3

The categorisation process in intergroup relations”

WILLEM DOISE
Centre National de la Recherche
Scientifique. Paris

ANNE SINCLAIR
Ecole de Psychologie de I’Universit6
de Genhve

Abstract

In the first two parts of the paper a distinction is made between a ‘conflict or
convergence of interests’ approach (Sherif)and a ‘categorisation’ approach (Tajfel)
in the area of the experimental study of intergroup relations. Some recent experi-
mental findings are mentioned, and a theoretical development of the categorisation
approach is proposed. In the third part a new experiment illustrating the relevance
of the categorisation approach is described.

Introduction

Experimental research on the way intergroup interaction affects intergroup images

or intergroup representations has been pursued for about two decades. In this
research area one can distinguish two well-defined trends. The first was inspired
by Sherif‘s work; we will briefly comment on it. The second trend goes back to
Tajfel’s work in the early sixties on the categorisation process in judgments. Since
our recent work is more relevant to the second trend, we will mainly develop the
‘categorisation’ approach. Furthermore, we think that, when dealing with the
problem of intergroup representations, this approach is more heuristic, as it bears
on a very general process underlying intergroup phenomena. We will amplify this
statement in the second part of this paper, but the question will remain open to
discussion.
This paper is in three parts: In the first part, we will briefly discuss the Sherif
approach (Sherif et al., 1961); in the second part we will discuss the ‘categorisa-

* Paper delivered by the first author at sociation of Experimental Social Psychol-

the fifth wnferencs of the European As- ogy, Leuven, April 4-8, 1972.

Eur. I . soc. Psychol. 3 (2), p p . 145-157

146 Willem Doise and Anne Sinclair

tion’ approach; and in the third one, we will illustrate this approach with an ex-
periment.

1. The convergence or conflict of interest approach

One can summarize Sherif‘s theory of intergroup relations in the following way.
To understand the psychological processes that occur during intergroup relations,
one must understand the relationship between the goals of the interacting groups.
When these goals are competive - that is, one group only can achieve its goal to
the detriment of the other group - hostility becomes evident; negative images of
the outgroup and negative affects towards the outgroup arise. On the other hand,
when groups need each other to achieve an important common goal, ‘a super-
ordinate goal’, positive feelings towards outgroup members and a favourable
image of the outgroup spring up. This idea of conflict or convergence of interests
is obviously not peculiar to Sherif. If one accepts that the relationship between
different interests, embedded in an objective situation, is a kind of substructure,
there is an analogy between Sherif‘s conception and the Marxist view of the
relationship, between substructure and superstructure. When LeVine challenges
‘describe to me the economic intergroup situation and I shall predict the content
of stereotypes’, he is not far away from the Sherif-type approach ( c f . Tajfel’s
report of a round-table discussion in Cannes, 1970).
Let us briefly describe some more recent results of similar tendency. Avigdor
(1953) and Wilson, Chun and Kayatani (1965) have shown that in a competitive
or conflictual situation, the unfavourable image of the outgroup is elaborated on
specific dimensions. Group members selectively attribute to outgroup members
characteristics which justify hostile behaviour towards the outgroup. In several
experiments, W. Doise (1969, 1972) has been able to show that the processes of
‘ideologisation’ takes place even if competitive interaction is only expected to take
place. Rabbie and Wilkens (1971) obtained similar results.
Blake and Mouton’s experiment (1962) shows that in a competitive situation
members of one group find it singularly difficult to ‘learn’ solutions proposed by
the other group and that they do not recognize what the ingroup and outgroup
performances have in common. But according to us, this has something to do with
the accentuation of difference and thus brings us to the categorisation approach.
Let us conclude this short description of the convergence or conflict of interest
approach by saying that, although we think there is still a lot to be done in this
direction, many findings indicate that the conception which links intergroup re-
presentation to the relationship between group goals is too restrictive. Even when
 The categorisation process in intergroup relations 147

there is no actual conflict of interest, ingroup-outgroup discrimination arises, on

the behavioral level as well as on the representational level (cf. Rabbie and Hor-
witz, 1969; Tajfel, Flament et al., 1971; Rabbie and Wilkens, 1971).

