British Journal of Social Psychology (1999), 38, 85102 Printed in Great Britain # 1999 The British Psychological Society

85

In-group favouritism and the reection of realistic dimensions of dierence between national states in Central and Eastern European nationality stereotypes
Edwin Poppe* and Hub Linssen
Department of General Social Sciences, Utrecht University, The Netherlands

This study examines the content of European nationality stereotypes held by adolescents from six Central and Eastern European countries and in-group favouritism on the dimensions underlying these nationality stereotypes. It was found that the content of nationality stereotypes reects a competence and a morality dimension, and that each dimension is related to perceived structural or relational features of nation states. The attribution of competence-related traits to out-group nationalities is strongly related to the perceived economic power of the nation states and the attribution of morality-related traits to the size of the nation states, as well as perceived conicts of interests, nationalism and economic power. The participants did not blindly favour their in-group over all foreign nationalities on competence or morality. The tendency to perceive Western European nationalities as more competent than the in-group reects a social reality constraint due to lower economic status. Furthermore, in-group favouritism on competence decreased as a function of the economic status and size of out-groups, while ingroup favouritism on morality increased as a function of economic status and size of out-groups. These results are interpreted in terms of self-categorization theory and social identity theory.

For more than 60 years researchers have been interested in stereotypes of national groups. Initially, much attention was paid to the description of the content of nationality stereotypes (e.g. Katz & Braly, 1933) followed by attempts to explain the content by features of (changing) intergroup relations (e.g. Berrien, 1969 ; Bronfenbrenner, 1961 ; Seago, 1947 ; Sherif, 1967 ; Wolf, 1963). Later, psychological research moved away from the analysis of content by exploring the process of stereotyping, focusing on cognitive biases, by which it was shown that cognitive factors in information processing, such as category accentuation (Tajfel, 1969) and illusory correlation (e.g. Hamilton, 1981 ; Hamilton & Giord, 1976), contribute to the biased nature of stereotypes. Recently, however, inspired by social identity theory (Tajfel, 1981 ; Tajfel & Turner, 1986) and self-categorization theory (Oakes & Turner, 1990 ; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher & Wetherell, 1987), the interest in the
* Requests for reprints should be addressed to Edwin Poppe, Department of General Social Sciences, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80140, 3508 TC Utrecht, The Netherlands (e-mail : e.poppe! fss.uu.nl).

86

Edwin Poppe and Hub Linssen

relationship between stereotypes and social reality (i.e. features of intergroup relations) has increased among researchers (cf. Oakes, Haslam & Turner, 1994 ; Spears, Oakes, Ellemers & Haslam, 1997). The present study is focused on the content of European nationality stereotypes held by Central and Eastern European nationalities, and addresses the question of social reality in intergroup perception. On the basis of previous studies on nationality stereotypes and self-categorization theory, we examine which realistic dierences between nation states are reected in the content of nationality stereotypes. Furthermore, derived from considerations of status eects in social identity theory, we examine how social reality aects in-group favouritism on the dimensions underlying nationality stereotypes. The content of nationality stereotypes The ` realistic nature of stereotypes has been indicated by a number of studies on nationality stereotypes. The results of these studies point out that four types of realistic dierences between nation states are reected in the content of nationality stereotypes (cf. Eagly & Kite, 1987 ; Levine & Campbell, 1972 ; Linssen & Hagendoorn, 1994 ; Peabody, 1985 ; Von Ehrenfels, 1957). The rst category concerns (perceived) political and economic features of nation states, such as level of industrialization, political power, welfare or capitalism (Brewer & Campbell, 1976 ; Campbell, 1967 ; Eagly & Kite, 1987 ; Levine & Campbell, 1972 ; Linssen & Hagendoorn, 1994). The assumption is that these nation state features are associated with, or translated into, typical aggregate personality attributes (e.g. Hagendoorn, 1991 ; Levine & Campbell, 1972). A high level of industrialization, for instance, appeared to correspond to attributions of traits such as ecient and hard-working to the national population. The second category involves perceived cultural features or cross-cultural dierences between nation states (Peabody, 1985). Peabody, for example, found that Protestant nations in Europe were contrasted with Catholic nations on the basis of dierent attitudes to the `work ethos. This resulted in national characterizations which expressed dierences in self-control and impulse control (Peabody, 1985). The third category accentuates geographical features of nation states as determinants of the content of stereotypes. On the basis of anthropological studies on migration processes, Von Ehrenfels (1957, 1961) hypothesized that inhabitants of the northern part of a country are perceived as hard-working and aloof, while southerners are perceived as easy-going and emotional. Linssen & Hagendoorn (1994) expanded this hypothesis to the Western European context and found that the content of nationality stereotypes is related to two geographical features of states, namely their northern latitude location and size. Nationalities of Northern European states were perceived as more ecient and less emotional than Southern European nationalities, while nationalities from large states were perceived as more dominant and less empathic than nationalities from smaller states. The fourth category concerns relational features of nation states. The nature of the political and economic relations between states appears to play a role in determining the content of nationality stereotypes, i.e. the populations of allied states are perceived as friendly and supportive, while nations with whom the perceivers nation

