Our GROUP

Phạm Thị Minh Thuỳ

Đỗ Thị Huyền Trang Phùng Thị Dung

IDENTITY CONTACT
&
INTERGROUP
ENCOUNTERS
 Table of Contents
I. Social identity
theory (SIT)
III. Mind-set
II. Intergroup
Attribution
 Context of
Social identity theory
● Developed by Henri Taifel and John
Turner
● Tajfel was a Polish Jew, influenced by
WWII and the Holocaust
● Studied prejudice and nationalism in
Britain.
 I.
What is social
identity theory?
 Social identity theory
● explain conflicts (behaviors) between groups.
● Conflict is caused by what happen when we join a group and our desire to create
a positive social identity
● informs us that people practice in-group favoritism and out-group
differentiation for the purpose of enhancing their social and personal identity.
-> This can lead to discrimination and prejudice ( judging people based on their
group)
● Improves their membership self-image in two ways: enhancing their in-group
identity or by bolstering their personal identity.
(Tajfel, 1981)
 Social identity theory

● In-group identity: the ● Out-group identity:

emotional attachments and emotionally detached
shared fate. + the base for social comparsion in
+ Characteristics of the self and terms of group values, norms,
in-group relationships: loyalty & behaviors and achievements
preference ( Brewer & Miller, 1996)
● The in-group favouritism
principle: a positive attachment
to and predisposition for norms
and behaviors related to in-group
categories than out-group
categories.
 Social identity theory

● In-groups are evaluated positively -> our own membership identities

are viewed positively
● To bolster people’s desired positive identities: engage in positive in-
group evaluations and negative out-group ratings.
 Associated contructs

1. Social 2. Social
Categorization comparison
 1. Social Categorization
• A fundamental quality of cognition.

• A function of human language

-> reflect our highly abstract thoughts.

• Lead to certain expectation states of how

others SHOULD or SHOULDN’T behave.

• Expectation states are closely associated

with stereotypes of dissimilar others.
Example: assume people from Tasmania enjoy cold weather more.
 1. Social
• Frame our expectations & meanings we Categorization
attach to people’s behavior or action

Example: “gay”, “lesbian”

• Create polarized boundaries between in-
group (us) and out-group (them). 1. Social
Example:
+ Women with assertive speech related to Categorization
masculinity -> arrogant and uppity
+ Men with emotional language related to
femininity -> gay/ wimps
( Wood, 1997, p.160)
• First step in the process- if there are no
groups, there is no social identity
 • Ma
ke dire
2. Social ct com
parison
and ou s between in
t-group -gro up
Comparison • Soc
ial iden
tity the
s s
strive f ory p o
or a po
sitive s sits that ind
compa ocial id ividual
r is o n t o e ntity in s
o t he r g s
roups. ocial
(J. C. T
urner,
19 87)
 2. Social Comparison

• We compare the standing of our in-group with that of other groups

-> bolster our positive social identities.

• Compared with other relevant social groups, the value of one’s

identity is assessed and established.
 2. Social Comparison
• Positive social comparison: enhances
our sense of desired social and personal
identities.

• Negative social comparison:

+ individuals maintain a distancing posture

from their in-group and not mingle with its
members.
+ deemphasize the importance of their
social identities and maximize the
importance of their personal identities
 3 comparative bases
 √  √
Lateral comparison Downward comparison Upward comparison

compare one’s compare one’s

identity group with compare one’s
identity group
other cultural or identity group
with groups
social groups who with groups
perceived as a
“should be” at perceived as
more powerful
essentially the same less powerful.
one.
level.

Bolster individuals’ membership and personal

self-esteem level ( Wills, 1991)
 emphasizes the importance of the
However, it does NOT reciprocal reinforcement of social
TOTALLY explain the cause identity and personal identity 
of the conflict.
Social
identity
theory
explains the prejudice and discrimination. It also helps the
psychological disorder with the origin (depression/ low self-esteem) and
the treatment (boosting self-esteem for people in stigmatized groups.
II. Intergroup
attribution
II. Intergroup Attribution

1 2

Attribution Intergroup
theory attribution
theory
 II. Intergroup Attribution
- Origin: since the publication of the seminal work of
Fritz Heider in the mid-1940s. (Heider, 1944, 1958)
1
- Premise: every human being is a naive psychologist
with implicit assumptions, beliefs, social categorizations
Attribution of what human nature and human behavior is all about
theory --> “make sense” of other people’s behavior. (E. Jones,
1990)
- People interpret & explain human behavior by
attributing causation to the perceived disposition of the
person under scrutiny/ environmental influences.
(Heider, 1958)
 II. Intergroup Attribution
1. Attribution theory
( Attribution Biases)

