Copyright 2001 by the American Psychological Association. Inc.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology OO22-35I4/O1/$5.OO DOI: 10.1037//O022-3514.81.6.1O90

2001. Vol. 81. No. 6. 1090-1102

Is There Any Scapegoat Around?

Determinants of Intergroup Conflicts at Different Categorization Levels

Thomas Kessler and Amelie Mummendey

Friedrich-Schiller-Universitat

Recategorization at a higher level reduces tensions between groups. However, recategorization may
cause conflicts between the common in-group and a new out-group. Additionally, determinants of
conflict between subgroups may enhance conflict at the higher categorization level. In the context of
German unification, the authors explored these suggestions with an East German 3-wave longitudinal
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

study and a West German control group. Results show that a salient East German versus West German
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

categorization enhances conflict between subgroups, whereas categorization as German enhances conflict
at the common in-group level. Determinants of subgroup conflict also influence conflict at the inclusive
level (Germans and foreigners). Thus, recategorization is a 2-edged instrument: Although it reduces
conflict at the subgroup level, it may initiate conflict at the common in-group level.

The explanation of intergroup conflict and attempts to reduce
conflict between groups has been central to social psychology.
Common expressions of conflict between groups include prejudice
(e.g., hostile attitudes against foreigners or xenophobia), social
discrimination (e.g., unjust treatment of others on the basis of their
group membership), and collective action (e.g., public protest).
According to the theoretical frameworks of social identity theory
(Tajfel & Turner, 1986) and self-categorization theory (Turner,
Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987), one crucial determi-
nant for prejudice and discrimination is the salient level of self-
categorization that specifies which individuals are seen as similar
to the self ("us") and which are excluded as being others ("them").
Consistent with this line of reasoning, several models predict that
intergroup conflict can be resolved by reducing the relative sa-
lience of the categorization level at which the specific intergroup
conflict occurs (e.g., Brewer & Miller, 1984; Hewstone & Brown,
1986; S. L. Gaertner, Dovidio, Anastasio, Bachman, & Rust, 1993;
Wilder, 1986). The decategorization approach (Brewer & Miller,
1984) focuses on reducing conflict through personalized interac-
tion that undermines the salience of group categorization. In con-
trast, the common in-group identity model (S. L. Gaertner et al.,
1993) stresses the virtues of the recategorization of subgroups into
one common in-group. Recategorization of former in-group and
out-groups into one common in-group may reduce conflict by
reducing the salience of the subgroup categorization. However, as
we suggest, recategorization may reduce conflict between preex-
Thomas Kessler and Amelie Mummendey, Lehrstuhl fur Sozialpsy-
chologie, Friedrich-Schiller-Universitat, Jena, Germany.
The studies reported here were conducted within a research project
supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft Grant MU-551-13-3. We
are grateful to David Kenny, Thorsten Meiser, Sabine Otten, Kai Sassen-
berg, and Sven Waldzus for their helpful comments and suggestions on a
draft of this article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Thomas
Kessler, Friedrich-Schiller-Universitat, Lehrstuhl fur Sozialpsychologie,
Humboldtstrasse 26, D-07743 Jena, Germany. Electronic mail may be sent
to s7keth@uni-jena.de.
isting groups, but may also simultaneously introduce a new inter-
group conflict between the common in-group and a new out-group
by enhancing the salience of categorization at this superordinate
level. Moreover, another complication may be that both levels of
categorization and their associated intergroup conflict may not be
completely independent from each other. Thus, determinants of
subgroup conflict may also enhance the conflict at the inclusive
level of the common in-group and the new out-group.
In the current research, we wanted to test these two possible
negative side effects of recategorization by exploring recategori-
zation in a wider natural context. We examined the two sugges-
tions by exploring intergroup conflicts on different levels of self-
categorization. More specifically, we wanted to focus on two
different levels of categorization, one subgroup level and one
common in-group level, and their influence on intergroup conflict.
In addition, within a longitudinal design, we wanted to examine
whether the differences between levels of categorization have
causal effects on intergroup conflict. The different levels of cate-
gorization are placed in the field context of the German unifica-
tion. Within this merger situation (e.g., Terry & Callan, 1998) two
initially separate groups, East and West Germans, are on one hand
in conflict with each other and yet on the other hand supposed to
form one common group. Here, the participants of the merger
could categorize themselves either as members of one of the initial
groups or as members of the new all-inclusive group. Finally, to
replicate and generalize the results, we compared East German (as
a low-status group) and West German (as a high-status group)
samples. In sum, we do not want to challenge the common in-
group identity model (S. L. Gaertner et al., 1993), rather we want
to point to possible sources of intergroup conflicts that may arise
by recategorization.
Common In-Group Identity Model
According to social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986; see
also S. L. Gaertner et al., 1993; S. L. Gaertner, Dovidio, Nier,
Ward, & Banker, 1999), intergroup conflict develops by salient
categorization into in-group and out-groups (but see L. Gaertner &