Central and Eastern European nationality stereotypes

87

is in conict are perceived as aggressive and immoral (e.g. Berrien, 1969 ; Bronnfenbrenner, 1961 ; Eagly & Kite, 1987 ; Salazar & Marin, 1977 ; Seago, 1947). Together these studies suggest that in order to explain the content of nationality stereotypes it is important to measure (the perception of) various features of the nation states involved in the intergroup context. Linssen & Hagendoorn (1994) found evidence that economic} political, cultural and geographical features of states are reected in stereotype attributions, namely in terms of eciency, emotionality, empathy and dominance, at least in the case of a Western European intergroup context. This ts in with self-categorization theory (Oakes & Turner, 1990 ; Turner et al ., 1987), which posits that stereotypes reect the comparison dimensions on which an optimal dierentiation between members of the dierent categories, including the in-group, can be achieved. In other words, the content of nationality stereotypes may reect salient and realistic dierences between nationalities within the intergroup comparison context (cf. Oakes et al ., 1994). The intergroup comparison context of the present study concerns nine European nationalities (Russians, Belarussians, Bulgarians, Poles, Hungarians, Czechs, English, Germans and Italians). Participants from six Central and Eastern European countries attributed traits to their own nationality and eight foreign nationalities, after they were alerted to the intergroup comparison context (` nationalities in Europe). The presented traits are intended to dierentiate two underlying evaluative dimensions, namely competence and morality. The choice of assessing competence- and moralityrelated traits follows from research showing that competence (or ability) and morality (or sociability) reect the two main evaluative dimensions by which people or groups are judged (see e.g. Phalet & Poppe, 1997 ; Rosenberg & Sedlak, 1972 ; Wojciszke, 1994). The rst goal of the present study is to examine the eects of various nation state features (i.e. economic, political, cultural, relational and geographical) on the content of nationality stereotypes in terms of competence and morality. Following previous results and self-categorization theory, it may be assumed that some of the nation state features are particularly salient to dierentiate European nationalities in terms of competence and morality for the Central and Eastern European participants of this study. First, we expect that economic features of nation states are highly relevant, because the major dierences in socio-economic development between (Western and Eastern) European countries should be obvious for the Central and Eastern European nationalities and will be reected in attribution of competence-related traits to the national populations (cf. Brewer & Campbell, 1976 ; Linssen & Hagendoorn, 1994). This means that we do not expect that the northern latitude location of nation states is related essentially to attribution of competence-related traits as was found in other intergroup contexts (Linssen & Hagendoorn, 1994 ; Von Ehrenfels, 1957). Second, we expect that the size of nation states is a relevant criterion to dierentiate nationalities in the intergroup context. The size of the Russian Federation, for instance, is enormous compared to countries such as the Czech Republic and Bulgaria. We expect that that nationalities from bigger states are perceived as less moral than nationalities from smaller states (cf. Linssen & Hagendoorn, 1994). Third, we expect that relational features, such as interstate conicts, are salient in the intergroup context. The independence of the Central and

88

Edwin Poppe and Hub Linssen

Eastern European nations, after the political changes of 1989 and 1990, has lead to a re-emergence of territorial and economic conicts between countries. We expect that the degree of perceived conicts with nation states is reected in population attributions in terms of morality (cf. Campbell, 1967 ; Eagly & Kite, 1987 ; Sherif, 1967). In summary, the rst hypothesis is that the content of European nationality stereotypes held by Central and Eastern European participants is related to perceived economic, political, cultural, relational and geographical features of the nation states ; in particular, it is expected that economic features of nation states are reected in nationality stereotypes in terms of competence, while the size of the states and conicts between states are reected in nationality stereotypes in terms of morality. In-group favouritism The second issue we will address in this study is in-group favouritism on the dimensions underlying nationality stereotypes. The key assumption of social identity theory is that individuals strive for a positive dierentiation of the in-group from out-groups in order to achieve or maintain positive social identity and group distinctiveness (Tajfel, 1981 ; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). This may lead to more favourable ratings of the in-group than of out-groups. Social identity theory, however, does not claim that group members will always dierentiate themselves positively on all available dimensions. Out-group favouritism may specically occur when group members acknowledge the superiority of an out-group on a relevant comparison dimension (e.g. Doise & Sinclair, 1973 ; Spears & Manstead, 1989 ; Van Knippenberg, 1978). The interesting question is, however, which content dimensions will then be selected to acknowledge out-group superiority and which dimensions are used to favour their in-group over out-groups. The results of a number of studies in multidimensional intergroup comparison contexts are relevant for the type of eect status has on the salience of specic content dimensions in stereotypes for positive intergroup dierentiation (e.g. Ellemers & Van Rijswijk, 1997 ; Mummendey & Schreiber, 1983 ; Spears & Manstead, 1989 ; Van Knippenberg & Van Oers, 1984). These studies indicate that when multiple dimensions are oered to make more rened judgments, group members tend to agree on the relative superiority or inferiority of their own group on a particular (status-related) comparison dimension (cf. Ellemers & Van Knippenberg, 1997). More specically, members of higher status groups are likely to attribute superiority to their in-group on dimensions that reect the nature of the status dierences, while lower status group members show less or no in-group favouritism or even out-group favouritism on these dimensions. By the same token, however, low status groups often show stronger in-group favouritism than higher status groups on other dimensions which are less related or irrelevant to the nature of the status dierences. Hence, it is suggested that members of lower status groups feel constrained by the social reality of their lower status and so are disinclined to make straightforward claims of in-group favouritism (on all available dimensions), but use the available opportunity to favour the in-group on dimensions which are irrelevant or not directly related to the status domain (Ellemers & Van Rijswijk, 1997). This subtle identity management strategy of lower status groups has been called `social

Central and Eastern European nationality stereotypes

89

creativity (Tajfel & Turner, 1986 ; cf. Lemaine, 1974). Studies specically in the domain of socio-economic status dierentials, for instance, indicated that high status groups tend to emphasize their superiority on `competence or ` ability dimensions (` we are stronger), while low status groups exhibit out-group favouritism on these dimensions but clear in-group favouritism on ` social or ` moral (`we are nicer ) dimensions (e.g. Mummendey & Schreiber, 1983 ; Spears & Manstead, 1989 ; Van Knippenberg & Van Oers, 1984). In other words, previous studies suggest an interaction between the status of the in-group and the type of the comparison dimension as determinants of in-group favouritism: in-group favouritism on statusrelated dimensions increases as a function of in-group status, while in-group favouritism on alternative dimensions decreases as a function of in-group status (see also Mullen, Brown & Smith, 1992). This interaction will be surveyed in the present study. Assuming that competence is a (socio-economic) status-related dimension, it is expected that the Central and Eastern European nationalities will favour their ingroup on compentence over lower or approximately equal economic status out-groups (e.g. fellow Central and Eastern European nationalities), while they will favour their in-group on morality over higher economic status out-groups(e.g. Western European nationalities), possibly as a compensation for the lack of positive intergroup dierentiation on competence. Furthermore, derived from prior research indicating that larger out-groups are perceived as less moral (i.e. as less empathic and more dominant; Linssen & Hagendoorn, 1994), it is expected that the Central and Eastern European nationalities favour their in-group on morality over large out-groups (e.g. Russians). Taken together, we expect that in-group favouritism on (the status-related dimension) competence decreases as a function of the economic status and size of the out-group, while in-group favouritism on (the alternative dimension) morality increases as a function of the economic status and size of the out-group (hypothesis 2). This hypothesis will be tested in each of the participating countries with objective indicators of economic status and size of the nationalities concerned. Hypotheses 1. The content of European nationality stereotypes held by Central and Eastern European nationalities is related to percevied economic, political, cultural, geographical and relational features of the nation states ; in particular socioeconomic features will aect the content in terms of competence, while the size of the nation states and conicts between nation states aect the content in terms of morality. 2. In-group favouritism on (the status-related dimension) competence decreases as a function of the economic status and size of the out-group, while in-group favouritism on (the alternative dimension) morality increases as a function of the economic status and size of the out-group.

