr oposal i s t hat , as i n t he cas e ( a ) , t he psychol ogi cal "st r uct ur e" whi ch
i s t he most conv eni ent , bot h cogni t i vel y and af f ect i vel y, f or r esol vi ng t he
ens ui ng conf l i ct of val ues and t hus pr eser vi ng i nt act a pos i t i ve soci al i dent i t y,
i s t he cr eat i on and enhancement of t he appr opr i at e f or ms of ps ychol ogi cal
di st i nct i venes s bet ween t he gr oups .
2) Inf er i or gr oups (Boxes C and D)
(a) Box C: Condi t i ons conduci ve t o l eavi ng one's own gr oup.
Thes e ar e t he si t uat i ons of soci al mobi l i t y as def i ned ear l i er : Ther e i s
enough s oci al f l exi bi l i t y t o enabl e an i ndi vi dual t o mov e, or hope t o mov e, f rom
one gr oup t o anot her ; t her e ar e no ser i ous soci al sanct i ons f r om ei t her of t he
gr oups f or movi ng; and no ser i ous conf l i ct of val ues i nvol ved i n movi ng. One
shoul d expect t hat af t er havi ng j oi ned t he super i or gr oup or ev en bef or e, some
i ndi vi dual s wi l l wor k har der t han most at est abl i s hi ng t hei r cl ear - cut di st i nct
i v enes s f r om t he per cei ved i nadequaci es of t hei r pas t soci al i dent i t y.
(b) Box D: Condi t i ons conduci ve t o st ayi ng i n one's own gr oup.
Thi s box pr es ent s a much gr eat er i nt er est f r om t he poi nt of v i ew of i nt er
gr oup at t i t udes and behavi our t han t he pr evi ous one. The maj or soci al condi t i ons
ar e: any f or m of cas t e syst em (whet her det er mi ned by bi r t h, r ace or ot her
cr i t er i a); or any ot her soci al di f f er ent i at i on syst em whi c h, f or what ever r eas ons ,
makes it di f f i cul t t o mov e. The t wo maj or ps ychol ogi cal condi t i ons ar e; a
st r ong conf l i ct of val ues i nher ent i n l eavi ng one's gr oup; or t he f ear of power f ul
soci al sanct i ons f or s o doi ng; or bot h i n combi nat i on. In most si t uat i ons t he
s oci al and ps ychol ogi cal condi t i ons wi l l , of cour s e, i nt er act and r ei nf or ce
each ot her .
- 21 -
The as s umpt i on i s made her e (s ee p. 16 above) t hat , i n many of t hes e
condi t i ons , t he pr obl ems of soci al i dent i t y of t he i nf er i or gr oup woul d not nec es s
ar i l y expr es s t hems el ves i n soci al behavi our unt i l and unl es s t her e i s s ome
awar enes s t hat t he exi st i ng soci al r eal i t y i s not t he onl y pos s i bl e one and t hat
al t er nat i ves t o it ar e concei vabl e and per haps at t ai nabl e. If t hi s awar enes s
ex i s t s , t he pr obl ems of s oci al i dent i t y conf r ont i ng t he member s of i nf eri or..- groups
can be sol ved i n one of sever al wa y s , or a combi nat i on of mor e t han one:
(i) To bec ome, t hr ough act i on and r ei nt er pr et at i on of gr oup char act er i s t i cs,
mor e l i ke t he super i or gr oup. (It wi l l be r emember ed t hat , i n v i ew of t he di f f i
cul t y of "pas s i ng " i mpl i ed her e, t hi s cannot become a wi des pr ead i ndi vi dual
sol ut i on; it wi l l have t o appl y t o t he gr oup as a whol e).
(ii) To r ei nt er pr et t he exi st i ng i nf er i or char act er i st i cs of t he gr oup, so t hat
t hey do not appear as i nf er i or but acqui r e a posi t i vel y val ued di st i nct i venes s
f r om t he super i or gr oup.
(i i i ) To cr eat e, t hr ough soci al act i on and/or di f f usi on of new 'i deol ogi es "
new gr oup char act er i st i cs whi ch hav e a posi t i vel y val ued di st i nct i venes s f rom
t he super i or gr oup. t/J unJ J un) j i yj wuf yrfiy0 .
A par ent hes i s must be i nser t ed her e bef or e t hes e t hr ee sol ut i ons ar e br i ef l y
cons i der ed. It concer ns t he meani ng i n t hi s di s cus s i on of t he t er ms "i nf er i or "
and "s uper i or ". Thi s di st i nct i on must be under st ood, of cour s e, i n t he cont ext
of i t s soci al der i vat i on; f or exampl e, bl ack ski n i s not , out si de of speci f i c
s oci al cont ext s , ei t her an i nf er i or or a super i or at t r i but e. But It becomes one,
gi ven cer t ai n sooi &l - psychol ogi cal condi t i ons . In pr i nci pl e, any gr oup char act
er i st i c coul d become (and most do) val ue- l aden i n t hi s s ens e. One can not e,
for ex ampl e, t he per s i s t ence even t oday of bl ond hai r and bl ue eyes i n a l ar ge
pr opor t i on of t he daunt l es s her oes of war comi cs ; or t he s i gni f i cance t hat l ong
hai r has r ecent l y acqui r ed i n a var i et y of s oci al cont ext s - bot h f or t hos e who
us e it f or i t s di st i nct i venes s and f or t hese v ^o us e it as an i dent i f yi ng si gn of
mor al t ur pi t ude.
The f i rst sol ut i on, whi ch i s t hat of cul t ur al , s oci al and psychol ogi cal
ass i mi l at i on of a gr oup as a whol e, i s s omet i mes pos s i bl e. One mi ght even
pr edi ct t hat , gi ven f avour abl e condi t i ons , it coul d become t he sol ut i on t o be
t r i ed f i r st . In or der , howev er , for a gr oup as a whol e t o s ucceed i n el i mi nat i ng
bot h i t s soci al and ps ychol ogi cal i nf er i or i t y, one pr oces s must f i rst t ake pl ace:
- 22 --
t he br eaki ng down of t he bar r i er s pr event i ng t he gr oup f r om obt ai ni ng i mpr oved
ac c es s t o condi t i ons whi ch.i t coul d not pr evi ousl y obt ai n. As soon as t hi s
happens , one of t wo psychol ogi cal pr oces s es wi l l t end t o appear : i f t he gr oup
r emai ns s epar at e, a gener al r ei nt er pr ot at i on of i t s di st i nct i ve char act er i st i cs i n
new and posi t i vel y val ued t er ms; or , al t er nat i vel y, t he br eakdown on bot h s i des
of t he ps ychol ogi cal bar r i er s t o "pas s i ng'1. The f i rst of t hes e mer ges wi t h t he
sol ut i on (ii) whi ch wi l l bo di s cus s ed bel ow; t he s econd may f i nal l y l ead t o t he
di s appear ance of a gr oup as i t mer ges wi t h anot her . The cons equences of a
r el at i ve decr eas e i n ant i s emi t i s m i n some count r i es af t er t he l ast war exempl i f y,
i n r el at i on t o J ews who do not l i ve i n I s r ael , t he f unct i oni ng of bot h t hes e
pr oces s es .
It may be expect ed t hat t he sol ut i ons (ii) and (fli) ment i oned abov e wi l l
appear i n conj unct i on, and t hat s oci al act i on wi l l be an i mpor t ant i ngr edi ent
of bot h; but f or t he s ake of empi r i cal di st i nct i ons t hey wi l l be di s cus s ed
s epar at el y. It wi l l be r emember ed t hat bot h or i gi nat e i n si t uat i ons wher e, f or
what ever r eas ons , t he i nf er i or gr oup i s not abl e t o mer ge wi t h t he super i or one,
ncr can t he i ndi vi dual member s of it l eave t hei r own gr oup and j oi n anot her .
Sol ut i on (ii) i mpl i es t hat , wi t h t he pr i se de cons ci ence of t he i l l egi t i macy
of a pr evi ousl y cons ens ual i nf er i or i t y, a new ki nd of di st i nct i venes s must be
cr eat ed on t he bas i s of s ome exi st i ng gr oup char act er i st i cs. The cl ear est r ecent
exampl e of t he whol e pr oces s can be f ound i n t he psychol ogi cal changes t hat
ar e t aki ng pl ace,ar x>ngst t he Amer i can bl acks . The ver y us e of t he t er m "bl ac ks "
i n t hi s t ext , whi ch woul d have had ver y di f f er ent connot at i ons onl y a f ew year s
a g o, al r eady t est i f i es t o t hes e c hanges . The ol d i nt er pr et at i ons of di st i nct i ve
nes s ar e r ej ect ed; t he ol d char act er i st i cs ar e bei ng gi ven a new meani ng of
di f f er ent but equal or super i or . Exampl es abound: t he beaut y of bl ac knes s ,
t he Af r i can hai r - do, t he Af r i can cul t ur al pas t and t r adi t i ons, t he r ei nt er pr et at i on
of Negr o mus i c f r om "ent er t ai nment " t o a f or m or art whi ch has deep r oot s i n a
separ at e cul t ur al t r adi t i on; t he t aki ng over or r e- cr eat i ng, at one t i me, of cer t ai n
as pect s of i deas about ni gr i t ude, et c. At t he s ame t i me, t he ol d at t empt s t o be
"a l i t t l e mor e l i ke t he ot her gr oup ar e pr oudl y r ej ect ed, no mor e st r ai ght eni ng
of hai r f or beaut i f ul bl ack gi r l s or usi ng of var i ous pr ocedur es fear l i ght eni ng t he
s ki n. The ac c ent s , di al ect s , s way of t he body , r hyt hms of danci ng, t ext ur e of
- 23 -
t he det ai l s of i nt er per sonal communi cat i on - al l t hi s i s pr es er v ed, enhanced
and r e- eval uat ed. The pr i se de cons ci ence st ar t s, as it i s of t en t he c as e,
wi t h an act i ve mi nor i t y (cf . Mos cov i ci 1973). As t he new- f ound di st i nct i venes s
does do i t s j ob of cr eat i ng a posi t i ve and heal i ng new ver s i on of soci al
i dent i t y, t he pr edi ct i on can be made t hat al l i t s f or ms wi l l f i nd an eas y and
wi des pr ead di f f usi on at l ar ge.
Sol ut i on (i i i ) , t he cr eat i on or i nvent i on of nev7char act er i st i cs whi ch
es t abl i s h a posi t i vel y val ued gr oup di s t i nct i v enes s , i s st r uct ur al l y si mi l ar
t o sol ut i on (i i ), Exampl es of it can be f ound i n t he devel opment of new
nat i onal i sms (cf . Taj f el , 1969b, 1970b). "In many new nat i ons t he need i s
f el t t o st r ess or cr eat e common bonds i n or der t o f or ce t he pace of t he devel op
ment of nat i onhood. The f or gi ng of bonds need not be of a "r aci al " ki nd, .
t hough it has of t en been of t hi s nat ur e, par t i cul ar l y i n t he young Eur opean
nat i onal i sms of t he Xl Xt h cent ur y. The phenomenon i s even cl ear er i n r aci s m,
ol d or new; t he r aci st i deol ogi es have al way s been char act er i zed by a f r ant i c
sear ch f or common bonds of an "i nnat e or "i nst i nct i ve" nat ur e i n t he di st ant
pas t so as t o pr ovi de a j ust i f i cat i on f or t he cl ai m of t he s peci al sort of uni t y
t hat t he r aci al gr oup i s s uppos ed t o have and of i t s i nher ent and i mmut abl e
di f f er ences f r om ot her s uch gr oups ". (Taj f el , 1969b, p. l 39; c f . Shaf er , 1955,
f or a gener al di s cus s i on of t he cr eat i on of var i ous cat egor i es of nat i onal myt hs).
The cref ct i on of new di st i nct i ve char act er i st i cs i mpl i es however a new
pr obl em. Thi s pr obl em al s o exi st s i n some measur e i n t he pr oces s of t he
r eeval uat i on of t he exi st i ng char act er i st i cs (sol ut i on (i i )) , but it becomes
par t i cul ar l y cl ear when new f or ms of di st i nct i venes s need t o be ei t her i nvent ed
or cr eat ed t hr ough act i on. It has been post ul at ed t hr oughout t hi s di s cus s i on
t hat t he ai m of posi t i vel y val ued ps ychol ogi cal di st i nct i venes s i s t o achi ev e
an adequat e f or m of soci al i dent i t y; and t hat t he onl y means by whi ch t hi s
ai m can be at t ai ned i s i n t he es t abl i s hment of appr opr i at e ki nds of i nt er gr oup
compar i s on. Ther e ar e t wo st ages i n t hi s pr oces s whi c h, i deal l y, bot h need
t o be s ucces s f ul l y r eal i s ed. The f i rst (whi ch i s a condi t i on s i ne qua non f or
t he s ucces s of t he ent er pr i se) i s t he posi t i ve eval uat i on by t he i ngr oup of i t s
newl y cr eat ed char act er i s t i cs. The s econd st age cons i st s of t he accept ance
by t he out gr oup of t hi s eval uat i on. The i s s ue i s , howev er , sl i ght l y mor e
- 24 -
compl i cat ed. The new char act er i st i cs of t he i nf er i or gr oup can be of t wo ki nds :
(a) They may cons i s t of at t r i but es whi ch ar e al r eady cons ens ual l y hi ghl y
val ued by bot h (or moisj gr oups , and whi ch t he i nf er i or gr oup was pr evi ousl y
deemed not t o pos s e s s . In t hi s c as e , t her e i s no pr obl em of r e- eval uat i on
of at t r i but es. The soci al compar i son pr obl em f or t he i nf er i or gr oup i s: wi l l
t he ot her s acknowl edge t he new i mage, separ at e but equal or super i or , on
cons ens ual l y val ued di mens i ons ? An exampl e cai . per haps be f ound i n s ome
new and wi del y di f f us ed as pect s of J ewi s h i dent i t y (cf . Her man, 197o). Amongs t
as pect s of gr oup i dent i t y unaccept abl e t o t he young post - war gener at i ons of
J ews was t hei r el der s ' pas s i v e accept ance of a whol es al e sl aught er of a peopl e.
The ex cept i ons , s uch as t he upr i si ng of t he ghet t o of War s a w or t he r evol t s i n
Tr ebl i nka and ot her concent r at i on camps , became t her ef or e cr uci al s ymbol s ;
so has t he Mas ada s t ar y, l ong back f rom t he pas t , and i n t he pr es ent t he
mi l i t ar y pr owes s of t he new st at e of Is r ael . One may per haps be per mi t t ed t o
i ncl ude an anecdot e, not i n any s ens e as any f or m of pr oof but as an i l l ust r at i on
of a t heor et i cal ar gument . Some t i me ago I f ound mys el f at t he Pl ace Denf er t -
Rocher eau i n Par i s i n t he mi ddl e of one of t he numer ous pol i t i cal demonst r at i ons
of t he Spr i ng 1973. Thes e ar e occas i ons at whi ch ever yone t al ks t o ever yone
e l s e , and next t o me at t he t abl e of a caf e a heat ed ar gument about t he Mi ddl e
East conf l i ct devel oped bet ween t hr ee mi ddl e aged men: t wo It al i an gauchi s t e
i nt el l ect ual s and an Isr ael i secondar y school t eacher . Af t er a ser i es of
s ucces s i v e expl os i ons on bot h s i des , t he Isr ael i f i nal l y pr oduced hi s own
ambi guous and conf l i ct ed st at ement of new i dent i t y whi ch went ver bat i m as
f ol l ows: "Mai nt enant que nous avons pr ouve que nous pouvons ot r e des
as s as s i ns comme t ous l es aut r es , t out l e monde nous r es pec t e. 1' ( "Now t hat
we hav e pr oved t hat we can be as s as s i ns l i ke ever ybody el s e, ever yone
r es pect s us ") . The conf l i ct i nher ent i n t hi s st at ement i s a conf l i ct of t wo ki nds
of soci al i dent i t y: on t he one hand, t he gr eat cul t ur al and s oci al t r adi t i ons
of J ewi s h humani s m, s een as di f f er ent but equal or super i or ; and on t he ot her ,
t he soci al l y compar at i ve j ust i f i cat i on of new as pect s of i dent i t y f or ged i n t he
af t er mat h of a t r agedy and s een as appr opr i at e i n v i ew of t he r ecent pas t or of
t he pr esent pol i t i cal si t uat i on.
- 25 -
(b) The s econd cas e concer ns si t uat i ons i n whi ch t he new char act er i st i cs
of an i nf er i or gr oup ar e not cons ens ual l y v al ued, t o begi n wi t h. The soci al
compar i son pr obl em of t he s econd st age f or t he i nf er i or gr oup t hen becomes :
wi l l t he ot her s acknowl edge t he new i mage, di f f er ent but equal or super i or ?