1090
 RECATEGORIZATION AND INTERGROUP CONFLICT
Insko, 2000). Salient categorization leads to favoritism of in-group
members by reward allocations (Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, & Flament,
1971) and in evaluations (Mummendey & Schreiber, 1983) and
promotes prosocial behavior to and cooperation with in-group
members (Piliavin, Dovidio, Gaertner, & Clark, 1981; Kramer &
Brewer, 1984) as well as expectations of generalized reciprocity
(Yamagishi & Kiyonari, 2000). The in-group bias leads to a
favorable evaluation of in-group members, which does not, how-
ever, necessarily imply out-group derogation (Brewer, 1979,
1999). Recategorization of previous in-group and out-groups into
one common in-group reduces tensions (e.g., striving for positive
in-group distinctiveness; Tajfel & Turner, 1986) between these
previously distinct groups because recategorizing both groups into
one common in-group reduces the salience of the initial social
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
categories. The process of recategorization redirects some of the
cognitive and motivational processes that originally contributed to
the intergroup conflict. In particular, former out-group members
are evaluated more positively because, after recategorization, they
are now seen as members of the common in-group (e.g., Hogg &
Hains, 1996; Hogg, Hardi, & Reynolds, 1995). Moreover, recat-
egorization enhances relational justice concerns that foster attach-
ment and commitment to the common in-group (e.g., Huo, Smith,
Tyler, & Lind, 1996). The potential of recategorization to reduce
intergroup conflict is supported by several empirical findings:
Previous results show that as salience of a common identity
increases, there is less conflict between groups and more positive
attitudes about the former out-group (Gaertner, Mann, Dovidio,
Murrell, & Pomare, 1990; Gaertner, Mann, Murrell, & Dovidio,
1989). Favorable conditions of contact such as equal status, coop-
eration, institutional support, and opportunities for personal ac-
quaintance (see Allport, 1954) promote the perception of both
groups as being one common in-group. Concerning the cognitive
processes that reduce intergroup conflict, the effect of these favor-
able contact conditions on conflict reduction is mediated by a
common in-group identity (S. L. Gaertner, Rust, Dovidio, Bach-
man, & Anastasio, 1996). Thus, the representation of a common
in-group is the process that is triggered by favorable conditions of
contact, thereby leading to more positive emotional reactions and
attitudes toward the former out-group (Dovidio, Gaertner, Isen, &
Lowrance, 1995; Dovidio, Gaertner, & Validzic, 1998; S. L.
Gaertner, Dovidio, Rust, Nier, Banker, Ward, Mottola, & Houlette,
1999). Within the common in-group identity model, it is supposed
that the subgroup identities need not necessarily be abandoned.
Both levels of categorization, common in-group identity and sub-
group identities, could be simultaneously salient. However, results
for the benefits of maintaining dual identities were mixed (e.g.,
S. L. Gaertner, Dovidio, Nier, et al., 1999; Hornsey & Hogg,
2000a, 2000b).
Rather than being a prime tool to reduce intergroup conflict,
recategorization at an inclusive level may also present several
factors that could actually enhance conflict and prejudice: First, it
is not obvious what kind of new intergroup context will emerge
after recategorization at an inclusive level. Does recategorization
lead to a more positive view of others and initiate in-group favor-
itism to members of the now inclusive group, or does it perhaps at
the same time induce prejudice, hostility, and discrimination to-
ward members of a newly emerging out-group? We suggest that
whereas members of the common in-group (i.e., the former sub-
group members) may benefit from the transfer of a pro-in-group
1091
bias to the whole group, members of a new out-group may be at a
disadvantage by becoming salient. To our knowledge, this possi-
bility is rarely mentioned and has not been the subject of empirical
research until now. Second, there remains the possibility that the
original conflict between subgroups may subtly transform itself or
carry over into a new conflict between the common in-group and
a new out-group. Generally there are two ways in which different
levels of intergroup conflict can influence each other: On one
hand, determinants of intergroup conflict at one level may reduce
intergroup conflict on another level of self-categorization. This is
in line with the common in-group identity model, which suggests
that a common in-group identity reduces conflict between former
subgroups. On the other hand, determinants of an intergroup
conflict may also foster the intergroup conflict associated with
another level of self-categorization. For instance, determinants of
the conflict between subgroups may enhance the conflict between
the common in-group and a new out-group. This carryover of
conflict between subgroups to the common in-group level may
occur for two reasons: On one hand, the less powerful subgroup
within the common in-group may search for an even weaker group
to which the conflict may be redirected (scapegoating; Allport,
1954). On the other hand, group members may recategorize (as a
means of social creativity; e.g., Blanz, Mummendey, Mielke, &
Klink, 1998) to evade the original intergroup conflict. The unin-
tended side effect may be the emergence of a new out-group and,
thereby, the development of a new intergroup conflict. Here, the
emergence of a new out-group may be the triggering event for
intergroup conflict (e.g., Pedersen, Gonzales, & Miller, 2000). In
this case, recategorization is not sufficient for reducing an inter-
group conflict, at least under certain conditions (e.g., if some
criteria for favorable intergroup contact such as equal status are
violated). On the contrary, recategorization may possibly lead to
an alternative route of conflict—between, for example, the in-
group and a new out-group which can be competed against more
easily by the in-group.
Status Differences
Status differences between groups may be one factor that de-
termines whether recategorization may be a viable method for
reducing an intergroup conflict and whether an intergroup conflict
may carry over to other levels of categorization. In intergroup
relations with status differences, members of the superior group
evaluate intergroup contact more favorably than do members of
the lower status group because they have more control over the
intergroup-contact conditions (Islam & Hewstone, 1993). Equal
status enhances recategorization, however, only if the distinctive-
ness of one's own group is not threatened (see also Brown &
Wade, 1987; Hornsey & Hogg, 2000b). Perceived low status
impedes the recategorization into one common in-group (Dovidio
et al., 1998; Seta, Seta, & Culver, 2000), thereby reducing the
possibility of an improvement in the intergroup relationship. In
accordance with this line of reasoning, S. L. Gaertner et al. (1996)
found that high-status group members have more favorable im-
pressions of conditions of contact relative to low-status group
members. Moreover, low status enhances the salience of members'
social identity compared with members of a superior group. Thus,
with low status, it may be more difficult to forge a common
in-group identity that rises above the salience of their subgroup
 1092 KESSLER AND MUMMENDEY
social identity. Members of low-status groups show higher degrees
of bias in affective reactions than members of high-status groups
do. In particular, this bias is mainly the result of less favorable
affective responses toward the out-group (S. L. Gaertner et al.,
1996). Generally, perceived low status enhances attempts to over-
come this dissatisfactory situation and may thereby reduce the
effectiveness of efforts to reduce tensions between groups. Thus,
status differences between groups may lead to either less recat-
egorization or less positive effects of recategorization, particularly
for groups that are regarded as having lower status.
Intergroup Conflict
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Expression of Intergroup Conflict
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Several identity strategies have been proposed by social identity
theory and relative deprivation theory as a means to cope with less
favorable group status (Blanz et al., 1998; Lalonde & Cameron,
1994). Generally, individual and collective strategies represent two
different types of strategies to cope with negative social identity
and relative deprivation (Mummendey, Kessler, Klink, & Mielke,
1999): Individual strategies (e.g., social mobility) attempt to im-
prove a less favorable situation by changing the individual posi-
tion, thereby leaving the intergroup relations intact. In contrast,
collective strategies (e.g., public protest and competition) aim at
changing a presently existing intergroup situation. Thus, they are
clear expressions of conflict between groups. An obvious conflict
strategy is public protest that mobilizes group members in collec-
tive action (e.g., demonstrations, sit-ins, and strikes). Other fea-
tures of intergroup conflict are hostile attitudes against foreigners
and xenophobia. Xenophobia and prejudice can take both blatant
and subtle forms (Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995). They imply neg-
ative evaluations of out-group members as well as strong negative
affect (Smith, 1993).
The present study focused on public protest and xenophobia as
two different expressions of intergroup conflict because both are
expected to be related to different levels of categorization within
the German merger. Though xenophobia and public protest are not
the same type of intergroup conflict (see Struch & Schwartz,
1989), they are both fostered by salient categorization of an in-
group and out-group. Public protest may be related to the subgroup
categorization (i.e., East German and West German). In contrast,
xenophobia may be more strongly associated with the inclusive
categorization level (i.e., German). We hoped that the assessment
of two levels of categorization together with their associated
intergroup conflicts would enable us to examine the interdepen-
dence between both levels as well as whether there are specific or
common determinants of intergroup conflicts on different levels of
inclusiveness.
Prediction of Conflict by Social Identity and Relative
Deprivation
On the basis of social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986)
and relative deprivation theory (e.g., Crosby, 1982; Folger, 1987),
previous studies in the field context of the German merger have
identified several variables that differentially predict individual
and collective strategies (Mummendey, Kessler, et al., 1999;
Mummendey, Klink, Mielke, Wenzel, & Blanz, 1999). One of the
central constructs in previous research has been resentment about
relations between East and West Germans. Resentment is con-
ceived as the emotional component of fraternal relative deprivation
(Cook, Crosby, & Hennigan, 1977; Runciman, 1966) that also
parallels the notion of prejudice as a negative group-based emotion
(Smith, 1993). Thus, this variable is the strongest single predictor
for collective strategies such as realistic and social competition.
A second construct, group efficacy, denotes a collective belief in
the "effectiveness" of a group. Group efficacy implies high moti-
vation to work for the benefit of the group, to persist in pursuing
group goals in the face of obstacles and collective difficulties, and
to be willing to accept difficult challenges for the group (Zaccaro,
Blair, Peterson, & Zazanis, 1995). Consistent with this line of
reasoning, previous studies have shown that group efficacy is a
second predictor for collective strategies (Mummendey, Kessler, et
al., 1999). Finally, a third variable, in-group identification (Tajfel
& Turner, 1986) has been shown to predict individual strategies
(e.g., social mobility). Although identification with one's group
was correlated with collective strategies, this relation was com-
pletely mediated by resentment and group efficacy.
To summarize, resentment, group efficacy, and in-group iden-
tification were predictors for collective strategies (i.e., realistic and
social competition). Whereas resentment has the strongest influ-
ence on collective strategies, the relation between in-group iden-
tification and strategy preference was mediated by resentment and
group efficacy.
Aims of the Present Study
Recategorization as a means to reduce conflict between groups
raises two rarely mentioned issues: First, recategorization at a
higher level may constitute a new intergroup setting and, thus, may
introduce a new line of intergroup conflict. Second, both levels of
self-categorization with their associated conflict could be interde-
pendent. Thus, determinants of one intergroup conflict may also
influence an intergroup conflict at the other categorization level.
For instance, recategorization at a higher level may be a strategic
means to evade (not to solve—as assumed in the common in-group
identity model) a present intergroup conflict. Therefore, determi-
nants of conflict between two subgroups may contribute to the
conflict on a higher level of categorization.
These suggestions can be summarized in one model (see Figure
1). To examine this model in our present study, we assessed the
relation between levels of categorization (i.e., categorization as
East German vs. categorization as German) and the two indicators
of intergroup conflict (i.e., public protest and xenophobia). We
expected that categorization as East German enhances public pro-
test, whereas categorization as German intensifies xenophobia.
The relation between higher level of categorization on subgroup
conflict and lower level categorization on intergroup conflict at the
inclusive level of categorization were also assessed. Moreover, we
assessed whether the predictors of conflict between subgroups
(resentment, group efficacy, and in-group identification) have a
causal impact on intergroup conflicts. In particular, these predic-
tors are expected to be causally related to the conflict between
subgroups. More challenging is the question of whether determi-
nants of subgroup conflict also have a causal impact on conflict at
a higher level of categorization. This influence could either be
direct (i.e., the classical scapegoat; see Allport, 1954) or be indi-
 RECATEGORIZAT1ON AND INTERGROUP CONFLICT
common ingroup
categorization
determinants of
conflict between
subgroups
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
subgroup
categorization
Figure 1. Levels of categorization with their related conflict and displacement of intergroup conflict between
subgroups to the categorization level of common in-group.
rect (i.e., mediated by recategorization; see Figure 1). Moreover,
the longitudinal design of the present study allows analyzing
causal relations of variables. Thus, the assumption of a significant
causal influence of levels of categorization on intergroup conflict
(or vice versa) could be examined.
Finally, we assessed the impact of status differences on the
proposed relations between concepts. To this end, we compared an
East German sample as a group that was perceived as having lower
status with a West German sample as a group that was perceived
as having superior status. For the superior group, the same rela-
tions between levels of categorization and intergroup conflict were
expected. West Germans were expected to feel less resentment
concerning the relation between East and West Germans. More-
over, the subgroup categorization as West German is less salient
and, hence, public protest is less strong compared with categori-
zation as East German. For West Germans, we assumed that both
levels of categorization are closely related because they do not
differentiate between West German and German. Hence, there will
be less or no displacement of intergroup conflict from the sub-
group to the common in-group level of categorization.
Hypotheses
Our hypotheses can be summarized as follows:
1. Levels of intergroup conflict: Salient self-categorization at the
subgroup level (e.g., East German or West German) promotes public
protest, whereas a salient self-categorization at the common in-group
level (e.g., German) enhances xenophobia.
2. Prediction of intergroup conflict: Variables at the subgroup level
(resentment, group efficacy, or in-group identification) influence in-
tergroup conflict not only at the subgroup level but also at the
inclusive level of categorization.
3. Causal structure: There is evidence for causal influence of cate-
gorization levels on intergroup conflict as well as of determinants of
subgroup conflict on the intergroup conflict between the common
in-group and a new out-group.
1093
conflict between
common ingroup
and new outgroup
conflict between
subgroups
4. High-status group: For either the low- or high-status group, both
levels of categorization are related to different intergroup conflicts.
However, for high-status groups (i.e., West Germans) the conflicts are
less intense.
Method
Field Situation
The unification of Germany offers an exemplary situation in which to
study the interplay between different levels of self-categorization and
their associated intergroup conflict. The unification of Germany is a
merger that attempts to integrate the two subgroups of East and West
Germans into one common and inclusive group of Germans. Members
of each subgroup were able to categorize themselves as either members
of the subgroup (East or West German) or as members of the inclusive
group (German).
Within this merging situation some favorable conditions of inter-
group contact (Allport, 1954) are approximately fulfilled: There is
institutional support for the common goal to become one new society.
As members of both groups have to be mobile to keep their jobs
or to get new jobs there is a rich acquaintance potential. However,
one of the most obvious problems within the German merger is the
perceived lower status of East Germans. Thus, there is a strong con-
sensus that East Germans are worse off compared with West Germans.
For East Germans compared with West Germans, several social com-
parisons result in negative outcomes because West Germans are often
taken as the standard that East Germans are expected to attain. For
example, opinion polls in 1991 and 1995 revealed that most East
Germans (above 70%) saw themselves as "second-class citizens"
(Harenberg, 1991; Spiegel-Redaktion, 1995). Even today, because of
the perception of the lower status of the East Germans, there continues
to be considerable tension between East and West Germans. However,
the official political guideline is that of harmonizing the tension be-
tween both groups by accentuating the inclusive group membership.
Inasmuch as the merger is increasingly accepted, it seems no longer
appropriate to place the intergroup conflict at the level of East Germans
versus West Germans.
 KESSLER AND MUMMENDEY
1094
Participants and Procedure
Over 3 years, from 1995 to 1997, 109 participants (65 women and 44
men) took part in the longitudinal study.1 All were born and were still
living in East Germany. In the first wave, the mean age was 40 years
(ranging from 19 to 85 years). Educational level of respondents included
secondary school (n = 31), grammar school (n = 22), technical college
(n = 25), and university (n = 30). Fifty-seven percent of participants were
employed (n = 62), 23% were students (/i = 25), and 6% were unem-
ployed persons (n = 6), in addition to 14% who were homemakers and
pensioners (« = 15).
Assessed as a control group in 1996, the West German sample included
183 participants (91 women, 90 men; 2 did not indicate their gender). The
mean age was 31.4 years (range = 18-65 years), and educational levels
comprised secondary school (n = 40), grammar school (n = 104), tech-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
nical college (n = 11), and university (n = 24). Participants' principal
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
occupations were employees (34%; n = 63), students (52%; n = 95),
unemployed persons (2%; n = 4), and pensioners or homemakers (8%; n =
15).
Each participant completed a questionnaire containing all items relevant
to the present concerns in addition to other questions not related to the
present study. Coworkers in East Germany and West Germany distributed
the questionnaires to their acquaintances. Participants took part voluntarily;
they were told that the investigation was related to their "general life-
satisfaction." Participants completed their questionnaires individually ei-
ther at their workplace or at home and returned them by mail. Each
participant had a code label; we could then collate data from the East
German sample from Time 1, Time 2, and Time 3 without jeopardizing
anonymity.
Assessment of Variables
First, participants rated their perceived status relative to the other Ger-
man out-group (East Germans or West Germans). Participants indicated
whether they perceived their group's relative status as lower, equal, or
superior. In a second section of the questionnaire, participants rated their
resentment about relations between East and West Germany, perceived
group efficacy, their degree of in-group identification, and levels of self-
categorization. Finally, participants rated their inclination to public protest
and whether they agreed with items indicating xenophobia and hostile
attitudes against foreigners in Germany.
Public protest and xenophobia. Inclinations to public protest were
assessed with four items such as 'The time is ripe that we East Germans
should demonstrate for our rights." The reliability for public protest was
alpha (Time 1) = .72, alpha (Time 2) = .78, alpha (Time 3) = .84, and for
the West German sample, alpha = .84. Xenophobia was measured with
four items such as "Foreigners and Germans can never be really comfort-
able with each other, even if they are close friends." The reliability for this
variable was alpha (Time 1) = .75, alpha (Time 2) = .80, alpha (Time 3) =
.76, and for the West German sample, alpha = .59.
Predictors for xenophobia and public protest. Resentment about the
relationship between East and West Germans was assessed with three items
such as "Being faced daily with the situation of the East Germans one can
only become annoyed" with a reliability of alpha (Time 1) = .79, alpha
(Time 2) = .80, alpha (Time 3) = .82, and for the West German sample,
alpha = .66. Group efficacy was measured with three items such as "We
East Germans are not able to manage our fate by ourselves" with a
reliability of alpha (Time 1) = .64, alpha (Time 2) = .64, alpha (Time 3) =
.59, and for the West German sample alpha = .64. Finally, identification
as an East German was captured with three items such as "I consider
myself to be East German." Reliability of identification for the three
measures was alpha (Time 1) = .81, alpha (Time 2) = .85, alpha (Time
3) = .84, and for the West German sample alpha = .86. Overall, the
reliability of constructs is acceptable, but in some cases low.
The response format for all items was a 5-point scale (with participants
indicating how much they agreed or disagreed with the statements pre-
sented, i.e., 1 = do not agree at all to 5 = agree very much).
Levels of categorization. Each level of categorization was assessed
with one item. Self-categorization as an East German was measured with
the item "I see myself as an East German"; categorization as German was
measured with the item "I see myself as a German." The response format
for these two items was a 5-point scale that ranged from never to always.
Results
Levels of Self-Categorization and Predictors of Intergroup
Conflict
First, we examined the mean change of variables over the three
repeated measures from 1995 to 1997. To analyze the observed
change in the mean of variables, we computed an analysis of
variance with repeated measurements for each variable separately.
There was no significant difference between the measurement
occasions in predictor variables (resentment about relations be-
tween East and West Germans, East German group efficacy, and
identification as East German) or in public protest (see Table 1).
Moreover, categorization as East German or German did not
significantly change over the period of 3 years. As the only
significant change, xenophobia increased over time, F(2,
216) = 17.77, p < .001, with a continuous increase, linear trend,
F(l, 108) = 39.72.
In our hypotheses, we suggested that self-categorizations at
different levels are causally related to their specific intergroup
conflicts. In particular, we hypothesized that categorization as East
German strengthens public protest, whereas categorization as Ger-
man increases xenophobia. Moreover, we proposed that determi-
nants of the conflict at the subgroup level of categorization (i.e.,
East German) might also influence the intergroup conflict at the
higher level of categorization. Thus, determinants of the conflict at
the subgroup level also might be causally related to the conflict at
the inclusive level of categorization. We set up a panel model with
structural equation modeling procedures (LISREL 8; Joreskog &
Sorbom, 1993). This panel model included categorization as East
German and German, public protest and xenophobia as indicators
of intergroup conflict, and predictors of subgroup conflict (resent-
ment, group efficacy, and in-group identification). In addition, the
model involved these variables as measured at three times. To find
evidence for causal influence in a panel analysis, we computed
cross-lagged regressions (Cook & Campbell, 1979; Rogosa, 1980).
In a three-wave longitudinal design, for each hypothesized causal
relation there are three possible cross-lagged regressions that could
indicate a causal influence. In particular, there was one cross-
lagged regression of Variable A at Time 1 on Variable B at Time 2
(Lag for Times 1-2 regression), and there was a cross-lagged
regression of Variable A at Time 2 on Variable B at Time 3 (Lag
for Times 2-3 regression), finally, there was a cross-lagged re-
gression that related Variable A at Time 1 to Variable B at Time 3
1
This longitudinal study was part of a large survey project on the
unification of Germany. Within this project, we planned to investigate
different research questions concerning intergroup behavior with several
independent samples (longitudinal and cross-sectional) in East Germany as
well as in West Germany.
 RECATEGORIZATION AND INTERGROUP CONFLICT 1095