90

Edwin Poppe and Hub Linssen Method

Participants
The participants were 1143 pupils from various secondary schools in six Central and Eastern European capital cities. The questionnaire was completed by 178 Russian, 206 Bulgarian, 183 Hungarian, 202 Polish, 176 Belarussian and 198 Czech pupils. The survey took place between March and May 1994. The pupils were in the highest but one grade of the highest level of secondary school and were between 15 and 18 years of age. The Russian and Belarussian participants were generally one year younger than participants from the other countries. Of the pupils, 40 % were male and 60 % were female. The male} female percentages ranged between 34} 66 in Poland and 46} 54 in Bulgaria.

Procedure
A standardized introduction and instruction were read out loud to the pupils before they were asked to indicate their perception of various characteristics of people in dierent countries in Europe. The participants completed the questionnaire on a voluntary basis in the classroom. The questionnaires were translated from English into the Central and Eastern European languages and translated back by native speakers. Discrepancies between the original English version and the translated version were discussed with the translators, whereupon the most appropriate translation was chosen.

Dependent variables
Nationality stereotypes . Nationality stereotypes were assessed by asking the participants to indicate on a scale from 0% (` hardly any) to 100% (` (almost) all ) how many representatives of a certain national group possess a certain trait. Jonas & Hewstone (1986) have shown that this percentage estimate method (McCauley & Stitt, 1978) is a comparatively reliable method to assess nationality stereotypes. An advantage of this method is that the attribution of particular (typical as well as atypical) trait adjectives to one target group can be compared to the attributions of the same trait adjectives to (a range of) other target groups. Each participant was asked to attribute 12 trait adjectives to nine national target groups, including her} his own nationality. The nationalities to be judged were : Russians, Belarussians, Poles, Bulgarians, Hungarians, Czechs, English," Italians and Germans. Participants had to rate each national group on 12 trait adjectives : `intelligent , ` ecient , ` competitive , ` self-condent, ` clumsy , ` slow , ` honest, `tolerant , ` modest, ` aggressive, ` rude and `selsh . These 12 traits, partly selected from previous research on nationality stereotypes (Eagly & Kite, 1987; Linssen & Hagendoorn, 1994), were intended to constitute a competence and a morality dimension on the bases of research on person perception (e.g. Rosenberg & Sedlak, 1972). Simultaneous component analysis (SCA ; Kiers, 1990) was conducted across target groups to determine whether the 12 traits can be dierentiated between competence-related versus moralityrelated traits. A major advantage of SCA over (pooled-within-groups) principal component analysis, is that SCA indicates components which optimally account for the variance in all participant groups simultaneously (Millsap & Meredith, 1998). SCA conrmed that the 12 traits can be subsumed under a competence-related and a morality-related dimension : the competence dimension consists of the traits self -condent, competitive , ecient , intelligent (positive loadings); clumsy and slow (negative loadings); while the morality dimension consists of honest, tolerant , modest (positive loadings); aggressive , rude and selsh (negative loadings). Both the competence-related and morality-related traits formed reliable scales with Cronbachs alphas, varying for dierent participant groups from .60 to .75 and .60 to . 71, respectively. The explained variance of the two components varied for participating countries between 37 % (Belarus) and 44.9 % (Hungary). Accordingly, the attributed percentages of the negative loading traits were recorded by subtracting from 100 %, whereafter the competence- versus morality-related traits
"

` English was used instead of ` British to prevent confusion in the Central and Eastern European context.

Central and Eastern European nationality stereotypes

91

were seperately computed and divided by the number of the traits. The resulting averaged sum scores of competence and morality are used as dependent variables in the analyses.

Independent variables
Economic and political nation state features . After participants attributed trait adjectives to a target nationality, they were asked to indicate to what extent the concerned nation state is characterized by certain features on a scale from 0 (negligible) to 10 (extreme). The descriptive features of nation states were ; `capitalist , ` nationalistic , `democratic , ` economically powerful, ` politically powerful, ` industrialized and ` good in government services (education, social security, health care) . These features were selected from previous research on nationality stereotypes (Eagly & Kite, 1987; Linssen & Hagendoorn, 1994). SCA was conducted on the seven items and revealed a two-factor structure, explaining between 75 and 86% of the variance for the dierent participant groups. The rst factor contained six nation state features : ` economically powerful, ` industrialized . ` politically powerful, ` democratic , ` wellprovided with government services and ` capitalist . This factor formed a reliable scale (Cronbach alpha " .92 for each participating country) and was labelled economic power. The second factor contained only one item, nationalistic . Cultural features of nation states . Participants were asked to indicate, on a 9-point scale, their degree of disagreement (1) or agreement (9) with the following statement : ` (Target country X) has a dierent way of life than my country. This variable was labelled way of life . Relational features of nation states . Participants were asked to indicate, on a 9-point scale, their (dis)agreement with two statements : ` (Target country X) has economic conicts with my country, ` (Target country X) has territorial conicts with my country. From these two questions one composite score, conicts , was calculated (Cronbach alpha varied for dierent participant groups from .65 to .86). Geographical features of nation states . Four geographical features of nation states were constructed on the bases of information from encyclopaedias. The location of the capital cities was used as a criteria to construct western longitude location of the target group (which resulted in the following ordinal rank: Russians 5 1 ; Belarussians 5 2 ; Bulgarians 5 3 ; Poles 5 4; Hungarians 5 5 ; Czechs 5 6; Italians 5 7; Germans 5 8; English 5 9) and northern latitude location of the target group (which resulted in the following ordinal rank: Italians 5 1; Bulgarians 5 2 ; Hungarians 5 3; Czechs 5 4; Germans 5 5; English 5 6; Poles 5 7 ; Belarussians 5 8 ; Russians 5 9). Furthermore, ordinal variables were constructed for demographic size of the target population (Bulgarians 5 1 ; Czechs 5 2; Belarussians 5 3; Hungarians 5 4 ; English 5 5 ; Poles 5 6 ; Italians 5 7; Germans 5 8 ; Russians 5 9) and geographical size of the target nation state (Czechs 5 1; Hungarians 5 2 ; Bulgarians 5 3; English 5 4; Belarussians 5 5 ; Italians 5 6; Poles 5 7; Germans 5 8 ; Russians 5 9). Economic status and size contrasts . In order to test the eect of economic status and size on intergroup dierentiation (hypothesis 2), a priori contrasts were formulated for each participating country separately, based on objective gures of economic status and size of out-groups. The rst contrast, which was called the GNP contrast, refers to the gross national product (GNP) of nation states for 1994, indicated by the Human Development Report 1996 (per capita in US dollars, Bulgaria : 1250; Belarus : 2160; Poland: 2410; Russia : 2650; Czech Republic: 3200; Hungary: 3840; England: 18340 ; Italy : 19 300; Germany : 25580). For the Russian sample, for instance, this resulted in the following GNP contrast: 2 82 (Bulgaria), 2 73 (Belarus), 2 71 (Poland), 2 63 (Czech Republic), 2 57 (Hungary), 1 88 (England), 1 98 (Italy), 1 160 (Germany). The second contrast, which was called the size contrast, refers to the demographic size of the population (in millions, Bulgaria : 8.8 ; Czech Republic: 10.3; Belarus : 10. 4; Hungary: 10.6; Poland : 37.8; England: 47.0 ; Italy : 58.1; Germany : 80.8; Russia: 148.5). For the Russian sample, for instance, this resulted in the following size contrast : 2 24 (Bulgaria) ; 2 23 (Czech Republic); 2 23 (Belarus) ; 2 22 (Hungary); 1 5 (Poland) ; 1 14 (England); 1 25 (Italy) ; 1 48 (Germany).