Thi s i s t her ef or e t he pr obl em of acknowl edgement by ot her s t hr ough a re-
eval uat i on of at t r i but es; it al s o appl i es t o t he pr evi ousl y di s cus s ed sol ut i on
(ii) i n whi ch t he i nf er i or gr oup i nvest s i t s al r eady exi st i ng separ at e char act er
i st i cs wi t h a new s i gni f i cance. A good exampl e can be f ound i n f i el d exper i
ment s r epor t ed by Lemai ne (Lemai ne, 1966; Lemai ne and Kas t er s zt ei n,
1971- 2). In one of t he s t udi es , a compet i t i on t o bui l d hut s was ar r anged bet ween
t wo gr oups of boys at a summer camp- but one gr oup was gi ven l es s adequat e
bui l di ng mat er i al s t han t he ot her . Bot h gr oups wer e awar e of t he di scr epancy
whi ch was bas ed on an expl i ci t l y r andom di st r i but i on of r es our ces bet ween
t hem. The "i nf er i or " gr oup cons equent l y engaged i n t wo s equences of
hehavi our : f i r st , t hey bui l t an i nf er i or hut but sur r ounded it wi t h a smal l
gar den; and t hen t hey "engaged i n shar p di s cus s i ons wi t h t he chi l dr en f rom
t he ot her gr oup and t he adul t j udges t o obt ai n an acknowl edgement of t he
l egi t i macy of t hei r wor k. Thei r ar gument s wer e appr oxi mat el y as f ol l ows:
we ar e wi l l i ng t o admi t t hat t he ot her s have bui l t a hut and t hat t hei r hut i s
bet t er t han our s; but it must equal l y be admi t t ed t hat our smal l gar den wi t h
i t s f ence sur r oundi ng t he hut i s al s o a par t of t he hut and t hat we ar e cl ear l y
super i or on t hi s cr i t er i on of compar i s on." (Lemai ne and Kas t er s zt ei n, 1971- 2,
p. 675, t r ansl at ed f r om t he Fr ench).
The i mpor t ance of t he s econd s t age, as j ust di s c us s ed, f r om t he poi nt of
v i ew of our t heor et i cal ar gument i s t hat i t s consi der at i on l eads t o s ome cr uci al
pr edi ct i ons about i nt er gr oup behavi our . The bat t l e f or l egi t i macy, i n whi ch
Lemai ne's subj ect s engaged, i s a bat t l e f or t he accept ance by ot her s of new
f or ms of i nt er gr oup compar i s on. As l ong as t hes e ar e not cons ens ual l y
accept ed, t he new char act er i st i cs (or t he r e- eval uat i on of t he ol d ones) cannot
be f ul l y adequat e i n t hei r f unct i on of bui l di ng a new s oci al i dent i t y. At t he
s ame t i me, t her e wi l l be many i ns t ances i n whi ch t he super i or gr oup, f or t he
s ake of i t s own s oci al i dent i t y, cannot accept one of t he t hr ee f or ms of change
di s cus s ed above: admi s s i on (i) t hat , des pi t e t he pr evi ousl y exi st i ng st er eo-
- 26 -
- 27 -
t y pes , t he i nf er i or gr oup pos s es s es s ome of t he common at t r i but es whi ch ar e
hi ghl y val ued; (ii) t hat i t s ol d di st i nct i ve at t r i but es ar e at t he posi t i ve end
of a val ued di mens i on; and (111) t hat i t s newl y emer gi ng at t r i but es ar e of a
ki nd t hat shoul d be posi t i vel y ev al uat ed. It i s at t hi s poi nt of t he conf l i ct
bet ween compar at i ve s oci al i dent i t i es t hat t he causal pr oces s es di s cus s ed
her e l ead t o t he pr edi ct i on of i nt ens e host i l i t y i n i nt er gr oup att i t udes and of
mar ked di scr i mi nat i on i n i nt er gr oup behavi our .
An at t empt was made i n t he pr esent sect i on of t hi s pr oposal t o pr ovi de a
l i nk bet ween t he gener al t heor et i cal f or mul at i ons of t he i nt r oduct or y sect i on
and t he r es ear ch pl ans of t he sect i on t o f ol l ow. Thi s l i nk was sought i n a
cons i der at i on, i n par t s pecul at i ve, of t he post ul at ed pr oces s es as t hey mi ght
oper at e i n concr et e soci al cont ext s . Bef or e pr oceedi ng t o a di s cus s i on of t he
r es ear ch pl ans , it may be wor t hwhi l e t o emphas i ze cl ear l y t he di f f er ences
bet ween i nt er gr oup pr oces s es ar i si ng f r om an "obj ect i ve" conf l i ct of goal s
(as i n Sher i f 's wor k and r el at ed appr oaches t o t he pr obl em) and i nt er gr oup
compet i t i on, as di s cus s ed her e, whi ch der i ves f r om pr oces s es of soci al
compar i s on. Thi s has been succi nct l y done i n a r ecent paper by Tur ner (1973a);
"We have been l ed t o pr oces s es of compet i t i on t hat mi ght be expect ed
t o oper at e i n many i nt er gr oup si t uat i ons but do not r equi r e condi t i ons def i ned
Ur-
by r eal i st i c i nt er est r conf l i ct - ad r i val r y f or a mat er i al r ewar d or goal . (Of
cour se pos i t i ve s oci al i dent i t y may be t er med a goal but t he poi nt i s t hat t hi s
compet i t i on r equi r es no goal whi ch i s des i r abl e t o bot h gr oups of i t sel f and
woul d act as a r ewar d i n s ome non- i nt er gr oup si t uat i on). The pr oces s es of
compet i t i on whi ch f ol l ow f rom t he not i on of s oci al i dent i t y - her eaf t er cal l ed
's oci al compet i t i on' - ar i se f rom t he ver y nat ur e of an i nt er gr oup si t uat i on
wher e 'compar abl e' act i on i s pos s i bl e t hat i s as s oci at ed wi t h a shar ed val ue
di f f er ent i al .
To concl ude t hi s i nt r oduct or y di s cus s i on it i s wor t h maki ng an expl i ci t
di st i nct i on bet ween f our ki nds of i nt er gr oup compet i t i on. Thi s cl assi f i cat i on
wi l l be hel pf ul f r om t he st andpoi nt of gaugi ng how much of an expl anat or y
bur den soci al compet i t on may be r equi r ed t o car r y. Fi r st l y, t her e i s compet i t i on
whi ch i s char act er i zed pr i mar i l y by t he i ndependent des i r es of var i ous gr oups
for a mat er i al r ewar d whi ch can be gai ned by onl y one gr oup. 'Mat er i al ' i s not
I
meant nar r owl y; it coul d, f or ex ampl e, encompas s s uch t hi ngs as cont r ol of a
pol i t i cal or s oci al i nst i t ut i on. The t heme of t hi s compet i t i on i s expr es s ed by
t he not i on of a 'conf l i ct of i nt er es t s '. At t he ot her pol e, t her e i s what we have
r ef er r ed t o as 's oci al compet i t i on', ar i si ng f r om t he soci al compar at i ve as pect s
of soci al i dent i t y as t hey i nt er act wi t h shar ed v al ues . It s gener al l y neces s ar y
condi t i ons (t hei r s uf f i ci ency i s a l ar ger pr obl em) ar e t he s al i ence of t he i nt er
gr oup si t uat i on and t he possi bi l i t y of di f f er ent i al l y val ued act i ons r el evant t o
t he par t i cul ar s oci al cat egor i zat i on ( i . e . f or our pur pos es i nt o 'gr oups ').
The t hi r d t ype of compet i t i on i s def i ned by t he over l ap bet ween t he f i rst
t wo: wher e a mat er i al r ewar d t o s ome ext ent val ued of i t sel f ser ves as a t oken
or symbol of a val ue di f f er ent i al as s oci at ed wi t h a pos s i bl e s oci al compar i son
bet ween gr oups . It i s an open ques t i on whet her compet i t i on i n t hi s cas e has
i t s own di st i nct behavi our al r eper cuss i ons or whet her t hi s ki nd of si t uat i on
t ends t o col l aps e i nt o one of t he ot her t wo t y pes , dependi ng on f or i ns t ance
j ust how much i ndependent val ue i s pos s es s ed by t he t oken or t he degr ee of
ar bi t r ar i ness i n t he r el at i on bet ween symbol and s y mbol i zed. It i s of i nt er est
becaus e i nt ui t i vel y many wor ker s t end t o as s ume t hat t he us e of , f or ex ampl e,
smal l monet ar y r ewar ds pr oduces a conf l i ct of i nt er est si t uat i on wher eas i n
f act t hei r r esul t s of t en s eem mor e i nt el l i gi bl e i f one as s umes t hat t he r ewar d
had an es peci al ef f ect onl y i n so f ar i s it hel ped t o make sal i ent t he possi bi l i t y
of what i s pr oper l y cal l ed s oci al compet i t i on.
A f our t h t ype of compet i t i on or compet i t i ve si t uat i on i s wor t h s uggest i ng
al t hough it wi l l not be di s cus s ed i n any det ai l ,' it i s t he count er par t of t he
t hi r d t ype i n t hat it i s def i ned t o s ome ext ent by an over l ap bet ween t he f i rst
t wo and i s pr es umabl y a f or m of t r ansi t i on bet ween t hem. It di f f er s t n t he
di r ect i on of t r ansi t i on, i . e . i n t hi s cas e it i s a soci al - compet i t i ve si t uat i on
t hat gi ves r i se t o a conf l i ct of i nt er est . Thi s mi ght happen when compar i s on
r esul t s i n a st abl e and expl i ci t i nequi t y bet ween t wo gr oups and t hus t he
des i r e f or posi t i ve sel f - eval uat i on l eads t o di r ect l y conf l i ct i ng gr oup i nt er est s
wi t h r egar d t o t he mai nt enance of t he compar at i ve si t uat i on as a whol e.
Ar t i cl es by Thi baut (1950) , Kel l ey (1951) , and Manhei m (1960) pr ovi de some
suppor t f or t he i dea t hat s uch a st abl e i nequi t y i s an i mpor t ant f act or af f ect i ng
t he devel opment of s oci al compet i t i on i nt o i nt er gr oup hos t i l i t y." (Tur ner , 1973a,
pp. 6- 7).
- 28 -
I II . Res ear ch pl ans and met hods
The t est i ng of t he hypot hes es der i vi ng f rom t he di s cus s i on pr es ent ed i n
t he t wo pr ecedi ng sect i ons of t hi s pr oposal i mpos es t wo pr el i mi nar y r equi r e
ment s whi ch ar e i nt er dependent and need t o be br i ef l y di s c us s ed. They ar e:
act i ng i n t er ms of gr oup r at her t han i n t er ms of sel f ; and a cl ear di chot omi zat i on
by t he act i ng i ndi vi dual of hi s soci al wor l d i nt o non- over l appi ng soci al gr oups .
The behavi our of each i ndi vi dual can be s een as var yi ng on a cont i nuum,
one ext r eme cf v/hi ch cons i st s of act i ng f ul l y i n t er ms of sel f and t he ot her of
act i ng f ul l y i n t er ms of hi s gr oup. Thes e ar e t heor et i cal ext r emes whi ch ar e
pr obabl y never r eached i n act ual behavi our s i nce it i s di f f i cul t t o concei v e, on
t he one hand, of any soci al act whi ch woul d not be t o s ome ext ent af f ect ed by
an i ndi vi dual 's member s hi p of var i ous s oci al cat egor i es and t hei r r el at i on t o
t he soci al cat egor i es of t hose wi t h whom he i nt er act s; on t he ot her hand, any
act i on under t aken i n t er ms of gr oup member s hi p wi l l al way s i ncl ude some
as pect s speci f i c t o t he i ndi vi dual 's own backgr ound, ai ms and mot i ves whi ch
cannot be f uUy i dent i f i ed wi t h t he i nt er est s of t he gr oup i n t er ms of whi ch he
i s act i ng.
In t he exper i ment s des cr i bed i n t he pr evi ous sect i ons of t hi s pr oposal
(Taj f el et al . , 1971, and t he s ubs equent st udi es) , act i ng i n t er ms of gr oup was
achi ev ed by t he si mpl e dev i ce of el i mi nat i ng r es pons e i n t er ms of sel f t hr ough
r equest i ng t he subj ect s t o di vi de bonus es bet ween t wo ot her peopl e. The
di scr i mi nat i ng nat ur e of t he s ubj ect s ' r es pons e, bas ed as t hey wer e on t r i vi al
or r andom cr i t er i a of soci al cat egor i zat i on, can t hus be at t r i but ed t o t he nat ur e
of t he exper i ment al si t uat i on. Or , as Sol e et a l . (1973) r ecent l y wr ot e: "Why ,
t hen, on t he bas i s of what woul d cer t ai nl y appear t o be t r i vi al si mi l ar i t y and
di ss i mi l ar i t y, do Taj f el 's s ubj ect s di chot omi ze t hei r wor l ds t o f or m "we " and
"t hey " gr oups ? Why do Taj f el 's s ubj ect s engage i n soci al di scr i mi nat i on?
At f i rst gl ance i t woul d s eem pl ausi bl e enough t o as s ume t hat per cept ual
abi l i t y i n i nki ng quant i t i es of dot s i s a t r i vi al cr i t er i on f or cat egor y member s hi p.
But consi der once agai n t he subj ect In Taj f el 's exper i ment s: he f i nds hi msel f
i n a si t uat i on whi ch i s , at onc e, soci al l y i mpover i s hed and const r ai ni ng of hi s
behavi our . He i s gi ven pr eci ous l i t t l e on whi ch he may bas e hi s deci s i on, and
he i s f or ced t o us e what he i s gi v en. The cr uci al i s s ue her e i s t hat t o t he
- 29 -
subj ect i n s uch a si t uat i on t her e can be no t r i vi al cr i t er i a. It i s onl y when
one v i ews hi s pl i ght f rom t he cont ext ual l y r i ch "out s i de wor l d" t hat t he
i nf or mat i on he i s of f er ed s eems t r i vi al ", ( p . 22) .
In a r ecent exper i ment . Tur ner (1973b) r ei nt r oduced wi t hi n t he s ame ki nd
of exper i ment al des i gn t he possi bi l i t y of act i ng i n t er ms of s el f . The st udy
was of a 2 x 2 x 2 des i gn. Af t er t he pr el i mi nar y i nduct i on of s oci al cat egor i z
at i on t hr ough aes t het i c pr ef er ences , as i n some of t he pr evi ous exper i ment s ,
i n one of t he exper i ment al condi t i ons t he s ubj ect s f i rst deci ded on a di vi si on
of money bet ween sel f and an al t er who was ei t her i n t hei r own gr oup or i n t he
out gr oup; t hen t hey went on t o deci di ng on awar ds bet ween t wo ot her s , one
f r om t he i ngr oup and one f r om t he out gr oup as i n t he pr evi ous exper i ment s .
Subj ect s i n anot her condi t i on had t hi s s equence r ever s ed: f i r st , t hey wor ked
on deci s i ons bet ween t wo ot her s , and t hen went on t o deci s i ons bet ween sel f
and an al t er who was ei t her i n t he i ngr oup or i n t he out gr oup. In ot her
condi t i ons s ubj ect s under went i dent i cal pr ocedur es wi t h t he onl y di f f er ence
t hat t hei r deci s i ons di d not r el at e t o amount s of money but t o uns peci f i ed
"poi nt s " whi ch had no val ue of any ki nd. Out of a compl ex set of r es ul t s ,
t he f ol l owi ng ar e t he most r el evant her e:
(i) In al l "ot her - ot her " condi t i ons , out gr oup di scr i mi nat i on was s hown;
(ii) Ther e was no out gr oup di scr i mi nat i on (but onl y di scr i mi nat i on i n
f avour of sel # when t he choi ce bet ween sel f and an i ngr oup or out gr oup al t er
came f i rst i n t he s equence of deci s i ons ; when t he choi ce bet ween sel f and
an i ngr oup or out gr oup al t er came s econd i n t he s equence of deci s i ons ( i . e .
af t er a set of al t er - al t er deci si on) t he s ubj ect s , i n addi t i on t o di scr i mi nat i ng
i n f avour of s el f , al s o al l ot t ed l es s t o t he member s of t he out gr oup t han t o
t hose of t he i ngr oup.
The s econd f i ndi ng, whi ch conf or med t o Tur ner 's exper i ment al pr edi ct i ons,
can be gener al l y r est at ed as f ol l ows: t her e i s a var i et y of condi t i ons whi ch
det er mi ne a choi ce bet ween act i ons i n t er ms of sel f or of gr oup; t hey can be
s ummar i zed as condi t i ons whi ch i ncr eas e t he s al i ence of gr oup member s hi p.
In t he condi t i ons of Tur ner 's exper i ment s wher e sel f - ot her deci s i ons came
bef or e t he ot her - ot her dec i s i ons , act i ng i n t er ms of sel f became t he f ocus of
t he s ubj ect s 1deci s i ons , and no di scr i mi nat i on bet ween ot her s bel ongi ng t o
- 30 -
t he i ngr oup and t o t he out gr oup was s hown i n t he sel f - ot her deci s i ons , al t hough
s uch di scr i mi nat i on di d s how i t sel f when t he ot her - ot her deci s i ons wer e
i nvol ved. Whe n, howev er , t he ot her - ot her deci s i ons pr eceded t he sel f - ot her
dec i s i ons , t he l at t er wer e af f ect ed by t he s al i ence of gr oup member s hi p whi ch
had been t he f ocus of t he fi rst par t of t he exper i ment al condi t i on.
The r esul t s of t he exper i ment al st udi es so f ar des cr i bed and t he consi der
at i on of "r eal " soci al si t uat i ons i n t he pr ecedi ng sect i on of t hi s pr oposal l ead
t o t he concl us i on t hat t wo i nt er dependent condi t i ons ar e bas i c i n det er mi ni ng
behavi our i n t er ms of gr oup r at her t han i n t er ms of sel f . They ar e: t he di cho-
t omi zat i on of t he soci al wor l d i nt o cl ear l y di st i nct and non- over l appi ng
cat egor i es (s ee pr evi ous sect i on and al s o Hor ns t ei n, 197 2, f or suppl ement ar y
ev i dence); and t he i mpossi bi l i t y or ser i ous di f f i cul t y i n "pas s i ng " f rom one
gr oup t o anot her (cf . t he ear l i er di s cus s i on of "s oci al mobi l i t y" v s . 'soci al
c hang e ") . Ther e ar e undoubt edl y many ot her condi t i ons whi ch ar e al s o
i mpor t ant i n i ncr eas i ng or decr easi ng t he s al i ence of gr oup member s hi p, and
s ome of t hem wi l l be i ncl uded i n t he r es ear ch pl ans out l i ned i n t hi s sect i on
of t he pr opos al . But act i ng i n t er ms of gr oup r at her t han i n t er ms of sel f
cannot be expect ed t o pl ay a pr edomi nant par t i n an i ndi v i dual 's behavi our
unl es s t her e i s pr esent a cl ear cogni t i ve st r uct ur e of "us " and "t hem" and
unl es s t hi s st r uct ur e i s not per cei ved as capabl e of bei ng eas i l y shi f t ed i n a
var i et y of s oci al and psychol ogi cal condi t i ons .
