.~:~-:: .· . . ' .

t· ._; . .
t: ·------- ....

•
l

Co11structive and Critical

Advances

Editcd by

Don1inic Abra1ns and Michael A: Hogg

· · · struc
inwg
· res~

Il HARVESTER
WHEATSHEAF I
New York London rforonto Sydney Tokyo Singziporc
 70 Steve J-linklc and Rupert f3row11

Northern Europe and the United States. Our prediction is that once
rcsearch frces itsclf from thcse Westcrn-centric constraints, man y more
and new areas of fruitful applicability will be opcncd up for the theory.
~. Tri,1ndis cl 11/. (1988) suggcst that individualism~ollcctivism is cor·
rcbtcd with the task versus socio-cmotional aspects of group proccsscs
(collcctivists bcing more socio-cmotional). J\lthough this scems plaus-
5 Levels of analysis and
ible (sec section on task and socio-cmotional issues), wc bclievc that the social identity
corresponde nec between the two constructs may only be partial sin cc it is
possible to imagine collcctivist groups which arc strongly task oriented
(e.g. a tug-of-war team). Fabio Lorenzi-Cioldi nnd Willclll Doisc

LEVELS or EXPLANATION, LEVELS OF

1:; CATECOf\JZATION AND
SELfo-CATEGOl\IZi\TION Tl·l r:CWY (SCT)

One of the most in1porté:lnt Jssumption's of Tojfcl's social idcnlily

thcory bc<1rs on the distinction bet\vecn interpcrsonal and inter-
group behaviour (Tùjfel, 1978). Thcse ore two diffcrent kinds or
bchnviour represented by the extremes of n bipolar continuum,
which Me reloted to oppositions betvvcen self ond group, inciividu<1I
mobility and social change, interpersonal vori<1bility ë1nd within-
group hornogencity.
Turner cl ni. (1987: 45) spccify this notion of continuum by
dcvising a hiernrchicol mocicl of identities which, for conccptual
clélrity, is gencrnlly set out in tcrrns of only thrcc lcvels of self-
cntcgorization:
1. Supcrordinntc levcl of the self ns a human bcing;
2. Jntermcdi'1tc lcvel of in-group-out-group Ciilcgorization;
3. Subordinâlc lcvel of pcrsoni1l self-cotcguriz<ilion bi1scd on diffcr-
cntiations bctwcen oncsc!f as a unique individuJl Jnd othcr in-
::·-"'
group mcmbers.
These lcvcls distinguish, respectively, one's hurnan, sociJI and
persona! idcntity. Af1mctio11nl n11/ngo11is111, in Turner's terms, arises
betwcen the salience of one level of self-categorization and the
.. ;.. salience of other levcls. Salicnce of intergroup dif(crences Jt the
intermedinte level is supposcd to reduce or inhibit the perception
:•. 1
of intragroup differcnces at the Jowcr, pcrson0! lcvcl. Judgcrncnts
: 1
('
based on catcgoricnl mcmbership ovcrlook persor\êllly oricntëllcd
i
7l
 72 Fnbio Lorcnzi-Cio/di nnd Wil/c111 Doisc Lcvcfs of n11nlysis n11ri !~oc in/ id cul ily 73

self-conceptions nnd thwnrts self-other distinctions. Convcrscly, .,
iiltcntion directcd to individuals q11n individuùls to intcrpcrsonnl
';
uiffcrcnccs prccludcs intcrgroup bias. Snlicncc of the intermedinte
level of sclf-cntegorizntion is defincd ns 'the conditions under
which some specific group mcrnbership becomcs cognitively pre- " · · ;·
potent in self-perception to net 0s the immcdi0tc innucncc on per-
ception and behnvior' (Turner cf ni., 1987: 51). Thereforc, 'foètors
~· '.i
:;; which cnhnncc the snlicnce of ingroup-outgroup Cùtegorizntions
i!I tend to incrense the perceived identity (similMity, equivnlence,
··Table 5.1 The four lcvcls of nn<ilysis
·: 1. The first of thcsc levels of cxplilnntion is confined Io the stuciy of psycho-
.• ' logical or intrn-individui11 processcs which MC supposcd lo 0ccounl for
····the mnnncr in which nn individunl orgnnizcs his or her cxpcricncc of the
, .. ;.,-,.'social cnvironmcnt. Resctirch on the lrcnlrnent of complex inform;ilion
,,., . : · ·· or on cognitive bùlùncc exemplifies lhis kind of nppro.1ch.
2. ·/\second lcvcl is concerMd wilh inlcr-individuéll :1nd 'inlrélsitui1linn.-1I'
· processcs; the mnny cxpcrimcnts using g<1rnc n1;itriccs .1nd studiL'S of
· the nttributiorî of chnrncteristics to olhcrs <1rc represcnl<1llvc of lhis lypL"

j" iiJ
.::

i~ :
intcrchnngenbility) between self nnd ingroup mcmbers (nnd differ-
cncc from outgroup members) nnd so dc;1aso11n!ize i11divid11nl sc!f-
J'l'1n·111iv11 on the stercotypicn! dimensions which de fine the rclev'1nt
3. 'îhc third kind o( cxpl;inntion mi1kL S usl' of difkrcnccs in position or suc·
1

. , ".inl slntus ns inll.'rvcning Vùrii1blcs to i1CL'llunl for v,1rii1lions in situïlliuniil

..'.',. intcrnclions. Hure the individunls who pnrticipéltL' in the expl'rimcnls ilrl'
ingrou p membershi p. Deperso11n/iznfio11 ref ers to the process of self·. , no longer considcrcd to bl' inlcrchnngL'nblc. f\cccnt studics o( powl'r il nd
f :;i /1

!:; . ,.·, of socinl idcntity oftcn rcsort to cxpl<•n<"ltions of this kind.

~~ :
stercotyping" whercby people corne to perceive themselves more ns
the intcrchnngenb!c cxemplnrs of n social cntcgory than as unique 4~ Pinnlly, somc cxpcrimcnts nrc bnscd on i1n i1nïllysis of the gcncr;il con·
!.
t· '.ii
ii!
pcrsoniilities defined by their individun! differenccs from others
.1.

'·"
1
• • ccptions o( so.cinl rclntîons \vhich individut1ls bring \Nith.thcni into lhe
!il1
:·1
(p. 50). .. ~· cxpcrirncnlnl siluntion nnJ thl'y show more pïlrlicuLHly how such
f ''.I To sum up, sé1lience of group membership is n dynnmic pheno- .. . univcrsnlizcd idcologicnl bclicfs result in diffcrcnti<itcd, indccd dis-
!!il .criminiltory, rcprcscntillions wnd bchwviours.
f 1
1Î
mcnon iind is defincd ns n psycho!ogicnl process which implies the .. , .. .
: :.1. c!cpersonnliz<llion of self-perception. lt is thcrefore 0ssumed .to
l~ l l'xprcss i1 change in the Jcvel of abstrnction of sclf-cntegorizntion · '" (Doisc, 1981) thl1t such intri1individui11 il!îi11yscs Me to be complclcd
from the personnl to the socinl level, thnt is, 'n sl11fl lownrds the by the study of intcrindividuill dyni1ll1ics, for cxi1rT1ple intcrdcpen-
perception of self ns nn intcrchangenble excmp!ar of some social, dent nctivity in ordcr to rcnch n common go<il, of positionl11 dfects,
en tcgory and awny from the perception of self as a unique person. for .exnmple between group stntus differenccs, and of the inter-
defincd by individunl differenccs from others' (Turner cl ni., 1987: •. . . :, .. vention of general social beliefs such ns the just world pilrndigm.
50). ( .:: ·<. · Also/ the, more·rccent · self·Cêltegorizntion mode! hns to be
I' Self-cntegorization thcory is clearly inspired by cognitive models articulated with other explnnzi tory modcls. Su ch articuln tions of
li. su ch ns Rosch's (1978) hierarchical inclusiveness system, or Navon's . ·explnnations. will be developed in the rest of the chnptcr.
; ::,!il (1977) proposnl of incompn tibility betwcen the nttention dircctcd to ..
globnl (cntcgory's) and Jocill (mcmbcrs') fcntures. in. individuaL.
··........ Studieshnvc shown thnt SCT bcMing on intcrgroup diffcrcn-
tintion and intragroup homogcncity npplies well to Vl1rious field
: ~i 1 socii'd cognitions. · (Widdicombc, 1988) and experimcntnl scttings, but not to 011 of
!~ '
. !'1 Such models, to use Doisc's (1984; 1986) description of lcvcls of them (Brown and Willinms, 1981). Doise and Lorcnzi-Cioldi (1989)
expl0n0tion in sociêll psychology (sec Tnblc 5.1), nrc clcnrly located arg'uc in fovour of a plurzilistic approzich wherc different patterns of
<lt the intrn-individunl !cvel (Ch<1pter 2 in this volume). Croup for~ within-grot1p Jnd betwcen·group differentintion MC CnVÎS<lf;Cd.
rn<ltion is stuciicd by SCT ns <1 psychologicnl proccss in which 'the Empiricill rcscMch should therefore ilÎm ilt <lsccrtl1ining unclcr
individunl org0nizes cognitively his/her expericncc of socinl rc<1lity .. which conditions thesc pnttcrns ilppcJr.
ln th0t scnse, the ex pin na tory nppronch is simi!tlr to the one Tnjfel
(Té1jfc I, 1969; Tnjfcl nnd Wilkes, 1963; Tnjfcl, Sheikh and Gnrdner, ·'
1