2. The categorisation approach

We now come to the categorisation approach. Superficially, one might ask whether
the Tajfel and Wilkes (1963) results have much to do with social psychology.
Let us briefly describe their results without going into the details of the experi-
mental procedure. Using eight lines of different lengths, four of which were
labelled with the letter A and the four others with the letter B, they verified that
when Ss had to judge the length of these lines, they saw the difference between
the A’s and the B’s as larger when A systematically accompanied the four shorter
lines and B the four longest. When there was no relationship between the length
of the line and the label, that is, when the !abellinp, was done at random or when
there was no labelling at all, Ss’ judgments showed no accentuation of the dif-
ferences. One can generalize: When stimuli belong to a continuum (e.g. increasing
length) and this continuum is divided into adjacent categories (e.g. ‘short’ and
‘long’), judgments bearing on the relevant seriated characteristics accentuate the
inter-category differences and the intra-category similarities.
In a later paper, Tajfel (1972) describes this phenomenon as the deductive
categorisation error: When it is known that the stimuli belong to different cate-
gories, they will be judged as more different, as far as certain characteristics are
concerned, than when Ss do not know that the stimuli belong to different cate-
gories.
Many experiments have been done on the categorisation effect (cj. Lilli, 1970
and Marchand, 1970). Some of these experiments have used lines and squares as
stimuli, but others have used ‘social’ stimuli, such as attitude statements (Eiser,
1971). It is clear that the categorisation effect is relevant to the study of inter-
group phenomena: It is one of the processes underlying stereotyping (cf. Tajfel,
Sheikh and Gardner, 1964).
We believe, however, that the categorisation process has wider interpretative
value. Two well-established experimental findings on the consequences of dividing
people into groups have to be reformulated to fit the categorisation framework.
The first experiment (Tajfel, Flament et al., 1971) shows that ingroup members,
when asked to distribute points (for which they will later get money), system-
atically adopt a strategy that results in a positive difference between them and the
outgroup members, even if, by doing so, they reduce their gain (in absolute value).
148 Willern Doise and Anne Sinclair

It is as if the principal aim of the group is not to be as high as possible on the

value scale, but to be higher on the scale than the outgroup. The group tries to
establish a difference in its favour, even if it lowers its own position on the scale
by doing this, The second group of experiments (Rabbie and Horwitz, 1969;
Rabbie and Wilkens, 1971) shows that when ingroup members have to rate them-
selves as well as outgroup members, they quasi-spontaneously rate themselves
more favourably than the outgroup members. Here again, this time through their
judgments, groups establish a difference in their favour on a value dimension.
Furthermore, our experiment in the summer school at Koiistanz (Doise etal.,
1972) seems to show that the behavioral and evaluative phenomena are related;
although discrimination on an evaluative level occurs very easily (even without
any expectation of interaction), it becomes significantly stronger when ingroup
members expect the possibility of discriminating at a behavioral level. Also, when
Ss anticipate interaction, they make a stronger differentiation (for less evaluative
traits such as tall-short, blond-dark, fat-thin and ebullient-quiet) than when they
do not anticipate interaction.
Differentiation at a behavioral level is accompanied by differentiation on an
evaluative level and probably also by a search for differentiation on other, not
directly evaluative, levels. We think that all these phenomena can be described
and studied as categorisation effects in the sense that differences on one level give
rise to differences on other levels, and that this occurs not only in perception and
judgment but also in social behaviour. We think that in that sense Tajfel’s theo-
retical developments on categorisation (1959) can easily be extended and that one
of the ways of showing that categorisation is not only perceptual but behavioral as
well is to study verbal behaviour as related to convergence or divergence on othei
behavioral dimensions. Research in this direction is planned in collaboration with
H. Giles (Cardiff) and J. Kleiven (Bergen).
Before starting on the third part of this paper, we shall briefly describe the
relationship that we see between the categorisation approach and Sherif’s approach.
The categorisation approach should be located on a more ‘structural’ level and
the conflict or convergence of interest approach on a more ‘dynamic’ level to the
extent that the latter approach can sometimes account for the intensity of the cate-
gorisation processes and the content on which they operate. Nevertheless, we
think that the categorisation process, like other structuraI processes, has its own
dynamics. What we mean by this will perhaps best be illustrated by the experi-
ment described in the following.
 The categorisation process in intergroup relations 149