The hypot hes es wi t h whi ch t he r esear ch pr opos ed her e wi l l be concer ned
f al l br oadl y i nt o t wo cat egcr i es: i n t he f i rst ar e t hose whi ch r el at e t o t he
es t abl i s hment of t he gener al pr i nci pl e t hat t he achi evement of psychol ogi cal
i nt er gr oup di s t i nct i venes s i s one of t he aut onomous ai ms of behavi our i n whi ch
i ndi vi dual s engage i n cer t ai n ki nds of i nt er gr oup si t uat i ons; i n t he s econd
cat egor y ar e t he hypot hes es ai mi ng t o ar t i cul at e t he var i ous way s i n whi ch
di st i nct i venes s can be achi ev ed under s peci f i ed condi t i ons . Al l t he hypot hes es
i n bot h cat egor i es der i ve f rom t he ar gument pr es ent ed i n t he pr evi ous t wo
sect i ons of t he pr opos al . As , howev er , t her e i s cons i der abl e empi r i cal over
l ap bet ween es t abl i s hi ng t he pr i nci pl e of di s t i nct i venes s and t he var i ous
i nt er gr oup conduct s t hat can be us ed t o achi ev e t hi s end, t he r es ear ch pl ans
wi l l be out l i ned accor di ng t o t he f ol l owi ng empi r i cal cat egor i es:
- 31 -
1
- 32 -
7 t * (a)
(b)
(c)
v / (d)
(e)
^ (f )
^ (g)
It must be r emember ed t hat we ar e not concer ned her e wi t h val i dat i ng
as s umpt i ons whi ch woul d cont r adi ct t he post ul at i on of al t er nat i ve causal
pr oces s es . The ai m of t he r es ear ch i s not t o s how t hat t he "obj ect i v e" con
f l i ct s of i nt er est bet ween gr oups or t he pr evi ousl y exi st i ng at t i t udes do not
have cer t ai n wel l - known- ef f ect s i n i nt er gr oup behavi our ; it i s r at her t o s how
t hat i n addi t i on t o t hes e ot her causal pr oces s es , t he es t abl i s hment of
ps ychol ogi cal i nt er gr oup di s t i nct i venes s has i t s aut onomous f unct i ons i n i nt er
gr oup behavi our . Ther ef or e, t he mai n met hodol ogi cal r equi r ement of t he
r es ear ch i s not t o dev i s e "cr uci al " si t uat i ons i n whi ch t he post ul at i on of one
of t wo caus al pr oces s es i s s hown t o be cor r ect , but r at her t o el i mi nat e - as
f ul l y as t hi s can be achi ev ed - var i abl es ot her t han t hos e f r om whi ch behavi our
ai mi ng t o es t abl i s h psychol ogi cal di s t i nct i venes s can be pr edi ct ed.
(a) Obj ect i v e conf l i ct of i nt er es t , gr oup i dent i t y and i nt er gr oup behavi our .
The di st i nct i on bet ween t hes e t wo det er mi nant s of i nt er gr oup behavi our was
def i ned and di s cus s ed i n s ome det ai l i n t he pr evi ous sect i ons of t hi s pr opos al .
The ai m of t he r esear ch i s t o s how:
(i ) t hat when a gr oup pr ovi des i t s member s wi t h i nadequat e soci al
i dent i t y, t hi s wi l l r esul t i n at t empt s t o est abl i s h posi t i vel y val ued ps ychol o
gi cal di st i nct i vens s f r om compar i s on gr oups . Thi s pr oces s must be s hown t o
exi st i ndependent l y of i nt er gr oup conf l i ct s of ot her i nt er est s;
(ii) t he abov e s equence wi l l , i n s ome condi t i ons of i nadequat e i dent i t y,
s how i t sel f ev en i f t he achi evement of di s t i nct i venes s conf l i ct s wi t h t he
possi bi l i t y of obt ai ni ng r el at i vel y hi gher "obj ect i ve" r ewar ds of var i ous ki nds
(t he sub- sect i on (b) bel ow on r el at i ve depr i vat i on wi l l be di r ect l y r el evant
her e).
Obj ect i v e conf l i ct of i nt er es t , gr oup i dent i t y and i nt er gr oup behavi our ;
Rel at i ve depr i vat i on, absol ut e depr i vat i on and i nt er gr oup behavi our ;
Int er gr oup si mi l ar i t y and psychol ogi cal di s t i nct i venes s; -
Super or i i nat e goal s and gr oup i dent i t y; )
The i ngr oup and i nt er gr oup ef f ect s of mar gi nal gr oup i dent i t y;
Gr oup i nf er i or i t y, gr oup cr eat i vi t y and i nt er gr oup behavi our ;
Li ngui st i c cor r el at es of i nt er gr oup di scr i mi nat i on.
We al r eady hav e s ome i ndi cat i ons f r om our pr evi ous r es ear ch t hat t he
achi evement of posi t i ve di st i nct i venes s can be an aut onomous goal of i nt er
gr oup behavi our ( e . g . t he i mpor t ance of t he MD - maxi mum di f f er ence bet ween
t he gr oups i n f avour of ones own, cf . p. 1 - i n t he exper i ment s by Taj f el et a l .
and i n some f t he s ubsequent st udi es ; and i nt er gr oup di scr i mi nat i on i n t he
di st r i but i on of val uel es s "poi nt s " i n t he exper i ment s by Tur ner ). The ai m of
t he pr opos ed r es ear ch wi l l be t o ar t i cul at e t hes e phenomena mor e cl ear l y as
our pr evi ous r esear ch was not s peci f i cal l y des i gned for t hi s pur pos e and di d
not t her ef or e i ncl ude t he neces s ar y set of al t er nat i ve condi t i ons .
The gener al des i gn of t he exper i ment s wi l l be as f ol l ows:
Condi t i on (i ): Obj ect i v e conf l i ct of i nt er est s ( e . g . compet i t i ve di st r i but i on
of concr et e r ewar ds) - sat i sf act or y ps ychol ogi cal di st i nct i venes s f r om anot her
gr oup (exper i ment al l y i nduced t hr ough f eedback about "super i or " per f or mance
on a r el evant and val ued cr i t eri on) - eval uat i ons of t he i ngr oup and t he out
gr oup and deci s i ons about a s econd di st r i but i on of r ewar ds t o ot her s ubj ect s ,
member s of t he i ngr oup and t he out gr oup.
Condi t i on (i i ): No obj ect i ve conf l i ct of i nt er est s - unsat i sf act or y
ps ychol ogi cal di st i nct i venes s f r om anot her gr oup (exper i ment al l y i nduced as
above) - dependent var i abl es as i n condi t i on (i) abov e. The pr edi ct i on her e
i s t hat i nt er gr oup di scr i mi nat i on wi l l appear i n bot h ki nds of dependent
var i abl es (eval uat i ons and di st r i but i ons of r ewar ds t o ot her peopl e). Mor e
gener al l y, t he pr edi ct i on i s t hat t he subj ect s wi l l us e what ever channel i s
avai l abl e t o t hem t o di st i ngui sh posi t i vel y t hei r own gr oup f r om t he out gr oup;
so t hat i f t he f i r st act i vi t y r eques t ed of t hem i s a set of deci s i ons about
di st r i but i on w mat er i al r ewar ds t o ot her s wi t hout i nf or mat i on t hat eval uat i ons
wi l l be r eques t ed l at er , t her e wi l l be r el at i vel y st r onger i nt er gr oup di scr i mi n
at i on i n t hes e di st r i but i ons; and t hat t he s ame wi l l be t r ue of eval uat i ons i f
t hey come f i r st .
No pr edi ct i ons can be made on t he bas i s of t he pr esent di s cus s i on about
t he di f f er ences bet ween condi t i ons (i) and (ii) i n t he r el at i ve degr ee of i nt er-
gr oup di scr i mi nat i on. The onl y pr edi ct i ons we can make at pr esent i s t hat i n
bot h condi t i ons di scr i mi nat i on wi l l occur . It s appear ance i n condi t i on (i) can
be under st ood as t he ef f ect of an i nt er gr oup conf l i ct of i nt er est s; i f di scr i mi
nat i on occur s In condi t i on (ii) , it cannot be at t r i but ed ei t her t o an obj ect i ve
conf l i ct of i nt er est s or t o pr evi ousl y exi st i ng at t i t udes of i nt er gr oup host i l i t y.
- 33 -
Condi t i on (i i i ): No obj ect i ve conf l i ct of i nt er est s - sat i sf act or y ps ychol
ogi cal di st i nct i venes s f r om anot her gr oup. The pr edi ct i on her e i s t hat no .
ca O 'yU J n/j , / a f
i nt er gr oup di scr i mi nat i on wi l l be s hown on any of t he meas ur es . ^ iy/v / y nu^{
Condi t i on (i v): Obj ect i ve conf l i ct of i nt er est s - unsat i sf act or y ps y chol
ogi cal di st i nct i venes s f rom anot her gr oup. Pr edi ct i ons ar e as f or condi t i ons
(i) and (ii) abov e / wi t h mor e mar ked i nt er gr oup di scr i mi nat i on on t he r el evant
dependent var i abl es .
Sever al exper i ment s wi l l be conduct ed wi t hi n t hi s gener al des i gn. It i s
i nt ended t o us e i n s ome of t hem as means of t he s econd di st r i but i on of
mat er i al r ewar ds (deci ded upon by t he subj ect s) t he payment mat r i ces pr e
vi ous l y empl oyed i n t he Taj f el et al . and s ubs equent exper i ment s . Thes e
mat r i ces have pr oved f l exi bl e and eas i l y adapt abl e t o t he meas ur ement of a
number of dependent var i abl es ; and s ucces s f ul i n di scr i mi nat i ng bet ween t he
di ver s e det er mi nant s of t he s ubj ect s choi ces . The dependent var i abl es of
eval uat i on wi l l be adapt ed t o t he s ubj ect s ' popul at i ons and t o t he exper i ment al
t as ks so t hat t hey ar e s een as r el evant t o t he si t uat i on and s ens i bl e. Whenev er
neces s ar y , pi l ot st udi es wi l l be conduct ed t o det er mi ne an appr opr i at e cont ent
for t he eval uat i ons .
In t he abov e exper i ment s , as i n t he s ubs equent ones , a compl et e de
br i ef i ng of t he subj ect s wi l l t ake pl ace at t he end of t he s t udi es / whenever
s uch de- br i ef i ng i s made neces s ar y by t he nat ur e of t he exper i ment al
si t uat i on.
(b) Rel at i ve depr i vat i on, abs ol ut e depr i vat i on and i nt er ar oup behavi our .
One of t he bas i c as pect s of t he exper i ment al r esear ch out l i ned above i s t he
exi s t ence of st at us or soci al di f f er ent i al s bet ween t he gr oups whi ch wi l l be
i nduced by a var i et y of exper i ment al pr ocedur es . Such di f f er ent i al s al s o exi st
i n a ver y l ar ge var i et y of nat ur al s oci al s et t i ngs , and many of t hem pr es ent a
dual as pect : di f f er ences bet ween t he gr oups i n, f or ex ampl e, sal ar i es or
wages ei t her cr eat e or ar e r ef l ect ed i n, or det er mi ned by , di f f er ences i n st at us
and t he s oci al pr est i ge of t he var i ous gr oups . Ther e ar e cas es of i ndust r i al
and ot her di s put es wher e it s eems t hat t he st r uct ur e of sal ar y di f f er ent i al s i s
as i mpor t ant as t he abs ol ut e amount s t hat ar e bei ng cl ai med. The r esear ch
pr obl em f or us wi l l be t o i dent i f y some soci al si t uat i ons i n whi ch sal ar y
di f f er ent i al s r epr esent an i mpor t ant di mens i on of a gr oup's i dent i t y and t hen
t o as s es s t he r el at i ve i mpor t ance t o member s of t he gr oup of changes i n di f f er
ent i al s as compar ed wi t h changes i n t he absol ut e l evel of s al ar i es . Our
pr edi ct i ons her e ar e der i ved f rom t he mor e gener al hypot hes es (i) and (ii)
st at ed above (cf . p ; . 3 2 ) : t hat whenev er l evel of sal ar y can be s hown t o
be r el evant t o t he gr oup's per cept i on of i t s compar at i ve st at us i n r el at i on t o
ot her gr oups , t he es t abl i s hment of cer t ai n ki nds of new di f f er ent i al s (or t he
pr eser vat i on of t he ol d ones i f t hey ar e f avour abl e t o t he gr oup) wi i l have an ^
aut onomous f unct i on i n sal ar y cl ai ms , i ndependent of , or addi t i onal t o, t he J
cl ai ms f or mor e money per s e.
Sal ar y di f f er ent i al s have been si ngl ed out as t he f i rst exampl e of set t i ngs
i n whi ch our hypot hes es mi ght be t est ed becaus e it i s t he most obvi ous one.
We hope, howev er , t o f i nd set t i ngs of ot her ki nds i n whi ch s oci al di f f er ent i al s
can be i dent i f i ed and, t o s ome ext ent , mani pul at ed. (The ar med f or ces wi t h
t hei r cl ear - cut syst em of symbol s of r ank di f f er ences woul d be an i deal exampl e,
but it i s r at her di f f i cul t t o f or esee whet her one woul d r ecei ve a f avour abl e
r eact i on t o t he s ugges t i on t hat we shoul d be al l owed t o wor k on t hi s pr obl em).
Whet her , howev er , we wor k on sal ar y or on ot her di f f er ent i al s, t he f i rst phas e
of t he f i el d r es ear ch wi l l be a pr el i mi nar y as s es s ment of t he subj ect i ve
r el evance of a gi ven di mens i on t o t he gr oup's per cept i on of i t s adequat e or
i nadequat e s oci al i dent i t y. Thi s wi l l be done t hr ough: (i) a ser i es of open-
ended i nt er vi ews ; (ii) const r uct i on of s cal es der i ved f rom t hes e i nt er vi ews
on whi ch t he s ubj ect s wi l l be i nvi t ed t o pl ace t hei r own and ot her compar i son
gr oups . A si mi l ar pr ocedur e has been r ecent l y us ed s ucces s f ul l y i n r esear ch
conduct ed at pr es ent at t he Uni ver si t y of Lei den by A. van Kni ppenber g under
t he s uper vi s i on of t he aut hor of t hi s pr oposal and Pr of essor J . P. van de Geer .
In t hi s r esear ch cer t ai n compar i s ons bet ween gr oups made under a var i et y of
condi t i ons wer e el i ci t ed f r om engi neer i ng st udent s of t echni cal coUeges and
of i nst i t ut es of t echnol ogy i n The Net her l ands . bet ween whom exi st st at us and
pr est i ge di f f er ences acknowl edged by bot h s i des . The r esul t i ng i nt er gr oup
eval uat i ons ar e bei ng s ubj ect ed t o mul t i var i at e anal ys i s (Taj f cl and van de
Geer , 197 2).
In v i ew of t he di f f i cul t y of knowi ng i n adv ance whi ch set t i ngs and
di mens i ons wi l l pr ove r el evant t o our hypot hes es and, amongs t t hos e, whi ch
woul d pr esent i nst i t ut i onal f aci l i t i es enabl i ng us t o wor k, no mor e can be done
- 35 -
at pr esent t han out l i ni ng a pr ocedur al exampl e whi ch mi ght have t o be cons i d
er abl y modi f i ed or compl et el y changed. In Br i t ai n, t her e ar e cer t ai n ac k now
l edged st at us di f f er ences bet ween l ect ur er s i n var i ous t ypes of i nst i t ut i ons
of t er t i ar y educat i on. Thes e di f f er ences ar e somet i mes r el at ed t o sal ar y
di f f er ences ei t her i n t he gener al l evel of s al ar i es , or i n t he s al ar i es at t he
poi nt of ent r y i nt o t he s ys t em, or i n t he maxi mum l evel at t ai ned, or i n t he
s i ze of i ncr ement s . In addi t i on, t her e ar e ot her di f f er ences whi ch ar e capabl e
of f ai r l y cl ear def i ni t i ons s uch as t he t eachi ng l oad, t he l engt h of v acat i ons ,
t he degr ee of f r eedom i n di st r i but i ng one's wor k l oad, et c. It shoul d be pos s i bl e
t o es t abl i s h, t hr ough a ser i es of i nt er vi ews , t he i mpor t ance of t hes e var i ous
f act or s t o a gr oup's per cept i on of i t s compar at i ve st at us. I f , f or ex ampl e, t he
sal ar y di f f er ent i al s pr oved t o be i mpor t ant i n t hi s compar at i ve per s pect i ve,
we woul d pr es ent a number of r espondent s wt t h a ser i es of s ugges t ed sal ar y
s cal es f or t hei r own gr oup and ot her r el evant gr oups as ki ng t hem t o r ank t hes e
i n or der of pr ef er ence. The st r uct ur e of t hes e s cal es woul d be s uch t hat t hey
woul d pr esent ei t her a combi nat i on of , or a conf l i ct bet ween, "abs ol ut e"
advant ages and compar at i ve di f f er ent i al advant ages and di s advant ages f or t he
r es pondent s ' own gr oup and t he ot her gr oups . Our pr edi ct i ons ar e, as st at ed
abov e, t hat t he di f f er ent i al s woul d have an aut onomous f unct i on, par t i cul ar l y
wi t h r egar d t o gr oups of "i nf er i or " s t at us.