1964) used in the cMly l 960s to account for cognitive nspects of . ASYMMETRIES or JN-GROUP AND OUT-CROUP
intcrgroup irriages. The mode! he used wns originated by research HOMOGENElTY
or\ the 0ccentul1tion of contrnsts in qunntit<1tivc judgcments and hns
bcen proved to be very usdul for il bettcr undcrstanding of inter- ·· .:.,; <·As SCT denls with nntélgonîstic lcvcls of idcnti ty, it implies focusing
!• group diffcrcntiêltion processes. Howevcr, it hos nlso bccn shown 1 in turn on diffcrent kinds of percept uni vl1riJtions: on the one hi1nd,
!. i·
!
 71i Fnl1io Lorcnzi-Cioldi n11d Wi/lc111 Doise
the socilll lev el is conccived of us lellding to é\cccntulltion of bctwcen-
group diffcrenccs nnd within-group similnritics é\nd on the othcr
hnnd, the pcrsoné\l level is conccived of ns blurring betwcen-group .
:.1 boündnrics élnd é\S enh<lncing within-group vnriations.
Acccntuntion of group homogcneity is n wcll-known pheno-
mcnon. Since Ké\tZ nnd I3rnly's (1933) work on group stereotypes,
mllny studics hnvc dcmonstrnted thnt out-groups nrc oftcn pcr-
ceived ,1s undifferentit1ted, piirticulnrly whcn perccivers hé\ve liltle.
prior knowlcdgc nbout out-group members. A more rcccnt body of
rcsct1rch hns, howcvcr, shown thilt intcrpersorrnl differentintion
nnd homogcncity c<tn Mise concomitnntly, depending on whcthcr,
they relt1tc to the in·group or ton relcvM1t out-group (Simon nnd ·.
!3rown, 1987; Mullcn nnd Hu, 1989). ln-group differcntintions nt the
pcrsonnl lcvel mostly nccompnny nn undiffcrenti<1tcd perception of
ou t-grou p mcmbcrs. Othcr things bcing cqui11, in pnrticulnr, groups'
status ë1nd internction contcxts, out-groups nre perccivcd ns for more
homogcncous nnd dcpcrsonnlized thnn in-groups (Marques, this
.!i book; Pùrk nnd Rothbnrt, 1982). This is rcprescnted by the formuln
~ :11
~il.1.~ 'they <1ll look nlikc, but we don't'. A possible explnnntion is thnt ,.
j ·1:; diffcrent lcvcls of rntegoriwtion nrc simultùncously used by group
mcrnbcrs to encode informntion pcrtnining to their own group nnd ·' ·
to the othcr group. Superordinëlte nnd undiffcrcnti<tted lcvcls of
· C<1tcgoriz<1tion <1rc USL'd to encode out-group behnviours, whcrens,.
in-grnup clnssifirnlions lnkc inlo nccount more subordinnte <1nd dif-, <
fl'rcnli,1ted rntegorics. The self is possibly one of such importnnt :.:
subordin<1tc cntegorics. Sclf-othcrs differcntintions ~ould be per~, .
ceptu(llly compntible with in-group identity, evcn when in-group-·:"
uut-group cutegorizntion is mndc snlicnt. Current dcfinitions of. ...
persona! versus socinl lcvels of identity scem thcrefore to suffer from · ·
excessive simplicity. A crucial question is how interpersonnl vnri- .
(lbilily relûtes to overnll group homogeneiti in predictnble ways. · .,
ln nn extensive review of resenrch cvidcncc, Qun ttronc (1986) ··
distinguishcs three ûspects of varinbility. Di111c11sio11nl vnrinbi!lty·'',.·
rcfers to beliefs <1bout how the mcmbers of a group nre distributcd' ·
(l\ong cach of severnl psychologicnl dimcn?ions. Tnxonomic vari-
nbility is rL'l<1tcd to the cxtcnt lo which such psychologicnl dimcn·
sions or <1ttributcs vnry concomilnntly: the higher the corrclntion
·:.\ ,1mong nt tribu tes which arc ch<1rncteristic of a group, the fewer pcr- .
sonality types (Ire rccogniz.cd within the group. Convcrse!y, whcn
> 1
thesc <1ttributcs do not cov(lry, more subtypcs c<1n be distinguishcd
within the group. foinl1lly, genernl vnrinbility is oftcn mensurcd by
sirnply Jsking subjccts <1bout the group's ovcrall degrce of per·
ccived diversity (sec nlso Lin ville, f-ischer ë1nd Snlovey, 1989).
,:.
. ·-- -- ..... -- ... . -
~
---···- ..
Lcvcls of n11nlysis ()Il(/ social idc11/i!y 75
. Mnny. intcrprctt1tions of in-group-out-group 11symrnetry in
. homogeneity hnvc bcen offercd, 11ccording lo the kind of VJrit1bility
·· conception involved. Thesc intcrpret11tions nrc of n more cognitive
nature, or rclnte to more situntional or soci<11 dyni1mics. Sti1rting
· with an information-processing nppronch, it héls bccn stated th,1t
..":}~ernost.efficient Jcvcl of inclusiveness éldoptcd by individu<1ls in
..... ; .. order,to maximize knowlcdge about othcrs is some sort of in ter-
.. ;, ·.;.:.,.,.;mcdinte clnssification lcvcl (Rosch, 1978). Dctwccn-pcrsons differ-
ences nrc informôtionë1lly richcr but arc to be considcrcd lcss
· · ·' efficient for man y pu rposcs. Dut, ns far JS rr1cm bers of rclcvi.1 nt in-
grou ps are concerncd, frequcnt exposurc cnhonccs fir1cr diffcren-
. tintions within thcsc groups nnd thcreforc fovours personnlizi1lion
. of rcprescntnllons. But thls expl<1nation docs not sccm v,1!id for rcp-
. rcscntntions of out-group mcmbcrs: numbcr of known out-group
excmp!C1rs flnd frequcncy of cxposurc sccrn not to be the prim<1ry
· ·. dctcrminnnts of the in·group-out-group osymmctry in pcrccptuc:il
homogeneity. Pnrk nnd RothbiHt (1982), for instoncc, found thc:it
nlthough bctwcen-gcndcr encountcrs Cùn be rcnsonably êlssumcd
to be ns frcquent ns wi thin-gcnder oncs, in-grou p-ou t·grou p
nsymmetry of pcrccived homogcncity of gendcr groups stil\ occu rs.
·'·The problcm cnn pcrhêl ps be bcttcr stn tcd in terms of the rnle
.· ~··pJ<1ycd by soclol contexts or sociiil intcrJctions potlcrns. lntcq.~roup
· : encountcrs most oflen takc pl11ce within êl somc\vh0t limilcd ri1ngc
of situntions (Qunttrone, 1986). Members or both groups <1re bound
. bY constrnining roles, espccit1lly whcn thcy 0re lnvo\vcd in corn-
.·, pctitivc rclntions which give ri se to ri consistent mode of rcspond ing.
·• · ·~onver~ely, vnricd intcrnctions contcxts which undcrlic in-group
· tnlernct1on.s prcvclît mcmbcrs of thcse groups from high degrecs of
',,,,,....... uniformi.ty: Notice thzit. this is One mnjor rczison <ldVOCé\ted by Gcm
nnd Allen (1974) for explziining the pervJsiveness of implicit con-
··ccptions about individunls. lmplirntions of thcsc proccsscs <1rc sclf-
pcrpctuatlng beliefs. On the one hnnd1 JS individunls scldom ht1ve
ncccss to subordinntc nt tribu tes of out-groups, pcrceptuzd homog-
encity usunlly substanti<1tcs itself. On the othcr hélnd, countcr-
stcreotypic bch0viournmong ou tgrou p membcrs, i.e. individuil ting
informJtion, is likely to be explë1incd znvay viù attribution proccsscs,
such ns putting fonvMd situt1tiont1! innucnccs or individu()! cxccr-
tions to the rulc (Hewstone nnd Brown, 1986b).
· Complcx mixtures of homogencity Jnd diffcrcnti<1lion cc:in Jiso
nrisc depcnding on the nature of intcrgroup rclùtions, J\ccorci-
ing to Quêlltronc (1986: 26), 'group rncrnbcrship pcr se is (l lcss
critic0l dctcrmin<1r1t th(ln is the n,1turc of the intcrJctions one h0s
with the mL'rnbcrs of t1 group. [... j Thus t1 group regardcd ,15
--
.... -~-----........... -
... ~-"-----