Table 1 model revealed that the assumed equality constraints of the au-
Mean Changes Over Time in the Variables of the Model toregressive coefficients did not hold for categorization as Ger-
man, Ax^l, N = 109) = 4.06, p < .05, and xenophobia, Ax^l,
1995 1996 1997 N = 109) = 9.36, p < .01. Hence, the equality constraints for the
M SD M SD M SD F(2, 216)
autoregressions for categorization as German and xenophobia
Variable
were removed. Moreover, for each variable the second-order au-
Resentment 2.91 0.93 2.87 0.82 2.96 0.92 0.76 toregressive coefficient reached significance even when the first-
Group efficacy 3.53 0.77 3.42 0.74 3.43 0.68 1.73 order autoregressions were controlled for (r values ranged be-
Identification 4.13 0.78 4.09 0.83 4.09 0.88 0.17
tween 2.05 and 5.02). Concerning the hypothesized causal
German categorization 3.72 1.29 3.77 1.16 3.80 1.16 0.30
East German relations between variables, our results indicate that the significant
categorization 3.82 1.10 3.91 1.05 3.91 1.10 0.55 cross-lagged regressions correspond generally to our suggested
Public protest 2.59 0.83 2.52 0.80 2.65 0.88 1.71 hypotheses (see Table 2). There are no other significant cross-
Xenophobia 2.49 0.82 2.69 0.90 2.85 0.86 17.77***
lagged regressions that indicate causality than the coefficients
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