3. The experiment

3.1 Hypotheses
The goal of the experiment was to compare the images group members form of
their ingroup and an outgroup in situations where categorisation can take place
and in situations where it is less likely to occur.
Suppose in one condition we ask group members to describe themselves by
filling out a questionnaire without mentioning any other group; in another con-
dition we ask members of the same group to describe themselves, but we evoke
an outgroup. It is quite clear that in the second condition the categorisation
process must play a larger role than in the first, where no mention is made of
any other group.
If the members of the two groups actually come into contact, one would sup-
pose that the categorisation process would also occur, but not in the same way
in an individual encounter (one member from one group, one member from
another) as in a collective encounter (at least two members from each group).
If we consider the studies made on collective judgments, that is, judgments made
in the presence of others or judgments made after discussion with others, we can
say that their most general finding has been a convergence effect: Sometimes
convergence on a moderate position, sometimes convergence on an extreme posi-
tion (cj. Doise and Moscovici, 1972). We would predict that in an individual
encounter the convergence effect would make the individuals’ opinions more
similar and thereby lessen the categorisation effect.
However, this is not the case in the collective encounter where convergence
is not limited to convergence towards a member of the other group. In this situa-
tion, convergence should at least be as strong towards a member of one’s own
group as that towards a member of the other group. Therefore, the categorisation
effect should be stronger in the second situation.
One should not forget that an experiment in which Ss describe real groups
cannot take place in a social vacuum. Ss will reproduce or may transform their
pre-existing ideological representations. Ss who participated in this experiment
came from two different groups. Half of them were coZl&gierzs,male students in
secondary school preparing for university entrance; the other half were boys of
the same age undergoing vocational training in factories and shops, apprentis.
It is clear that these two groups occupy very different positions in their society.
The collkgiens are far more privileged in many respects. Obviously this has reper-
cussions on a psychological level, and so one cannot set aside this variable under
the pretext that it pertains more to the socio-economic field.
150 Willem Doise and Anne Sinclair

Unfortunately, we do not have a satisfactory theoretical framework which would

allow us to make predictions concerning the interaction of our encounter con-
ditions and the Ss’ social status. The fact that one group is nearer to the favour-
able end of a ‘social status scale’ than the other could have important conse-
quences on the categorisation effect. If we suppose that all the Ss have some
ingroup feeling which leads them to evaluate the ingroup as better than the out-
group on some dimension (‘ethnocentric scale’), we can see that for the collkgiens
the categorisation effect will work in the same direction on both scales. However,
for the apprentis the effect can work in opposite directions on the two scales.
When the upprentis are confronted with a group of higher status, the categorisa-
tion effect on the ‘social status scale’ would lead to a less favourable ingroup
image, and categorisation on the ‘ethnocentric scale’ to a more favourable image.
This means that our predictions should be more relevant for the higher-status
group than for the lower-status group, as the latter is in a more conflicting and
less clear-cut situation. Consequently, the lower-status group should show more
intersubject variation.

3.2 Predictions
Let us sum up our predictions concerning the categorisation of inter-group images
in different encounter conditions:
1 . When one asks group members to describe their own group without mention-
ing any other group, and then asks for a description of the other group (no
encounter condition), the difference between these two descriptions will be
smaller than the same difference in the condition where the other group is
mentioned right from the start (symbolic encounter condition).
2. When two people, each from a different group, actually meet (individual
encounter condition), the difference between the descriptions they make of
the two groups will be smaller than that between the descriptions in the sym-
bolic encounter condition.
3. When several members of two groups meet (collective encounter condition),
the difference between the descriptions of the two groups will be greater than
in the individual encounter condition.
4. The effect of the different conditions will not be the same for the two groups,
as one group is socially more privileged.
 The categorisation process in intergroup relations 15 1