76 Fn/.Jio Lorc11zi-Civldi 1111rl Willc/JI Doisc
hetcrogeneous in one context may in another be regarded é1S relit~·
tively homogencous'. M,rnipulating rel a tionships' con texts ca n
!end to modulations of diffcrentintion patterns. . ,...
A study cnrricd out by Judd and Pûrk (1988) examined judge- :·.
ments of vMinbility Jt both the individual nnd group lcvets in
diff erent settings of intergroup relations. Subjects leMnt personnl:
information (namc, major, hometown, etc.) nbout nn equal nurnber
of in-group nnd out-group membcrs, in one of two conditions of.-
<1nticipntcd co-operntion or competition. The two groups wcre rnn-:,.
domly crentcci nftcr subjecls responded lo the e1nbedJed figure test .
nnd werL' l0belted 0s figure nnd ground, Subjccts nwved sub· ...
sequently to glob\'\l varinbility estirné1tcs of the group on some .. ·
dimensions, <1S wcll 0s to" recnll test of individuating informntion
<1bout group mcn1bers. Results showed that nt the gro.up lcvcl, in-
grnup vnrinbility estima tes were not nffccted by cxpenrncntnl con-
·ditions, whcrells out-group oncs wcrc. /\s expccted, nntidpntion of
competilion enhnnccd perccptunl out-group homogcneity. At the
individuéll lcvcl, rncn1ory for out-group but not for in-group n1cn1-
bers' chMnclerislics wns ïtffectcd by intergroup rel<1tions: Surpris-
ingly, recal! of individunting inform<1tion nbout out-group mcmbcrs
wns for bettcr in the competition than in the co-opcrntion condition.
Furthcrmorc, in the competition condition_, the more subjccls
showl'ci nn out-group homogeneity effect nt the gruup level, the
more they tcnded to have better memory for out-group mcmbers, ~.
rcl<1 live to in-grou p on es, nt the personnl levcl. lndeed, the p<1ttern of
results prod ucing global ou t-group homogcneity nnd personnl iclen-
tific0 tion errors wns found in the co-opcrativc but not in the corn-·
1. petit ive situntion. Tnken as n whole, thcsc resulls clenrly show how
intergroup rellltionships rcgulntc pntterns of differentiation. lnJudd
,,
111:.
jl
nnd Park's study, whcn the group boundnrics were madesharpcr ""
. ;:, and perhaps more consequential (competition condition), the in-
•. i·i grou p-out-group nsymmetry in homogencity occurs in pnrntlel with
the s<1liencc of pcrson<ll nnd differcntiating out-group perception.
:I:' l'o concludc this section on 0syrnmctrics in in-group-out-group
·il
homugl'llcity: just ns it wns the cnse for the nccentuntion of judge-
1m1nl<1l rnntr<1sts in prcvious studics, wc fnce ngnin nn explélnnlory
problem. The self-catcgorizït tion model of nn in trn-individua! organ-
!
1 izing process docs not dcscribc exhnuslively the conditions which
1 MC ncccssary for its nctualizéllion. [n pnrticular, it docs not dcscribe
i the conditions which ôccount for the foct thnt the process is only
pc1rtly llctivntcd or intcrvencs diffcrently in the pcrèeption of in-
group-out-group membcrs. The ncxt section will show thnt this is
·nlso the CélSC for the gcndcr schcmêl.
. ~i ·{· ;· ,·,::,.-:. . •/.\''•. . ....·.« ..
..:. . : ~L . ~>-·-·----~---·.
Lcvcls of nnnlysis nnd social irf.c11tity 77
.-ASYMMETRIES IN THE fUNCT!ON!NG or THE
.. ": ... GENDER SCHEM/\
· Studics conccrning gcnder groups rclc1tions providc ;1bundirnl
· ·. opportunilics to illustrJtc cornplex patterns o( di(fcrcntiJtion. Gcn-
dcr idcntity is usuzilly dcfineci ilS nn untlrticu!Jted, globzil scnsc o(
onc's mnlencss or fcrnnlcness th<lt is êlCC)uircd cirly in li(c ilncl is
considcrcci to be rc!Jtivcly impcrrnc,1ble to chilngc. ClcM!y, it is
n group-lcvcl dcfincd concept (Willinms, 198·1; 1\brnrns, 1%%).
· Ncverthclcss, beyond clnssicJl <1nd well-cst0blishecl rntegorizJtion
cffects, processcs pcrtJining to gender cliffercntiations prcscnt
m<lny p<lllerns which ore not envisilged by SCT. Empiric<1l rcscilrch
bùscd on the rcccnt gender schernél theory h,1s rcveilled somc un-
expcc!cd, but qui te consistent rcsults.
.. Gendcr schcmntic processing refcrs to a 'gcncrJ!ized rcilciincss to
encode nnd to organizc informiltion, including informiltion il boui
1
.... •
the self nccording to the culturc's definitions of rnn!cncss 0nd
fcmaleness' (Dcm 1985: 186). Thcreforc, this mode! ossurncs that
- individunls diffcr in their tendcncy to use gcnclcr JS an orgMlizing
principlc ln perceptions nnd behnviours: people diffcr in the cz1sc
· · wi th which. givcn soci<i l schcmù t<1 mny be nroused. Scx- typccl
· · individunls nrc mnlcs nnd fcmales whose self-conceptions vJry
..: rnninly nlong a stereotypical nnd bipo!élr milsculinity-femininity
..· dimension. They mnke use ·of gcnder scherné1 to n gren ter cxten t
thcin individunls classified ns élndrogynous or undiffercntiated. The
.lnttcravoid gcndcr schcmn proccssing while being open to nltcrnil-
'.tivc.c!nssificntory possibilities, including more pcrson<1! or idiosyn·
...
·.cm tic oncs (Bern, 1981 ). Finnlly, fit ting SCT' s de fini lion of n grou p
,.>as a psychologicEd process, scx~typing rcfcrs to the internaliziltion
of self-dcfining sociôl Céltegorizôtions. Scx-typed individunls thcrc-
·.forc satisfy the <lssurnption of é1 shift of snliencc f rorn the individu0!
· towMds n more collective lcvel of idcntity. f3ut if SCT c<1n be con-
. sidcred relcvnnt for intcrprcting rnilny rcsults obt.1incc! within thi:;
· ·nrea1 sorne rcsults ng<1in stress the nccessitv of ê\ccountin~ for
<lsymmctrics not cnvisngecl by SCT. , ,,
F;nble nnd Bern (1985) Jsked subjccts to listcn to él ti1pc rccorcling
of six people (thrcc m<1les, thrce fcrmlcs) lé1lking nbout their every-
dély lifc in the university c<1mpus (sevcnty-two stiltcmcnts on the
whole). As e,1ch person spoke, él slicie of his/her supposed photo-
. graph ~ns projcctcd on <1 screen. /\fter listcning to the lêlpc rccorcl-
ing, côch subjcct wns givcn all the six photogrnphs élS wcll zis n
· rnndomlzcd list of nll s!ntcments from the discussion. The tr1sk for