***p < .001. listed in Table 2. Moreover, the equality constraints hold for all
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

significant cross-lagged regressions, A ^ ( l , N = 109) < 3.84, p >

(Lag for Times 1-3 regression). We placed equality constraints on
the Lag for Times 1-2 and Lag 2-3 regressions. Thus, a causal
influence between two variables would be concluded only if the
equality constraint holds and both cross-lagged regressions are
significant. The second-order cross-lagged regression (Lag for
Times 1-3 regression) was analyzed separately. Moreover, the
first-order autoregressive coefficients (i.e., stability of variables)
were set as equal for each variable. The second-order autoregres-
sive coefficients (i.e., the regression of one variable measured at
Time 1 on the same variable measured at Time 3) were analyzed
as well.
A preliminary analysis shows that neither group efficacy (t
values < 1.29) nor in-group identification (f values < 1.31) had
significant cross-lagged regression on indicators of intergroup
conflict. Consequently, neither variable was a causal antecedent of
intergroup conflict and, hence, they were not further considered.
The final panel model included resentment as a predictor of
conflict between subgroups (i.e., East Germans and West Ger-
mans), the subgroup level of categorization (East German), the
inclusive level of categorization (German), and both indicators of
intergroup conflict (public protest and xenophobia). Tests of the
.05. Finally, all second-order cross-lagged regressions (lag for
Times 1-3 regressions) were nonsignificant, all t values < 1.25.
We removed all paths that were not significant from the model
(i.e., all these paths were set 0) and tested the accuracy of the
model. The model showed a satisfying fit as is indicated by the
^ ( 5 5 , N = 109) = 56.11, p = .43, as well as other fit indicators,
root mean square error of approximation = .014, Akaike's infor-
mation criterion (AIC) = 186.11 (saturated model = 240), Tucker-
Lewis index (nonnormed-fit index) = 1.00. To evaluate this model
further, we compared it to other models. First, including all cross-
lagged regressions in the model did not improve the model fit
significantly, ^ ( 4 0 , N = 109) = 39.99, p = .47, with a A^2(15,
N = 109) = 16.12, p > .05. In addition, the full model revealed
a higher AIC of 199.99 compared with the AIC of our hypothe-
sized model (AIC = 186.11). This indicates that the hypothesized
model is more parsimonious than the model in which all cross-
lagged regressions are allowed (see Bozdogan, 1987). Second,
removing all cross-lagged regressions decreased the model fit
significantly, ^ ( 6 0 , N = 109) = 98.19, p = .001, with a A^(15,
A' = 109) = 42.08, p < .001. Thus, the nonsignificant cross-lagged
regressions add nothing significant to the model, whereas remov-

Table 2
Results of the Three-Wave Panel Model for Levels of Categorization (East German and
German), Intergroup Conflict (Public Protest and Xenophobia), and Resentment

Predictor

Criterion Resentment East German German Public protest Xenophobia

Resentment .54***
East German .21*** .45***
German .11* .72***/.42***
Public protest .14* .12* -.02 40***
Xenophobia .16*** -.15*** .13* .67***7.25**