92 Design

Edwin Poppe and Hub Linssen

The ratings of the nine target nationalities (including the own nationality) were assessed by a (withinsubject) repeated measures procedure. Because the rating of the in-group is assumed to be governed by another mechanism than that of out-group targets (Pettigrew, 1979) and the in-group rating could aect the subsequent ratings of out-group targets (Haslam, Turner, Oakes, McGarthy & Hayes, 1992), a xed target sequence (in which the position of the in-group would be dierent across participating countries) was avoided. For example, in a xed target sequence, the Hungarian participants might have to judge their in-group rst, while the Bulgarian participants might have to judge their in-group last. Therefore, the order of presentation of targets was counterbalanced across participants, but has to be considered incomplete because not all the possible target sequences were pursued.

Data analysis
The order of the analyses was as follows : rst, repeated measures analyses of variance were conducted across participating countries, with target ratings on competence and morality as a within-subject factor ; second, multiple regression analyses were conducted to test hypothesis 1, with perceived economic, political, cultural, relational and geographical nation state features as predictors of competence and morality ; third, in-groupout-group dierentiation on competence and morality were analysed within each participating country by means of analysis of variance; fourth, repeated measures a priori contrast analyses of variance were performed in order to test hypothesis 2 ; this was done separately for each participating country.

Results Positions of nationalities on the content dimensions To obtain an impression of the relative positions of nationalities on the content dimensions, repeated measures analyses of variance were performed across participating countries, with `target group as a within-subject factor. As shown in Table 1, the analyses revealed signicant rank orderings of target groups on both the competence and morality dimension. Table 1. Mean attribution to target nationalities of ` competence and ` morality
Trait dimension (%) Competence Germans English Italians Czechs Hungarians Poles Russians Bulgarians Belarussians F(8, 8208) 5 572.63 ; 70 66 65 56 56 55 54 51 51 p ! .0001 Morality English Czechs Hungarians Belarussians Poles Bulgarians Italians Russians Germans F(8, 8088) 5 131.87 ; 56 55 53 53 52 51 49 46 44 p ! .0001

Central and Eastern European nationality stereotypes

93

Table 1 illustrates that the Germans are generally perceived as the most competent, followed by the English, Italians, Czechs, Hungarians, Poles, Russians, Bulgarians and the Belarussians. Hence, it appears that the competence dimension follows more or less an eastwest arrangement of target nationalities. The ranking of target groups on the morality dimension is as follows : English, Czechs, Hungarians, Belarussians, Poles, Bulgarians, Italians, Russians and Germans (see Table 1, column 2). The ordering of target nationalities on the morality dimension suggests a dierence between bigger and smaller nation states : nationalities from larger states are perceived as less moral. Nation state features as determinants of the content of nationality stereotypes Four categories of nation state features were identied as possible determinants of the content of nationality stereotypes, namely economic and political (` economic power and ` nationalistic ), cultural (` way of life ), relational (`conicts ) and geographical features (`western longitude location of the target group, `northern latitude location of the target group, ` demographic size of the target population and ` geographical size of the target nation state ). Specically, we expected that particular nation state features are (more) important predictors for the content of stereotypes in this context: socio-economic features are expected to aect the content in terms of competence, while size and conicts between nation states aect the content in terms of morality (hypothesis 1). Multiple stepwise regression analyses were conducted with all nation state features as predictors to test whether ` economic power aects competence, while `size and ` conicts aect morality (hypothesis 1), and to explore whether some of the other nation state features have an additional eect on competence or morality. Table 2 gives an overview of the results per participating country and across participating countries. In Table 2 it can be seen that perceived competence of a national outgroup is strongly related to the perceived ` economic power of the national state of the target group. Other nation state features do not have an additional signicant contribution to the prediction of ` competence . Separate correlation analyses indicated that most of these features are correlated with competence (across participating countries: ` western longitude location of target group : r 5 . 47, p ! .001 ; `demographic size of the target population : r 5 .31, p ! .001 ; ` nationalistic : r 5 . 22, p ! . 001 ; ` way of life : r 5 .18, p ! . 001 ; ` geographical size of the target nation state : r 5 .15, p ! .001). As can further be seen in Table 2, perceived morality of out-group nationalities is related to the size of the country (i.e. ` geographical size of the target nation state ), perceived conicts, as well as perceived nationalism and, in Belarus and Russia, economic power of the nation states. Nationalities are generally perceived as relatively more moral when their nation state is small, has relatively less conicting interests, is less nationalistic and more economically powerful. Hence, as predicted, size and conicts are important determinants of morality. The results, moreover, reveal that `nationalism and `economic power are additional determinants of morality and that ` geographical size of the target nation state is a more important predictor than ` demographic size of the target population.