78 Fnbio Lorc11zi-Cioldi nnd Wille111 Doisc
the subjccts was to match the statcmcnts with the nppropriate
photogr<iphs. . . .. . . . ·
Subjccts made two diffor~nt ktnds of 1dent1[1cn t10~ crr.ors: w1thm-,
sex crrors, that is, confusing people who nrc nl1ke in tcrms of,
gl'ncler (for cxomple, mole A with mzdc D)~ ond cross-scx crrors,
thilt i.s, confusing people who nre different Jn ternis of gL'ndcr (for··,;:·''
l'Xample, femalc A with mùlc A). Frnble ond Dcm rcporlcd that
within-sex errors wcrc for more frcguent than cross-sex errors,
cvcn when the spcnker' s scx ma tchcd the subject's sex. Ungues- -. :.· .
tionélbly, this finding ctin be cxplained by the normal cntcgorizntion .
process.
FrJble JIH.i Gcn1 then divided subjects into sex-rolc subgroups
(svx-typed, i1ndrogynous, nnd cross-scx-typed subjects), nccording
to thcir previous responses on the !km Sc~ Ro!e ln~cntory nnd
rnrnpMcd identification crrors mnde by subJects of d1ffcrent sex-.
rolc groups, laking into nccount the scx of the speaker (snme as or
· diffcrcnt from the sex of the subject). This nnalysis revcaled that
sex·typed individuals made significnntly Jess within-sex crrors
when the scx of the spenkcr m<itched their own (the in-group) thnn
whcn it did not (the out-group). Although it cnn be nssumcd thnt
fur thcse subjccts the in-grau p-ou t-group en tegorlzntion wns pnrtic-
u lnr! y sa lient, this snliency did not prevent them from pnying ntten-
tion to other in-group mcmbersqun individuc1.ls while homogenizing
out-group membcrs. The emcrgcnt pnttern of diffcrentintion is ·
i1).;i1in n mixed one, whcre personalizntion of in-group members
,111d lrnmogcncity of out-group members arise concomitnntly.
üthcr findings nlso confirm this obscrvntion. ln Tunnell's (1981) .
expcrimen t, fcrnélle subjects made similnrlty judgements nbout
pL'rsons whom thcy kncw, but who occupicd diffcrent rolcs. Scx-
tn1ed fernêl!es, rc!ëltive to nndrogynous ones, pcrccived intcrgroup
(m'11c-femêlle) targcts as being very diffcrent one from nnother, but ·
also in-group tnrgets (femnlc-femnle) werc perceivcd to be cqunl!y
diffcrcnt. ln contrnst, out·group (mélle-mnle) tnrgets wcre judged
élS being vcry similnr. ·· · · .. ship groups mninly on lhe bi1sis of the• following critt:ri,1: domin,1nt
ln an L'Xpcrimcnt rcportcd by !3em (1981, stucly 1), subjccts wcre
prvsc'n tcd n rnndom scqucncc of sixty-onc words, including proper,
nnimn!, nnd nrtlc!cs of clothing nnmes; plus verbs. H(llf of the
prnpcr 11él111<:s wcre femininc, the othcr hnlf m(lsculinc. Of the
rl'tn<1ining thrce semnntic cntegories, onc-third of the nnmes werc
prL vious!y judged <is mnsculinc, onc-third ns femininc nnd nnother
1
third .1s ncutrnl by n p<1rent popu!ntion. The subjccts wen: nskcd to
l'l'lïlll 11s mùny words ns thc y could, in nny ore.for. Dependcnt
1
v;1 ri'1bll's consistcd o( g~ndcr clustering, thn t is, sex connota lions of .~.···
·.·::·
Lroc!s of ana!ysis nnrl soc in! ide ni ily 79
. . . · segùential pnirs of recalled vvords. Two types of gendcr clustcring
were counted: withi11 domZlins (e.g. gorilln-cagle, bikini-nylon) (lnd
ncross domnins (c.g. Jo~rn-bikini, goril!ë1-trouscrs). lt follows thJt
gcndcr c!ustcring across domains rcvenls a sh'1rpcr milsculirw-
fcminine.diChotomy ln the proccsscs involving rcmcmbcrinF,, i.e'. it
ovcrlooks domilin distinctness, \vhc.'r<.'<is \Vithin-dornùin clustcri;H;
indicntcs the prcscncc of i1 gendcr categoriuttion which rcspcct~s
1
,:... ,. •
betwecn domnin distinctncss. Ag<iin élnd not surprisingly, rcsL:lts
·' showcd thn t gcnder clustering ùS n vvhole (wi t hin pl us êlcross) occu r-
rcd mo,rc.frcqucntly in scx-typcd thnn in îindrogynous subjccls. 1\11
.)ntcrcsting finding however, is th.11 scx-typcd m.1lc subjccls m.1ck
· ,~significêlnt!y more gcndcr within-domilins c!ustcring th<111 othcr
·< mnle subjccts, whcrc.1s fcmél!c sex-typcd subjccts mùdc more
.. , •·.· ;: · gcncicr ncross-domilins cluster!ng thJn other feméllc subjccls. This
.effcct illustrntcs the way gcnder cntcgorizntion in rcmembcring etn1
· ·· '_... occur cithcr in opposition or in concert with subtypcs diffcrentizi-
tion, thzit is, with other featurcs of c<itegory mcmbers and it éllso
shows thnt men nnd women diffcr in the w,1y they i1ctuJlize gcndcr
· schcmnt<i. Thcse rcsults nrc in linc with extensive mélin <1nci contin-
.· gent empiricnl outcomcs which consistcntly suggcst lhwt, i111 things
bl'ing cqunl, g·endcr-schern€ltic (in·group-out-group) thinking is
, more widespreêld in femêllcs than in· rnnles (Lorcm.i-Cioldi 1988:
51-65). This is sometimcs intcrprctcd to be,, conscciucncc o( sl,1tus
or sociêll rolcs differcnces bctwccn gcndcr Cïltegorics (L1gly, 1%7).
Tl lE EXPEfWv!ENTAL STUDY or COLLECTION /\ND
AGGREGA TE GI<OUPS
Different · degrces of within-group pcrceptu11l homogencity in
dumin(lnt nnci domin€ltcd groups hnvc bccn reportcd by Lorl'nl'.i·
'. ·~ioldi (1988). Hcnccforth, tnking within-group vnri<1bîlity ils ,111
. · indcpcndcnt vorii1blc, one c0n cxpcri111enttilly elicit such rnembcr-
; : · ... or col/cclion groups are sociéll ci1teg.ories conslilutcd by individu<1ls
'.1'
pl'rceiving themselves élS distinct one from M\othcr. ln <1 CL'r!,1i11
1:.
· ,scnsc, thcy Mc typlrnl even before their insertion in" group, for ex-
î
. ! , .. .,'/ nmple nrtists. Domintited or nxsrcxote groups comprise individu<1ls
defining thcmselvcs primMily by ho!istic fc'1turcs which distinguish
thL'ir group frnm otlK'r groups '1S such, but which m<1ke ,1t the s<1mL'
tirne in-grnup mc mbers nnd püll'nti<d in-group subtypcs more
1
':.:similnr one to nnother nt the pcrsonéll lcvcl, for L'Xélmplc nursing
t
stnff. Socin! and pcrsonêll individunls' identitics Mc rcléltcd in somc
 ···.· .
'',
··~- .. ·--·- .. -·.