Note. The coefficients in each cell represent the regression weights for the lags between Time 1 and 2 and
Time 2 and 3. As the regression weights for both time lags were set equal, only their common solution is
indicated. In two cases (i.e., autoregression for German categorization and xenophobia) the equality constraint
did not hold; here, the first number denotes the Time 1 to 2 lag and the second number denotes the Time 2 to 3
lag. The diagonal cells indicate autoregressions between variables over time. The cells under the diagonal
indicate the cross-lagged regression weights. The blank cells represent cross-lagged regression coefficients that
do not differ significantly from zero and, therefore, were set null. Model fit is ^ ( 5 5 , N = 109) = 56.11, p =
.43; root mean square error of approximation = .014; Akaike's information criteria = 186.11(240); nonnormed
fit index = 1.00.
*p<.05. **p<.0l. ***p< .001.
 KESSLER AND MUMMENDEY
1096
ing all cross-lagged regressions obviously leads to an inferior
model.
The significant cross-lagged regressions reveal a clear picture.
Resentment about the relation between East and West Germans is
a powerful causal antecedent for the other variables in the model:
High resentment increases East German categorization (/3 = .21)
and German categorization ()3 = .11). Moreover, resentment fos-
ters inclination for public protest (/3 = .14) and xenophobic atti-
tudes (/3 = .16). Consistent with our hypotheses, the German level
of categorization positively influenced xenophobia (/3 = . 13) as
the intergroup conflict that applies to the categorization level
Germans versus foreigners. Moreover, categorization as East Ger-
man positively influences public protest (/3 = .12) as the conflict
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
that is specific for the categorization at the subgroup level (East
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
and West Germans). Interestingly, categorization as East German
negatively influences xenophobic attitudes (/3 = -.15). That is, a
stronger East German categorization reduces xenophobic attitudes
within a time lag of 1 year. A parallel result for the German level
of categorization did not apply: There was only a very small
nonsignificant negative cross lag for categorization as German on
public protest (/3 = -.02). Thus, categorization as German has no
causal influence on public protest.
According to our hypotheses, levels of categorization are ex-
pected to differentially influence both intergroup conflicts. To
analyze this possibility, we set the influences of each level of
categorization on both intergroup conflicts as equal. If the model
fit decreases significantly then this equality assumption does not fit
the data and, hence, differential prediction of intergroup conflict
by each level of categorization is established. For the categoriza-
tion as German, the results revealed a significant decrease in the
model fit, A ^ ( l , N = 109) = 3.86, p < .05. Introducing this
equality constraint for categorization as East German, the model fit
decreased significantly as well, A x ^ l , N = 109) = 11.84, p <
.001. Consequently, each level of categorization had, as predicted,
a significantly different influence on both intergroup conflicts.
Evaluation of Causality
Although the results of the panel model are clear, there are other
criteria for the evaluation of causal direction between variables.
According to Kenny's cross-lagged panel approach (e.g., Kenny,
1975, 1979), a relation between two variables could be interpreted
as causal rather than spurious if the cross lags between two
variables differ significantly. However, as it is often criticized
(e.g., Cook & Campbell, 1979; Rogosa, 1980), this criterion is not
an unequivocal criterion for causality, because both cross-lagged
regressions could be significant and at the same time significantly
different. Thus, we could have clear bidirectional causation, but,
according to the cross-lagged panel analysis, we have to favor one
over the other. Here, we would' like to elaborate on one point
related to this issue. If a causal influence between two variables is
established in a panel analysis, and this knowledge about causality
is transferred to a second analysis that involves structural equation
modeling with cross-sectional data, then it is necessary to have
unidirectional causation. As bidirectional causation could not be
ruled out a priori (Smith, 1982), a given relation between two
variables measured at one time point may be the outcome of
bidirectional causation. Here, modeling only one causal direction
may overestimate the real size of the assumed causal influence.
Consequently, for an unambiguous assessment of a causal relation
between two variables, measured at one time point, unidirectional
causation has to be demonstrated.
To assess whether the causal influence was unidirectional (i.e.,
A influences B), we compared four different models for each
causal path: In the first model bidirectional causation was specified
(A influences B and B influences A), in a second model the
expected direction of causal influence was allowed (A influences
B), in a third model only the reverse direction was allowed (B
influences A), and in the fourth model no causal path was allowed
(no causal influence).2 To assess the unidirectionality of the causal
influence, we anticipated the comparison between the first and the
second model to be nonsignificant. Thus, the addition of the
reverse causal influence adds nothing significant to the expected
causal path. The comparison between the first model and the third
model, as well as the comparison between the second and the
fourth model, are expected to be significant. The first model
comparison revealed that the bidirectional model fit the data sig-
nificantly better than the model that included only the reverse
causal direction, whereas the second comparison revealed that
assuming no causal influence shows a significantly inferior model
fit than assuming the expected causal influence. Finally, compar-
ing the third and the fourth model revealed whether the reverse
causal direction adds anything significant to the model that as-
sumes no causal influence at all. To summarize, we assumed
unidirectional causal influence if the comparison between the first
and the third model as well as the comparison between the second
and the fourth model was significant. In addition, the comparison
between the first and the second model as well as the comparison
between the third and the fourth model had to be nonsignificant.
We computed all these model comparisons for all significant
paths of the model (see Table 3). The results confirmed that all
significant causal paths were unidirectional, except the relation
between resentment and public protest. For this path, the possibil-
ity of bidirectional influence could not be ruled out, as the model
specifying the reverse causation compared with the model without
causality was significantly different. Thus, the reverse causal in-
fluence (i.e., the influence of public protest on resentment) may
apply to some extent. However, the path itself did not reach
significance in the bidirectional model (t = 1.90, p > .05). In
general, the assumption of unidirectional causal influence applied
to our model. From this we can conclude that the transference of
knowledge about causality from the panel model to a cross-
sectional structural equation modeling procedure may generally be
justified. However, in some cases it may lead to an overestimation
of the real size of the causal relation between variables because the
reverse causal direction could not completely be ruled out.
Effectiveness of Recategorization
The levels of categorization causally influence intergroup con-
flict. East German categorization enhances public protest and
German categorization enhances xenophobia. In addition, East
German categorization extenuates xenophobic attitudes. However,
German categorization is not causally related to public protest.
2
We thank David Kenny for suggesting this test for unidirectionality of
causal influence.
 RECATEGORIZATION AND INTERGROUP CONFLICT 1097

Table 3 their disadvantaged status position relative to West Germans. A

Comparison of Bidirectional Causal Influence, Initial Causal salient German categorization enhances xenophobia. In contrast, a
Influence, Reverse Causal Influence, and Noncausal Influence salient East German categorization is negatively related to the
intergroup conflict at the inclusive level of categorization. That is,
Model comparison. A*2 a a stronger East German categorization reduces xenophobic atti-
tudes. However, there is no significant causal influence from
Outcome 1-2 1-3 2-4 3^1
categorization as German on public protest. Thus, a salient Ger-
Resentment man categorization does not reduce the intergroup conflict be-
German cat. 1.72 4.78* 4.85* 1.79 tween the subgroups. Nonetheless, as the analyses within each
East German cat. 2.94 12.55*** 12.78*** 3.17 measurement show, levels of categorization have a relative impact
Xenophobia 0.42 11.37*** 11.66*** 0.71 on both intergroup conflicts: Consistent with expectations of the
Public protest 3.28 4.18* 5.89* 3.99*
German cat.
common in-group identity model, a stronger German categoriza-
Xenophobia 1.86 5.55* 5.62* 1.93 tion relative to the East German categorization is negatively re-
Public protest 2.62 0.08 0.08 2.62 lated to public protest. Hence, recategorization reduces the conflict
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

East German cat. between subgroups. However, a stronger German categorization

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Xenophobia 0.44 11.17*** 11.18*** 0.04

Public protest 0.05 4.48* 4.47* 0.04
Note. 1 = bi-directional causality; 2 = expected causal direction; 3 =
reverse causal direction; 4 = no causal influence; cat. = category.
>df= 1.
*p < .05. ***p < .001.
Thus, there is no causal evidence for the effectiveness of recat-
egorization as a means to reduce conflict between subgroups.
However, for each measurement the relative impact of each cate-
gorization level on intergroup conflict was assessed. As both
categorization levels are not exclusive, that is, participants could
be high in East German and German categorization as well as low
on both, the levels of categorization are increasingly correlated
over time, r (Time 1) = .15, p < .10; r (Time 2) = .22, p < .05;
and r (Time 3) = .35, p < .001. Correspondingly, the correlation
between public protest and xenophobia increased nonsignificantly
over time, r (Time 1) = -.06, p > .10; r (Time 2) = M,p > .10;
and r (Time 3) = .17, p > .10. To assess the relative impact of
different categorization levels on intergroup conflict, we related
both measures for the levels of categorization by subtracting the
degree of the East German level of categorization from the degree
of the German level of categorization. This variable indicates the
relative strength of both categorization levels. Here, values above
zero indicate a preference for German categorization over the East
German categorization and values below zero denote higher pref-
erence of East German over the German categorization. Results
show that this variable is positively related to xenophobia, r (Time
1) = .32, p < .001; /-(Time 2) = .34, p < .001; r (Time 3) = .29,
p < .01, and negatively to public protest, r (Time 1) = - . 2 8 , p <
.01; r (Time 2) = - . 0 6 , ns; r (Time 3) = - . 2 0 , p < .05. The more
the participants perceived themselves as German, rather than East
German, the more they leaned toward xenophobia, and less toward
public protest; conversely, the more the participants saw them-
selves as East German rather than German, the stronger the incli-
nation to public protest was, and the less it was to xenophobia.
Preliminary Discussion
The results concerning resentment and levels of categorization
as causal antecedents of intergroup conflict correspond closely to
our expectations. Each level of categorization differentially influ-
enced both types of intergroup conflict: East German categoriza-
tion promotes more active public protest by East Germans against
relative to the East German categorization is positively correlated
with xenophobia. Thus, recategorization enhances the intergroup
conflict at the inclusive level of self-categorization.
Resentment about the relation between East and West Germans
is a powerful causal agent: Resentment enhances the salience of
the East German categorization as well as more active public
protest. Moreover, resentment enhances the salience of the Ger-
man categorization. This influence holds even if the salience of the
East German categorization and the readiness for intergroup con-
flict (public protest and xenophobia) are controlled for. Thus,
strong resentment may lead to German categorization as a means
to evade the negative intergroup relation between East and West
Germans. Resentment influences xenophobic attitudes through
two different ways: First, resentment enhances the East German
categorization and thereby fosters xenophobic attitudes. Second,
resentment directly enhances xenophobia. The latter represents the
classical scapegoat argument, whereas the first is a more sophis-
ticated form of displaced intergroup conflict.
The paths discussed above are causal paths, as the panel analysis
reveals. Thus, they show significant cross-lagged regression coef-
ficients that are consistent over time (i.e., cross-lagged regression
of Time 1 on Time 2 is equal to the cross-lagged regression of
Time 2 on Time 3). We found no evidence for more distal causal
influences that involve cross-lagged regressions of Time 1 on
Time 3. As an additional criterion of causality, the unidirection-
ality of causal influences was assessed. Here, causal paths between
two variables have to be significant in one direction and zero in the
other direction. The results revealed that the causal paths are
unidirectional paths, with the exception of the influence of resent-
ment on public protest, for which the reverse influence of public
protest on resentment could not be ruled out. According to this
evidence, we could specify structural equation models for cross-
sectional data that incorporate causal paths without overestimating
size of path coefficients.
Comparison of East Germans and West Germans
The results of the East German sample may not be generally
applicable because East Germans are regarded as having lower
status than West Germans within the German merger. According
to previous results concerning the common in-group identity
model, lower status may reduce attempts to view the intergroup
situation as a common in-group (Dovidio et al., 1998). Moreover,
a minority status enhances the salience of a particular intergroup
 KESSLER AND MUMMENDEY
1098