We al s o hope t o i dent i f y s ome i ndust r i al set t i ngs i n whi ch si mi l ar
pr ocedur es coul d be us ed. One par t i cul ar i ndust r i al set t i ng coul d pr ove
es peci al l y v al uabl e, al t hough t her e ar e good r eas ons t o bel i eve t hat r esear ch
wi t hi n it may not pr ove pos s i bl e becaus e of t he s oci al and pol i t i cal sensi t i vi t y
of t he i s s ues i nvol ved. We s hal l , howev er , t r y. Las t year t her e was a st r i ke
by Paki s t ani wor ker s i n a f act or y i n t he Mi dl ands ; it was mai nl y concer ned
wi t h demands f or a bet t er pr omot i on st r uct ur e f or t he Paki s t ani s . Des pi t e t he
f act t hat t he st r i ke was made of f i ci al by t he uni on, it enj oyed onl y a ver y
l i mi t ed suppor t f r om t he ot her wor ker s i n t he f act or y. A st r i ke of f or ei gn
wor ker s on a much wi der s cal e and concer ned wi t h si mi l ar di f f er ent i al s t ook
pl ace i n Apr U of t hi s year at t he Renaul t wor ks near Par i s . In t hi s cas e s ome
of t he suppor t f or it was onl y gi ven af t er s ome del ay , when it was r eal i sed
t hat t he f or ei gn wor ker s ' st r i ke, r at her unexpect edl y , br ought al l of t he wor k
i n t he f act or i es t o a compl et e hal t . In t hes e c as es , our i nt er est woul d be
- 36 -
pr i mar i l y i n t he at t i t udes of t he "super i or " gr oups , par t i cul ar l y of t hos e nat i ve
wor ker s whos e s t at us , pr ospect s and sal ar i es ar e at t he l ower end of t he scal e,
as near as pos s i bl e t o t he st at us of t he f or ei gn wor ker s . The pr edi ct i ons ar e
concept ual l y si mi l ar t o t hose out l i ned above: t hat as t he l ack of suppor t was
due t o t he need f or t he pr eser vat i on of di f f er ent i al s f rom t he 'i nf er i or 1' gr oups
of f or ei gn wor ker s , t hi s woul d s how i t sel f i n s ome degr ee of pr ef er ence f or
t hei r pr es er vat i on, even at s ome cost t o an i mpr ovement of s cal es and pr ospect s
common t o bot h gr oups whi ch woul d obl i t er at e t he di f f er ent i al s. In pr act i cal
t er ms , it mi ght per haps be pos s i bl e t o f i nd a mul t i - r aci al or mul t i - nat i onal
i ndust r i al set t i ng of t hi s ki nd i n whi ch t he i s s ue i s dor mant at pr es ent and
wher e t her ef or e t her e mi ght not be t oo much r esi st ance t o t he ki nd of r esear ch
out l i ned her e. But t hi s i s pr obabl y a f orl or n hope, s i nce a "dor mant " i s s ue
coul d become ver y much awake as a r esul t of t he act i vi t i es of a f ew soci al
ps ychol ogi s t s l et l oos e i n a f act or y.
It i s i nt ended t hat t he r esear ch envi s aged i n t hi s pr oposal s houl d, as f ar
as pos s i bl e, move back and f ort h bet ween st udi es i n nat ur al s oci al set t i ngs
and exper i ment al s t udi es . The set t i ngs of soci al di f f er ent i al s j ust di s cus s ed
and t he i nvest i gat i on of t he subj ect i ve bal ance t hat may exi st bet ween t he
i mpr ovement of a gr oups posi t i on i n abs ol ut e t er ms as compar ed wi t h s uch an
i mpr ovement i n r el at i ve t er ms can al s o be di r ect l y st udi ed i n t he l abor at or y.
We s hal l , howev er , i n some of t he st udi es go hal f - way t owar ds "r eal " si t uat i ons
i n us i ng gr oups of s ubj ect s who i dent i f y t hems el ves as member s of a def i ned
soci al cat egor y r el at ed t o ot her s uch cat egor i es ( e . g . st udent s i n t echni cal
col l eges and col l eges of educat i on, pupi l s i n var i ous t ypes of s chool s , e t c . ) .
They wi l l be conf r ont ed wi t h t he f eedback of pr es umed r es pons es and per f or mance
f r om member s of ot her soci al cat egor i es r el evant t o an i nt er gr oup compar i s on.
Al l s uch "hal f - r eal " st udi es wi l l be f ol l owed i mmedi at el y by a compl et e de
br i ef i ng of t he s ubj ect s .
An ext ended exper i ment al equi val ent of t he pr obl em of s oci al di f f er ent i al s
v s . absol ut e l evel s of r ewar d wi l l be des i gned t o expl or e compar at i vel y t he
ef f ect s on i nt er gr oup at t i t udes and behavi our of r el at i ve depr i vat i on v s .
f r ust r at i on i nduced by non- f ul f i l l ment of expect at i ons about t he abs ol ut e l evel
of r ewar ds . The st udi es wi l l consi st of sever al phas es : (i) expl or at i on of
- 37 -
t he exi st i ng i nt er gr oup at t i t udes t hr ough i nt er vi ews and r at i ng s cal es ; (ii)
cr eat i on of e:cpect at i ons about a compet i t i ve l evel of r ewar d f or aver age
per f or mance on a s ubsequent t ask; t hi s wi l l be done t hr ough f eedback about
a pr el i mi nar y 'pr edi ct or " t est ; (ii i) per f or mance of t he t as k (each subj ect
wor ki ng separ at el y) whi ch wi l l be of s ome r el evance and speci f i c i nt er est t o
t he gr oup, s uch a s , f or ex ampl e, t he r epr oduct i on f r om memor y of a t echni cal
dr awi ng f or st udent s f r om t echni cal col l eges ; (i v) announcement of t he l evel
of per f or mance (and r ewar d) i n r el at i on t o t hos e of t he compar i s on gr oup; (v)
dependent var i abl es : i ndi vi dual eval uat i on by each subj ect of pr oduct s made
i ndi vi dual l y by member s of hi s own and t he ot her gr oup and i nvi t at i on t o t he
subj ect s t o pr esent (each of t hem separ at el y) what t hey consi der woul d have
been j ust i f i ed modi f i cat i ons t o t he di st r i but i on of r ewar ds t hat has been deci
ded upon by t he exper i ment er s on t he bas i s of t he exper i ment er s' r at i ng of
per f or mance on t he t as k; (vi ) de- br i ef i ng of t he s ubj ect s .
The i nf or mat i on pr ovi ded t o t he subj ect s about t he "pr edi ct or " t est
(expect at i ons) and about t he l evel of per f or mance on t he act ual t as k (det er
mi ni ng t he gr oup's compar at i ve posi t i on on t he r ewar d scal e) wi l l be so
ar r anged t hat : (a) t he i ni t i al expect ed r el at i onshi p f or any gr oup wi l l be ei t her
equal or super i or or i nf er i or t o t he compar i son gr oup; (b) t he abs ol ut e l evel
of r ewar d wi l l be equal , super i or or i nf er i or t o expect at i ons ; (c) t he compar at i ve
l evel of r ewar d wi l l be t he s ame as t he expect at i on or di f f er ent f r om i t i n an
upwar ds or downwar ds di r ect i on. A f ul l des i gn woul d t her ef or e r equi r e a ver y
l ar ge number of exper i ment al gr oups . It i s our i nt ent i on t o s el ect , af t er s ome
pi l ot s t udi es , t hos e whi ch wi l l be t he most meani ngf ul t o t he s ubj ect s and for
whi ch cl ear - cut pr edi ct i ons about t he dependent var i abl es can be made on t he
bas i s of t he pr esent t heor et i cal ar gument . The mai n pur pos e of t he s t udi es ,
whi ch wi l l det er mi ne t he sel ect i on of t he exper i ment al gr oups j oi nt l y wi t h t he
abov e cr i t er i a, i s t o compar e t he ef f ect s on i nt er gr oup behavi our and at t i t udes
of f r ust r at i on i nduced t hr ough a non- f ul f i l l ment of expect at i ons about t he
absol ut e l evel of r ewar d, t he compar at i ve l evel bei ng hel d const ant , wi t h t he
par al l el ef f ect s of a non- f ul f i l l ment of expect at i ons about t he compar at i ve
l evel of r ewar d, t he abs ol ut e l evel bei ng hel d const ant .
- 38 -
(c) Int er gr oup si mi l ar i t y and psychol ogi cal di s t i nct i venes s .
The compar at i ve soci al i dent i t y f unct i on of di f f er ent i al s, di s cus s ed i n t he
pr evi ous s ub- s ect i on, i s cl osel y r el at ed t o t he ef f ect s on i nt er gr oup behavi our
of t he degr ee of si mi l ar i t y or di ssi mi l ar i t y bet ween soci al gr oups whi ch ar e
cons ens ual l y pl aced on a s cal e as "s uper i or " or "i nf er i or " i n r el at i on t o some
cr i t er i a. The ar gument i n t hi s pr oposal l eads t o t he gener al pr edi ct i on t hat
gr oups shoul d st r i ve mor e mar kedl y t o achi ev e di s t i nct i venes s f r om ot her
gr oups whi ch ar e r el at i vel y near er t o t hem on t hat s cal e t han f r om gr oups
whi ch ar e cl ear l y and def i ni t el y f ar away on t he s cal e. In "r eal '' soci al
si t uat i ons t hi s i s ver y of t en not t he cas e f or sever al r eas ons : f or ex ampl e,
an i nf er i or gr oup, however cl ear l y i nf er i or , may pr esent (and of t en does) mor e
of a power f ul t hr eat t o t he super i or gr oup t han ot her i nf er i or gr oups whi ch ar e
near er t o it on t he soci al s cal e; or , gr oups whi ch ar e r el at i vel y near t o one
anot her may cr eat e (and of t en do) coal i t i ons t o i ncr ease or decr eas e t he
di s t ance bet ween t hem and a gr oup whi ch i s f ur t her away on t he s cal e and
pr es ent s a common t hr eat . In doi ng t hi s , t hey somet i mes mer ge and become
one l ar ger gr oup i n opposi t i on t o t hos e who ar e di st i nct l y di f f er ent i n one
di r ect i on or anot her .
It r emai ns t r ue, howev er , t hat t he l ogi c of t he ar gument pr es ent ed i n t he
pr evi ous sect i ons l eads t o t he pr edi ct i on t hat , al l el s e bei ng const ant , smal l
di f f er ences wli i ch ar e r el at ed t o val ued di st i nct i venes s shoul d l ead t o mor e
st r enuous ef f or t s t o pr es er ve and/or i ncr ease di st i nct i venes s t han shoul d
l ar ger di f f er ences . For r eas ons j ust s t at ed/ t he st udi es t o t est t hi s pr edi ct i on
shoul d be conduct ed exper i ment al l y i n s uch a way t hat : (i) coal i t i ons and
mer gi ng of gr oups ar e not pos s i bl e; and (ii) t he gr oups shoul d not pr esent
gr eat er or l es s t hr eat s of var i ous ki nds t o each ot her r el at ed t o t hei r di f f er i ng
di s t ances on t he s c al e, apar t f rom t he sol e t hr eat t o compar at i ve i dent i t y
exi st i ng as a f unct i on of t he degr ee of di s t ance. *
We i nt end t o use t hr ee condi t i ons of di s t ance each i nvol vi ng t hr ee
exper i ment al gr oups accor di ng t o t he f ol l owi ng s chema:
A
B
A
- 40 -
A
B
C C
B
C
The phas es of t he exper i ment s wi l l be as f ol l ows: (i) per f or mance of a
t ask; (ii) pr ear r anged f eedback of t he per f or mance as a r esul t of whi ch t he
s ubj ect s i n each of t he gr oups wi l l per cei ve t he r el at i onshi p bet ween t he t hr ee
'I gr oups as bei ng one of t he ni ne st r uct ur es whi ch ar e pos s i bl e i n t he above
ar r angement ; (i i i ) dependent var i abl es : t he payment mat r i ces us ed i n t he
Taj f el et a l . and ot her exper i ment s wi l l be us ed ag ai n, t he s ubj ect s bei ng
r eques t ed t o di st r i but e r ewar ds bet ween t wo ot her peopl e each of whom wi l l be
f rom one of t he ot her t wo gr oups . For pur pos es of addi t i onal exper i ment al
cont r ol , di st r i but i ons of r ewar d wi l l al s o be made t o t wo ot har s i n t he f ol l owi ng
combi nat i ons: (a) bot h f r om t he s ubj ect 's own gr oup; (b) and (c): one f rom
t he s ubj ect 's own gr oup and one f r om one of t he ot her gr oups; (i v) de- br i ef i ng
(d) Super or di nat e goal s and gr oup i dent i t y.
A f ur t her l i ne of r es ear ch r el at i ng t o t he compar i sons bet ween t he ef f ect s of
var i ous ki nds of "obj ect i v e" gr oup i nt er est s and t he need t o achi ev e gr oup
di st i nct i venes s has t o do wi t h t he wel l - known r esul t s of Sher i f 's st udi es ( e . g .
1966). Sher i f f ound t hat t he onl y condi t i on whi ch l ed t o t he di s appear ance of
i nt er gr oup conf l i ct was t he set t i ng t o bot h gr oups of common "s uper or di nat e"
goal s . It s eems t her ef or e t hat under cer t ai n condi t i ons t he r el at i onshi p bet ween
t he i nt er est s of t he t wo gr oups det er mi nes f ul l y t he nat ur e of t hei r at t i t udl nal
r el at i onshi p and t hat i n s ome of t hes e condi t i ons t he need f or t he es t abl i shment
or t he pr eser vat i on of gr oup's i dent i t y di s appear s . It i s however pos s i bl e t hat
t hi s concl us i on f r om Sher i f 's r esul t s i s not as gener al as it appear s . Sher i f 's
gr oups wer e cr eat ed and f ul l y def i ned as gr oups on t he bas i s of t he cri t eri a
of t hei r compet i t i ve i nt er es t s . St ar t i ng f r om t hi s compet i t i on, t hey cr eat ed
i ngr oup r i t ual s and symbol s and wer e l ed t o di spl ay host i l e at t i t udes t owar ds
t he out gr oup. The di s appear ance of t he compet i t i on and i t s subst i t ut i on by an
over - r i di ng common i nt er est meant bas i cal l y not t hat t he t wo gr oups f ound
of t he s ubj ect s .
t hems el ves i n a new r el at i onshi p t o one anot her i n whi ch t her e was no need
t o pr eser ve s ome f or m of gr oup di st i nct i venes s but r at her t hat t hey mer ged
i nt o one gr oup. Thi s i s undoubt edl y a s equence of event s whi ch i s a val i d
r ef l ect i on of what f r equent l y happens i n i nt er gr oup s i t uat i ons . It pos es
howev er , a pr act i cal and a t heor et i cal pr obl em.
The abi l i t y of Sher i f 's t wo gr oups t o mer ge i nt o one pl aces f i r ml y hi s
exper i ment al si t uat i on i n t he quadr ant s A or C of t he t wo- by- t wo s chema
di s cus s ed i n t he pr evi ous sect i on of t hi s pr oposal : t he quadr ant s i n whi ch
t he i ndi vi dual member s of a gr oup can l eave t hei r own gr oup wi t hout di f f i cul t y
and "pas s " i nt o anot her . In t hi s par t i cul ar cas e t hi s i s t r ue of bot h t he
compet i ng gr oups as t hey ar e abl e t o s hed t hei r i dent i t y and mer ge i nt o one.
As al r eady s t at ed, once t he compet i t i on of i nt er est s di s appear ed/ t her e wer e
no ot her di f f er ences bet ween t he gr oups . On t he cont r ar y, i n addi t i on t o t he
new super or di nat e goal s , t her e had been t he pr evi ous i ndi vi dual f r i endshi ps
whi ch cr i s s- cr ossed t he s ubsequent di vi si on i nt o gr oups , t he common i nduct i on
i nt o t he hol i day camp, t he r i ch var i et y of f ace- t o- f ace cont act s / et c. The
r es ear ch ques t i on whi ch ar i ses i s t her ef or e as f ol l ows: woul d super or di nat e
goal s be a suf f i ci ent l y st r ong mot i ve t o abandon gr oup i dent i t y and t he sear ch
f or t he pr eser vat i on of gr oup di st i nct i venes s i n s i t uat i ons i n whi ch t he def i ni t i on
of a gr oup i s i ndependent j pf , and t r ans cends / a par t i cul ar s equence of i nt er
gr oup compet i t i on? The ar gument pr es ent ed ear l i er i n t hi s pr oposal poi nt s t o
t he poss i bi l i t y t hat t hi s mi ght not be t he c as e. On t he ot her hand/ t hi s i s one
of t he s ocl ops ychol ogi cal pr obl ems f or whi ch it woul d be no l es s t han f ool i sh
t o at t empt an a pr i or i uni ver sal gener al i zat i on. The out come of t he i nt er act i on
bet ween t he mer gi ng of goal s and t he pr eser vat i on of gr oup i dent i t y must
depend upon t he r el at i ve i mpor t ance of t he goal s t o be at t ai ned and t he r el at i ve
st r engt h of t he i ngr oup i dent i f i cat i on.