94

Edwin Poppe and Hub Linssen

Table 2. Summary of multiple stepwise regression analyses with `competence and ` morality as dependent variables and nation state features as predictors
Participating country Stereotype dimensions and predictors Competence Economic power Morality Country size Conicts Nationalism Economic power Multiple R Rus .56 2 . 18a 2 . 05d 2 . 22c .23b .32 Blr .56 2 . 18b 2 . 15c 2 . 11d .30a .41 2 Bul . 64 .15a 2 . 20b 2 . 17c . 34 Hun .70 2 . 12c 2 . 14b 2 . 20a .32 Pol . 57 2 . 28a 2 . 20c 2 . 22b . 53 2 Cze .66 .09c 2 . 22b 2 . 27a .44 Overall . 63 2 . 18a 2 . 17b 2 . 22c . 14d . 38

Note. Values represent signicant standardized regression coecients and multiple Rs ( ps ! .05). Superscripts represent the order of steps in which the predictors were accepted into the regression equation (a 5 rst accepted ; d 5 last accepted). Key. Rus 5 Russia; Blr 5 Belarus ; Bul 5 Bulgaria ; Hun 5 Hungary; Pol 5 Poland ; Cze 5 Czech Republic. Country size 5 ordinal range of geographic size of target nation states (Czech Republic 5 1; Hungary 5 2; Bulgaria 5 3; England 5 4; Belarus 5 5 ; Italy 5 6; Poland 5 7 ; Germany 5 8; Russian Federation 5 9).

These results conrm hypothesis 1. The content dimensions underlying nationality stereotypes are related to nation state features ; socio-economic features are particularly related to the attribution of competence, while size and conicts are related to the attributions in terms of morality. Additionally, it appears that morality is also related to perceived nationalism of nation states, and to economic power of nation states among Belarussians and Russians. Intergroup dierentiation on competence and morality Intergroup dierentiation scores on competence and morality were calculated by subtracting out-group ratings from in-group ratings in each participating country. The dierentiation scores were used as dependent variables in analyses of variance to test whether these ` dierentiation scores diered signicantly from zero. Intergroup dierentiation scores signicantly above or below zero are interpreted as in-group or out-group favouritism, respectively. Table 3 shows the results of analyses of variance concerning in-groupout-group dierentiation on competence. As can be seen in Table 3, the participants generally perceive Western European nationalities, in particular the Germans and the English, as more competent than their national in-group. Furthermore, there is a general pattern of perceiving the own national group as more competent than all, or almost all, fellow Central and Eastern European nationalities. The exception are the Belarussians, who do not favour their own national group over any out-group. Table 4 shows the results concerning intergroup dierentiation on the morality

Table 3. Mean in-groupout-group dierence on competence

Target nationality Pol 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cze Eng Ger Ita MANOVA Target eect GNP contrast Sign. contrast Size contrast 2 2 2 2 2 2

Participant country

Rus

Blr

Bul

Hun

11***

11***
3 3

Rus Blr Bul Hun Pol Cze 10***

4*** 9*** 4*** 11***

9*** 10*** 9*** 11***

9*** 2*

10*** 8*** 18***

8*** 3** 7***

4** 6***

9*** 4*** 6***

2 4*** 2 11*** 2 10*** 2 9*** 2 2* 2 5*** 7*** 2 10*** 2 7*** 2 6*** 97.50*** 83.20*** 137.27*** 183.26*** 128.91*** 201.07*** 20.17*** 19.34*** 22.81*** 23.39*** 22.62*** 24.91***

2 7*** 2 11*** 2 14*** 2 12*** 2 12*** 2 9***

F(7,945) 5 F(7,1169) 5 F(7,1267) 5 F(7,1155) 5 F(7,1330) 5 F(7,1281) 5

t(135) 5 t(167) 5 t(181) 5 t(165) 5 t(190) 5 t(183) 5

t(135) 5 t(167) 5 t(181) 5 t(165) 5 t(190) 5 t(183) 5

18.43** 5.50** 5.80** 9.18** 11.76** 8.37** out-

* 5 p ! .05 ; ** 5 p ! .01 ; *** 5 p ! .001 ; 5 p " .05. Note. Positive score means in-group favouritism (in-group competence " out-group competence) ; negative score means out-group favouritism (in-group competence ! group competence). Key. Rus 5 Russians; Blr 5 Belarussians; Bul 5 Bulgarians ; Pol 5 Poles ; Hun 5 Hungarians; Cze 5 Czechs ; Eng 5 English; Ger 5 Germans ; Ita 5 Italians.

Table 4. Mean in-groupout-group dierence on morality

Target nationality Hun 2 2 2 2 2 2 Pol Cze Eng Ger Ita MANOVA Target eect Sign. contrast GNP contrast Size contrast

Participant country

Rus

Blr

Bul

2
3 3 3

Central and Eastern European nationality stereotypes

2 7*** 2*

3**

2 6*** 2 8*** 2 5***

5***

6*** 2 7***

Rus Blr Bul Hun Pol Cze

9*** 3** 10*** 6***

8***

2 5*** 2 12*** 2 8*** 11*** 2* 7*** 5*** 3** 7***

3* 7*** 10*** 13***

3* 6***

F(7,868) 5 F(7,1162) 5 F(7,1253) 5 F(7,1162) 5 F(7,1351) 5 F(7,1246) 5

11.24*** 28.39*** 26.42*** 26.14*** 77.02*** 64.36***

t(179) 5 t(166) 5 t(193) 5 t(178) 5

5.27*** 4.51*** 6.75*** 5.49***

t(124) 5 t(166) 5 t(179) 5 t(166) 5 t(193) 5 t(178) 5

2.48*** 8.14*** 10.89*** 7.42*** 18.71*** 10.40***

* 5 p ! .05 ; ** 5 p ! .01 ; *** 5 p ! .001 ; 5 p " .05. Note. Positive score means in-group favouritism (in-group morality " out-group morality) ; negative score means out-group favouritism (in-group morality ! out-group morality). Key. Rus 5 Russians; Blr 5 Belarussians; Bul 5 Bulgarians ; Pol 5 Poles ; Hun 5 Hungarians; Cze 5 Czechs ; Eng 5 English ; Ger 5 Germans ; Ita 5 Italians.