Attribution Bias 2

Attribution Bias 1 Perceivers use the Attribution Bias 3

principle of negativity to
In explaining a stranger’s explain a stranger’s Different types of
negative performance, negative action attribution are used in
explaining positive and
perceivers:
negative acts which are
 Overestimate the
performed by
influence of negative ourselves/ strangers.
dispositional factors.
 Underestimate
situational factors.
 II. Intergroup Attribution
1. Attribution theory
( Attribution Biases) EXAMPLE

Situational factors:
We traffic jam, car trouble,
no parking space, etc.
Attribution Bias 1
In explaining a stranger’s Coming to  Protect our own social or personal
negative performance, class late identity by invoking justifiable situational
perceivers: causes.
 Overestimate the
influence of negative stranger Laziness + tardiness
dispositional factors.
 Underestimate
situational factors.  Not be aware of situational factors  Be
more stringent in explaining a stranger’s
negative behaviors.
 II. Intergroup Attribution
1. Attribution theory
( Attribution Biases)

Attribution Bias 2

- The principle of negativity: individuals tend - Anxiety/ Uncertainty towards out-group-

to pay more attention to negative based interactions  People fall back on
information than positive one. (Kanouse & negative stereotypes  People look for
Hanson, 1972) negative outgroup behaviors to confirm
our negative expectations.

- E.g. Interpersonal competition/ anonymity/ - The negative correlation principle: one

No direct contact with the strangers  A out-group member engages in a negative
higher emphasis is placed on negative action  the entire out-group members are
information concerning strangers/ out-group thought to behave in a similar negative
members than positive one manner (ignorance or overgeneralization).
 II. Intergroup Attribution
1. Attribution theory
( Attribution Biases) EXAMPLE

Attribute the promotion to

We positive dispositional traits:
hard work, perseverance
Attribution Bias 3 Get a
promotion
Different types of  Self-serving bias: positive dispositional
attribution are used in (positive act) reasons  bolster our self-image
explaining positive and
negative acts which are
performed by Attribute the promotion to
stranger luck or situational pressure
ourselves/ strangers.

 The use of situational reasons to explain

 II. Intergroup Attribution
1. Attribution theory
( Attribution Biases) EXAMPLE

Attribute the misfortune to

We the bad company/ a budget
cut in the organization
Attribution Bias 3
Get fired
(negative act)  Self-serving bias: the use of situational
Different types of
reasons
attribution are used in
explaining positive and Attribute the situation to
negative acts which are negative dispositional
performed by stranger attributions: inertia and
ourselves/ strangers. incompetence
 The use of negative dispositional reasons
to explain
 II. Intergroup Attribution
1. Attribution theory
( Attribution Biases)

Attribution Bias 3

- Positive self-serving bias is more applicable in individualistic than collectivistic cultures

- For example, according to Smith & Bond, 1993; Kashima & Triandis, 1986;

Japanese students The U.S students

- Collectivistic culture - Individualistic culture

- Attributing their failures to lack of ability - Explaining their successes more in

 self-effacement bias terms of ability than they did failure .
 II. Intergroup Attribution
- According to Hewstone and Jaspars (1984), the
intergroup attribution process is essentially social in nature.
2 - Reasons:
1. The process is filtered through social interaction and
Intergroup influenced by social information.
attribution 2. Most attributions are social categorical in nature rather
than interindividually based.
theory
3. We typically share similar attributions with in-group
( Attribution members about out-groups’ attributes.
Biases) 4. Shared social attributions with in-groups enhance our
positive social identities & reinforce our social solidarity and
identity inclusion with in-group members.
 II. Intergroup Attribution

2
Intergroup
attribution
theory
( Attribution
Biases)
 II. Intergroup Attribution
2. Intergroup attribution theory
( Attribution Biases)
Positive Event Negative Event
(Promotion) (Demotion)

- Hard word - Unfair treatment

In-group - Determination - Economic
downsizing problem

Out-group - External luck - Tardy

- Manipulation of the - Irresponsible
system by networking
the right people
 II. Intergroup Attribution
2. Intergroup attribution theory
( Attribution Biases)