The pr obl em i s never t hel es s an i mpor t ant one and i n v i ew of t he abs ence
of r el evant r es ear ch, s ome expl or at or y st udi es of it shoul d be at t empt ed. It
appear s t o me t hat i n v i ew of Sher i f 's r es ul t s , a good r es ear ch st r at egy
woul d be t o conf r ont r el at i vel y weak i ngr oup i dent i t y wi t h r el at i vel y st r ong
super or di nat e goal s common t o bot h gr oups , s i nce r esul t s s howi ng s ome
pr edi ct ed ef f ect s of t he pr eser vat i on of i dent i t y woul d gi ve s ome pl ausi bi l i t y
t o a f ort i ori ar gument s about numer ous "r eal " si t uat i ons i n whi ch t hi s ki nd of
r el at i onshi p i s mor e bal anced or even r ever s ed. The met hodol ogi cal r equi r ement s
of t he r es ear ch ar e as f ol l ows: (i) t wo gr oups havi ng a wel l - def i ned i dent i t y,
i n t he s ens e of di f f er ent i at i on f r om each ot her , whi ch i s i ndependent of t hei r
compet i t i ve or cooper at i ve r el at i onshi p i n t he exper i ment s; (ii) compet i t i on
bet ween t he gr oups i n whi c h, as a f unct i on of t he l evel of per f or mance, one
or t he ot her gr oup r ecei ves a mat er i al r ewar d; (ii i) f i rst set of dependent
var i abl es , s uch as var i ous ki nds of r el evant eval uat i ons of t he i ngr oup and t he
out gr oup; (i v) a new t as k i n whi ch a common mat er i al r ewar d, much l ar ger
t han t he pr evi ous compet i t i ve r ewar d, i s made dependent upon t he cooper at i on
of bot h gr oups i n t he s ucces s f ul per f or mance of a t ask;- (v) a s econd set of
dependent var i abl es consi st i ng of i nt er gr oup eval uat i ons (on di mens i ons
di f f er ent f r om, but equi val ent t o, t he f i rst set of eval uat i ons ).
If i n t hes e condi t i ons at t empt s t o pr es er ve gr oup di st i nct i venes s ar e
f ound t o di s appear i n t he s econd set of dependent v ar i abl es , r esear ch wi l l be
conduct ed i n condi t i ons of mor e power f ul i ngr oup i dent i t y s uch a s , f or exampl e,
f ans of var i ous f oot bal l t eams or pupi l s f r om var i ous ki nds of educat i onal
es t abl i s hment s . One i nt er est i ng possi bi l i t y woul d al s o be t o empl oy gr oupr
f r om var i ous nat i onal , et hni c or r aci al gr oups i f t hi s pr oves f eas i bl e. D
(e) The i ngr oup and i nt er gr oup ef f ect s of mar gi nal gr oup i dent i t y.
The need f or a gr oup t o pr ovi de i t s member s wi t h posi t i ve soci al i dent i t y i n
compar i s on wi t h ot her gr oups i s cons pi cuous l y not f ul f i l l ed i n t he cas e of
mar gi nal gr oups , whi ch wer e di s cus s ed i n t he f i rst sect i on of t hi s pr opos al .
We shal l def i ne mar gi nal gr oups f or t he pr esent pur pos e as t hose compos ed of
i ndi vi dual s who ar e, f or s ome r eas on common t o al l of t hem, not acknowl edged
as havi ng a def i ni t e pl ace and f unct i on i n t he syst em of whi ch t hey ar e a par t
and who ar e consequent l y vi ct i ms of some degr ee of cont empt f r om ot her s and
s omet i mes al s o f r om t hems el v es . The t heor et i cal i mpor t ance of s uch gr oups
for t he pr esent pr oposal i s t hat t hey s houl d, on t he bas i s of t he ar gument put
f or war d her e, pr es ent t wo char act er i st i cs: al way s as s umi ng t he di f f i cul t y of
"pas s i ng" or of mer gi ng wi t h anot her gr oup, t hey shoul d f i nd i t i mper at i ve t o
cr eat e new di st i nct i ve i dent i t y char act er i st i cs accept abl e t o t hems el ves and,
i f pos s i bl e, t o ot her s; (ii) much of t hei r behavi our shoul d be addr es s ed at
t he cr eat i on and s oci al accept ance of s uch at t r i but es i ndependent l y of t he
"obj ect i vel y" compet i t i ve val ue of t hes e at t r i but es i n t he at t ai nment of
var i ous ki nds of concr et e adv ant ages . It shoul d be pos s i bl e t o f i nd such
gr oups i n r eal s oci al set t i ngs and t o s t udy, t hr ough i nt er vi ews , ques t i onnai r es ,
obser vat i on and r at i ng s c al es , t hes e par t i cul ar as pect s of t hei r devel opment .
One exampl e i s pr ovi ded . by gr oups of homos exual s who have been abl e t o
f i nd eas i er condi t i ons f or t he devel opment of common s oci al i dent i t y s i nce
t he r ecent i nt r oduct i on of a mor e l i ber al l egi sl at i on.
Anot her exampl e i n t he r ecent pas t was t he exi s t ence i n Oxf or d (al so i n
Cambr i dge) of a l ar ge cat egor y of t eachi ng member s of t he Uni ver si t y (at one
t i me near l y one- t hi r d of t he t ot al ) who wer e r ef er r ed t o, per haps si gni f i cant l y
f r om t he per s pect i ve adopt ed her e, as "non- f el l ows ". Thes e wer e peopl e
appoi nt ed t o uni ver si t y pos t s who, howev er , f or var i ous r eas ons hav e not
been el ect ed t o col l ege f el l ows hi ps , and t her ef or e f ound t hems el ves out si de
many of t he mor e i nt i mat e pat t er ns of s oci al l i f e, l i nes of commmni cat i on and
deci si on- maki ng i n t he uni ver s i t y. An i nf or mal or gani zat i on of "non- f el l ows "
was set up, and t he pr obl em was f i nal l y set t l ed, i n par t and af t er ver y l ong
negot i at i ons , by t he es t abl i s hment of sever al new col l eaes of whi ch t he non
f el l ows became f el l ows . Four as pect s of t he new si t uat i on t hus cr eat ed ar e
i nt er est i ng f r om t he pr esent poi nt of vi ew: (i) some of t he new col l eges
at t empt ed t o acqui r e many of t he char act er i st i cs, i ncl udi ng t he r i t ual s , of
t he ol der ones ; (ii) s ome st r ove har d t o devel op a di f f er ent but equal i dent i t y
i n st r essi ng t hei r cor por at e di f f er ences f rom t he ol der col l eges ; (ii i) i n
pr act i ce, most of t hem f i nal l y adopt ed a j udi ci ous mi xt ur e of (i) and (i i );
(i v) t her e i s l i t t l e doubt t hat t o some f el l ows of t he ol der col l eges t he new ones
have never become ent i r el y accept abl e as "r eal " col l eges . Thi s si t uat i on i s
st i l l t o s ome ext ent al i v e, and t her e ar e now new wav es of non- f el l ows f or
whom it i s di f f i cul t t o f i nd a pl ace even i n t he over - cr owded new col l eges .
The f our as pect s of t he si t uat i on j ust ment i oned and t he pr obl ems st i l l r emai ni ng
can be s ubj ect ed t o a f i el d st udy (i ncl udi ng f i el d obser vat i ons of t he r i t ual s
et c.) bas ed on cont act s wi t h var i ous cat egor i es of peopl e i nvol ved now or i n
t he pas t , as l ong as one avoi ds t he mor e f or mal t r appi ngs of quest i onnai r es
and r at i ng s c al es .
- 43 -
_ 44 -
St udi es of t hi s ki nd can be pr ovi ded v/i t h adequat e equi val ent s i n t he
l abor at or y i f we can f i nd gr oups of subj ect s who can be ex pos ed r epeat edl y
(f our t o s i x t i mes , per haps) t o cer t ai n exper i ment al pr ocedur es . Two pos s i b
i l i t i es are envi s aged at pr esent : r epeat ed vi si t s by t he exper i ment er s t o t he
s ame cl as s i n a school ; or t he us e of a hol i day camp f or young peopl e. The
exper i ment al pr ocedur es woul d be r oughl y as f ol l ows : (i) di vi s i on of t he
t ot al gr oup i nt o t hr ee sub- gr oups , of whi ch t wo woul d be gi ven cl ear - cut and
di st i nct def i ni t i ons on cer t ai n cr i t eri a and woul d engage i n cl ear l y di f f er ent
and non- compet i t i ve gr oup t as ks ; t he t hi r d gr oup, al t hough pr esent and
r ef er r ed t o as a gr oup (t hi s i s i mpor t ant i n v i ew of t he r esul t of Bi l l i g (1972)
about t he Impor t ance of t he t er m "gr oup" even when bas ed on r andom cri t eri a
of as s i gnment t o member shi p) , woul d be 'l ef t out " and as ked t o pas s t he t i me
as bes t t hey can; (ii) at r epeat ed s es s i ons , t he t wo non- mar gi nal gr oups
woul d be encour aged t o cr eat e and devel op a var i et y of di st i nct i ve symbol s
of t hei r gr oups (cf . t he di s cus s i on about t he "i deol ogi zi ng" of gr oup char ac
t er i s t i cs , p . 14 of t hi s pr oposal ); (ii i) dependent var i abl es : it i s pr edi ct ed
t hat t he mar gi nal s ubj ect s wi l l devel op a common gr oup i dent i t y di st i nct f rom
t he ot her t wo, In cr eat i ng bot h a common t as k and common s ymbol s r at her t han
engage i n i ndi vi dual pur sui t s dur i ng t he s es s i ons . In addi t i on, t hey wi l l
s eek a l egi t i mi zat i on of t hei r gr oup i dent i t y (t ask and di st i nct i ve symbol s)
f rom t he exper i ment er s and f r om member s of t he ot her t wo gr oups .
The t heor et i cal i mpor t ance to us of t hi s ki nd of des i gn i s t wof ol d: f i r st ,
it woul d pr ovi de a set t i ng t o val i dat e t he gener al hypot hes es about behavi our al
compensat i on f or i nadequat e or i l l - def i ned soci al i dent i t y; and s econd, it
woul d pr ovi de an addi t i onal oppor t uni t y f or t est i ng one of t he maj or hypot hes es
of t hi s pr oposal : t hat a r el at i vel y secur e soci al i dent i t y cr eat es l es s mar ked
i ngr oup and out gr oup ef f ect s of var i ous ki nds t han an i ns ecur e and i nadequat e
soci al i dent i t y. The s econd hy pot hes i s wi l l be t est ed t hr ough compar i ng t he
i ngr oup and out gr oup eval uat i ons and symbol s pr oduced by t he t wo "s ocur e"
gr oups as r el at ed t o t hese pr oduced by t he mar gi nal gr oup.
(f) Gr oup i nf er i or i t y, gr oup cr eat i vi t y and i nt er ar oup behavi our .
The mar gi nal gr oups di s cus s ed abov e can be s een as a s peci al cas e of
i nadequat e s oci al i dent i t y and i t s ef f ect s . The pr obl ems of posi t i ve di st i nct
i v enes s ar i se i n a si mi l ar manner i n t he mor e gener al cas e of gr oups cons ens ual l y
r egar ded as i nf er i or . Gr oups of t hi s ki nd wor e di s cus s ed at l engt h i n t he f i rst
t wo sect i ons of t hi s pr oposal ; t he s econd sect i on i ncl uded a set of pr edi ct i ons
concer ni ng t he ef f ect s on bot h t he i nf er i or and super i or gr oups of t he at t empt s
by t he i nf er i or ones t o endow t hei r at t r i but es wi t h posi t i vel y val ued di st i nct
i v enes s . Thes e at t empt s wer e concei ved as f al l i ng i nt o t hr ee cat egor i es:
(i) r e- eval uat i on of "ol d" di st i nct i ve at t r i but es pr evi ousl y cons i der ed as
i nf er i or ; (ii) acqui si t i on of posi t i vel y val ued at t r i but es pr evi ousl y cons i der ed
as i nher i ng onl y i n t he super i or gr oup; and (ii i) cr eat i on of posi t i vel y val ued
new di st i nct i ve at t r i but es. The f i rst of t hes e i mpl i es bas i cal l y a change i n
t he eval uat i on of at t r i but es ; t he s econd, a change i n t he eval uat i on of t he
gr oup on cer t ai n at t r i but es; and t he t hi r d, t he cr eat i on of eval uat i ons of new
at t r i but es. The t wo mai n pr obl ems conf r ont i ng t he i nf er i or gr oup i n al l t hr ee
cas es wer e s een as : accept ance by t he i ngr oup of t he new ev al uat i ons , and
t hei r accept ance by t he out gr oup. It was hypot hes i zed t hat a f ai l ur e of t he
l at t er i s a f l ashpoi nt f or i nt ens e i nt er gr oup t ens i on and host i l i t y.
As t hes e ar e pr obl ems of cons i der abl e s cope and compl exi t y, a choi ce
bet ween t hem must be made i n a l i mi t ed r es ear ch pr oj ect on gr ounds of t heo
r et i cal and pr act i cal i mpor t ance and of f eas i bi l i t y. Af t er s ome consi der at i on
of var i ous al t er nat i ves , t he choi ce s ugges t ed her e i s t he i nvest i gat i on of t he
t hi r d cat egor y of pr obl ems , i . e . t he cr eat i on by an i nf er i or gr oup of posi t i vel y
val ued new di st i nct i ve at t r i but es. Ther e ar e sever al r eas ons f or t hi s choi ce.
One i s t hat , i f t he r esul t s conf or m t o pr edi ct i ons , t hey coul d be t heor et i cal l y
gener al i zed t o t he f i rst cat egor y abov e; t he s econd, t hat t hi s ki nd of r esear ch
woul d i nvol ve at t he s ame t i me r esear ch i nt o pr oces s es of gr oup cr eat i vi t y
and. i nnovat i on whi ch pr esent t hei r own i nher ent i nt er est ; t ho t hi r d i s t he
cons i der abl e di f f i cul t y of const r uct i ng exper i ment al l y cas es whi ch woul d be
genui nel y equi val ent t o cat egor i es (i) and (ii) above; and t he f our t h t hat
r es ear ch by Lemai ne, t o whi ch r ef er ence was made ear l i er (Lemai ne, 1966;
Lemai ne & K a s t e r s z t e i n, 1971- 2) al r eady pr ovi des s ome pr omi si ng l eads f or
i t s modi f i cat i on and ext ens i on i n di r ect i ons det er mi ned by t he t heor et i cal
backgr ound of t hi s pr oposal .
In Lemai no's r es ear ch, one of t wo gr oups was of f er ed i nf er i or r es our ces ;
t hi s pr event ed i t f r om havi ng an equal chance i n t he compet i t i on. Ther ef or e
i t s "cr eat i vi t y" (whi ch cons i st ed of modi f yi ng and enl ar gi ng t he def i ni t i on of
- 45 -
t he t ask) and i t s ef f or t s t o l egi t i mi ze t hi s change of def i ni t i on may hav e been
due t o t hei r des i r e t o i mpr ove t hei r chances of wi nni ng t he compet i t i on or_ t o J 7
es t abl i s h t hei r posi t i ve di s t i nct i v enes s , or most pr obabl y t o t he i nt er act i on of
bot h t hes e f act or s. As our ai m i s t o es t abl i s h t he aut onomous f unct i oni ng of
t he l at t er var i abl e, a cl ear di st i nct i on must be made bet ween t he t wo. Thi s
i mpl i es t hat t he i nf er i or gr oup woul d hav e t o di s pl ay modes of cr eat i vi t y whi ch
(i) can be us ed as a means of posi t i ve compar i son wi t h t he super i or gr oup;
and (ii) ar e non- i nst r ument al wi t h r egar d t o t he out come of ot her compet i t i ve
i nt er est s.
The di f f i cul t y of t r ansl at i ng t hi s ki nd of pr obl em i nt o exper i ment al t er ms
i s t hat i n "r eal l i f e" t he i nf er i or gr oup's sear ch for new f or ms of compar i son
and t he super i or gr oup's r es i s t ance t o t hem ar e bas ed i n bot h oas es on t he
gr oups' l ong soci al hi st or y whi ch pr ovi des t he condi t i ons f or a s l ow devel op
ment of new and al t er nat i ve modes of soci al act i on and of per cept i on of t he
s oci al wor l d. The exampl es gi ven i n t he pr evi ous sect i on concer ned t he
emer gi ng r ei nt er pr et at i on and cr eat i on of gr oup at t r i but es by t he Amer i can bl acks
and mor e gener al l y, i n t he young or r evi vi ng ver s i ons of nat i onal i s m. In v i ew,
howev er , of t he ambi gui t y of i nt er pr et at i on of what happens i n t hes e "r eal
c a s e s ", exper i ment al st udi es of par al l el phenomena woul d pr es ent cl ear
adv ant ages . The gener al des i gn br i ef l y out l i ned bel ow i s no mor e t han a
t ent at i ve bl uepr i nt f or pi l ot st udi es f rom whi c h, per hqps, a f i r mer st r uct ur e wi l l
emer ge l at er .