3.3 Method

3.3.1 Subjects
Fifty-six collkgiens and forty-nine upprentis, all living in Geneva, Switzerland, and
aged 15, 16 or 17.

3.3.2 Questionnaire
The items used were obtained from content analyses of fifteen lengthy interviews
with collkgiens and apprentis. There were twelve items in the questionnaire, six
of which were clearly judged as favourable (two items) or unfavourable (four
items) by a control group of forty-five collkgiens and apprentis.
The positively evaluated items were:
a) X like the theatre.
b) X are proud of being X.
The negatively evaluated items were:
c) X prefer to talk about what is happening in their own milieu than to talk
about society in general.
d) Even if they have the necessary equipment, X find it difficult to do odd jobs.
e) X do not express themselves easily.
f) X are not interested in what is going on in the world.
Only these six items were used for the statistical analyses, as the other six items
were evaluated in a far less clear-cut way. For each item there were six answers
possible: Strongly disagree, disagree, mildly disagree, agree mildly, agree, agree
strongly. These answers were respectively rated -3, -2, -1, + 1, +2, + 3 for the
favourable items (a and b above) and the signs were inversed for the unfavourable
items (c to f above).
All the Ss in the different conditions were first asked to describe their own
group by filling in the questionnaire and then asked to describe the other group
by filling in the same questionnaire. ‘X’ stands for collkgiens or upprentis.

3.3.3 Experimental conditions

a) N o encounter condition: Ss (thirteen apprentis and sixteen collkgiens) in-
dividually fill in the two questionnaires, first describing the ingroup and then the
outgroup. They were not told, before or while describing the ingroup, that they
would be asked to describe the outgroup.
b) Symbolic encounter condition: Ss (twelve upprentis and sixteen collkgiens)
are told at the beginning of the experiment that they will have to fill in the ques-
tionnaire twice, once describing the collkgiens and once describing the apprentis.
152 Willern Doise and Anne Sinclair

In conditions a and b only colldgiens or apprentis participated in the same

experimental session.
c) Zndividual encounter condition: (Ss: Eight collkgiens and eight apprentis).
One colldgien and one apprenti, introduced to each other by E, each filled in the
two questionnaires individually (once about their own group, once about the other
group). They then discussed the questionnaire. After the discussion, they were
asked to fill in the questionnaires once more, again individually.
d) Collective encounter condition: (Ss: Sixteen collkgiens and sixteen apprentis).
The procedure was identical to that in condition c, except that four Ss (two collk-
giens and two upprentis) participated at the same time.

3.3.4 Statistical analysis

Our analyses were mainly concerned with the difference between the descriptions
of ingroup and outgroup (columns 3 and 6 of Table 1). To perform an analysis
of variance on the ‘real’ encounter conditions, we added the scores of the two
same-group members in condition d (collective encounter condition) and doubled
the scores of each S in condition c (individual encounter condition).
We also obtained a modal response index for the description of the ingroup by
first calculating the mean of all the responses made by Ss of the same group and
in the same condition (N between eight and sixteen) for the ingroup questionnaire.
This mean was always between two points of the scale, with one exception. Then,
for each subject, we totalled the number of times his responses for the six items
of the ingroup questionnaire coincided with one of the two scale points nearest
to the mean. The modal response index could therefore vary between 0 (no re-
sponse on a point of the scale closest to the mean) and 6 (all responses on one
of the points closest to the mean). In the one case where the mean coincided with
one of the points of the scale, we counted the number of times Ss gave that
response (-1) or the response that was one point more polarized (-2).
All statistical probabilities refer to two-tailed hypotheses, unless stated other-
wise.

3.4 Results
3.4.1 The effect of the symbolic encounter
The description Ss make of the ingroup in the no-encounter condition is not very
favourable; it is not significantly different from a description with an equal pro-
portion of favourable and unfavourable ratings. Both groups - collkgiens and
apprentis - tend to make a slightly more favourable description of the outgroup,
but this is not statistically significant. However, in the symbolic encounter con-
 The categorisation process in intergroup relations 153

dition, Ss do not hesitate to give a fairly favourable description of the ingroup

( p < 0.02; p < 0.001). In this condition, the collkgiens significantly evaluate
their own group as better than the outgroup (p < 0.001). The categorisation of
the two images is much stronger than in the no-encounter condition for the col-
lkgiens ( p < 0.01). The same trend exists for the apprentis, but it is not statisti-
cally significant. This does not mean that our experimental manipulation was not
meaningful for these Ss: Among the apprentis, some categorise very strongly and
others seem to give in to the social determinants that make them the less privileged
group. This interpretation is confirmed by the colltgien’s modal response index
which increases from the no-encounter condition to the symbolic-encounter con-
dition ( p < 0.05). For the apprentis it does not increase. As far as the collkgiens
are concerned, the situation is defined in the same way for all of them; the effect
of the experimental manipulation on their social representations creates a con-