situation, thereby enhancing affective intergroup bias as well as Table 5

negative attitudes toward the majority (S. L. Gaertner et al., 1996). Comparison Between East Germans and West Germans on
By comparing a West German sample with an East German Resentment, Levels of Categorization (East Versus West German
sample, we could test whether this pattern in the relations of and German), and Intergroup Conflict (Public Protest and
variables is basically the same or whether differences between Xenophobia)
high- and low-status groups could be observed. As the West
East West
German sample was assessed in 1996, we compared it with the Germans Germans
East German sample that was also measured in 1996.
First, we tested the validity of the assumed status difference Variable M SD M SD t P<
between East Germans and West Germans. As can be seen from
Resentment 2.87 0.82 2.21 0.72 7.13 .001
Table 4, most East Germans perceived themselves as having a
German categorization 3.77 1.16 3.61 1.16 1.17 .20
lower status than West Germans (81%-86%), some perceived East vs. West German
equal status between East Germans and West Germans (13%- categorization 3.91 1.05 2.69 1.26 8.90a .001
19%) and virtually no one perceived a superior status of East
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Change in categorization
level" -0.14 1.38 0.92 1.21 6.82 .001
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Germans compared with West Germans. The West German sample

Public protest 2.52 0.80 1.69 0.64 9.29a .001
mirrors the results found in the East German sample: Most West 2.69 0.90 2.22 0.63 4.77a .001
Xenophobia
Germans perceived East Germans as having lower status (79%),
some perceived status equality (19%), and nearly no one perceived Note. East German n = 109; West German n = 183.
a
East Germans as superior to West Germans (2%). These results Standard deviations were significantly different for these variables.
b
confirm the assumption of a perceived status difference between Difference value of German and East German categorization or German
and West German categorization, respectively.
East Germans and West Germans that represents a perception
shared by both East and West Germans.
In a second step, we compared the mean structure of variables
between the East German sample and the West German sample. Germans did, the difference was significantly stronger for public
There are several meaningful differences between East Germans protest. This is because public protest does not seem to be a
and West Germans (see Table 5): As expected, East Germans had reasonable option for West Germans.
significantly more resentment compared with West Germans. Al- In a last step, we compared the correlations of variables of East
though East Germans and West Germans did not differ in the Germans and West Germans. For this comparison, we presumed
salience of the German categorization, there is a huge difference in the causal structure revealed in the panel analysis and applied it in
the salience of their subgroup level of categorization (as East both cross-sectional samples. We set up a structural equation
German or West German, respectively). Thus, there was a signif- model that assumed resentment as a predictor for both levels of
icant interaction between levels of categorization (common in- categorization and for both kinds of intergroup conflict. Moreover,
group vs. subgroup) and status (East Germans vs. West Germans), self-categorizations at different levels were predictors for inter-
F(l, 290) = 46.51, p < .001. For West Germans, the salience of group conflict. Self-categorizations at both levels were allowed to
the subgroup categorization was significantly lower than the in- correlate freely as well as both indicators of intergroup conflict,
clusive level of categorization (t = 10.24, p < .001). For East because there was no causal relationship between them. With a
Germans, in contrast, the salience of the subgroup categorization multiple sample analysis, we compared the correlations between
was descriptively stronger than the inclusive level of categoriza- variables for the East German and the West German sample. There
tion, however, this difference did not reach significance (t = 1.04, were several meaningful differences as well as similarities be-
p > .05). Finally, East Germans indicated stronger tendencies to tween both samples. First, the multiple-group analysis replicated
public protest as well as xenophobia compared with West Ger- the differences in the variances of subgroup categorization, public
mans. We found a significant interaction between both kinds of protest, and xenophobia (see Table 6). Resentment was, in both
intergroup conflict and East and West Germans, F(l, samples, equally strongly related to the subgroup categorization
290) = 12.24, p < .001: Whereas East Germans generally indi- (East German and West German), to public protest, and to xeno-
cated stronger inclinations for both intergroup conflicts than West phobia.3 However, only the East German sample showed a signif-
icant relation between resentment and the inclusive categorization
level (j3 = .21, p < .05), whereas in the West German sample the
relation was nonsignificantly negative (/3 = - . 0 8 , p < .10). In
Table 4 both samples, the German level of categorization was significantly
Perceived Status Differences Between East Germans and West
Germans
3
East Germans West For the relation between resentment and public protest the possibility
Germans of bidirectional causation could not be ruled out. Thus, size of this path
East German status 1995 1996 1997 (1996) may be overestimated to some degree. Following Smith (1982), we applied
vs. a nonhierarchical regression analysis to the relation between public protest
West German status and resentment. That is, both causal directions were specified in one model.
Results showed that the influence of resentment on public protest was
Lower 91 86 88 81 91 83 144 79 attenuated but remained significant ((3 = .39, t = 2.03), whereas the
Equal 14 13 21 19 16 15 35 19 influence of public protest on resentment did not reach significance (£S =
Superior 1 1 2 2 4 2
.22, f = .93).
 RECATEGORIZATION AND INTERGROUP CONFLICT
Table 6
Comparison of East Germans and West Germans Concerning
Determinants of Intergroup Conflict at Different Levels of
Categorization (Subgroup or Inclusive Level)
Variable Resentment German Subgroup8 Public protest
Resentment
German .21*/-.08
Subgroup8 .16** .22*1.50***
Public protest .55*** .00 .09t
Xenophobia .24*** .59***7.22*** .08 .171.39***
Note. The coefficient in each cell represents the common solution for the
East German and the West German sample. In the cases of significant
differences between samples, the first number indicates the solution for the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
East German sample and the second number the solution for the West
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
German sample. Coefficients in italics represent simple correlations.
Model fit is ^ ( 8 , N = 109, 183) = 5.87, p = .66; root mean square error
of approximation = .00; Akaike's information criteria = 49.87(60); non-
normed fit index = 1.00.
a
The subgroup categorization is either East German or West German.
t p < . 1 0 . * p < . 0 5 . * * p < . 0 1 . ***/><.001.
related to xenophobia and nonsignificantly to public protest (/3 =
.00). However, the positive relation between German categoriza-
tion and xenophobia was significantly different for the East Ger-
man sample (/3 = .59, p < .001) compared with the West German
sample (/3 = .22, p < .001). East German categorization was
marginally significantly related to public protest (/3 = .09, p < .10)
and nonsignificantly to xenophobia (/3 = .08).4 Both samples
differed in the correlation between both levels of categorization as
well as in the correlation between intergroup conflicts: For West
Germans, inclusive categorization (i.e., German) and subgroup
categorization (as West German) was significantly more strongly
correlated (r = .50, p < .001) than the correlation of levels of
categorization for East Germans (r = .22, p < .05). Finally, for
West Germans public protest and xenophobia were significantly
more strongly correlated (r = .39, p < .001) than for East Germans
(r = .17, ns).
Resentment is causally related to the categorization as German
and xenophobia. A categorization of German influences xenopho-
bia. According to Baron and Kenny (1986), these two conditions
establish the possibility for a mediation of some effects of resent-
ment on xenophobia by categorization as German. Results of the
multiple-group analyses reveal that resentment has a significantly
indirect effect on xenophobia in the East German sample, /3
(indirect) = . 1 1 , / = 2.25. However, in the West German sample,
no such indirect effect could be observed, /3 (indirect) = —.01,
/ = 0.19, because the relation between resentment and German
categorization was not significant.
Discussion
This article focused on two issues of recategorization not ad-
dressed in the common in-group identity model (S. L. Gaertner,
Dovidio, Nier, et al., 1999): First, recategorization may establish a
new line of conflict between the common in-group and a new
out-group. Second, the intergroup relation on the novel superordi-
nate level may be influenced by determinants of the intergroup
conflict between the subgroups. Results of the present study show
that specific intergroup conflicts could be found at different levels
1099
of categorization, as well as a carry over of intergroup conflict
between subgroups to a conflict between the common in-group and
a new out-group.
Levels of Intergroup Conflict
There is clear evidence that self-categorizations at each level of
inclusiveness (i.e., as East German or as German) are causally
related to a specific line of intergroup conflict: Categorization as
East German enhances public protest against the status advantage
of West Germans. At the same time, categorization as German
fosters xenophobia. In addition, East German categorization neg-
atively influences xenophobia, whereas no such influence could be
observed from the level of common in-group (i.e., German) to
public protest. This confirms our suggestion that different levels of
categorization are distinct causal factors for intergroup conflict.
Moreover, a salient self-categorization at the subgroup level re-
duces the intergroup conflict at the common in-group level of
categorization. However, the reverse relation between levels of
categorization and intergroup conflict was not found, because the
German level of categorization does not causally relate to public
protest. This may be interpreted as evidence that contradicts the
suggestion that recategorization of intergroup relations at the sub-
group level of categorization is beneficial. Nonetheless, comparing
the relative impact of categorization levels at each measurement
point reveals that a stronger relative preference of German cate-
gorization is positively related to xenophobia whereas the relative
preference for East German categorization correlates with public
protest. Thus, stronger salience of subgroup categorization com-
pared with the common in-group level leads to an intergroup
conflict on the subgroup level (i.e., public protest), whereas stron-
ger salience of the common in-group compared with subgroup
categorization enhances intergroup conflict at the inclusive level
(i.e., xenophobia). In conclusion, recategorization as a means to
reduce conflict may be a two-edged method, under certain condi-
tions: while reducing conflict at the subgroup level, it may foster
conflict between the common in-group level and a new out-group.
Prediction of Intergroup Conflict
The predictors of identity-management strategies highlighted by
relative deprivation theory and social identity theory (i.e., resent-
ment, group efficacy, and in-group identification) show mixed
results concerning their causal relation to intergroup conflict.
Whereas in-group identification and group efficacy are not caus-
ally related to indicators of intergroup conflict, resentment is a
particularly strong causal agent. Resentment enhances both levels
of categorization (i.e., East German and German). One may spec-
ulate that different processes may strengthen both levels of cate-
gorization: The East German level of categorization may be caus-
ally influenced by resentment because the perceived difference
between East and West Germans makes clear the common fate
shared by East Germans. The German level of categorization may
4
The relation between East German categorization and public protest
was low. This is because of the close relation between resentment and East
German categorization as well as between resentment and public protest.
Removing resentment from the analyses revealed a much higher path
coefficient for both samples (0 = . 18, f = 2.92).
 1100 KESSLER AND MUMMENDEY
be enhanced as a strategic means that conforms to the political
goals of a German merger, yet makes the unjust treatment of East
Germans more obvious because if all East Germans are Germans
as well, then their unequal status is not justified (Wenzel, 2000).
In addition, resentment enhances both intergroup conflicts.
Thus, strong resentment about the relationship between East and
West Germans fosters inclinations of public protest (i.e., demon-
strations on the streets). This is in line with suggestions made by
theories explaining collective actions (e.g., Klandermans, 1997). In
addition, resentment also strengthens xenophobic attitudes. Here,
the question emerges about the influence of resentment on the
conflict at a higher level of categorization. First, there is a direct
influence between resentment and xenophobia. This resembles the
scapegoat argument: A conflict with a superior party (individual or
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
group) is resolved by searching for some weaker target that could
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
