Subgroup relations: A comparison of mutual intergroup differentiation and common ingroup identity models of prejudice reduction

Two studies examined relations between groups (humanities and math-science students) that implicitly or explicitly share a common superordinate category (university student). In Experiment 1, 178 participants performed a noninteractive decision-making task during which category salience was manipulated in a 2 (superordinate category salience) x 2 (subordinate category salience) between-groups design. Consistent with the mutual intergroup differentiation model, participants for whom both categories were salient exhibited the lowest levels of bias, whereas bias was strongest when the superordinate category alone was made salient. This pattern of results was replicated in Experiment 2 (N = 135). In addition, Experiment 2 demonstrated that members of subgroups that are nested within a superordinate category are more sensitive to how the superordinate category is represented than are members of subgroups that extend beyond the boundaries of the superordinate category.

The effects of status on subgroup relations

Two experiments were conducted to assess the impact of status differentials on subgroup attitudes and behaviours. In Experiment 1, 73 maths-science students were led to believe they had higher or lower status than humanities students. They then performed a non-interactive decision-making task during which they were categorized exclusively as a university student (superordinate condition), or as a university student and maths-science student simultaneously (subgroups condition). Experiment 2 (N = 98) differed from Experiment I in that perceptions of relative subgroup status were measured rather than manipulated. Consistent with social identity theory, subgroup members tended to categorize themselves more at the superordinate (university) level the lower status they considered their subgroup to be. In Experiment 2, a series of interactions also emerged, showing that status and inter-subgroup bias were positively related when the participants had been categorized exclusively at the superordinate level. When superordinate and subgroup identities were activated simultaneously, perceptions of status had no effect on levels of bias. The results were interpreted in terms of participants' needs for identity enhancement and identity distinctiveness.

Relations between high and low power groups: The importance of legitimacy

Using a social identity perspective, two experiments examined the effects of power and the legitimacy of power differentials on intergroup bias. In Experiment 1, 125 math-science students were led to believe that they had high or low representation in a university decision-making body relative to social-science students and that this power position was either legitimate or illegitimate. Power did not have an independent effect on bias; rather, members of both high and low power groups showed more bias when the power hierarchy was illegitimate than when it was legitimate. This effect was replicated in Experiment 2 (N =105). In addition, Experiment 2 showed that groups located within an unfair power hierarchy expected the superordinate power body to be more discriminatory than did those who had legitimately high or low power. The results are discussed in terms of their implications for group relations.

Dragging down and dragging up: How relative group status affects responses to common fate

The authors examined whether status differences moderate the effects of common fate on subgroup relations. University students (N = 103) were led to believe that their subgroup was performing well (high status) or poorly (low status) relative to another subgroup. They were then told that the combined performances of the subgroups would have shared implications for their subgroup's welfare. (common fate) or that there would be a direct link between their subgroup's performance and its welfare (no common fate). High-status (but not low-status) group members responded to the common fate situation by (a) decategorizing and (b) showing benevolence to the out-group. Results are discussed with respect to their implications for managing subgroup relations.

Criticizing groups from the inside and the outside: An identity perspective on the intergroup sensitivity effect

Research on group criticism has demonstrated that criticisms are received less defensively when made by an ingroup member than when made by an outsider (the intergroup sensitivity effect). Three experiments tested the extent to which this effect is driven by social identity concerns or by judgments of how experienced the source of the criticism is. In Experiments I and 2, Australians who criticized Australia (ingroup critics) were met with less defensiveness than were foreigners who criticized Australia (outgroup critics), regardless of the amount of experience the foreigner had with Australia. Furthermore, the effects of speaker type on evaluations were mediated by perceptions of the extent to which the criticisms were intended to be constructive but not by perceptions of experience. Finally, Experiment 3 indicated that although experience does not help outgroup critics, a lack of experience can hurt ingroup critics. Recommendations are provided as to how people can reduce defensiveness when making group criticisms.

Speaking for others: The pros and cons of group advocates using collective language

We examined how rhetorical style affects evaluations of group advocates, and how these evaluations are moderated by group identification. University students were given a letter to the editor defending student welfare. The argument was either constructed using personal language ('I believe') or collective language ('we believe'). Furthermore, the letter was either attributed to an official advocate (president of the student union) or an unofficial advocate (a rank-and-file member of the student body). Consistent with the social identity perspective, participants who showed strong identification as a university student thought that the group would feel better represented by official advocates using collective rather than personal language. Low identifiers, however, did not rate the rhetorical styles differently on representativeness. Furthermore, low identifiers (but not high identifiers) rated official advocates as more likable and more effective when they used personal rather than collective language. The discussion focuses on the conflict low identifiers might feel between (a) needing to homogenize with other group members in order to maximize the influence and political effectiveness of their message at the collective level, and (b) protecting themselves against categorization threat.

Differentiation between and within groups: The influence of individualist and collectivist group norms

The power of individualist and collectivist group norms to influence intergroup and inter-individual differentiation was examined in three studies. Study I revealed that intergroup differentiation was lower when group norms prescribed individualism than when they prescribed collectivism. However inter-individual differentiation was higher when group norms endorsed individualism than when they promoted collectivism. In Studies 2 and 3 we found evidence for the moderating effect of group salience on the relationship between norms and differentiation. Specifically, the effect that individualist group norms reduced intergroup differentiation but enhanced inter-individual differentiation was more pronounced when group salience was high rather than low. This finding demonstrates that conformity to a group norm prescribing individualism influences the manner in which positive differentiation is expressed. The discussion focuses on the caveats of introducing individualist group norms when attempting to reduce intergroup differentiation. Copyright (c) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Nitrogen relations of natural and disturbed plant communities in tropical Australia

Nitrogen relations of natural and disturbed tropical plant communities in northern Australia (Kakadu National Park) were studied. Plant and soil N characteristics suggested that differences in N source utilisation occur at community and species level. Leaf and xylem sap N concentrations of plants in different communities were correlated with the availability of inorganic soil N (NH4+ and NO3-). In general, rates of leaf NO3- assimilation were low. Even in communities with a higher N status, including deciduous monsoon forest, disturbed wetland, and a revegetated mine waste rock dump, levels of leaf nitrate reductase, xylem and leaf NO3 levels were considerably lower than those that have been reported for eutrophic communities. Although NO3- assimilation in escarpment and eucalypt woodlands, and wetland, was generally low, within these communities there was a suite of species that exhibited a greater capacity for NO3- assimilation. These high-NO3- species were mainly annuals, resprouting herbs or deciduous trees that had leaves with high N contents. Ficus, a high-NO3- species, was associated with soil exhibiting higher rates of net mineralisation and net nitrification. Low-NO3- species were evergreen perennials with low leaf N concentrations. A third group of plants, which assimilated NO3- (albeit at lower rates than the high-NO3- species), and had high-N leaves, were leguminous species. Acacia species, common in woodlands, had the highest leaf N contents of all woody species. Acacia species appeared to have the greatest potential to utilise the entire spectrum of available N sources. This versatility in N source utilisation may be important in relation to their high tissue N status and comparatively short life cycle. Differences in N utilisation are discussed in the context of species life strategies and mycorrhizal associations.

Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts

Although aspects of social identity theory are familiar to organizational psychologists, its elaboration, through self-categorization theory, of how social categorization and prototype-based depersonalization actually produce social identity effects is less well known. We describe these processes, relate self-categorization theory to social identity theory, describe new theoretical developments in detail, and show how these developments can address a: range of organizational phenomena. We discuss cohesion and deviance, leadership, subgroup and sociodemographic structure, and mergers and acquisitions.