The f i rst st age of t he exper i ment al st udi es woul d consi st of i nduci ng t wo
gr oups t o compet e i n a ser i es of t asks i n or der to obt ai n a r ewar d, wi t h one of
t he gr oups s howi ng (t hr ough pr ear r anged f eedback f rom t he exper i ment er s) a
cl ear and consi st ent super i or i t y on al l of t he t as ks . Af t er t he di st r i but i on of
v
"r eal " r ewar ds , t he gr oups wi l l be i nf or med t hat t he s ame t as ks wi l l ser ve f or
f ur t her st udi es wi t h a number of ot her gr oups- and t hat , al t hough it woul d now
be unf ai r t o r evi s e i n any way t he di st r i but i on of r ewar ds whi ch has al r eady
been made, t he exper i ment er s ar e not ent i r el y happy about t he nat ur e of t he
t as ks and t he as s es s ment cr i t eri a whi ch t hey had us ed. They woul d l i ke t o
i mpr ove t he t as ks and t he cr i t eri a by us i ng opi ni ons , v i ews and advi ce f rom
t he pr esent s ubj ect s . The dependent vai l abl es wi l l t hen consi st of :
- 46 -
(1) eval uat i on by bot h gr oups of t hei r own and t he ot her 's pr oduct s; (ii)
speci f i cat i on of cr i t er i a whi ch t hey us ed i n t hes e eval uat i ons ; (i i i ) s peci f i c
at i on of s ugges t i ons f or t he modi f i cat i ons of t he t as ks ; (i v) eval uat i on by bot h
gr oups of t hei r own and t he ot her gr oup's per f or mance i n (ii) and (i i i ) above;
(v) r equest f or s ugges t i ons how t o di st r i but e t o t he i ngr oup and t he out gr oup
a f i xed amount of r ewar d f or t hei r new wor k whi ch st i l l happens t o r emai n at
t he exper i ment er s ' di s pos al af t er t he f i rst di st r i bu i on of r ewar ds . Bot h gr oups
wi l l be pr ovi ded wi t h i nf or mat i on about (i v) - i . e . about t hei r eval uat i ons of
each ot her 's per f or mance i n t he s econd ser i es of t as ks - bef or e t hey make
t hei r deci s i ons about t he di st r i but i on of t he r emai ni ng amount of r ewar d.
Thi s i s a cumber s ome des i gn and it i s hoped t hat it wi l l be si mpl i f i ed and
mor e cl ear l y st r uct ur ed af t er t he Ini t i al pi l ot s t udi es . The mai n pr edi ct i ons
concer n t he i nf er i or gr oup's r el at i vel y gr eat er i nvent i venes s i n (ii) and (i i i );
and t he ef f ect s on t he i nf er i or gr oup's di f f er ent i al di st r i but i on of t he s econd
set of r ewar ds of t he accept ance or r ej ect i on i n (i v) by t he super i or gr oup of t he
i nf er i or gr oup's s ugges t i ons . The subj ect s wi l l be debr i ef ed as s oon as t he
exper i ment i s over .
(g) Li ngui st i c cor r el at es of Int er gr oup di s cr i mi nat i on.^
Res ear ch has s hown t hat s peech can be us ed as a st r at egy f or i nt er per sonal
accommodat i on. Nat ur al l y, t he t ype of accommodat i on a s peaker pr oduces
depends on t he per cei ved sal i ent char act er i st i cs of hi s l i s t ener , s uch as soci al
st at us (Sl obi n, et al . , 1968) , s ex (Beaney ot al . , 1956) , age (Gr anows key &
Kr oes ner , 1970) and pr es umed knowl edge of t he conver sat i onal t opi c (Rat ner
and Ri c e, 1963). Howev er , accommodat i on by s peech can t ake on a subt l er ,
and s omet i mes per haps a mor e uncons ci ous f or m i n cas es wher e a speaker t ends
t o adopt or model t he s peech pat t er ns of t he per s on t o whom he i s t al ki ng - a
phenomenon t er med "r es pons e mat chi ng" by Ar gyl e (1969). Thi s phenomenon
- 47 -
1 Thi s sub- eect i on i s bas ed on a mor e ext ensi ve dr af t pr epar ed by Dr . Howar d
Gi l es af t er i ni t i al di s cus s i ons bet ween Dr . Gi l es , Mr . Kl ei ven (Uni ver si t y
of Ber gen) and t he aut hor of t he pr oposal .
9
has been demonst r at ed i n a f ew st udi es on at l east one member of a dyad i n
r el at i on t o t he ot her on a number of l i ngui st i c l ev el s . Thes e l evel s i ncl ude
s peech r at e (Webb, 1969) , v ocal i nt ensi t y (Bl ack, 1949) , r egi onal accent
(Gi l es , 1972), s peech dur at i ons (Mat ar azzol et a l . , 1968) and s peech s i l ences
(J af f e and Fel ds t ei n, 1970). Ot her st udi es (Lennar d & Ber nst ei n, 1960;
Wel kowi t z & Fel ds t ei n, 1970) have s hown t hat s peech accommodat i on bet ween
member s of a dyad can of t en be a mut ual pr oces s f ncr easi ng each t i me t he
par t i ci pant s i nt er act . Not al l exampl es of r es pons e mat chi ng can be under
st ood wi t hi n t he accommodat i on f r amewor k and hence it s eems i mpor t ant t o
consi der a di st i nct i on made by Gi l es (1971) bet ween 'pos i t i ve' and 'negat i ve'
r es pons e mat chi ng. The st udi es ci t ed so f ar have al l been exampl es of t he
f or mer and may be expl ai ned i n t er ms of t he accommodat i on model pr opos ed.
Negat i ve r es pons e mat chi ng on t he ot her hand, was t he t er m i nt r oduced t o
denot e cer t ai n t ypes of model l i ng whi ch appear mor e pl aus i bl y expl ai nabl e
wi t hi n a f abr i c of soci al r et al i at i on. Such behavi our may be exempl i f i ed i n
si t uat i ons wher e one per s on r eci pr ocat es t he ot her 's us e of i nt er r upt i ons
(Axgyl e & Kendon, 1967) and ver bal aggr es s i on (Mos her et a l . , 1968). The
wor k under t aken on accommodat i on by s peech appear s l ar gel y t o have - conoorv
t r at ed on adj us t ment s bet ween member s of t he s ame et hni c gr oup. Ther ef or e,
t he modi f i cat i ons document ed t hus f ar have been concer ned wi t h conver gent
behavi our wi t hi n a si ngl e l i ngui st i c code. In ot her wor ds , l i t t l e wor k apar t
f r om t hat of Gi l es , Tayl or & Bour hi s (1972) on bi l i ngual accommodat i on bet ween
Engl i sh- and Fr ench- Canadi ans ,has been conduct ed i nt o t he pr oces s wher eby
member s of di f f er ent et hnol i ngui st i c gr oups at t empt t o adj us t t o each ot her .
Speech conv er gence,howev er , whet her symmet r i cal or asymmet r i cal wi t hi n
a dyadi c si t uat i on, may onl y be one as pect of a much wi der phenomenon of
s peech change i nduced at one l i ngui st i c l evel of t he s ender 's r eper t oi r e
becaus e of t he r ecei ver 's per f or mance on t hi s s ame l evel . It has been pr oposed
by Gi l es (1971) and suppor t ed by soci al ant hr opol ogi cal evi dence i n a r evi ew
by Gi l es & Powes l and (In pr ep.) t hat i n cer t ai n soci al i nt er act i ons t her e may
exi st (i n di r ect cont r ast t o t he need f or i nt egr at i on) di s s oci at i ve mot i vat i onal
t endenci es i n one or bot h dy adi c member s t o modi f y t hei r s peech pat t er ns away
f rom t he ot her -- t er med s peech di ver gence . Si mi l ar l y, i f t he s ender 's and
- 48 ~
r ecei ver s or i ent at i ons ar e mut ual t hen t hey may be 'symmet r i cal ' i n t hei r
ef f or t s t owar ds pr ogr es s i ve di ver gence. Thus , a sender mi ght at t empt t o
di s s oci at e hi ms el f f r om any i dent i f i cat i on wi t h t he r ecei ver or , mor e br oadl y,
f rom t he gr oup whi ch t he i ndi vi dual r epr es ent s . I ndeed, t hi s phenomenon may
be l ooked upon i n t er ms of t hi s pr oposal as expr es si ng t he i ndi vi dual 's
af f i r mat i on of hi s gr oup's ps ychol ogi cal di s t i nct i venes s . Speech conver gence
i s a st r at egy of conf or mi t y i n t er ms of i dent i f i cat i on wi t h t he s peech pat t er ns
of an i ndi vi dual i nt er nal t o t he soci al si t uat i on, wher eas s peech di ver gence
may be r egar ded as a conf or mi t y pr oces s t owar ds t he l i ngui st i c nor ms of some
r ef er ence gr oup ext er nal t o t he i mmedi at e si t uat i on. Unf or t unat el y, t he st udy
of s peech c hange, l et al ong s peech conver gence, has been so bar r en t hat
s peech di ver gence has not even been empi r i cal l y document ed, and t her ef or e
f or t he moment , has t o be l ef t at t he l evel of s uppos i t i on.
What t hen ar e t he l i kel y s peech modi f i cat i ons or adj us t ment s (i f any) t hat
a per s on f r om one l i ngui st i c communi t y wi l l make when i nt er act i ng wi t h a
r epr esent at i ve f r om anot her l i ngui st i c gr oup?
Hypot hes i s I: Whe n t wo di al ect gr oups ar e i nvol v ed, bet ween- gr oup cooper at i ve
t as ks wi l l be char act er i zed by conver gent s peech pat t er ns r el at ed t o t hei r
cat egor i zat i on, i . e . accent conver gence. If t hi s hypot hes i s wer e t o be s up
por t ed empi r i cal l y, it coul d be s ugges t ed i n t er ms of our pr evi ous di s cus s i on
t hat gr oup member s i n t hi s si t uat i on may be sear chi ng for a r edef i ni t i on of t hei r
i dent i t y whi ch i s di st i nct f rom t hei r i ngr oup. Nev er t hel es s , it i s wor t h poi nt i ng
out t hat accent conver gence may not i n f act char act er i ze al l i nt er gr oup coop
er at i ve s i t uat i ons . I ndeed, di ver gence may somet i mes be appar ent i n t hat
peopl e may f eel a need t o mai nt ai n (per haps by exagger at ed emphas i s) t hei r
gr oup member s hi p t hr ough l anguage f or t he ver y r eas on t hat out gr oup di scr i mi
nat i on has di mi ni s hed. Doi s e f ound t hat i n i nt er gr oup compet i t i ve si t uat i ons
di scr i mi nat i on was not r educed s ubs equent t o i nt er act i on, and somet i mes
i ndeed was i ncr eas ed.
Hypot hes i s II: Whe n t wo di al ect gr oups ar e i nv ol v ed, bet ween- gr oup compet
i t i ve t as ke wi l l be char act er i zed by di ver gent s peech pat t er ns r el at ed t o
t hei r cat egor i zat i on, i . e . accent di ver gence. Howev er , s i nce s peech di ver
gence has never been empi r i cal l y demonst r at ed, it may be mor e caut i ous
t o consi der modi f yi ng hypot hes i s II so t hat bet ween- gr oup compet i t i on may not
i nduce accent conver gence but may i ns t ead j ust al l ow t he subj ect t o adopt
hi s r egul ar s peech pat t er ns ( i . e . hi s i di ol ect ).
The pr oj ect i s bei ng pr oposed f or st udy i n Br i t ai n (mor e speci f i cal l y i n
Sout h Wa l e s ) , but it wi l l al s o be conduct ed i n cooper at i on wi t h col l eagues i n
Nor way (J o Kl ei ven, Uni ver si t y of Ber gen) and Swi t zer l and (Wi l l f cm Doi s e ,
Uni ver si t y of Genev a) i n or der t hat t he phenomena can be cr oss- nat i onal l y
ver i f i ed and t he di f f er ences not ed and i nves t i gat ed f ur t her . Pi l ot wor k al r eady
under t aken i n Wa l e s and Nor way sugges t t hat sever al i nt er est i ng cr oss-
cul t ur al di f f er ences may emer ge i n t he nat ur e of s ubj ect s ' i nt er gr oup di s cr i mi
nat i ons . For i ns t ance, it has been f ound t hat subj ect s i n Wal e s have s hown
a di sposi t i on t o t hi nk ot her s of t hei r own gr oup wi l l eval uat e t he out gr oup
mor e f avour abl y t han t hey do t hems el v es . Net so i n Nor way wher e a r ever se
t r end appear s evi dent on many obj ect i ve s cal es . Such di f f er ences t hat may
event ual l y emer ge bet ween t he nat i onal si t uat i ons wi l l bo i nves t i gat ed
t hor oughl y as cooper at i on bet ween t he Eur opean wor ker s i s env i s aged.
Thi s par t of t he pr oj ect i s not onl y i mpor t ant as an ext ensi on of t he
r es ear ch pl ans pr evi ousl y des cr i bed, but may ni s o pr ovi de means of l i nki ng
t wo pr evi ousl y i ndependent r es ear ch ar eas - i nt er gr oup behavi our and s oci o
l i ngui s t i cs . Mor eov er , t he r es ear ch may be of consi der abl e i mpor t ance t o
soci o- l i ngui st i cs i n i t s own r i ght s i nce no at t empt t o demonst r at e t he exi s t ence
of s peech di ver gence has yet been at t empt ed. In addi t i on, t he s oci ol i ngui st i c
model s of accommodat i on (Gi l es et al . # 1S72) and accent mobi l i t y (Gi l es , 1972)
may be el abor at ed i n t he l i ght of new s peech dat a. Fur t her mor e, not onl y i s
it hoped t o s how t hat r egi onal accent and ot her l i ngui st i c var i abl es can be
v i ewed as st at i c r ef l ect i ons of i nt er gr oup r el at i ons (a dependent var i abl e) ,
but t hat s peech i n addi t i on can be us ed as a mor e dynami c st r at egy t o al t er
t he nat ur e of t he r el at i onshi p i t sel f (an i ndependent var i abl e). Howev er , such
possi bi l i t i es can onl y be expl or ed i n t he anal y s es of ext ensi ve pi l ot r es ear ch.
It i s pr opos ed t hat t he r esear ch be conduct ed i n Sout h Wal e s us i ng 16
year ol d boys f r om t wo accent communi t i es t her e.
(a) Oq o accent communi t y (l oosel y- t er med t he 'Wel s h' gr oup) woul d be
r epr esent ed by bi l i ngual (Wel s h- s peaki ng) boy s whos e Engl i s h i s mar kedl y
Wel s h- col our ed; t hes e boys woul d be at t endi ng a bi l i ngual school wher e
- 50 -
cl as s es wer e t aught i n We l s h.
(b) The et her gr oup (l oosel y- t er med t he "Engl i s h" gr oup) woul d consi st of
boy s , bor n i n Wa l e s , f r om Car di f f and whos e onl y t ongue i s Engl i s h. Thei r
Engl i s h woul d, unl i ke t he We l s h gr oup, cont ai n l i t t l e, i f any , t r ace of t hei r
We l s h her i t age i n t hei r pr onounci at i on or i nt onat i on. (Car di f f , par t i cul ar l y
amongs t t he We l s h, i s r egar ded as an ext r emel y angl i ci zed ci t y, so much so
t hat a r eal di sput e ar os e about i t s sui t abi l i t y t o be t he capi t al of t he Pr i nci
pal i t y) .
A cat egor i zat i on of t he boys i nt o t hes e t wo gr oups woul d be meani ngf ul
and sal i ent t o t hem as t hey r epr esent di f f er ent pol es of t wo val ue cont i nua -
We l s h i dent i f i cat i on and s oci al pr es t i ge. For exampl e: We l s h gr oup becaus e
of t hei r l anguage habi t s: Pr i de i n cul t ur al i dent i f i cat i on t hr ough l anguage, but
l ow pr est i ge (cf . Gi l es , 1970) val ue of t hei r r egi onal Engl i s h. Engl i s h gr oup
becaus e of t hei r l anguage habi t s: Shame" at havi ng no cul t ur al i dent i f i cat i on
t hr ough l anguage, but hi gh pr est i ge val ue of t he non- Wel s h accent ed- Engl i s h.
Al l t he t as ks under t aken by t he s ubj ect s , whet her sol el y or i n dy ads ,
r equi r e t hem f i ndi ng t hei r way (and ver bal i zi ng t hi s) t hr ough a map of a geo
gr aphi cal ar ea r el evant t o t he t wo l anguage gr oups; pl ace names on t he map
wi l l t end t o make sal i ent t he l anguage gr oup member s hi ps .
The s ubj ect s , i ndi vi dual l y, wi l l be handed a map of Wal e s wi t h a r out e
dr awn on i t . They wi l l be t ol d t o des cr i be t hi s r out e (wi t hout us i ng r oad number s)
i nt o a t ape r ecor der , as l at er t hey wi l l be gi ven a bl ank map and t ol d t o r edr aw
t he r out e us i ng t hei r own t ape- r ecor ded mes s age. The exper i ment er wi l l l eave
t he r oom and t he s ubj ect wi l l be compl et el y al one t o r ecor d a mes s age f or hi s
own us e. Act ual l y, t her e wi l l be no us e made of t hi s r ecor di ng l at er by t he
s ubj ect . Thi s pr ocedur e i s t hought neces s ar y so t hat t he subj ect s wi l l pr oduce
s pont aneous l y t hei r usual s peech pat t er ns. Thes e pat t er ns can t hen be com
par ed t o t hei r s peech i n i nt ra- and i nt er gr oup si t uat i ons t hat t hey wi l l exper
i ence i n t he r emai ni ng phas es .
Two sl i ght l y di f f er ent exper i ment al t as ks wi l l be us ed: one cooper at i ve
and one compet i t i ve. Al l t he ver bal i nt er act i ons wi l l be t ape- r ecor ded and
us ed i n ar r i vi ng at t he dependent meas ur es .
- 51 -
Subj ect s f r om t he t wo accent gr oups wi l l be us ed and cat egor i zat i ons (at
l east i n t he pr el i mi nar y st udy) wi l l be made most expl i ci t , even i n t er ms of
l abel l i ng t hem t he Engl i s h and We l s h gr oups and def i ni ng t hei r at t r i but es,
s oci al l y, l i ngui st i cal l y and cul t ur al l y. The mai n des i gn i s t hus a 2 x 2; s ame
v s . di f f er ent l anguage gr oup member s i n a cooper at i ve v s . compet i t i ve si t u
at i on. Each of t he t wo 's ame' gr oup cel l s may be f ur t her s ubdi vi ded s i nce an
equal number of t hes e dyads woul d come f r om each of t he t wo l anguage gr oups .