80 Fnl1io Lorc11zi·Cio/di and Wi/lc111 Doisc Levcls of nnnly:;is n11d socin/ idrntity 81

wny to this group typology, respectively nggregnte and collection · ;,.
groups. Moreover, the typology provides a framework for devising ·
cxperimentnl memberships. This would lead to the genernl expec-
tation of éln homology betwcen identitles observed in experimcntnl, :
membcrships, nnd idcntitics rclntcd to li'lsting oncs, for exMnple
gcndcr groups. Proccsscs clicitcd by cxpcrirncntnl memberships · ··
should fit to sornc cxtcnt proccsscs obscrved within the snmc
subjects îlCcording to thcir gcndcr; for nn nmdysis involving nn
·· 'specificnlly. This condition wns n«rn1c:d i11diuiriu11/is111. Jn thL' otlwr
condition, thc .. cxperimenter mnde the subjccts bclicve thnt nli the
. ·rùembers of n group would gct the samc nurnbcr of points, thnt is,
,,; .. ·;,,,,the mcnn of the points nttributeci by i'lil the subjects to ,111 thl' mL'm·
. . . " '·· ;, bL•rs of lhnl group. ln this condition, the rnL'mbl'rship to 0 gmtip is
'·· ct:'rirly cvoked nnd is n;imcd fusion (Desch0mps ilnd LorTi1zi-
· · Ciolci11 1981). l-IL'ncc1 this ViHi0blc in!roduces, in îl1wlhl'r w 0v 1h.rn
..collection nnd nggregtlte, the IL vcl of selî, which dc0ls with,intL•r·
1

i'lnnlogous type of rcnsoning, sec the E<igly's social-role hypotl,1csis.,; pcrsonnl.hctcrogcneity nnd the lcvcl of group, which de,1is with
(Eagly 1 1987). · ·· · intcrindividuiil homogcncity: ·
We investigated this conjecture in n study using n. vnri~nt. ~f . 1. Considering our two-fold typology of socinl groups, two grnl'r;il
Tnjfcl's rninimnl group pnréldigm (Tnjfcl et nf.1 1971). Clnssicnl . , . . 'vvcrc formulntcd: .·.
results with the points 1 élllocntion tnsk on mntriccs consistcntly ... ·: .:. · ·.Ar . · '· . . , . . . .. .
show tlrnt subjects ndopt strntcgies lcading to bctween-groups · 1. . · . ·" ,'· g$rcgntc g\~U ping refcrs to the soc1<1l l.cvcl of 1dcn t1f1cJ t1on; col-
. · · · · f f h 1 M · b' t .... , · · · ·.'·" · lect1on grouping relates to.both the soc1nl lcvel <1nd the pcrsonnl
discnminél t1on in nvour 0 t c r own group. orcovcr, s.u Je~ s are,,:,·<'/''''.'.;;;,,;,~;.·:. ·,.... 1.(; 1 ;•'.:tr"·:,,:.,::~ohè"' Ho\.v'evcr both ri re il t d li . '
oftcn rc<1dy to give up part of their winnings ln ordcr to keep a ....<,::,;'(."·:· '. ,-:,::·.:.:.:1{.;·~:t:~-.,.:,br'n'.'' ·nd' ·.d 1 t · 'gg ~' e nn co .ection groups shoulci
1 1
maximnl distinction, a positive differentiation betwcen .their own ·, . ,...,,:,::;'' ,::- 1:·''.·::·•: ''~'!'"\t··M
groupand theothergroup. . .. . . .. . ····:."··'
1
:'
1
: kÎ 8
.:.-'.·th:'.',-.1·"'"··~ . ~::,.:·'.:·'':·~ •:. a n
1
·g ~'. · u~ s d~ exprc;ss in}e.rg~?L:~ bif. 5 · l. ld
1
.
n.1cn n imens1on o. in iv1 ~n is:n s10u. êlct1v;itL' <i
.
After n tnsk of mnking nesthetic i'udgements (choicc betwecn two " , psyc.hologi~nl pro:css 0 ~ grou P f~rmn tion, JUS! <is in SCT docs
composcrs ), su bJCC. ts wcrc en tcgonzc
· d <ts bc longing
· t o one o f t wo . ' ·mnktng
· ·. . . snlient
. n d1rnens1on of fusion or ciepL'rson0liz0tion
- ·
groups. In one cnsc, the subjccts' collective mcmbcrship wns . Thcsc gcnernl expcctntions c<1n ilftcnv<1rds be qu,1!i(iccl by mL'm·
surposeci to procccd from the individunl llCSthetiC prcfcrcnCCS they ~ bers' gcncicr. Â hornologous rcL1tion shoulci turn up bclWL'L'll,
just cxprcsscd: the groups wcre nnmcd nftcr the choscn composer.·' .. , .... :rcspecti.vcly, gcnder gr~ups (nrnle n1H.l fl'nvilc subjccts) ;rnd cxpl'ri-
Thcsc wcre the collection groups. In the second cnsc, the expcri·' ,.mentïd gr.°ups,(collect1on ilnd ilggreg0tc). Thnt is, mille subjccls
rncntcr tolci the subjccts thnt they did not rcnch a prefcrencc nnd it - ._, ........ (tl1e. ~orn;nnnt group) should bcttcr fit cl;issicêll minirn,11 group
wns nn nrbitrnry dccision of the experimenter which dccided of . . pnr~~1gm ~ rcsults \;~en thcy bclong to" collection group or ,1rl' in
ench subject's membership ton group, en lied red or blue. This nnmc. .... 1nd1v1dunl1sm cond1t1on. Pcmêlle subjects (the domin0tcd gnn 11))
is n simple lnbel which docs not rcfcr to the choiccs made and hence should bctte.r fit lho~c. re~ults when they bclong to nn aggrcg,1 ~c
to the individual's spccificity. Thcsc wcrc the aggrcgate groups;·": .:., group or fusion cond1t1on. . . ..
The subjccts thcn carried out the points' shnring task with ·the~ . ·:.'..''_'.'.:~''..,)~~~ults_'~vill bL' considcred from the stélncipoint of glob 01 intcr-
m<1triccs conceived by Téljfel nnd Flnment. The matrices indude two·,.. .. ;,,group discrimin<1l ion (Lorenzi-Cioldi, 1988) nnd frum th,1t of ll
!Mgets: oneself nnd nn nnonymous person who is a member either.;,.,1.,,r.•."''•''-'.-. pnrticulnr strnlL'gy of discriminéltion, i.e. rn.1ximum diffL'rL'llCL' in
of one's own group or of the other group. The out-group wns · ·. ·· -f?vour of self (T11jfL l et nl. 1971). St0rti11g from thl' rcsponses, wc
1
1