more easily be overpowered (e.g., Allport, 1954; Staub, 1985).
Within the present field study, some East Germans may see West
Germans as strong opponents who cannot be easily vanquished.
Consequently, they consider another target that seems to be
weaker, like the minority of foreigners in Germany. Second, as the
mediation analysis reveals, scapegoating is not the whole story:
The influence of resentment on xenophobia is mediated by the
categorization as German. This result closely fits the explanation
of triggered displaced aggression (Marcus-Newhall, Pedersen,
Carlson, & Miller, 2000; Miller & Marcus-Newhall, 1997; Ped-
ersen, et al., 2000): A perceived frustration that induces enduring
anger (e.g., ruminative thoughts; Martin & Tesser, 1989) may act
as a primer for the perception of further provocations. Introducing
a new line of categorization may function as a triggering event that
leads individuals to perceive this new out-group as an additional
provocation, thereby enhancing conflict with this new out-group.
Possibly in this case the same mechanism can be seen in intergroup
contexts as well as in interpersonal relations. Recategorization is
not always a sign of improving intergroup harmony (on different
levels of categorization). On the contrary, recategorization at a
higher level may foster new forms of conflict and may transpose
one conflict to another level of categorization, at least under
certain conditions. We suggest that the most problematic feature in
the contact between East and West Germans is the consensually
perceived lower status of East Germans. Although some favorable
conditions of intergroup contact have been met, such as institu-
tional support, a common goal, and acquaintance potential, the
crucial variable, equal status between the groups, has not yet been
established. The unequal status of two groups within a merger may
be interpreted as a threat from the perspective of the lower status
group (in the present case, the East Germans). Within intergroup
situations in which an intergroup threat is perceived, recategori-
zation as a common in-group may enhance rather than reduce
intergroup conflict by reopening a new line of conflict and shifting
the original conflict to the new level of categorization. If one
cannot be sure whether favorable conditions for contact are met,
introducing a common in-group identity may lead to mixed
outcomes.
Comparison Between East Germans and West Germans
The comparison between the East German and the West German
samples reveals several similarities and differences. The relations
between levels of categorization and intergroup conflict do not
differ between East and West Germans, except in the strength of
the German categorization on xenophobia. This relation is signif-
icant for East Germans and West Germans; however, it is signif-
icantly stronger for East Germans. Moreover, the influence of
resentment on the subgroup level of categorization as well as on
both kinds of intergroup conflict is equal. For West Germans,
though, there is a nonsignificant negative relation between resent-
ment and German categorization; recategorization at the common
identity level does not mediate the influence of resentment on
xenophobia.
Remarkably, the positive correlation between subgroup level
and superordinate level of categorization is much stronger for
West Germans relative to East Germans. This indicates that for
West Germans the subgroup level of categorization is basically
identical to the level of common identity (e.g., being a West
German is being a German). As a consequence, both levels of
intergroup conflict are also less different for West Germans com-
pared with East Germans.
Concluding Remarks
It would be a misunderstanding to interpret this article as re-
jecting or jeopardizing the common in-group identity model; in-
stead, our results suggest an extension of this model by broadening
the perspective of the common in-group. The new intergroup
context that emerges after successful recategorization may give
rise to a new intergroup conflict. Moreover, recategorization may
not, under every circumstance, be a sign of reduced intergroup
conflict. A moderator hypothesis concerning the virtues of recat-
egorization could be suggested: On one hand, as Gaertner and
colleagues (e.g., Gaertner, Dovidio, Rust, et al, 1999) showed,
favorable conditions of contact may be mediated by a common
in-group identity, leading to a reduction of conflict. On the other
hand, emotional reactions to unfavorable conditions of contact
(e.g., resentment about perceived lower status or perceived threat)
may be mediated by a common in-group identity leading to an-
other level of categorization, thus enhancing and shifting inter-
group conflict to other groups.
References
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable
distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and
statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51, 1173-1182.
Blanz, M., Mummendey, A., Mielke, R., & Klink, A. (1998). Strategic
responses to negative social identity: An empirical systematizau'on of
field data. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 697-729.
Bozdogan, H. (1987). Model selection and Akaike's Information Criterion
(AIC): The general theory and its analytical extensions. Psychometrica,
52, 345-370.
Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A
cognitive motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307-324.
Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: In-group love or
out-group hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55, 429-444.
Brewer, M. B., & Miller, N. (1984). Beyond the contact hypothesis:
Theoretical perspectives on desegregation. In N. Miller & M. B. Brewer
(Eds.), Groups in contact: The psychology of desegregation (pp. 281—
302). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
 RECATEGORIZATION AND INTERGROUP CONFLICT
Brown, R., & Wade, G. (1987). Superordinate goals and intergroup be-
haviour: The effect of role ambiguity and status on intergroup attitudes
and task performance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17,
131-142
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design
and analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Cook, T. D., Crosby, F., & Hennigan, K. M. (1977). The construct validity
of relative deprivation. In J. Sulls & R. Miller (Eds.), Social comparison
processes: Theoretical and empirical perspectives (pp. 307-333). Wash-
ington, DC: Hemisphere.
Crosby, F. (1982). Relative deprivation and working women. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Isen, A. M., & Lowrance, R. (1995). Group
representations and intergroup bias: Positive affect, similarity, and group
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
size. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 856-865.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Validzic, A. (1998). Intergroup bias:
Status, differentiation, and a common in-group identity. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 109-120.
Folger, R. (1987). Reformulating the preconditions of resentment: A ref-
erent cognition model. In J. C. Masters & W. P. Smith (Eds.), Social
comparison, social justice, and relative deprivation (pp. 183-215).
London: Erlbaum.
Gaertner, L., & Insko, C. A. (2000). Intergroup discrimination in the
minimal group paradigm: Categorization, reciprocation, or fear? Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 77—94.
Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust,
M. C. (1993). The common in-group identity model: Recategorization
and the reduction of in-group bias. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.),
European review of social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 1-26). London:
Wiley.
Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Nier, J. A., Ward, C. M., & Banker, B.
(1999). Across cultural divides: The value of a superordinate identity. In
D. A. Prentice & D. T. Miller (Eds.), Cultural divides: Understanding
and overcoming group conflict (pp. 173-212). New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Rust, M. C , Nier, J. A., Banker, B., Ward,
C. M., Mottola, G. R., & Houlette, M. (1999). Reducing intergroup bias:
Elements of intergroup cooperation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 76, 388-402.
Gaertner, S. L., Mann, J. A., Dovidio, J. F., Murrell, A. J., & Pomare, M.
(1990). How does cooperation reduce intergroup bias? Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 59, 692-704.
Gaertner, S. L., Mann, J. A., Murrell, A., & Dovidio, J. F. (1989). Reducing
intergroup bias: The benefits of recategorization. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 57, 239-249.
Gaertner, S. L., Rust, M. C , Dovidio, J. F., Bachman, B. A., & Anastasio,
P. A. (1996). The contact hypothesis: The role of a common in-group
identity on reducing bias among majority and minority members. In J. L.
Nye & A. M. Brower (Eds.), What's social about social cognition?
Research on socially shared cognition in small groups (pp. 230-260).
London: Sage.
Harenberg, W. (1991). Vereint und verschieden [Unified and different].
Spiegel Spezial, 1, 10-23.
Hewstone, M., & Brown, R. (1986). Contact is not enough: An intergroup
perspective on the contact hypothesis. In M. Hewstone & R. Brown
(Eds.), Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters (pp. 1-44). Ox-
ford, England: Blackwell.
Hogg, M. A., & Hains, S. C. (1996). Intergroup relations and group
solidarity: Effects of group identification and social beliefs on deper-
sonalized attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70,
295-309.
Hogg, M. A., Hardi, S. C , & Reynolds, K. J. (1995). Prototypical simi-
larity, self-categorization and depersonalized attraction: A perspective
1101
on group cohesiveness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25,
159-177.
Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000a). Assimilation and diversity: An
integrative model of subgroup relations. Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy Review, 4, 143-156.
Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000b). Subgroup relations: A comparison
of mutual intergroup differentiation and common in-group identity mod-
els of prejudice reduction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
26, 242-256.
Huo, Y. J., Smith, H. I., Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1996). Superordinate
identification, subgroup identification, and justice concerns: Is separat-
ism the problem; is assimilation the answer? Psychological Science, 7,
40-45.
Islam, M. R., & Hewstone, M. (1993). Intergroup attributions and affective
consequences in majority and minority groups. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 64, 936-950
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). USREL 8: Structural equation
modeling with the SIMPL1S command language. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kenny, D. A. (1975). Cross-lagged panel correlation: A test for spurious-
ness. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 887-903
Kenny, D. A. (1979). Correlation and causality. New York: Wiley.
Klandermans, B. (1997). The social psychology of protest. Oxford, En-
gland: Blackwell.
Kramer, R. M., & Brewer, M. B. (1984). Effects of group identity on
resource utilization in a simulated commons dilemma. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 46, 1044-1057.
Lalonde, R. N., & Cameron, J. E. (1994). Behavioral responses to discrim-
ination: A focus on action. In M. P. Zanna & J. M. Olson (Eds.), The
psychology of prejudice: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 7, pp. 257-288).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Marcus-Newhall, A., Pedersen, W. C , Carlson, M., & Miller, N. (2000).
Displaced aggression is alive and well: A meta-analytic review. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 670-689.
Martin, L. L., & Tesser, A. (1989). Toward a motivational and structural
theory of ruminative thought. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.),
Unintended thought (pp. 306-326). New York: Guilford Press.
Miller, N., & Marcus-Newhall, A. (1997). A conceptual analysis of dis-
placed aggression. In R. Ben-An & Y. Rich (Eds.), Enhancing education
in heterogeneous schools: Theory and application (pp. 69-108). Ramat-
Gan, Israel: Bar-Han University Press.
Mummendey, A., Kessler, T., Klink, A., & Mielke, R. (1999). Strategies to
cope with negative social identity: Predictions by social identity theory
and relative deprivation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 76, 229-245.
Mummendey, A., Klink, A., Mielke, R., Wenzel, M., & Blanz, M. (1999).
Socio-structural characteristics of intergroup relations and identity man-
agement strategies: A field study in East Germany. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 29, 259-285.
Mummendey, A., & Schreiber, H. -J. (1983). Better or just different?
Positive social identity by discrimination against, or by differentiation
from out-groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 389-397.
Pedersen, W. C , Gonzales, C , & Miller, N. (2000). The moderating effect
of trivial triggering provocation on displaced aggression. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 913-927.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Meertens, R. W. (1995). Subtle and blatant prejudice in
western Europe. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 57-75.
Piliavin, J. A., Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Clark, R. D. (1981).
Emergency intervention. New York: Academic Press.
Rogosa, D. (1980). A critique of cross-lagged correlation. Psychological
Bulletin, 88, 245-258.
Runciman, W. G. (1966). Relative deprivation and social justice: A study
of attitudes to social inequality in twentieth-century England. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.
Seta, C. E., Seta, ;. J., & Culver, J. (2000). Recategorization as a method
 1102 KESSLER AND MUMMENDEY