- Intergroup attribution is particularly reflective of individualistic Western

cultures rather than collectivistic cultures.
- The values of individualism and collectivism reinforce the notion:
+ Individualists: use dispositional attributions to explain the social world
around them
+ Collectivists: be more sensitive to situational features that frame
behaviors
- The content of dispositional attributions (+, -) reflects the underlying values
and norms of the cross-cultural perceivers.
- The nature of intergroup attributions directly affects the intergroup
relationship formation process.
 III. Mindsets:
Affective and
cognitive filters
Mindsets: affective and cognitive filters
Our reactive emotions and perceptual lenses used in
interpreting and evaluating out-group members’
behaviors.

They contribute to form a part of our mindsets,

which is a complex of how to interact with in-group
and out-group members.

Affective and cognitive lenses: perception,

ethnocentrism, stereotypes and prejudices.
Intergroup perception
Human perception

- Selecting cues from the social environment Profoundly

influenced by
- Organizing them into patterns
cultural
- Then, interpreting the patterns socialization
-> We tend to focus on the cues considered as important in our culture. The
language directs us to the aspects considered as valuable in our culture.
Our expectations and preconceptions influence:
- The way we perceive and interpret cultural strangers’ behaviors.
- The way we predict how the strangers react to us.
 Human perception &
intergroup perception
function in the following principles:

- Perception is a largely subjective phenomenon. We generally construct the reality of what we

want to perceive, and this is basically a biased process.

- Perception is categorical. We use social or linguistic categories to guide our expectations in

actual intergroup interactions

- Perception is selective. We select the information that fits our expectancy categories and
ignore other incoming stimuli in our information-loaded environment.

- Perceptual patterns tend to be consistent. Once we see something a certain way, we tend to
continue to see the same pattern despite contradictory evidence.

- Perception is largely a learned process. It is learned through our cultural socialization.

- Intergroup perception highlights differences between identity groups.

The need to sustain a valued
social or personal identity.
Ethnocentrism
The need to prevent
identity threat Stereotypes

The need to protect our in- Prejudice

group boundaries

The subjective nature of Main barriers to effective

human perception intercultural communication
 Ethnocentrism & Communication
Ethnocentrism refers to the fact that we hold views and standard that belong to our group

-> make judgement about other groups, based on our own group’s values and beliefs.

Example: In Greek culture in the Golden Age, people speaking the Greek language were viewed as
the “cultured” and “eloquent” people. Those who did not speak the language of Greece -> labeled as
“barbarians” (“aliens: whose language was incomprehensible and sounded like a repeated babbling
“barbar” noise.)

Ethnocentrism: our defensive attitudinal tendency to view the values and norms of our culture as
superior to other cultures -> the cultural ways of living are the most reasonable and proper -> We
expect that all other groups should follow our civilized ways of thinking and behaving.
 Ethnocentrism & Communication
According to Lukens (1978), the communicative distances of inference, avoidance and disparagement
represent the differential degrees of ethnocentrism.

1. Distance of inference (low ethnocentrism): the lack of sensitivity in our verbal and nonverbal
interaction in dealing with dissimilar others. -> the use of “foreigner talk” (exaggeratedly slow
speech or a dramatically loud tone of voice as if all foreigners are deaf), speech pattern -> the
strangers are “exotic” and “different”

2. Distance of avoidance (moderate ethnocentrism): attempted linguistic or dialect switching in the

presence of out-group members -> displayed nonverbal inattention (members of the dominant
group only maintain eye contact with members of their group) -> highlight in-group connection and
avoidance of out-group members.

3. Distance of disparagement (high ethnocentrism): the use of verbal sarcasms, racist joke, hate-filled
speech and physical violence to marginalize or obliterate the existence of out-group members
 Ethnorelativism
Ethnorelativism emphasized the use of out-group members’ cultural frame of reference to interpret their
behaviors. Like ethnocentrism, ethnorelativism comes in different gradations.

1. Interaction understanding: the use of appropriate and responsive verbal and nonverbal messages –>
understand the out-group members’ identity experience. -> Cultural-sensitive paraphrasing and
perception checking skills (paraphrasing the others’ words or using probing clarifying questions)
-> make sure the interpretation of the others’ behavior -> reduce unpredictability and promote
interaction trust.