ëllwêlys the other nggrcgntc group for nggregntc subjects, nnd the .-
othcr collection group for collection subjects. The two types of
groups hnd bccn induced in ciiffcrcnt contexts. Thcre were con-.
scqucntly no internctions, whcther rcal or symbolic1 bctwcen the ·
mcmbers of the two types of groups, collection nnd nggregnte. Ench
cxperimcntnl group included boys and girls, aged thirteen to fifteen
yc<trs.
Anothcr personal-levcl variable was introduced at this stage. In
one condition, the subjccts were told that the points thcy wcre
going to give to cnch individunl would be given to th ose pcrsons,
· · :· f1rst c<1lculntcci 11 globnl index o( di.scrirnintition bclWL'L'll cxpcrirm·n·
. tiil groups.
·:.. , Wc sh~ll firsl consicicr rcsults of the c0tcgori7.ntion v;iri0bk, thi!I
. 1s collect1on élnci nggrcgZltc rncmbcrships. The.se Mc shown in T.1bk·
5.2. This tnble shows th,1 t the in-gn.rn~1 biiis dues not globnlly ciirf er
bctwccn conditions. Ncvcrtheless, it tends to diffcr bctwccn L)oys
and girls (F(l,98) = 3.10; p<O. 10). The ovcriill mclln shows nol
·.. surprisingly (Tur0cr, !3rown nnd Tnjfel, 1979) thnt girls nrc foirer
.. thnn boys, Ccncier·rntcgorizntion inter;iction nppro;ichcs stntistirnl
· significnnce (F(l, 98) = 2. 77; fi<O. l 0). Alt hough boys nnd gi ris do no!
 82 Fabio Lorc11zi-Cioldi nnd Willcm Doisc UV~'ls of n11nlysis n11d socinl irlc11tity 83
Table 5.2 Mc<1n intcrgroup bins index bctwccn Maximum dlfloronco: MD on MS + MJP
cxpcrimcnti1l groups for collection nnd i1ggrcgntc
subjccts nnd for boys nnd girls
Ctitcgoriz<1tion
Sex Collection Aggrcgatc Totals
Boys 2.91 1 1.35 2.20 2
Girls 0.06 1 1.13 0.46 2
Totnls 1.61 1.26 1.46 o Colloction groups
Nole. SnirL's c.in rnngl' bl'lWl'l'n + 12 .1 nd - 12, " high SClHL' a
lndic.1ll'S thl' int0rgrour biM•.
M0<ins ~h;1ring., subscrirt di(fl'r signl(icnnlly.
1'
,. '
o AggrO\jato groups 0
----0
1
11<0.05 S-Olf·ln S-Olf·out S-Olf·in S-Olf-ovt
, p<0.10 1!: boys girls

diffcr in the nggrcgntc mcmbcrship, thcy grcatly differ collection in l ,,,.,

membershrp: boys mnkc greatcr intcrgroup discriminntion than
girls (/(55) = 2.33; p<0.05). for boys, the in-group bins tends to
diminish in the nggrcgi'lte condition, nnd for girls it tends to in··
crensc in this lnttcr condition. A social position, Jikc the foct thnt
subjccts Mc men or womcn, contributes to givc mcnnings to th~ ..
mcmbcrships dcploycd in the minimnl group pnradigm. . .. ,.....
Considcr rcsults of the othcr cxpcrimcntal varinble, thnt is
individunlism nnd fusion. T11ble 5.3 illustrntcs the rcsults, the index
bcing c<1 lculn tcd 11s bcfore, which now show thn t individunlism, but.
not fusion, gives risc to 11 differcnce bctwecn boys 11nd girls (/(44) == ·
2.1; J><0.05). Thcrcforc, the individunlism versus fusion varinble ·.
produces cffccts which nrc qui te similar to thosc of the .c?llcction.
versus aggregiltc VMiable.
· · f-'igure 5.1 The collecllon ond ;iggrcg;1 te vnri;1blc.
.. 'Let .us rio·w 'c(rnsider 11 .pnrticu lnr strn tcgy. The most ci<1ssici1 I cl is-
cusscd strntcgy is mi'lximum diff crcncc (n1oximu m di ff crcncc versus
•', .\ . 'maximum self plus moximum joint profit). Rcsults for the co!lcction-
nggrcg11te .vurinblc nnd for the individué!lisrn-fusion Vélrié!blc i'lrc
·. i: ·; .:.·. :.-::\ · presented on Figu rcs 5.1 n nd S. 2/ rcs pcctivcl y. The se figu rcs show
· i1 . :·'the.menns of this strntcgy for rnoles nnd for fcm11lcs in Cilch of the
•'"'·'":cxpcdmc1iti1l:·éonditions. St<disticnl intcri'lctions bctwcrn gc11dcr
·nndench of,t hc .cxpcrimcn tri! Vil rinblcs nrc highly sign ifie<1 nt:
Maximum difforonco: MO on MS+ MJP
.5
0

Table 5.3 Mcnn intcrgroup bins Index bctwccn " ''' 4 -

cxpcrimcntnl groups (or individualistic nnd .·.§ '
fusion subjccts nnd for boys nnd girls ..g '
:n
Condition ~' 3
Scx lndividunlism Fusion Totnls ~.
: ::; ~ .2 -- o lndividunlisrn 0
. ;;; Ooys 2.29 1 2.13 2.20 2
Girls -0.65 1 1.69 0.46 2 o Fusion o-.___o
TotJls 0.88 1. 97 1.46
Nnlt'. /\ high scnrl' lndlrnll':i lhc inll rgroup bins.
1 Solf·in Solf·oul Solf·in S-Olf-out
ML'ans sh.1ri11g" subscripl di(fcr ~ignificnnlly. boys girls
1
11<0.05
~ Ji<0.10 rigurc 5.2. The individuillîsm or1d fusion vori;1blc.
811 Fnbio Lorcnzi-Cioldi n11d Wi!fe/11 Doi~c Levcls of nnnlysis nnd social idcnlily 85

