Contrasting “we” -to-“they” in intergroup interaction: interpretation, threats, opportunities to predict social behavior
Main Article Content
Abstract
The relevance of the article stems from the importance of analysing intergroup interaction looking down from both social psychology angle in general and social identity theory in particular. Modern studies concerning intergroup interaction and contracting the in- and out-groups conducted within the framework of social identity theory have been analysed. This theory is one of the main ones in the world targeted on studying and predicting intergroup interaction; however, in the Ukrainian academia opinion the aspects of social identity theory are under-represented. This scientific research aims to analyse modern proceedings in social identity theory regarding intergroup social identity and intergroup interaction.
The research methodology is actually an analysis of articles and works carried out within the theory of social identity and in order to studying intergroup interaction.
The results of the source base analysis showed that intergroup interaction occurs depending on what precepts of the group members were identified towards their own and the out-group, and the definition of their status. The more status-oriented groups use strategies to maintain their own status. Lesser status groups use strategies to change their status, namely, strategies of social mobility, social creativity, and social confrontation. The unifying strategies of intergroup interaction are represented by the formation of a single super-identity, social cross-categorization and multicultural framing of intergroup relations. These theoretical approaches can be basic for the development of methodological approaches to predicting intergroup interaction and reducing intergroup tensions.
Prospects for further research are foreseen in a deeper analysis of research findings carried out within the social identity theory, highlighting the main regularities being common to these studies, and integrating the obtained knowledge into the Ukrainian socio-psychological science in order to work out methodological approaches to predicting intergroup interaction.
Downloads
Article Details
References
Ellemers, N. (1993). The infl uence of socio-structural variables on identity management strategies. European Review of Social Psychology, 4 , 27–57.
Fritsche, I., Jonas, E., Ablasser, C., Beyer, M., Kuban, J., Manger, A.-M., et al. (2013). The power of we: Evidence for group-based control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49 (1), 19–32.
Galtung (1964). An Editorial. Journal of Peace Research, 1 , 1–4.Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model . New York: Psychology Press.
Greenaway, K. H., Haslam, S. A., Cruwys, T., Branscombe, N. R., & Ysseldyk, R. (2015). From “We” to “Me”: Group identifi cation enhances perceived personal control with consequences for health and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109 (1), 53–74.
Heine, S. J., Proulx, T., & Vohs, K. D. (2006). The meaning maintenance model: On the coherence of social motivations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10 (2), 88–110.
Hogg, M. A. (2006). Social identity theory. In P. J. Burke (Ed.), Contemporary social psychological
Hogg, M. A. (2007). Uncertainty-identity theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 39, pp. 69–126).
Hogg, M. A. (2015). Constructive leadership across groups: How leaders can combat prejudice and confl ict between subgroups. Advances in Group Processes, 32 , 177–207.
Hogg, M. A. (2016). Social identity theory. In S. McKeown, R. Haji & N. Ferguson (Eds.) Understanding Peace and Confl ict through Social Identity Theory: Theoretical, Contemporary and Worldwide Perspectives . New York: Springer.
Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifi cations: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes . New York: Routledge
Hornostay P. P. (Red.) (2017) Svidome ta nesvidome u hrupoviy vzayemodiyi : Monohrafiya. Kropyvnytsʹkyy: Imeks-LTD. 244.
Hornostay P.P. (Red.) (2014) Psykholohiya hrupovoyi identychnosti: zakonomirnosti stanovlennya: Monohrafiya. K. : Milenium. 252.
Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000). Assimilation and diversity: An integrative model of subgroup relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4 , 143–156.
Leary, M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). The nature and function of self-esteem: Sociometer
Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (Eds.). (1999). Cultural divides: Understanding and overcoming group confl ict . New York: Russell Sage.
Stollberg, J., Fritsche, I., & Baecker, A. (2015). Striving for group agency: Threat to personal control increases the attractiveness of agentic groups. Frontiers in Psychology, 6 , 649.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup confl ict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA:Brooks/Cole.
theories (pp. 111–136). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 32 , 1–62.