Table 1. Mean evaluation of the ingroup and outgroup in different encounter

conditions *

~.
Subjects
Experimental CollCgiens
Apprentis
conditions
N Ingroup Outgroup Difference N Inproup Outgroup Difference

No encounter 13 2,85 5,85 -3,OO(a) 16 0,38 0,94 --0,56(e)

i1,SO) (3,051 (1,171 (0,371 (0,W (0,36)
Symbolic encounter 12 4,50 3,25 +1,25(b) 16 5,50 -0,75 +6,25
(2,75) (2.26) (0,521 (6,961 (0.60) (4,86)(f)
I x I encounter
Before discussion 8 338 7,50 -3,63(c) 8 3,88 3,38 +0,50(g)
(2,301 (6,121 (3,45) (2.22) (2,831 a 3 1)
After discussion 8 0,13 5,25 -5,12(d) 8 4,50 1,75 +2,75(h)
(0,05I (3,191 (3,101 (2,831 144) (2,081
-3 y 2 encounter
Before discussion 16 2,94 6,88 -3,94 16 6,25 1,44 +4,81
(1,871 ($45) (3S4 (5,191 (1,461 (2,951
After discussion 16 4.56 6,56 -2,OO 16 638 2,50 +4,38
(3,561 (8,921 (1,62) (7,521 (2,751 (3,531

* In parentheses are t-values for differences with n theoretical value of 0.

t-values for differences between:
a and b: 1,21 e and f 3,38 (p < 0.01)
b and c: 1,58 f and g: 2,68 @< 0.02)
b and d: 1.96 (p < 0.04, one-tailed) f and h: 1,71 ( p = 0.05, one-tailed)
 154 Willem Doise and Anne Sinclair

vergence effect. This is not the case for the apprentis who are in a conflicting
<
situation, as their more varied responses show ( p 0.02 Table 3).

Table 2. Analysis o f variance o f the differences between the descriptions of the

two groups in the real-encounter conditions

Source of variation d.f. Meansquare

Inter-subjects 31
Social group membership (A) 1 2.943,07 43,92 < 0.001
Experimental conditions (B) 1 306,25 437 < 0.025
AxB 1 39,07 0,58 (onwed)
Error 28 67.01
Intra-subjects 32
Before - After (C) 1 20,25 0,37
AC 1 7,56 0,14
BC 1 2,25 0,04
ABC 1 150,06 2.75
Error 28 54,49

Table 3. Averages of modal response indices for the ingroup questionnaire *

Experimental conditions Apprentis Colltgiens

No encounter 2,85 2,69 a
Symbolic encounter 2,67 b 3,81 c
1 X I encounter
Before discussion 3,50 4.25
After discussion 3900 3.88
2 x 2 encounter
Before discussion 519 3,25
After discussion 3.44 4,19

* t-values for the differences:
a and c - 2,38, p < 0.05
b and c - 2,74, p C 0.02
Significant F values of the analysis of var-
iance for conditions 1 x 1, 2 x 2
apprentis, colltgiens - 7,79, d.f. 1,28, p <
0.0 1;
1 x 1, 2 x 2, x before, after - 8,89, d.f.
1,28, p < 0.01.

3.4.2 The effect o f the real encounter

Let us first take a look at the individual encounter condition (one member of one
group and one member of another group). Does the fact that a member of the
other group is physically present change the situation? Before discussion, all the
 The categorisation process in intergroup relations 155