95

96

Edwin Poppe and Hub Linssen

dimension. There is a general pattern of out-group favouritism towards the English (i.e. the English are perceived as more moral than any in-group). Furthermore, the patterns of in-group favouritism versus out-group favouritism on morality dier per participant group. The Russians and Bulgarians perceive their national group as one of the least moral. The Poles favour their in-group on morality in comparison to the Germans and the Russians, but not to the Czechs and the Hungarians, who are perceived as more moral by the Poles. The Belarussian, Hungarian and Czech participants perceive their national group as one of the most moral groups. Taken together, Table 3 and Table 4 show that there is no blanket strategy of ingroup favouritism on competence and morality. Moreover, in any participating country there is not an all-out manifestation of in-group favouritism on either of the two dimensions. Western European nationalities are almost always favoured over the in-group, in particular in terms of competence. However, by the same token, there appears to be an almost general pattern of in-group favouritism on competence within the Central and Eastern European comparison context. The exceptions are that the Belarussians perceive all fellow Central and Eastern European nationalities as equally competent, while the Bulgarians perceive the Czechs as equally competent as the in-group. In summary, the results indicate that most Central and Eastern European nationalities use competence to favour their in-group over fellow Central and Eastern European out-groups, but not over Western European nationalities. Western European nationalities are perceived as more competent than the in-group. This reects a realistic appraisal of the economic superiority of Western European nation states. Competence is not a tenable criterion for the Central and Eastern European nationalities to dierentiate the in-group positively from Western European nationalities. However, the Belarussians go one step further, by not favouring the in-group in terms of competence over any out-group at all, and Belarus indeed has one of the weakest economies within the comparison context. Hence, absence of in-group favouritism or even out-group favouritism on competence appears to reect economic status dierences between the in-group and out-groups. Morality is less used to favour the in-group over out-groups, even when in-group favouritism on competence is absent. Hence, morality is not (always) used to compensate for lack of in-group status in terms of competence. In-group favouritism in terms of morality seems to occur in particular in comparison to large nationalities : the Russians and the Germans. Eect of economic status and size of out-groups on intergroup dierentiation In order to test hypothesis 2, repeated measures analyses of variance with a priori contrasts based on GNP and size of target groups (see Method section) were performed for each participating country. Signicant contrast eects for the competence and morality dimension are presented as t statistics in the last columns of Tables 3 and 4, respectively. As can be seen in Table 3, the pattern of intergroup dierentiation on competence in each participating country corresponds with the GNP of the target nations: ingroup favouritism increases in relation to out-groupswith lower GNP and decreases,

Central and Eastern European nationality stereotypes

97

or out-group favouritism increases, in relation to out-groups with a higher GNP. Furthermore, it appears that in-group favouritism increases in relation to smaller outgroups and decreases, or out-group favouritism increases, in relation to large outgroups (see last column, Table 3). Table 4 shows a signicant eect of the GNP contrast on dierentiation in terms of morality as well, in four of the six participating countries : Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic. In these four countries, in-group favouritism on morality increases in relation to economically powerful out-groups,and decreases, or out-group favouritism increases, in relation to out-groups with a lower GNP. Furthermore, it appears that the pattern of inter-group dierentiation on morality follows a population size trend: in-group favouritism increases in relation to larger nationalities. Taken together, hypothesis 2 is conrmed in four of the six participating countries: in-group favouritism on competence decreased as a function of economic status and size of out-groups, while in-group favouritism on morality increased as a function of economic status and size of out-groups. The hypothesis is not conrmed in the case of Belarus and Russia, where in-group favouritism on morality did not increase in relation to higher economic status out-groups. Discussion This study examined the content of stereotypes about European nationalities in terms of competence and morality held by Central and Eastern European adolescents and in-group favouritism on these dimensions underlying nationality stereotypes. First, it was hypothesized that the content of nationality stereotypes is related to perceived economic, political, cultural, geographical and relational features of the nation states ; in particular, it was proposed that socio-economic features aect the content in terms of competence, while size of nation states and conicts between nation states aect the content in terms of morality. Second, it was hypothesized that in-group favouritism on (the status-related dimension) competence decreases as a function of the economic status and size of the out-group, while in-group favouritism on (the alternative dimension) morality increases as a function of the economic status and size of the outgroup. Content of nationality stereotypes The results corroborate the hypothesis that the content of nationality stereotypes is related to structural and relational features of nation states. The attribution of competence-related traits is strongly related to perceived economic features of the target nation state : nationalities are perceived as more competent when their nation state is perceived as more economically powerful. The attribution of morality-related traits is related to the size of the country and perceived conicts as well as perceived nationalism and (especially for Russians and Belarussians) perceived economic power of the nation states. Nationalities are perceived as relatively moral when their nation state is small and has less conicting interests, is less nationalistic and, in the case of Russians and Belarussians, more economically powerful.

98

Edwin Poppe and Hub Linssen

The present ndings conrm previous research indicating that stereotypes are derived from features of social reality, such as observation of socio-economic positions (e.g. Brewer & Cambell, 1976) and the nature of the relationship of the groups involved (e.g. Eagly & Kite, 1987). The determinants of the content of stereotypes in the present study are also consistent with the determinants found in a Western European context by Linssen & Hagendoorn (1994). In both studies the attribution of competence-related traits is mainly determined by perceived economic and political features and the attribution of morality-related traits is related to the size of the nation state. This is not to say that size is a purely geographical factor. Larger states, such as Germany and the Russian Federation, have occupied or controlled other states in this century during the Second World War and the Communist period. Hence, the size-related attribution of immorality also has historical grounds. Our results do not indicate a northsouth gradient in the attribution of competencerelated traits, as was found by Linssen & Hagendoorn (1994). In our study, the attribution of competence instead followed an ordering from east to west, reecting the salient and realistic dierences in economic performance between former Communist and European Union member states. Perceived economic and political features of nation states appeared to be the real determinant of perceived competence. The fact that this study reveals that the perception of more or less realistic dierences between nation states determines the content of nationality stereotypes counters the notion of socialcognitive researchers that stereotypes derive solely or even mostly from cognitive factors, such as category accentuation and illusory correlation (e.g. Hamilton, 1981). Our study suggests, in line with self-categorization theory, that these cognitive factors are bounded by social reality, namely that category accentuation is determined by contextually salient aspects of social reality (cf. Oakes et al., 1994). Competence and morality t the salient dierences between European nationalities from the perspective of Central and Eastern European respondents. This does not mean that these stereotypes are accurate or valid in the sense of representing ` true characteristics of the national populations, but that they are ` psychologically valid (Oakes et al ., 1994 ; Oakes & Reynolds, 1997) in providing the perceiver an accurate and meaningful representation of the nationalities involved in the intergroup context. Furthermore, the results suggest that there is consensus on the positions of dierent out-groups on these dimensions across the participants of the six Central and Eastern European countries, which indicates that the stereotypes are also `socially valid . However, we would not argue with certainty that the same results would also appear among other groups in the participating countries. Pupils in more rural areas, or adults, may have dierent perceptions of the features of foreign nation states than in our sample of pupils of secondary schools in capital cities and therefore have dierent stereotypes.