The subj ect s woul d onl y per f or m t he cooper at i ve or t he compet i t i ve t as k wi t h
a member of t hei r i ngr oup or out gr oup. The des i gn woul d al s o be bal anced
s uch t hat hal f t he sampl e exper i enced t he i nt r a- gr oup si t uat i on f i rst whi l st
t he ot her hal f exper i enced t he i nt er gr oup si t uat i on f i r st .
The s cal es wi l l be sel ect ed t hr ough pi l ot st udi es bear i ng i n mi nd whi ch
s cal es have been s ucces s f ul l y us ed i n ear l i er soci al ps ychol ogy- l anguage
s t udi es , and how t hes e s cal es wi l l appl y t o t he t hr ee di f f er ent count r i es.
Rat i ng s cal es of i ngr oup- out gr oup si mi l ar i t y i n t er ms of l i ngui st i c us ag e, and
cul t ur al i dent i t y wi l l be adopt ed. Rat i ngs of i ngr oup and out gr oup i n t er ms of
compet ence, i nt egr i t y and soci al at t r act i veness wi l l al s o be i ncl uded as wi l l
ques t i ons r el at i ng t o how t he gr oups wi l l consi der t he t as k t hems el v es . Cont r ol
gr oups wi l l be abl e t o of f er us i nf or mat i on about how t he gr oups per cei ve each
ot her i n a si t uat i on wher e t hey do not ant i ci pat e i nt er act i on. The exper i ment al
gr oups wi l l be t ol d t o ant i ci pat e i nt er act i on. The cont r ol gr oups wi l l al s o i n
quest i onnai r e dat a be abl e t o pr ovi de dat a on how t hey expect t o behav e i n t he
si t uat i on, how t hey expect ot her s t o behav e, and what t hey expect f r om t hei r
par t ner s. The post - i nt er act i on quest i onnai r es ( i . e . f rom t he exper i ment al
gr oups) wi l l gi ve dat a on t he s ubj ect s ' exper i ences of what t hey and t hei r
par t ner s act ual l y di d do i n t he si t uat i on, es poci ai l y wi t h r egar d t o conv er gence/
di ver gence.
The met hod pr oposed t o quant i f y s uch accent shi f t s wi l l be t he 'gest al t -
compar i s on' anal ys i s adopt ed by Gi l es (1971; 1972). Thi s t echni que i nvol ves
t he sel ect i on of shor t s ampl es of s ubj ect s ' s peech i n t he t wo si t uat i ons ( e . g .
phas e 1and an i nt er gr oup condi t i on) and pl ayi ng t hem s ucces s i v el y t o a l ar ge
gr oup of l i s t ener s. Thes e l i st ener s ar e r equi r ed t o st at e: (1) whet her any shi f t
occur r ed bet ween s ubj ect 's r ecor ded s ampl es , and ( 2) t he di r ect i on of t he
- 52 -
shi f t ( e . g . mor e Wel s h or mor e Engl i s h i n t he s econd v er s i on), and (3) t o r at e
on a cont i nuous 10 cm. l i ne t he magni t ude of any shi f t t hey per cei v ed. Thi s
measur e i s admi t t edl y ver y gl obal but f or t he pur pos es of an i nt er gr oup
r el at i ons st udy it does not s eem i mpor t ant t o i sol at e par t i cul ar phonol ogi cal
var i abl es i n peopl e's s peech and det er mi ne whi ch par t i cul ar i sol at ed s ounds
change i n a gi ven si t uat i on. It s eems i mpor t ant t o det er mi ne whet her unt r ai ned
and nai ve l i st ener s can det ect a change i n a per s on's s peech and not whet her
s ome sophi st i cat ed acous t i c i nst r ument or t r ai ned l i ngui st can det ect mi ni mal
changes t hat may be unper cei ved by t he or di nar y ear . The dr awback t o t he
gl obal anal ys i s i s t he consumpt i on of l i st ener s' t i me. For i ns t ance, t her e
may be as many as ei ght s peech compar i sons t o be r at ed f or each of t he 80
s ubj ect s . It may i n t hi s cas e be mor e economi cal t o pr ovi de t wo or t hr ee
j udges wi t h t he dat a at di f f er ent t i mes and check t hei r r at i ng r el i abi l i t y.
IV. Concl us i on
Some of t he r es ear ch pl ans out l i ned above ar e pr es ent ed i n mor e det ai l
t han ot her s; s ome wi l l be mor e f eas i bl e, f or admi ni st r at i ve and soci al r eas ons ,
t han ot her s. We ar e al s o awar e of t he f act t hat a smal l r es ear ch t eam woul d
not be abl e t o i mpl ement al l t hes e pl ans i n a per i od of t hr ee y ear s . For al l
t hes e r eas ons , we have no doubt t hat a sel ect i on of st udi es t o be conduct ed
wi l l have t o be made i n t he ear l y st ages of our wok . Thi s sel ect i on wi l l be
made bot h on gr ounds of f easi bi l i t y det er mi ned by pi l ot st udi os and ot her
cons i der at i ons , and on t he bas i s of as s es s ment of t he r el at i ve t heor et i cal
and pr act i cal i mpor t ance of t he i s s ues i nvol ved. We do not wi s h, howev er ,
at t hi s poi nt of t i me t o pl an beyond a per i od of t hr ee y ear s . The mai n r eas on
f or t hi s i s our convi ct i on t hat , af t er a f i rst t hr ee- year phas e of wor k, we shal l
be i n a ver y much bet t er posi t i on t o pr esent pl ans for f ur t her r es ear ch bas ed
on t he sel ect i on and r esul t s of t he st udi es conduct ed dur i ng t hi s i ni t i al phas e.
It i s , howev er , i mpor t ant t o add t hat our r esear ch r esour ces wi l l not be
l i mi t ed t o a smal l t eam wor ki ng i n Br i st ol . The wor k on t he ps ychol i ngui s t i c
cor r el at es of di scr i mi nat i on (sub- sect i on ( g ) , sect i on III) wi l l be conduct ed
i n Car di f f under t he di r ect i on of Dr . Gi l es wi t h cooper at i on i n Ber gen and
- 53 -
4 *
Genev a (Mr . El ei ven and Pr of essor Doi s e ) . In addi t i on, Pr of essor Mos cov i ci
of t he Ecol e Pr at i que des Haut es Et udes i n Par i s i nt ends t o cooper at e act i vel y
and gener al l y i n t he r es ear ch, and f aci l i t i es and r es ear ch as s i s t ance wi l l be
avai l abl e at hi s l abor at or y at t he Mai s on des Sci ences de l 'Homme. The
s ame i s t r ue of Pr of essor Doi s e i n Genev a who has al r eady conduct ed i n t he
past some st udi es r el at ed t o t he pr evi ous wor k i n Br i st ol . J . P. v an de Geer ,
Pr of essor of Dat a Theor y at t he Uni ver s i t y of Lei den has al s o al r eady cooper at ed
wi t h t he aut hor on t he anal ys i s of dat a f r om a smal l r el at ed pr oj ect i n Lei den;
he i s wi l l i ng t o be consul t ed about f ur t her pr obl ems of st at i st i cal anal y s i s ,
and al s o t o us e f or us s ome of t he comput er f aci l i t i es at hi s di s pos al . None
of t hi s cooper at i on wi l l r equi r e addi t i onal f unds f r om t he S . S . R . C . wi t h t he
except i on of f unds t hat ar e r equest ed i n t he r el evant sect i on of t he pr oposal
f or per i odi c shor t conf er ences of al l t hose who wi l l be di r ect l y i nvol ved i n
t he r es ear ch. Ther e i s a good chance t hat some of t he conf er ences wi l l al s o
be suppor t ed by t he Mai s on des Sci ences de l 'Homme i n Par i s whi ch wi l l t ake
car e of t he s ubs i s t ence cost s and some of t he t r avel cost s of t he par t i ci pant s.
~ 54 -
1 *
- 55 --
Ref er ences
It ems mar ked * r epor t on wor k whi ch der i ves f r om, or i s di r ect l y r el at ed
t o, t he ear l i er Br i st ol exper i ment s des cr i bed i n t he f i rst sect i on of t he t ext .
Ador no, T . W. , Fr enkel - Br unswi k, E. , Lev i ns on, D. J . , & Sanf or d, R . N. (1950):
The aut hor i t ar i an per s onal i t y. New Yor k: Har per .
Al l por t , G. W . (1954): The nat ur e of pr ej udi ce. Cambr i dge, Ma s s . : Addi son-
We s l e y .
Argyle, M. (13 69): Social interaction. London: Methuen.
Ar gy l e, M. &Ke ndon, A. (1967): The exper i ment al anal ys i s of soci al per f or mance.
In: Ber kowi t z, L. (ed); Adv ances i n exper i ment al s oci al ps ychol ogy .
Vol . 3. Ne w Yor k: Academi c Pr es s .
Ba s s , B. M. & Dunt emann, G. (1963): Bi as es i n t he over eval uat i on of one's
own gr oup, i t s al l i es and opponent s . I. Conf l . Res ol . , 7, 16- 20.
Benney , M. , Rei s man, D. & St ar , S. (1956): Age and s ex i n t he i nt er vi ew.
Amor . I . Soci ol . , 62, 143- 152.
Ber ger , P . L . (1966): Ident i t y as a pr obl em i n t he soci ol ogy of knowl edge.
Eur op. I . Soci ol . . 7, 105- 115.
Ber kowi t z, L. (1962): Aggr es s i on: A s oci al ps ychol ogi cal anal y s i s . Ne w
Yor k: McGr aw- Hi l l .
Ber kowi t z, L. (1965): The concept of aggr es s i ve dr i ve: Some addi t i onal
cons i der at i ons . In: Ber kowi t z, L. (ed. ): Adv ances i n exper i ment al
s oci al ps y chol ogy . Vol . 2. Ne w Yor k: Academi c Pr es s .
X * Bi l l i g, M. (1972): Soci al cat egor i zat i on and i nt er gr oup r el at i ons . Unpubl .
P h . D. di sser t at i on, Uni ver si t y of Br i st ol .
\ * Bi l l i g, M. & Taj f el , H. { 1973): Si mi l ar i t y and cat egor i zat i on i n i nt er gr oup
behavi our . Eur op. J . s oc. Ps y c hol . , i n pr es s .
Bl ack, J . W. (1949): Loudnes s of s peaki ng: t he ef f ect of hear d st i mul i on
s poken r es pons es . J . ex p. Ps y chol . . 39, 311- 315.
Byr ne, D. (1971): The at t r act i on par adi gm. Ne w Yor k: Academi c Pr es s .
Campbel l , D. T . (1967): St er eot ypes and per cept i on of gr oup di f f er ences .
Amor . Ps y chol . . 22, 812- 829.
Cha s e , M. (1971): Cat egor i zat i on and af f ect i ve ar ousal : Some behavi our al and
j udgment al cons equences . Unpubl . P h. D. di s ser t at i on. Col umbi a
Uni ver s i t y.
Deut s c h, M., Thomas , J . R . H. , & Gar ner , K. (1971): Soci al di scr i mi nat i on on
t he bas i s of cat egor y member s hi p. Unpubl . ms . , Col umbi a Uni ver s i t y.
Doi s e , W. (1969): St r at egi es de j eu a l 'i nt er i eur et ent r e des gr oupes de
nat i onal i t y di f f er ent e. Bul l . C. E . R . P . . 18, 13- 26.
Doi s e , W. , Cs epel i , G. , Dann, H . D . , Goug e, C. & Lar s eni W. (1972): An
exper i ment al i nvest i gat i on i nt o t he f or mat i on of i nt er gr oup r epr esent
at i ons . Eur op. J . s oc. Ps y chol . , 2, 202- 204.
Doi s e , W . , & Si ncl ai r , A. (1973): The cat egor i zat i on pr oces s i n i nt er gr oup
r el at i ons. Eur op. I. s oc . Ps y chol . . i n pr es s .
Doi s e , W* & Wei nber ger , M. (1972- 3): Repr esent at i ons mas cul i nes dans
di f f er ent es si t uat i ons de r encont r es mi xt es . Bul l . Ps y chol . , 26,
649- 657.
Fer gus on, C. K . & Kel l ey, H. H. (1966): Si gni f i cant f act or s i n over - eval uat i on
of own gr oup's pr oduct . I . abnor m. s oc. Ps v c hol . , 69, 223- 228.
Fes t i nger , L. (1954): A t heor y of soci al compar i son pr oces s es . Hum. Rel . ,
7 , 117- 140.
Fi s hman, J . A. (1968): Nat i onal i t y- nat i onal i sm and nat i on- nat i oni sm. I n:
J . A. Fi s hman, C. A . Fer guson & J . D. Gupt a (eds ): Language pr obl ems
of devel opi ng count r i es . Ne w Yor k: Wi l e y .
Ger ar d, H. B . & MUl e r , N. (1967): Gr oup dy nami cs . In Annual Rev i ew of
Ps y chol ogy , Vol . 18.
Gi l es , H. (1970): Eval uat i ve r eact i ons t o accent s . Educ. Rev . , 22, 211- 227.
Gi l e s , H. (1971): A st udy of s peech pat t er ns i n soci al i nt er act i on: accent
eval uat i on and accent change. Unpubl . P h. D. di s s er t at i on, Uni ver si t y
of Br i st ol .
Gi l es , H. (1972): The ef f ect of st i mul us mi l dnes s- br oadnes s i n t he eval uat i on
of accent s . Lang, and Speec h. 15.
Gi l es , H. & Powes l and, P. (i n pr ep.): Soci al eval uat i on t hr ough s peech
char act er i s t i cs. London: Academi c Pr es s .
*
Gi l es , H. , Tayl or , D. M. & Bour hi s, R. (1972): Int er per sonal accommodat i on
t hr ough l anguage: a Canadi an exampl e. Paper r ead at t he Annual
Conf er ence of Br i t i sh Ps ychol ogi cal Soci et y, Not t i ngham.
Gr anows ky , S. & Kr os s ner , W. J . (1970): Ki nder gar t en t eacher s as model s for
chi l dr en's s peech. I . ex p. Educ. , 33, 23- 28.
Har man, S . N. (1970): Isr ael i s and J ews -__t he cont i nui t y of an i dent i t y. New
Yor k: Random Hous e.
X Hor ns t ei n, H. A . (1972): Pr omot i ve t ensi on: t he bas i s of pr osoci al behavi our
f r om a Lewi ni an per s pect i ve. J . s oc . i s s . , 28, 3, 191- 213.
J af f e, J . & Fel ds t ei n, S. (1970): Rhyt hms of Di al ogue. New Yor k: Academi c
Pr es s .
X Kel l ey, H. H. (1951): Communi cat i on i n exper i ment al l y cr eat ed hi er ar chi es .
Hum. Rel at . , 4, 39- 56.
Ki er a.an, V . G. (1972): The l or ds of human ki nd: Eur opean at t i t udes t o t he
out si de wor l d i n t he i mper i al a g e . Har monds wor t h: Pengui n Books .
Lemai ne, G. (1966): I negal i t e, compar ai son et i ncompar abi l i t e: es qui s s e d'une
t heor i e de l 'or i gi nal i t e s oci al e. Bul l . Ps y chol . 20, 1- 9.
X Lemai ne, G. & Kas t er s zt ei n, J . (1971- 2). Rccher ches sur l 'or i gi nal i t e soci al e
et l 'i ncompar abi l i t d. Bul l . Ps y chol . , 25, 673- 693.
Lennar d, H. L . & Ber ns t ei n, A. (1960): I nt er dependence of t her api st and pat i ent
ver bal behavi our . In: Fi s hman, J . A. (ed. ): Readi ngs i n t he soci ol ogy
of l anguage. The Hague: Mout on.
Manhei m, H. C . (1960): Int er gr oup i nt er act i on as r el at ed t o st at us and l eader
shi p di f f er ences bet ween gr oups . Soci omet r y, 23, 415- 427.
Mat ar azzo, J . D. , We i ns , A . N. , Mat ar azzo, R . G. & Sas l ow, G. (1968): Speech
and s i l ence behavi our i n cl i ni cal psychot her apy and i t s l abor at or y
cor r el at es. In: J . Schl i er , H. Hunt , J . D. Mat ar azzo and C. Savage
( eds , ): Res ear ch i n ps ychot her apy. Vol . 3 , Was hi ngt on D. C . :
Amer i can Psychol ogi cal As s oci at i on.
Mos c ov i c i , S. (1973): In sear ch of new common s ens e. Unpubl . ms . , Ecol e
Pr at i que des Haut es Et udes , Par i s.
Mos her , D. L . , Mor t i mer , R . L . & Gr ebel , M. (1968): Ver bal aggr es s i ve
behavi our i n del i nquent boy s . J . abnor m. Ps y chol . , 73, 454- 460.
Peabody , D. (1968): Gr oup j udgment s i n t he Phi l i ppi nes : eval uat i ve and
descr i pt i ve as pect s . J . per s . s oc. Ps ychol . , 10, 290- 300.
- 57 -
Rabbi e, J . M. & Hor wi t z, M. (1969): Ar ousal of i ngr oup- out gr oup bi as by a
chance wi n or l os s . I. per s . s oc, Ps y chol . , 13, 269- 277.