Considcr Figure 5.1, which portrnys the gcnder-cntegoriz.ation- · ·· '., ... · ·. typical.mcm~er·o(eàch group. This manipulation wos intendcd to
self-in/out internction (F(l,95) = 4.08; p<0.05). Wc cJn see thùt the · v. :: lead to the creation of groups which mny be considcred <ls Miothcr
relùtivc gt1p between intrùgroup (self-in) nnd intcrgroup (self-out) versio~f of collection (diffcrent) nnci i1ggregate (simîlé1r) groups.
discriminùtion is largest in collection groups for mt1lcs (mcnns: self· ·Severa! ·possible scx-compositions of thesc groups wcrc furthcr
in = 1.68; self-out = 4.77; 1(30) = 3.46; p<0.01), but in nggrcgntc manipulated in different cxperimentâl conditions.
groups for femnles (mcans: self-in = 2.5; self-out = 4.78; /(15) =. · ·. Next; the comp<1rison dimensions vctri<1blc Wé\S !ntroduccd. Sorne
1.77; p<0.10). In thcsc instnnccs, intcrgroup m<1ximum differcncc .. .... ~.-·.:'·utttj~ùtes formerlyused in the self-description tt:isl< wcre presentcci
in fr1vour of the self (self-out) is more striking thùn the correspond· . :,:.·· '"' r.. as typical of tho in-grou p, somc ns typicnl of the ou t-grou p é\nd so1TH:
ing intri'lgroup (self-in) stri'ltcgy. Now considcr rigurc 5.2, which others as shmed by ail individunls. ln nctunl fnct, nt tribu tes hod bccn
portrnys the gcnder-individLrnlism/fusion-sclf-in/out intcrnction :'·:·. previously gnthered in a pnrent popul<ltion i'lnd thrcc sets of syn-
(F(J ,95) == 3.62; p<0.06). An<1logous significnnt pi1tterns of vnrin· · onyms, wcrc rctained, in order to be sure the spcciflc ond corn mon
tians occu r in individ ui1lism for mnles (menns: self-in = 1.1; self-out dimensions rclnted. to the snmc content. The thrcc compnrison
= J'.92; /(23) = 2.95; /J<0.01), but in fusion for fcmnles (menns: self· .. :.:::.,'.dimensions .werc prescntcd ln controlled ordcr to the subjccts.
in== 2.12; self-out== 4.68; 1(19) = 3.07; p<0.01). lt is imporlïlnt to .. ·Clearly, subjccts nrc foced with particularistic or social, i.e. group-
notice thnt individunlism compilrcd to fusion gives rise ton stronger ..:·.v· .. ·i ·,,;: specific;attributes nrid with n ttribu tes which unîfy people a t n higher
shift in intcrgroup versus intrngroup bins for mnles nnd convcrscly · leyel,''::Le~' shn,rcd orîridividual-common. Su bjccts th en descri bcd
the fusion condition gives ri.se to i1 strongcr shift thnn the individunl- · .themsèlves, in-gr'ciups and out-groups (experimentlll groups ônd
isrn one for femïllcs. gender groups), as well ns typical mcmbcrs of the se grau ps, ë1gain in
Thcsc rcsults clcM!y show the ncccssity of introducing nn<1lyscs ·. n controllcd order.,As nn illustration, Télble 5.4 shows the cv<lluël tivc
nt the levcl of interindividunl processcs, the individualism/fusion · , .
or individué1tion/dcpcrsonnlizntion Vïlrinblcs, nnd at the positionnl .· · ·'~.. ::.:~:;.Table 5.4 _Mc6ns of cvwlu<ltivc intcrgroup bit1s in
IL vc I, mnlcs/fomùlcs nnd the collecliun/ïlggreg<lte or domin<1nt/ ., ,. ..
1 1 .... fovour of own g'cndcr group, tlCCOrding Io group-
domin.-ited v<1ri<1blcs. !3ut in i1 further se ries of cxperimcnts Lon_inzi~·" · •i·;·:~.t;.: , .·:':'·~.:"'>'~:>_'.'spccific ilnd ·individunl-common dimensions
..·,-:".:....
,·.,:..~; :.;~~.:.-----------------
Cioldi (1988) hns nlso shown the cffects of mnnipulating the com~ . · Expcrimcntt1! groups
pt1rison dimensions, i.e. the wny in which more pt1rticulnristic or :
gcn<.. /-ïll socictnl vnlues t1re prcsentcci to the subjccts in ordcr to
1 Diffcrcnts Simililrs
describe thcmsclves, in-group ilnd out-group membcrs. Thcse
experimcntJI nrnnipulntions were introduced in ordcr to illustra te · ·
hypothescs articulnting annlyses relcvnnt to levcl III (posit.ional), ' .... 0.41 0.35J
crnd IV (societnl vnlucs). An examplc of. su ch nn cxpc.riment.al: . 0.38 1 • 1
0.32
manipulntion will be briefly describcd. , · .. . . . . ... 0.03 4 0.03·"
The bùsic manipu!Jtion consistcd of two stngcs. A self-perception
questionni'lirc wns devised, comprising items varying according to on dimensions:
the cmphnsis on cigcntic or communnl characteristics nnd accorciing ' Spccific 0.27 1 0.151..î
to their evnlu<1tion. Subjects pnrticipntcd in mixcd-sex groups of Common -0.04 1• 2 . -0.20 1• 2
twcnty to twenty-four members. Du ring the first stnge, they were · ~;. ·" · Diffcrcncc 0.30 4 0.}f;
i'lskcd to m<1ke self-descriptions on these items. At the beginning
the second st<1gc, the catcgorizïltion Vi1rit1ble wï\s introciuccd. The Nn/(', Scort'S c,1n r;inge bclwl'L'n +7 ilnd -7. /\ high scorl' in·
dicilll'!\ lnlt•rgroup bi,1s ln (.'1\'0U1 of ihL' in·group; rt1L'Jr1S
experimcnter told the subjects tht1t cxnminïltion of sc lf-descriptions
1
slrnring a subscript diffl>r si1;nilïc.rnlly.
showed tht1 t the rc we re pcrsons who i1 re vcry similnr one to i1 nother .. ' 11<.00l . .
2
(similê\r group), nnd thnt thcre wcrc othcr persons who nre guite. /l=.06
1
• Jl<.05 .
ciiffrn.'nt one from 0nother (ciiffcrcnt group). Subjccts ïllso rcceiveci 4
Jl<.02
grophicnl exomples of rcsponse profiles of such groups nnd of n ~ 11<.04

·------........-----~~-~-~----·--~-·-··----·······-······--··-·-·--····-·-·---····· .. --- ···-