2. Interaction respect: members of different cultural or ethnic groups show a strong sense of respect
and empathy for the others’ cultural frame of reference. Respect -> giving particular attention and
empathetic consideration to the standpoints of dissimilar others. Empathy -> imaginatively place
ourselves in the other’s cultural world and to experience what they are experiencing.
 Ethnorelativism
Ethnorelativism emphasizes the use of out-group members’ cultural frame of reference to
interpret their behaviors. Like ethnocentrism, ethnorelativism comes in different gradations.

3. Interaction support: affirm the “identity worthiness” of members of diverse identity groups
-> decrease the psychological and emotional distance between in-group and out-group members.

The use of inclusive communication skills -> recognition of the other’s presence.

Inclusive language (we as a community”, “we as a team”)

Nonverbal recognition signals (appropriate eye contact,

Inclusive communication skills responsive sounds)

Common goals desired by members of all groups which require

the efforts of everyone involved
Encouraging feedbacks (smiles, head nods, open ended
questions)
 Ethnorelativism
Identity confirmation skills Identity disconfirmation

- Recognition of the other’s existence (To
me, you exist)
- Acknowledgement of a relationship of
affiliation with the dissimilar other (We are
- Denial of the other’s existence (To me, you don’t exist)
- Avoidance of genuine interaction involvement (e.g:
avoiding eye contact or not listening to the speaker
saying)

-
relating on an equal level)

Awareness of the significance or worth of

><
- The lack of accurate awareness of the dissimilar
other’s perception or self-expression. (You don’t really
the dissimilar others (To me, you are mean that… or You’re only saying that because….”
significant)
- Disqualifications (remarks, sarcasm, harsh criticism,
- Endorsement or acceptance of the other’s blame, and hostile attacks. E.g: I hear you the first
self-experience (Your way of experiencing time. Why are you repeating yourself?)
the world is valid)

(Cissna & Sieburg, 1986, p. 232)

 Stereotypes & Communication

Stereotyping: an exaggerated set of expectations and beliefs about the attributes of a group
membership category (“Californians”, “New Yorkers”, “Lawyers”, “doctors”)

Stereotype: an overgeneralization about an identity group without any attempt to perceive

individual variations within the identity category.

Positive (“Chinese are good at Math”)

Stereotypes can be

Negative (“Koreans are too aggressive”)

 Stereotypes & Communication

Different kinds of stereotype:

Autostereotype: what insiders think of themselves as a
group

Heterostereotype: what one group thinks of another

group
Sociotypes: when stereotypes have a high degree of external validity (90%
agreement with empirical evidence from research)

Normative stereotype: when we make guesses based on generalized knowledge acquired concerning
another group via information from mass media or books. (accurate or not)

Personal stereotypes: what is formed with our personal experiences and limited contacts with
members of the other group.
 Autostereotype
Autostereotype is what insiders think about themselves as a group.

Group members taking on other’s stereotyped image that are imposed on them,

-> Autostereotype is formed.

E.g: A group member is consistently perceived by other out-group members as a “lazy dropout”.
When this image is maintained more strongly by institutional backing (for example: mass
media), this “dropout” image can feed back to the self-perception schema of this group member.
Such negative self-stereotyping can create a negative self-image, which in turn can induce
negative self-expectation on the individual.

-> Self-fulfilling prophecy: we think something is true about ourselves and then behave
accordingly.
Mindful stereotyping -> an open minded attitude to deal with others, our consciously held belief about
a group and willingness to change our loosely held images.

Mindless stereotyping -> a close ended mindset, our tightly held beliefs about a group and
unwillingness to change that tightly held images about the out-group.
 Prejudice and Communication
According to Allport (1954), prejudice is “an antipathy based on faulty and inflexible
generalization. It may be felt or expressed. It may be directed toward a group as a whole, or
toward an individual because he or she is a member of that group” (p.7) Such an antipathy stems
from an aversive or negative feeling toward out-group members based on hasty and inflexible
overgeneralizations above and beyond existing evidence.

Prejudices based on: skin color, foreign accent, local dialect, cultural or religious practices.

Four theories explaining the development of prejudice (Schaefer, 1990):

- Exploitation theory
- Scapegoating theory
- The authoritarian personality approach
- The structural approach
 Prejudice
Exploitation theory views power as a scarce resource and explain that to keep one’s valued
status and power, one has to suppress the social mobility of the underclass to strengthen one’s
own group position and security.