Rabbi e, J . M. & Wi l kens , G. (1971): Int er gr oup compet i t i on and i t s ef f ect s on
i nt ra- and i nt er gr oup r el at i ons. Eur op. J . s oc. Ps y c hol . , 1, 215- 234.
Rat ner , S . C . & Ri c e, F . E. (1963): The ef f ect of t he l i st ener on t he speaki ng
i nt er act i on. Ps y chol . Rev . 13, 265- 268.
Re x , J . (1969): Race as a soci al cat egor y. J . bi os oc. Sci . , Suppl . No . l ,
145- 15 2.
Shaf er , B . C. (1955): Nat i onal i s m: My t h and r eal i t y. New Yor k: Har cour t ,
Br ace.
Sher i f , M. (1966): Gr oup conf l i ct a nd cooper at i on: t hei r s oci al ps y chol ogy .
London: Rout l edge & Kegan Paul .
Sl obi n, D. I . , Mi l l er ; S . H. & Port er L . W. (1968): For ms of addr es s and aoci al
r el at i ons i n a bus i nes s or gani s at i on. J . per s . s oc . Ps y c hol . , 8,
289- 293.
Sol e, K. , Mar t on, J . & Hor ns t ei n, A . H. (1973): Si mi l ar i t y, at t r act i on and
hel pi ng: t hr ee f i el d exper i ment s i nvest i gat i ng t he bas es of pr omot i ve
behavi our . Unpubl . ms . , Col umbi a Uni ver s i t y.
Taj f el , H. (1959): Quant i t at i ve j udgment i n soci al per cept i on. Br i t . J . Ps y chol .
50, 16- 29.
Taj f el , H. (1969a): Cogni t i ve as pect s of pr ej udi ce. T. bi os oci al Sci . , Suppl .
No . l , 173- 191.
Taj f el , H. (1969b): The f or mat i on of nat i onal at t i t udes: a s oci al psychol ogi cal
per s pect i ve. In: M. Sher i f (ed. ): Int er di sci pl i nar y r el at i onshi ps i n
t he soci al s c i enc es . Chi cago: Al di ne.
Taj f el , H. (1970a): Exper i ment s i n i nt er gr oup di s cr i mi nat i on. Sci ent i f i c
Amer i can, 223, 5 , 96- 102.
Taj f el , H. (1970b): As pect s of nat i onal and et hni c l oyal t y. Soc . Sci . Inf or m. ,
9 , 3 , 119- 144.
Taj f el , H. (1972a): Exper i ment s i n a v acuum. In: J . Isr ael & H. Taj f el (eds . ):
The cont ext of soci al psychol ogy: a cr i t i cal as s es s ment . London:
Academi c Pr es s . *
Taj f el , H. (1972b): La cat egor i sat i on s oci al e. In: S. Mos cov i ci (ed. ):
Int r oduct i on a l a ps ychol ogi e s oci al o. Par i s: Lar ous s o.
Taj f el , H. & Bi l l i g, M. (1973): Fami l i ar i t y and soci al cat egor i zat i on i n i nt er
gr oup behavi our . Unpubl . ms . , Uni ver si t y of Br i st ol .
* Taj f el , H. , Fl ament , C. , Bi l l i g, M. & Bundy , R. P. (1971): Soci al cat egor i zat i on
and i nt er gr oup behavi our . Eur op. J . s oc. Ps y chol . , 1, 149- - 178.
* Taj f el , H. , & v an de Geer , J . P. (1972): Soci al cat egor i zat i on, i nt er gr oup
eval uat i on and per cept i on of i nt cr gr oup di f f er ences . Unpubl . ms . ,
Uni ver s i t y of Lei den.
Thi baut , J . (1950): An exper i ment al st udy of t he cohes i v enes s of under
pr i vi l eged gr oups . Hum. Rel at . , 3 , 251- 278.
* Tur ner , J . (1973a): Soci al compar i s on and soci al i dent i t y: s ome pr ospect s for
i nt er gr oup behavi our . Unpubl . ms . , Uni ver si t y of Br i st ol .
* Tur ner , J . (1973b): Compet i t i on and cat egor y- conf l i ct : sel f ver s us gr oup for
s oci al val ue ver s us economi c gai n. Unpubl . ms . , Uni ver s i t y of
Br i st ol .
We bb, J . T. (1969): Subj ect s peech r at es as a f unct i on of i nt er vi ewer behavi our .
Lang , and Speec h, 12, 54- 67.
Wel k owi t z, J . & Fel ds t ei n, S. (1970): Rel at i on of exper i ment al l y mani pul at ed
i nt er per sonal per cept i on and ps ychol ogi cal di f f er ent i at i on t o t he
t empor al pat t er ni ng of conver s at i on. Pr oc. Ann. Conv . Amer . Ps y chol .
As s oc . , 5 , 387- 388.
Wi l s on, W. & Kat ayani , M. (1968): Int er gr oup at t i t udes and st r at egi es i n games
bet ween opponent s of t he s ame or of a di f f er ent r ace. I . per s . s oc .
Ps y chol . , 9, 24- 30.
Wi l s on, W. & Mi l l er , N. (1960): Shi f t s i n eval uat i on of par t i ci pant s f ol l owi ng
i nt er gr oup compet i t i on. J . abnor m. s oc. Ps y chol , 63, 420- 431.
- 59 -
- 44 -
Pi aget , J . (1927): Le j ugement mor al de 1'enf ant . Par i s: Al can.
Pet t i gr ew, T. F . , Al l por t , G. W. & Bar net t , E. V. (1958): Bi nocul ar r esol ut i on and
per cept i on of r ace i n Sout h Af r i ca. Br i t i sh Tour nal of Ps y chol ogy ,
49, 265- 278.
X Rabbi e, J . M. & Hor wi t z, M. (1969): Ar ous al of i nt er gr oup bi as by a chance wi n
or l os s . J our nal of Per sonal i t y and Soci al Ps y chol ogy , 13 ,269- 277.
X Rabbi e, J . M. & Wi i k e ns , G. (1971): Int er gr oup compet i t i on and i t s ef f ect on
i nt ra- and i nt er gr oup r el at i ons. Eur opean J our nal of Soci al
Ps y chol ogy. 1, 215- 234.
Re x , J . (1969): Race as a soci al cat egor y. Tour nal of Bi os oci al Sc i enc e,
Suppl . No . l , 145- 152.
Secor d, P . F . , Bev ans , W. & Kat z, B. (1956): The Negr o st er eot ype and
per cept ual accent uat i on. Tour nal of Abnor mal and Soci al
Ps y c hol ogy , 53 , 78- 83.
Sher i f , M. (1936); The ps ychol ogy of s oci al nor ms . Ne w Yor k: Har per .
Sher i f , M. & Hov l and, C. I . (1961): Soci al j udgment : As si mi l at i on and cont r ast
ef f ect s i n communi cat i on and at t i t ude c hange. Ne w Hav en:
Yal e Uni ver si t y Pr es s .
Tagi ur i , R. (1969): Per s on per cept i on. In: G. Li ndzey & E. Ar ons on ( eds . ) :
The Handbook of Soci al Ps ychol ogy (2nd ed. ) Vol . I I I . Readi ng,
Ma s s . : Addi s on- Wes l ey .
Taj f el , H. (1959): Quant i t at i ve j udgment i n soci al per cept i on. Br i t i sh Tournal
of P s ychol ogy , 50, 16- 29.
Taj f el , H. (1959a): A not e on Lamber t 's "Eval uat i onal r eact i ons t o s poken
l anguages !,1 Canadi an Tour nal of Ps y chol ogy , 13, 86- 92.
Taj f el , H. (1969); Soci al and cul t ur al f act or s i n per cept i on. In: G. Li ndze y &
E. Ar ons on (eds.)- The Handbook of Soci al Ps ychol ogy (2nd Ed. )
Vol . III . Readi ng , Ma s s . : Addi s on- Wes l ey .
X Taj f el , H. , Fl ament , C. , Bi l l i g, M. G. & Bundy , R. P. (1971); Soci al cat egor i zat i on
and i nt er gr oup behavi our . Eur opean Jour nal of Soci al Ps y chol ogy .
1, 149- 178.
Taj f el , H. & J ahoda, G. (1966); The devel opment i n chi l dr en of concept s and
at t i t udes about t hei r own and ot her nat i ons; A cr oss- nat i onal
s t udy. Pr oc. XVI IIt h Int er nat . Congr . Ps y chol . Mo s c o w. Sympos i um
36, 17- 33.
% Taj f el , H. & Wi l k e s , A L. (1963); Cl as s i f i cat i on and quant i t at i ve j udgment .
Br i t i sh J our nal of Ps y chol ogy , 54, 101- 114.
Mos c ov i c i , S. (1973).: In sear ch of new common s ens e. Unpubl . ms . Ecol e
Pr at i que des Haut es Et udes , Par i s.
Re x , J . (1969): Race as a s oci al cat egor y. J . bi os oc. Scl . , Suppl * No . l , 145- 152.
Shaf er , B . C. (1955): Nat i onal i s m: Myt h and r eal i t y. New Yor k: Har cour t , Br ace.
Sher i f , M. (1966): Gr oup conf l i ct and cooper at i on: t hei r soci al ps y chol ogy .
London: Rout l edge & Kegan Paul .
Smi t h, M. B . (1973): Cr i t i ci sm of a soci al s ci ence. Rev i ew of : The Cont ext of
Soci al Ps ychol ogy: A cr i t i cal as s es s ment . J . Isr ael & H. Taj f el (eds . )
Sc i enc e, 180, 610- 612.
Taj f el , B. (1969): The f or mat i on of nat i onal at t i t udes: a soci al ps ychol ogi cal
per s pect i ve. In: M. Sher i f (ed. ): Int er di sci pl i nar y r el at i onshi ps i n
t he soci al s c i enc es . Chi cago: Al di ne. j
Taj f el , H. (1970a): Exper i ment s i n i nt er gr oup di s cr i mi nat i on. Sci ent i f i c Amer i can ,1
223, 5 , 96- 102.
Taj f el , H. (1970b): As pect s of nat i onal and et hni c l oyal t y. Soc . Sc l . I nf or m. , 9,
3 , 119- 144.
Taj f el , H. (1972a): Exper i ment s i n a v acuum. In: J . Isr ael & H. Taj f el ( eds . ) :
The cont ext of s oci al psychol ogy: A cr i t i cal as s es s ment . London:
Academi c Pr es s .
Taj f el , H. (1972b): La cat egor i sat i on s oci al e. In: S. Mos cov i ci (ed. ): Int r oduct i on
ci l a ps vchol oql e s oci al e. Par i s: Lar ous s e.
Taj f el , H. & Bi l l i g, M. (1974): Fami l i ar i t y and soci al cat egor i zat i on i n i nt er gr oup
behavi our . I. ex p. s oc . Ps ychol . , i n pr es s .
Taj f el , H. , Fl ament , C. , Bi l l i g, M. & Bundy , R. P. (1971): Soci al cat egor i zat i on
and i nt er gr oup behavi our . Eur op. I. s oc. Ps y c hol . , 1, 149- 178.
Tur ner , J . (1973): Compet i t i on and cat egor y- conf l l ct : sel f ver s us gr oup f or soci al
val ue ver s us economi c gai n. Unpubl . ms . , Uni ver si t y of Br i st ol .
Tur ner , J . (1974): Soci al compar i s on and soci al i dent i t y: Some pr ospect s f or i nt er
gr oup behavi our . Eur op. J . s oc. Ps y chol . , i n pr es s .
Wes t er mann, D. (1934): The Af r i can t oday. London: Oxf or d Uni ver si t y Pr es s .
- 65 -
*>
Ref er ences
Abel s on, R. P. , Ar onson , E. , Mc Gui r e, W. J , , Ne wc o mb, T. M. , Ros enber g , M. J .
& Tannenbaum, P . H. (1968): Theor i es of cogni t i ve cons i s t ency. Chi cago:
Rand Mc Nal l y .
Ber ger , P . L . (1966): Ident i t y as a pr obl em i n t he soci ol ogy of knowl edge.
Eur opean Tour nal of Soci ol ogy , 7 , 105- 115.
X Bi l l i g, M. G. (1971) Cat egor i zat i on and si mi l ar i t y i n i nt er gr oup behavi our .
Unpubl i s hed r epor t , Uni ver si t y of Br i st ol .
Br uner , J . S . (1957): On per cept ual r eadi nes s . Psychol ogi cal Revi ew, 64,
123- 152.
Br uner , J . S . (1957a): Goi ng bey ond t he evi dence gi v en. In: Cont empor ar y
appr oaches t o cogni t i on: The Col or ado s ympos i um. Cambr i dge,
Ma s s : Har var d Uni ver s i t y Pr es s .
Br uner , J . S . , Goodman, J .J . & Aus t i n, G. A . (1956): A st udy of t hi nki ng.. Ne w
Yor k: Wi l e y .
Br uner , J . S . & Pot t er , M. C . (1964): Int er f er ence i n vi s ual r ecogni t i on. Sc i enc e,
144, 424- 425.
Br uns wi k, E. (1956): Per cept i on and t he r epr esent at i ve des i gn of ps ychol ogi cal
exper i ment s . Ber kel ey and Los Angel es : Uni v . of Cal i f or ni a Pr es s .
By r ne, D. (1969): At t i t udes and at t r act i on. In* L. Ber kowi t z ( e d. ) : Adv ances
i n Exper i ment al Soci al Ps y chol ogy , Vol . I V, Ne w Yor k:
Academi c Pr es s .
Campbel l , D. T . (1956): Enhancement of cont r ast as a composi t e habi t . Journaj .
of Abnor mal and Soci al Ps y chol ogy , 53, 350- 355.
Chey ne, W. M. (1970): St er eot yped r eact i ons t o speaker s wi t h Scot t i sh and
Engl i s h r egi onal accent s . Br i t i sh J our nal of Soci al and Cl i ni cal
Ps y chol ogy , 9, 77- 79.
Dav i don, R . S . (1962)- Rel ev ance and cat egor y s cal es of j udgment . Br i t i sh
Tour nal of Ps y chol ogy , 53, 373- 380.
Ei ser J . R. (1971): Enhancement of cont r ast i n t he absol ut e j udgment of at t i t ude
st at ement s . Tour nal of Per sonal i t y and Soci al Ps ychol ogy , 17 ,1- 10.
- 42 -

Ei s er , J . R. (1971a): Cat egor i zat i on, cogni t i ve cons i st ency and t he concept of
di mens i onal s al i ence. Eur opean Tournal of Soci al Ps y chol ogy ,
i n pr es s .
X Fer gus on, C. K . & Kel l ey, H. H. (1966)- Si gni f i cant f act or s i n over - eval uat i on
of own gr oup's pr oduct . Tournal of Abnor mal and Soci al
Ps y chol ogy , 69, 223- 228.
* Fes t i nger , L. (1954): A t heor y of soci al compar i son pr oces s es . Human.
Rel at i ons , 7 , 117- 140.
Fi s hman, J . A. (1968): Nat i onal i t y- nat i onal i sm and nat i on- nat i on! sm. In:
J . A. Fi s hman, C. A. Fer guson & J . D. Gupt a ( e ds . ) : Languag e
pr obl ems of devel opi ng count r i e s . Ne w Yor k: Wi l e y .
Hei der , F. (1958): The ps y chol ogy of Int er per sonal r el at i ons . Ne w Yor k: Wi l ey
Her s hens on, M. & Haber , R. N. (1965): The r ol e of meani ng of t he per cept i on
of br i ef l y ex pos ed wor ds . Canadi an Tournal of Ps y chol ogy , 19,
42- 46.
J ones , E. R. & Ger ar d, H. B. (1967): Foundat i ons of soci al ps y chol ogy.. Ne w
Yor k: Wi l e y .
Lamber t , W. E . , Hodgs on, R. C. , Gar dner , R . C. & Fi l l enbaum,S. (1960):
Eval uat i onal r eact i ons t o s poken l anguages . J our nal of Abnor mal ^
and Soci al Ps ychol ogy , 60, 44- 51
Lent , R . H. (1970): Bi nocul ar r esol ut i on and per cept i on of r ace i n t he Uni t ed
St at es . Br i t i sh Tour nal of Ps ychol ogy , 61, 521- 533.
Li l l i , W. (1970): Das Zus t andekommen von St er eot ypen tl ber ei nf ache und
compl exe Sachver wal t e. Exper i ment e zur kl as s i f i zi er ended
Ur t ei l . Zei t schr i f t ftir Sozi alps y chol ogl e, 1, 57- 59.
Mar c hand, B. (1970): Ans wi r kung ei ner emot i onal wer t vol l en und ei ner emot i onal
neut r al en Kl as si f i kat i on auf di e Schat zung ei ner St i mul us s er i e.
Zei t schr i f t ftir Sozi al ps ychol ogl e , 1 , 2 6 4 - 2 7 4 .
Mos c ov i c i , S. (1972): Soci et y and t heor y i n soci al ps y chol ogy . I h: 7. Isr ael
& H. Taj f el ( eds . ) : The cont ext of soci al ps ychol ogy; a cr i t i cal
as s es s ment . London: Academi c Pr es s . In pr es s .
- 43 -
Os g ood, C. E . , Suc i , G. J . & Tannenbaum , P. H. (1957): The measur ement of
meani ng. Ur ba na , I l l . : Uni ver si t y of Il l i noi s Pr es s .
TAEffl 3
At t r a c t i on For " B. G. W. " For Va r yi ng Degr ees Of Si mi l ar i t y On
V, I t ems of Het er ogeneous I mpor t ance
Si mi l ar i t y on Si mi l ar i t y on i t ems of hi gh i mpor t ance
i t ems of l ow
i mpor t ance
100J6
50i
ojt
6.92
6.90
6.15
k.92
b.92
5.57
5.08
U.00
1+.16