representations (of the ingroup and outgroup) become favourable. The collkgiens
do not discriminate in favour of their group, and the apprentis show a bias in
favour of the other group (collkgiens) ( p < 0.02). As predicted, in this condition
pluralistic ingratiation plays a large role and even provokes the apprentis into
making concessions. In the responses made after the discussion, discrimination
in favour of the ingroup on the part of the collkgiens tends to reappear, as they
are clearly in a position of strength during the discussion. The discussion also has
the effect of accentuating the difference between the symbolic-encounter and real-
encounter conditions for the apprentis ( p : 0.05). The prediction that the individ-
ual-encounter condition will show less categorisation effect than the symbolic-
encounter condition is confirmed, but for the apprentis it is only statistically
significant after the discussion. If we compare the effects of the individual-
encounter condition (before and after discussion, and for the two groups) with the
effects of the collective-encounter condition, we can see that in the collective-
encounter condition, differences between both images of the ingroup and outgroup
become more positive ( p < 0.05, Table 2). This confirms our third prediction;
once again the collkgiens consistently evaluate their own group more favourably
than the outgroup ( p < 0.01). The convergence effect observed in the individual-
encounter condition is overcome by the categorisation effect. The apprentis still
significantly evaluate the other group as superior before the discussion, but after
the discussion the difference is no longer significant.
If we examine the modal response index, we can get useful information con-
cerning the real encounters and the effect of the discussion. First of all, the col-
lkgiens’ responses are less varied than those of the apprentis ( p < 0.01) - the
experimental manipulations create less conflict for them. Secondly, the effect of
convergence towards a member of the same group is not the same in the individ-
ual- and collective-encounter conditions. Before the individual encounter, even
though no member of the same group is physically present, there is an implicit
consensus between members of one group concerning the responses which should
be given. This implicit consensus disappears somewhat after discussion with a
member of the other group. Does discussion with a member of the other group
thus weaken the ingroup consensus? Things happen very differently in the col-
lective encounter. The tacit agreement between same-group members is not very
strong before the encounter but increases during it. The implicit consensus of
same-group members is reinforced during the encounter when there is another
same-group member present; ingroup cohesion is increased. (Significant inter-
action between before, after and encounter conditions: p <O .01.)
156 Willem Doise and Anne Sinelair

4. Conclusion and discussion

It seems to us that the results of this experiment strongly suggest that it is possible
to explain intergroup phenomena and variations in intergroup representation by
using the categorisation approach. It seems difficult to explain the data obtained
by using only explanations within the framework of the conflict or convergence
of interest approach. This does not mean that we claim to have explained all the
characteristics of the intergroup images in the four different encounter conditions.
Despite the fact that the collkgiens’ and the apprentis’ responses consistently go
in the predicted directions, the apprentis often gave a more favourable image of
the outgroup than the ingroup. According to us, this means that the items in the
questionnaire were more pertinent to the ‘social status scale’ than to the ‘ethno-
centric scale’. An experiment in which the two scales are represented by different
items should be carried out. However, it is nevertheless interesting to note that
it is only in the symbolic-encounter condition that the underprivileged apprentis
can elaborate an ingroup image that is as favourable as the image of the outgroup.
The difference observed between the real-encounter conditions - individual and
collective - also called for further research which has been carried out (see Doise
and Weinberger, 1973). The results of the Doise and Weinberger experiment
show that in a collective-encounter situation, when there is a conflict of interest,
the difference between ingroup and outgroup members is enhanced for items which
represent the current social stereotypes. In an individual-encounter situation, these
‘social’ differences are more easily by-passed. According to us, similar processes
explain why during the expectation of the collective encounter the colldgiens
significantly discriminate in favour of their own group and did not do so when
expecting an individual encounter.