In-group favouritism The results in four of the six participating countries indicated that in-group favouritism on (the status-related dimension) competence decreases as a function of the economic status and size of the out-group, while in-group favouritism on (the

Central and Eastern European nationality stereotypes

99

alternative dimension) morality increases as a function of the economic status and size of the out-group. Hence, the results in four countries (i.e. Bulgaria, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic) conrm hypothesis 2. The hypothesis is not conrmed in the case of Belarus and Russia, where in-group favouritism on morality did not increase in relation to higher economic status out-groups.However, morality cannot really be considered an alternative (i.e. economic status-unrelated) dimension in the case of Russians and Belarussians because it is seen by them as being bound up with economic power. In other words, the more general hypothesis that in-group favouritism on a status-related dimension decreases as a function of out-group status, while in-group favouritism on an alternative dimension increases as a function of out-group status, is not really tested in Russia and Belarus. Furthermore, the results indicated that the Central and Eastern European nationalities do not favour their in-group over all foreign nationalities on competence and morality. On competence, most Central and Eastern European nationalities did favour the in-group over fellow Central and Eastern European out-groups, but acknowledged the superiority of Western European nationalities. The morality dimension was used less frequently to favour the in-group over out-groups than competence. Russian and Bulgarian participants saw all out-groups as (equally or) more moral. Other nationalities favoured their in-group over some out-groups. Moreover, there was a general pattern of out-group favouritism with respect to the English. The results suggest that the participants generally (with the exception of the Belarussians) follow a ` dierent-but-better strategy of dierentiation (Mummendey & Schreiber, 1984) with respect to fellow CentralEastern European nationalities. Mummendey & Schreiber (1983, 1984) suggest that when group members can positively dierentiate their in-group on a particular (status-related) dimension they may favour out-groups on more peripheral dimensions, and thereby still enhance their identity and distinctiveness. Yet, in our research the participant groups claim in-group superiority on competence (` we are the most competent of Central and Eastern Europe), and not one of the participant groups perceived the in-group as the most moral of the Central and Eastern European nationalities. They did not follow the same identity maintenance strategy with respect to Western European nationalities. Having acknowledged the economic superiority of Western Europe, they preserve their positive national identity better by following the `social creativity strategy (Tajfel & Turner, 1986 ; cf. Lemaine, 1974) by which they consider themselves as more ` moral than Western European nationalities. This appears to be the case, but not without qualications : most of the participant groups claim to be more (or equally) moral than Germans and Italians, and all perceive the English as morally superior. Hence, there seems to be a limit to the ability to defend a positive national identity against all the odds of social, economic, political and cultural factors. The point at which this study brings us further is not primarily the nding that people do not blindly dierentiate their in-group positively from out-groups. More important is the nding that status dierences and social reality constrain the degree of in-group favouritism on dierent dimensions. The nding that in-group favouritism in terms of competence increases in relation to lower economic status

100

Edwin Poppe and Hub Linssen

and smaller out-groups, whereas in-group favouritism on morality increases in relation to large and higher economic status out-groups may advance the debate on the eect of status dierences on in-group favouritism. The point we refer to here is that dierent researchers have derived opposing predictions from social identity theory. Some have claimed that lower status (e.g. in terms of socio-economic status or size) should lead to more in-group favouritism due to threatened social identity (e.g. Brewer, 1979), while others argued that high status leads to more in-group favouritism (e.g. Sachdev & Bourhis, 1987 ; Turner & Brown, 1978). There is empirical evidence for both positions (cf. Hinkle & Brown, 1990). Meta-analyses based on several studies indicated that higher status leads to more in-group favouritism in experimental groups, while there was a (non-signicant) opposite trend in the context of real groups (Mullen et al ., 1992). It has to be added, however, that dimensions used in the context of experimental groups mainly were status dening (or at least status related), while most of the real-group studies included status-related as well as status-unrelated dimensions (see Mullen, et al ., 1992). The results of these multidimensional studies suggested already that members of higher status groups tend to emphasize their superiority on status-dening or status-related dimensions, while lower status group members tend to emphasize their superiority on status-unrelated dimensions (e.g. Mummendey & Schreiber, 1984 ; Van Knippenberg & Van Oers, 1978 ; see also Ellemers, Van Rijswijk, Roefs and Simons, 1997). This result was conrmed in our current study. In contrast to most of the previous studies, our study did not test the eect of status with respect to one out-group (or two out-groups as was the case in Spears & Manstead, 1989), but to multiple out-groups, and the status dierential was not self-evident but explicitly determined by objective indicators of economic status and size of out-groups. In summary, the results of the present study underline that it is crucial to examine the content of the comparison dimensions to explain the eects of status dierences on in-group favouritism. Moreover, the present study demonstrates the importance of a social level analyses of stereotypes (cf. Ellemers et al., 1997 ; Oakes et al., 1994 ; Spears et al ., 1997), taking into account the role of social reality in the display of ingroup favouritism and the accentuation of the content of stereotypes. Acknowledgements
The research reported in this article is supported by the Foundation for Economic, Socio-Cultural and Environmental Sciences (ESR) of the Netherlands Organization for Scientic Research (NWO ; grant number 510-81-504). We want to express our gratitude to Louk Hagendoorn, Russell Spears and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper and to Gyo $ rgy Csepeli, Jannes ) ka Pechac ) ova! , David Hartkamp, Alexander Kolev, Yulian Konstantinov, Maria Koutkova! , Zden Rotman, Vyacheslav Ryazantsev, Todor Shopov, Krystyna Skarz 0 yn ! ska, Sergey Tumanov and Timea Venczel for their assistance with the data collection.