---··---··--···
86 Fnuio Lorc11zi-Cioldi n11d Willcm Ooisc
gcndcr bi<ls of one of the cxperimcnts (for more dctJils, sec Télble 6, .
p. 174, of Lorcnzi-Cioldi, 1988). .. ··
As in the first study (sec Tnblc 5.1), boys show nn ovcrnll stronger.
in-group bins th<1n girls (F(1,350) = 33.8; p<0.001), Morcovcr, dif·.
fcrcnts tend to show more intcrgroup bins thnn similnrs (F(l,350) =·',.',
3.5; JJ<0.07) . .T<1king into <1ccount the compnrison dimensions rc-. ·
vci1ls more imporl<rnt differcnccs. Group-specific i1nd individunl-.
common judgcmcntnl dimensions clicit signifirnnt diffcrcnccs in ;
bii1:> for girls, but not for boys (scx by dimensions: F(l,350) = 10.8;
p<0.005; sec Tùblc 5.3 for cclt compnrlsons). On the common : '
dimension, girls cxhibit n significnnt out-group biéls whcn thcy
bclong to the similnr group (/(112):::: 3.3; p<0.005). As cxpcctcd, the · ·
biggest contrnsts in pnttcrns of lntcrgroup differcntintion nre found: ·
for boys in diffcrcnt gruups on the one sidc, nnd for girls in slmit11r:·'
grou ps on the othcr. .· · · . ::;
Ti1ken ns n wholc, thcse results illustrnte that the snlicncc of él·: ;_: . :Y·:::: .1,. · '·.; ,\" beliefs cl en ri y brondens the perspective nnd en11blcs one to Jccount
gcncric norm of individunlity (the highest lcvel of rntcgorizntion in') '<":<;t/i' ::/··\.>;;-·'..~for,âiffer~nt pn~tèrns of rclntionships bctwecn pcrsonnl and group
SCT) c<1n threaten mcmbcrs of dominntcd groups when they ore .;;. ~:~,::<·.;<,i;.;, ·::·:.)-·:·.·:_.idenUties.After.nll, our fourth levcl of nnalysis beélring on gener<JI
foced with mcmbcrs of dominnnt ones. Amancio (1989) hns recently '. · ·:\<;, 1:.· ·:·.:;·':','. beliefs is perhnps to be considered rclevi1nt for studying the super-
published nn invcstig11tion bi1scd on somc of our conjectures·
denling with the intrici1cy of socint differentintions within - nnd:
bl'lwcen -dominnnt i1nd dorninntcd groups. ln Tnblcs 1nnd2 of hcr ·.
'1rticlc, shc reports, rcspectivcly, mc<1ns of a globnl diffcrcntintion
0gt)inst i1n out-group mcmbcr nnd ngninst nn in-group mcmber"
obtnincd in twclve diffcrcnt cxpcrimcntnl conditions. According to.
cl0ssic;)I intcrgroup theories, thcsc two scries of twclvc mcnns
slwuld be ncgi1tively correlùled, i.e. intrngroup diffcn:ntii1tion.
shuulci be negi1tivcly rcl<ited to intcrgroupdlffercntii1tion. l3ut in hcr '..·
expL'rÎmL nt Arnnnc.:io introduccd vnrinbles rclcvnnt for nnnlyses nt.::
1
<11'1 interindividuùl lcvel (individunl or group performance), n pos·
itioni11 level (male and fernnle subjects) and n gcnernl vnluc lcvcl"
(mnsculine, femininc rmd ncutral compnrison dimensions). As a· . ·
rcsult the obscrvcd corrcl11tion bctwccn in-group nnd intcrgroup. ·
differc ntiation wns not ncg11tive, but significnntly positive (r = 0.68, '
1
11<0.02). Splitting by gcndcr furthcr rcvcnls thé\t this covnrintion is
signific<1nt only in the n-wlc snmple (r = 0.83, p<0.05). Thcse rcsults :.
Me nnothcr illustrntion of the foct thnt within-group nnd betwcen- ·
group difforcntiJtion MC not necessnrily nntJgonistic proccsscs nnd :
thnt tlwy iHC bound to group stntus. ..
" .~' "
• I,•
u:vcls of n11n/ysis n11ri socin/ iâc11lity 87
. CON.CLUSION
· ·As Rnbbic (1982) stJtcd, 'Although liternturc off ers él numbcr or
..~:. · hypotheses about intcrgroup reli1tions, thcse hypothcses do not
form nn intcgrnted theory. They Jrc usui1lly stélted i1t one p<irticulM
. lcvel of nnnlysls, thcy nre sometimes contrnclictory, 0nd their sup-
porting evidencc vnrics widcly' (p. 124). Even though SCT sccms
very comprchcnsive, nirning i1t dcpicting n broncl clnss of soci;1i
· behaviour, this thcory nlso nccds other expli1nntory princir'k's.
Thls is cspecicilly ncccssnry in ordcr to mnkc us comprehcncl v~hcn
the postulntcd proccsscs nt the group lcvel 1rnd 0t the inciividu0!
·.: · lcvcl Mc nntngonistic or, on the contrnry, when thcy reinforcc c;1ch
, , ··. other. Introducing nnnlyscs which bcnr on the intervention of inter·
"'.' '·" :~» individunl 'nnd · positionn 1 dynnmics nnd on the rolc of societi11
1
·;:1~ ..,!..·,." .ordinhtc lcvcl of the? self ns n humnn being, to which Turner nnd his
collnborntors give little nttention for the snke of dcn1onslrution's
··:: simplicity q98?: 49); Self ns n humnn being cou Id indecd turn out to
. _be nn importnnt.orgnnizing principlc in shnping socinl differcnliêl·
·· · tions., Diffe'rent types of group identificritions can prob<1bly <1ri:,c
becnusc of diffcrcnt percelvcd proximities with this shJr~d gencr,)I
norm of tho inciividunlity; the self nnd the group must both be con-
· ::..ccivcd of <1s socinl rcprcscntntions (Duisc nnd Lorenzi-Cioldi, 1990).
· ·: A mnjor p<1rndox undcrlies currcnt rescllrch on intcrgroup rel,1·
: .tions. It is often consiclcred thnt individuntion of out-group mcm·
·bers weakens intergroup discriminntion (Wilcicr, 1984). Gut thcn the
· ·:question becomes: in the C'1se of individuéltion, do wc still dczd with
"int~rgroup rcl0tions? This question is nnnlogous to the one which
'.· nlrcridy hé!s been rnised nbou t thL c xistence of sep<1r<1 ted grou ps <1fter
1 1
Shcrif's introduction of supc rordinnted go<:11s (Doise, 1978). 1\ccord·
1
ing to l3rcwcr rrnd Miller (1984) co-oper<1tivc interdcpcndc•r1Ce cou lcl
rcsult in individuntlon of out-group mcmbers, nnd it htis indccd
beer1 sti1tcd by one of us (Doise, 1986) thnt ShL'rif's cxpltinntion in
· t.erms of intcrciependence of i'lctivities in ordcr to rcilch J common
·gonl is typicnlly locritcd <1t éln intcrindividui11 levcl of nnéilysis. Thcrc·
. fore the pnrndox rcmi1ins: in orclt;r to solve problerns of inlergroup
relntions, would n possible proccdure be to dilutc group bou ndJries?
(Hewstone nnd !3rown, 1986ri; Johnston nnd Hcwstonc, this book).
·The prescnt ch<1 pt cr did not i1im nt solving this pùrndox, but perhi1 ps
 .: . '. ·•-.cLL~'.ltj~\ ffJtl::~&ff'.~îf,~f~9i/f0J ;fü:\·•· ·.;-:;; · · · ··
88 Fn!Jio Lorcnzi-Ciofdi n11d Willwr Doise
it has nddcd n ncw paradox: it is no longer certain that individuation
countcracts group differcntiation and conversely it is also possible
that cnhnncement of group membership can result in strongcr inter~..
persona! diff ercntiation proccsscs (Abrnms, this book).
rinnlly, it should be nddcd that not ail fonns of individuation arc .
ncccssnrily sources of within-group diffcrcntiation. Social cognition .
rcscorch hns shown thnt judgcmcnts nbout a populntion an~ hcavily
influence~ by informntion from smnll snmplcs (the lnw of smnll.
numbers). ·This sccms especially truc for out-group perceptions
(Qunttronc and Joncs, 1980). As for as a single mcmbcr of an out·
group is considercd as a typicnl membcr of that group, a proto·
typicnl gcncrnlization of individunl's nttributcs to the wholc group
can arise (Hcwstonc, 19890). This crcatcs a 'gcncrn!izntion pnradox'
(van Oudcnhovcn 1989: 216), which lci1ds to gcncrn!lzations nbout
out-group mcmbcrs, in turn mnking out·group eues salicnt nnd
triggcrs the in-group identity (Wilder nnd Shapiro, 1984). Even if
individuation of out-groupers does not gencratc diffcrcntintion
bctwccn out-group mcmbcrs and if it does not reduce intergroup
discrimination, the rcsearch evidencc rcportcd in this chnptershows
thnt nlso cnhnncemcnt of intcrgroup discrimination can givc risc to
grcater differcntiation bctwecn in-group mcmbers.
-••••••••-: . .
........... ~---·· .. ·---- ....·--··-··
" ) ' . . " ·- ·:'.: ,: .• ' . '. ': •• ' \ ~ ». <
'·····---··-· ...
.:... ·
•!, ."·'
, ..
•,{How. do group n1en1bers reguJate
. ; :·. : their behaviour?
·i:An integration of social identity
·and self-awareness theories
·Dominic Abmms
. ·Socin! idcntity theory has erT1crgt:d i"lS une of the rnajor critiques of
individunlism in socii"ll psychology (Hogg nnd Abr<irns, 1988; T<ijfcl,
1982n). The essence of the nrgumcnt is thnt sodt1! beh<iviour is
· explicnb!e in tcrrns of psychologicnl stolcs, structures or proccsscs
only to the extcnt thnt thcsc reprcscnt sharcd sociol n1c;;rnings.
.)ncrcnsingly, howcvcr, the proccsscs which nrc spccified by socinl
idcntity thcory rind ln ter self-categorization thcory (Turner, 1985),
emphnsizc individunl cognition nnd motlvl1tion. lt ml1y be truc th0t
·.·.the mncrosocinl pnrt of sociCT! idcntity thcory contoins n rudimen-
'• ... ; " '.· ·: tnry conception of socinl structure, but cxpltinCTtion for bchi1viour
. ··: still rest.s on the c!w1l opcriltion of cognitive (c.1tcgoriz,1lion) 0nd
· ..... rrwtivi"ltionril (sl'lf·<..'nhiincerricnt) procl'sscs. vvithin indivic!u,1ls. ln
t h i s ch n p t c r, 1 w <1 n t l o q u i.; s li u n t h c ;1 s s u 111 p l i u 11 t h 0 t t h l' rl' i s <1 n y .
;,'I,
... Jhing incvitnbk' CTbout the• form of bchùviour which follmvs fron1
··" ·' ;' snlient group mcmbc.rship und <lrgue that people oflcn m,1kc·
· «· choices about which course of <:let ion to follow. This cha pter is about
;·.','
· · · proccsscs thnt intcrvenc bctwccn sclf·pcrccptlon and bchnviour 0s
·· .·agroup membcr.
SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY: 1\N AM!3lGUJTY
Àccording to socinl idcntity thcory, whcn n people perceivc thccn-
. selves ond others in tcrms of thcir mcrnbcrship of socii"ll CLltcgorics,
··": rnther than individunl nt tribu tes, thcir behnviour <ind rcnctions Jrc
· ,-:·orgnnizcd in tcrms of thcsc catcgories. Specific<illy, thcrc is n dcsirc
to cstnblish nnd mùintnin n positive sclf-irnC1gc which motivntes
sclf-cntcgorizcd individun!s to rcndcr thcir own cé'ltcgory diffcrc•nt
89
1
·-~~-_,,...-=.,-._- . . -.1. .-.. Pp.••· .. - · ... ---.. ---·-..--~ ......... __ .,._ ..
~----- ......... --- . ·-~-- ........ _~- ·--·····------- ....