Scapegoating theory suggests that prejudiced individuals believe that they are the victims of
society. The scapegoaters often first perceive themselves as victims and accept the basic
responsibility for some failure.
The authoritarian personality approach: Harsh discipline inflicted in childhood shapes the
authoritarian personality syndrome, and later such individuals tend to treat vulnerable others as they were
treated when young and powerless.

The structural approach * emphasizes the social climate in promoting cultural and ethnic tolerance or
intolerance. The societal norms of either cultivating genuine equality among all groups or promoting
hierarchy between majority-minority group statuses are considered to have a profound impact on the
prejudiced attitudes held by group members.
 Specific functions
of prejudice
Ego-defensive function: to protect people’s view of themselves on both personal and social identity
level.

Value-expressive function: people’s need for value and behavioral consistencies in viewing their own
cultural values, norms and practices as the proper and civilized ways of thinking and behaving.

Knowledge function: the way information is learned and organized. Acquiring new knowledge requires
time and energy, so people tend to defend their knowledge base and view others who lack such
knowledge as ignorant or deficient.

Utilitarian function: how people impose pre-existing categories or biased expectation on others to
simplify their information-overloaded environment. They can also collect rewards from their own group
by sharing in the consensual prejudiced beliefs of their in-group.
 Discrimination Practices
Prejudice -> biased attitudes

Discrimination -> both verbal and non verbal actions that carry out that prejudiced attitudes.
Four basic types of discrimination practices:

- Isolate discrimination: harmful verbal and nonverbal action done intentionally by a member of a group
toward an out-group member.

- Small-group discrimination: a band of individuals from an identifiable group engaging in hostile and
abusive actions against members of an out-group.

- Direct institutional discrimination: community-prescribed endorsements of discrimination practices,

carried out routinely by a large number of individuals protected by the laws of a large scale
community.

- Indirect institutional discrimination: practices having a negative impact on group members even
though the original intent of the established guidelines of the institution is not hostile.
Active bigots: hold prejudiced attitudes and actively discriminate against out-group members.

Timid bigots: hold prejudiced attitudes toward out-group members but learn to sublimate their hostility or
resentment because of social norms or pressures.

Fair-weather liberals: do not have strong hostilities toward out-group members, but feel compelled to join
surrounding peer group members talking in a prejudiced manner or maintain silent.

Proactive change agents: take an activist stance in promoting true equality between all cultural, ethnic
and gender group. They are committed to eliminate unfair racial, gender and social practices.
 Reduction of Prejudice and Discrimination

Prejudiced attitudes and discriminatory practices come from many factors. One of these is the
emotion of fear.

-> Emotional vulnerability, identity insecurity and exclusion

The worry is that the cultural or social habits, identities can be attacked because of outsiders or
immigrants whom they perceive to be fragmenting a nation.

Another one is the worry of losing power or domination when alternative values, norms and
lifestyle by out-group members can replace the existing ones.
 Reduction of Prejudice and Discrimination
How to reduce prejudice and discriminatory practices?

First, be honest with ourselves, confront our own biases and ethnocentric attitudes.

Second, question the contents of our stereotypes and check against our actual interaction with
out-group members. Practice mindful instead of mindless stereotyping.

Third, understand how our negative images concerning our-group members affect our biased
attitudes and unfavorable interactions with them.

Fourth, work on deepening the complexity or our intergroup perceptions. Use the principle of
heterogeneity to break down the social categories. Spend time to really get to know members of
an out-group on an individual basis: their real likes and dislikes, their fears and their dreams.
Reduction of Prejudice and Discrimination

Fifth, use mindful, qualifying language (e.g., “From my contacts with several Vietnamese
American students, they appear to be on the quiet side”) in describing dissimilar others’
behaviors. Use “neutral” language in our descriptions or analysis. Use “situated language” in
qualifying or “contexting” our understanding.

Lastly, put ourselves in frequent intergroup contact situations to be comfortable with group-
based differences. Gain more realistic and accurate information based on increased positive
contacts with a variety of individuals form a wide spectrum of the identity group. Learn to honor
group-based differences.
 REFERENCES

● Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotions,
and motivation. Psychology Review, 2, 224-253.
● Tajfel, H., & Turner, J.C. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W.
G. Austin & S. Worchel (eds.). (1986), Psychology of intergroup relations, 7-24. Chicago, Il:
Nelson-Hall.
● Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating across cultures. New York, London: The Guilford
Press. P 146-171