Central and Eastern European nationality stereotypes References

101

Berrien, F. (1969). Stereotype similarities and contrasts. Journal of Social Psychology , 78, 173183. Brewer, M. B. (1979). Ingroup bias in the minimal intergroup situation : A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin , 86, 307324. Brewer, M. B. & Campbell, D. T. (1976). Ethnocentrism and intergroup attitudes : East African evidence . New York : Halsted } Wiley. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1961). The mirror image in Soviet-American relations : A social psychologists report. Journal of Social Issues, 17, 4546. Campbell, D. (1967). Stereotypes and the perception of group dierences. American Psychologist , 22, 817829. Doise, W. & Sinclair, A. (1973). The categorization process in intergroup relations. European Journal of Social Psychology , 3, 145157. Eagly, A. & Kite, M. (1987). Are stereotypes of nationalities applied to women and man ? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 53, 451462. Ellemers, N. & Van Knippenberg, A. (1997). Stereotyping in social context. In R. Spears, P. J. Oakes, N. Ellemers & S. A. Haslam (Eds), The social psychology of stereotyping and group life , pp. 208235. Oxford : Blackwell. Ellemers, N. & Van Rijswijk, W. (1997). Identity needs versus social opportunities: The use of grouplevel and individual-level identity management strategies. Social Psychology Quarterly , 60, 5265. Ellemers, N., Van Rijswijk, W., Roefs, M. & Simons, C. (1997). Bias in intergroup perceptions: Balancing group identity with social reality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 23, 186198. Hagendoorn, L. (1991). Determinants and dynamics of national stereotypes. Politics and the Individual , 1, 1326. Hamilton, D. L. (Ed.) (1981). Cognitive processes in stereotyping and intergroup behaviour . Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum. Hamilton, D. L. & Giord, R. K. (1976). Illusory correlation and the maintenance of stereotypic beliefs. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 12, 392407. Haslam, S. A., Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., McGarthy, C. & Hayes, B. K. (1992). Context-dependent variation in social stereotyping 1 : The eects of intergroup relations as mediated by social change and frame of reference. European Journal of Social Psychology , 22, 320. Hinkle, S. & Brown, R. J. (1990). Intergroup comparisons and social identity theory: Some links and lacunae. In D. Abrams & M. A. Hogg (Eds), Social identity theory : Constructive and critical advances, pp. 4870. Hemel Hempstead : Harvester-Wheatsheaf. Human Development Report (1996). New York : Oxford University Press. Jonas, K. & Hewstone, M. (1986). The assessment of national stereotypes: A methodological study. Journal of Social Psychology , 126, 745754. Katz, D. & Braly, K. W. (1933). Racial stereotypes of one hundred college students. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 28, 280290. Kiers, H. A. L. (1990). SCA: A program for simultaneous component analysis of variables measured in two or more populations . Groningen, The Netherlands : IEC Programma. Lemaine, G. (1974). Social dierentiation and social originality. European Journal of Social Psychology , 4, 1752. Levine, R. A. & Campbell, D. T. (1972). Ethnocentrism : Theories and conict , ethnic attitudes and group behaviour . New York : Wiley. Linssen, H. & Hagendoorn, L. (1994). Social and geographical factors in the explanation of the context of European nationality stereotypes. British Journal of Social Psychology , 33, 165182. McCauley, C. & Stitt, C. L. (1978). An individual and quantitative measure of stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 36, 929940. Millsap, R. E. & Meredith, W. (1988). Component analysis in cross-sectional and longitudinal data. Psychometrika , 53, 123134. Mullen, B., Brown, R. & Smith, C. (1992). Ingroup bias as a function of salience, relevance, and status : An integration. European Journal of Social Psychology , 22, 103122. Mummendey, A. & Schreiber, H. J. (1983). Better or dierent? Positive social identity by discrimination against or by dierentiation from outgroups. European Journal of Social Psychology , 13, 389397.

102

Edwin Poppe and Hub Linssen

Mummendey, A. & Schreiber, H. H. (1984). `Dierent just means ` better : Some obvious and some hidden pathways to in-group favouritism. British Journal of Social Psychology , 23, 363368. Oakes, P. J. Haslam, S. A. & Turner, J. C. (1994). Stereotyping and social reality . Oxford : Blackwell. Oakes, P. J. & Reynolds, K. J. (1997). Asking the accuracy question : Is measurement the answer ? In R. Spears, P. J. Oakes, N. Ellemers & S. A. Haslam (Eds), The social psychology of stereotyping and group life , pp. 236256. Oxford : Blackwell. Oakes, P. J. & Turner, J. C. (1990). Is limited information processing the cause of social stereotyping ? In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds), European review of social psychology , pp. 111135. Chichester : Wiley. Peabody, D. (1985). National characteristics . New York : Cambridge University Press. Pettigrew, T. (1979). The ultimate attribution error : Extending Allports cognitive analysis of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 5, 461476. Phalet, K. & Poppe, E. (1997). Competence and morality dimensions of national and ethnic stereotypes : A study in six Eastern European countries. European Journal of Social Psychology , 27, 703723. Rosenberg, S. & Sedlak, A. (1972). Structural representations of implicit personality theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology , pp. 235297. New York : Academic Press. Sachdev, I. & Bourhis, R. Y. (1987). Social categorization and power dierentials in group relations. European Journal of Social Psychology , 15, 415434. Salazar, J. & Marin, G. (1977). National stereotypes as a function of conict and territorial proximity. Journal of Social Psychology , 101, 1319. Seago, D. W. (1947). Stereotypes: Before Pearl Harbour and after. Journal of Psychology , 23, 5564. Sherif, M. (1967). Groups conict and cooperation : Their social psychology . London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Spears, R. & Manstead, A. S. R. (1989). The social context of stereotyping and dierentiation. European Journal of Social Psychology , 19, 101121. Spears, R., Oakes, P. J., Ellemers, N. & Haslam, S. A. (1997). The social psychology of stereotyping and group life . Oxford : Blackwell. Tajfel, H. (1969). Cognitive aspects of prejudice. Journal of Social Issues, 25, 7999. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup conict. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austen (Eds), Psychology of intergroup relations , pp. 724. Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Turner, J. C. & Brown, R. (1978). Social status, cognitive alternatives, and intergroup relations. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Dierentiation between social groups, pp. 201234. London: Academic Press. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D. & Wetherell (1987). Rediscovering the social group : A self -categorization theory . Oxford: Blackwell. Van Knippenberg, A. (1978). Status dierences, comparative relevance, and intergroup dierentiation. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Dierentiation between social groups, pp. 171199. London: Academic Press. Van Knippenberg, A. & Van Oers, H. (1984). Social identity and equity concerns in intergroup perceptions. British Journal of Social Psychology , 23, 351361. Von Ehrenfels, U. R. (1957). North south polarization : A study in the typicality of attitudes. Centenary Volume, University of Madras, 28, 85103. Von Ehrenfels, U. R. (1961). A trend in the development of national units. Tamil Culture, 9, 112. Wojciszke, B. (1994). Multiple meanings of behavior: Construing actions in terms of competence and morality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 67, 222232. Wolf, H. (1963). Stellungnahmen Deutscher jugendlichen zu Osteuropischen volker. Kolner Zeitschrift fu X r Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie , 15, 478510. Received 7 March 1996; revised version received 16 February 1998