REFERENCES

Avigdor, R. (1963) Etude exPCrimentale de
la gentke des stCrtotypes. Cahiers I n -
tern. de Sociologie, 14, 154-168.
Blake, R. R. and Mouton, J. S. (1962) Com-
prehension of points of communality
in competing solutions. Sociornefry, 25,
56-63.
Doise, W. (1969) StratCgies de jeu B l’intC-
rieur et entre des groupes de nationa-
lit6 diff6rente. Bulletin du C.E.R.P., 18,
13-26.
Doise, W., Csepeli, G., Dam, H. D., Gou-
ge, C., Larsen, K. and Ostell, A. (1972)
An experimental investigation into the
formation of intergroup images and
intergroup behaviour. Eur. 1. SOC.Psy-
chol., 2, 202-204.
Doise, W. and Moscuvici, S. (1972) Les
dCcisions collectives. In S. Moscovici:
Introduction d la Phychologie Sociale,
Vol. 2 . Paris, Larousse. Pp. 114-134.
 The categorisation process in intergroup relations 157
Doise, W. and Weinberger, M. (1973) Re-
prtsentations masculines dans difftren-
tes situations de rencontres mixtes,
Bullctin de Psychologie, 26, 649-657.
Eiser, J. R. (1971) Enhancement of contrast
in the absolute judgment of attitude
statements. 1. Pers. SOC. Psychol., 17,
1-10.
Lilli, W. (1970) Das Zustandekommen von
Stereotypen iiber einfache und com-
plexe Sachverhalte, Experimente zum
klassifizierenden Urteil. ZeitscRrift fur
Sozialpsychologie, 1, 57-79.
Marchand, B. (1970) Auswirkung einer
emotional wertvollen und einer emo-
tional neutralen Klassifikation auf die
Schatzung einer Stimulusserie. Zeit-
schrift fiir Sozialpsychofogie, 1, 264-
274.
Rabbie, J. M. and Horwitz, M. (1969)
Arousal of intergroup bias by a chance
win or loss. J. Pers. SOC. Psychot., 13,
269-277.
Rabbie, J. M. and Wilkens, G. (1971) In-
tergroup competition and its effect on
intra and inter-group relations. Eur.
J . SOC. Psychol., 1, 215-234.
Sherif, M., Harvey, 0. J., White B. J.,
Hood, W. R. and Sherif, C. W. (1961)
Intergroup conflict and cooperation:
R ksum k
Dans les deux premieres parties de l’article,
nous distinguons deux approches thtoriques
diffkrentes de I’ttude exPCrimentale des rela-
tions entre groupes: celle qui est basCe sur
1’Ctude du conflit et de la convergence des
inttrCts (Sherif) et celle basCe sur l’ttude du
processus de cattgorisation (Tajfel). Des rt-
sultats expkrimentaux rtcents sont mention-
n6s et une extension thCorique du modkle de
la cattgorisation est proposte. Une troisibme
partie prtsente une nouvelle experience qui
illustre la portie de l’approche b a d e sur
l’itude de la cattgorisation.
T?IErobber‘s cave experiment, Norman,
Oklahoma, The University Book Ex-
change.
Tajfel, H. (1959) Quantitative judgment in
social perception, Brit. J . Psychol., 50,
16-29.
Tajfel, H. (1972) La cattgorisation sociale.
In S . Moscovici (Ed.) Znrroduction d
la psychologie sociale, Vol. 1. Paris,
Larousse. Pp. 272-302.
Tajfel, €3. (1970) Aspects of national and
ethnic loyalty. SOC. Sc. Inform., 9,
113-144.
Tajfel, H., Flament, C., Billig, M. G . and
Bundy, R. P. (1971) Social categorisa-
tion and intergroup behaviour. Eur. 1.
SOC. Psychol., 1, 149-178.
Tajfel, H., Sheikh, A. A. and Gardner, R.
C. (1964) Content of stereotypes and
the inference of similarity between
members of stereotyped groups. Acta
Psychol., 22, 191-201.
Tajfel, H. and Wilkes, A. L. (1963) Classi-
fication and quantitative judgment.
Brit. J . Psychol., 54, 101-114.
Wilson, W., Chun, N. and Kayatani, M.
(1965) Projection, attraction and stra-
tegy choices in intergroup competition.
J . Pers. SOC. Psychol., 2, 432-435.
Zusammenfassung
In der ersten beiden Teilen des Artikels wird
differenziert zwischen einem Ansatz auf der
Grundlage von ‘Konflikt oder Interessenkon-
vergenz’ (Sherif) und einem ‘Kategorisie-
rungs’-Ansatz (Tajfel) im Bereich experimen-
teller Untersuchungen der Beziehungen zwi-
schen Gruppen. Einige neuere Untersu-
chungsergebnisse werden dargestellt und es
wird eine theoretische Fortentwicklung des
Kategorisierungsansatzes vorgeschlagen. Im
dritten Teil wird ein neues Experiment be-
schrieben, das die Relevanz des Kategorisie-
rungsansatzes aufzeigt.
Copyright of European Journal of Social Psychology is the property of John Wiley & Sons,
Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.