for promoting intergroup cooperation: Group status matters. Social Cog-
nition, 18, 354-376.
Smith, E. R. (1982). Beliefs, attributions, and evaluations: Nonhierarchical
models of mediation in social cognition. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 43, 248-259.
Smith, E. R. (1993). Social identity and social emotions: Toward new
conceptualizations of prejudice. In D. M. Mackie & D. L. Hamilton
(Eds.), Affect, cognition, and stereotyping: Interactive processes in
group perception, (pp. 297-315). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Spiegel-Redaktion. (1995). Stolz aufs eigene Leben. [Proud of our own
life]. Spiegel Nr., 27/95, 40-52.
Staub, E. (1985). The psychology of perpetrators and bystanders. Political
Psychology, 6, 61-85.
Struch, N., & Schwartz, S. H. (1989). Intergroup aggression: Its predictors
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Terry, D. J., & Callan, V. J. (1998). In-group bias in response to an
organizational merger. Group Dynamics, 2, 67-81.
Turner, J. C , Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S., & Wetherell, M.
(Eds.) (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization
theory. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Wenzel, M. (2000). Justice and identity: The significance of inclusion for
perceptions of entitlement and the justice motive. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 26, 157-176.
Wilder, D. A. (1986). Social categorization: Implications for creation and
reduction of intergroup bias. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in exper-
imental social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 291-355). Orlando, FL: Aca-
demic Press.
Yamagishi, T., & Kiyonari, T. (2000). The group as the container of
generalized reciprocity. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 116-132.
Zaccaro, S. J., Blair, V., Peterson, C , & Zazanis, M. (1995). Collective

and distinctness from in-group bias. Journal of Personality and Social

efficacy. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjust-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Psychology, 56, 364-373.

Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. F., & Flament, C. (1971). Social ment: Theory, research, and application, (pp. 305-328). New York:
categorization and intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Plenum Press.
Psychology, I, 149-177.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup Received October 16, 2000
behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of inter- Revision received June 27, 2001
group relations (2nd ed., pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Accepted July 5, 2001 •

Wanted: Your Old Issues!

As APA continues its efforts to digitize journal issues for the PsycARTICLES
database, we are finding that older issues are increasingly unavailable in our inventory.
We are turning to our long-time subscribers for assistance. If you would like to donate
any back issues toward this effort (preceding 1982), please get in touch with us at
journals@apa.org and specify the journal titles, volumes, and issue numbers that you
would like us to take off your hands. (Your donation is of course tax deductible.)