This article was downloaded by: [North Dakota State University]On: 20 November 2014, At: 10:05Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

European Review of SocialPsychologyPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pers20

Group Identification,Intergroup Perceptions andCollective ActionCaroline Kelly aa University of London , LondonPublished online: 04 Mar 2011.

To cite this article: Caroline Kelly (1993) Group Identification, Intergroup Perceptionsand Collective Action, European Review of Social Psychology, 4:1, 59-83, DOI:10.1080/14792779343000022

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14792779343000022

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,

sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:05

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Chapter 3

Group Identification, Intergroup Perceptions and Collective Action

Caroline Kelly University of London, London

ABSTRACT

This chapter examines the impact of group identification on intergroup percep- tions and on willingness to take part in collective action. Based on social identity theory, the argument is put forward that strong group identification is associated with intergroup differentiation and stereotypic perception. This in turn has im- plications for the acceptance of social influence from ingroup and outgroup sources. In addition, group identification facilitates participation in collective action by promoting shared perceptions within the ingroup concerning the desir- ability and possibility of social change. Participation in collective action feeds back to affect the individual’s attitudes and social identity.

INTRODUCTION

It is the intention here to examine the impact of group identification on inter- group perceptions and willingness to take part in collective action. Based on social identity theory, it is argued that people’s membership of, and identifica- tion with, social groups is crucial to understanding their attitudes and be- haviour. It is identification with social groups and categories which provides the link between the individual and society and the means by which individual concerns are translated into collective concerns, and possibly collective action.

Gtropemi Review u/Socin/ I’syrliuhgy, V u h w 4 0 1993 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Edited by Wolfgang Stroebc and Miles Hewstone

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:05

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

60 CAROLINE KELLY

This chapter is divided into two main sections. The first section focuses on the effect of group identification on intergroup perceptions, and, specifically, the tendency to differentiate between in- and outgroups. This includes the tendency to see in- and outgroup members in stereotypical ways and the consequent psychological cost which is involved in accepting social influence from outgroup sources. The second section discusses the impact of group identification on behaviour, and, specifically, individual willingness to take part in collective action. Here, identification with social groups and associated influence processes play a crucial role in constructing a common view of the desirability and possibility of social change. Participation in collective action feeds back into individual identity and perceptions to produce a constant interaction between intergroup attitudes and behaviour.

GROUP IDENTIFICATION AND INTERGROUP PERCEPTIONS

The Ingroup Identification-Intergroup Differentiation Link

One of the fundamental tenets of social identity theory is a proposed positive relationship between levels of ingroup identification and intergroup differen- tiation (Hinkle & Brown, 1990). ‘Thus, it is hypothesized that individuals who identify strongly with a social group (and whose self-esteem is therefore highly dependent on it) will be more likely than weak identifiers to differenti- ate between fellow ingroup members and members of alternative social groups. By this means, the social world becomes clearly divided into “us” and “them” and the more favourable perceptions of the ingroup promote a posi- tive social identity and self-esteem.

The ingroup identification-intergroup differentiation link has been in- vestigated in a number of contexts but the findings have proved rather inconsistent. Brown and his colleagues have conducted a number of stud- ies in an occupational context to examine people’s tendencies to differenti- ate between own workgroup and other workgroups (Brown el al., 1986; Brown & Williams, 1984; Condor, Brown & Williams, 1987; Oaker & Brown, 1986). These studies reveal that levels of ingroup identification were only weakly (and sometimes negatively) related to measures of inter- group differentiation with median r’s ranging from - 0.41 to + 0.18 (see also Struch & Schwartz, 1989 for work in a religious context and Hinkle & Brown, 1990 for a review). Rather more consistent evidence has been found in laboratory studies with median r’s ranging from + 0.12 to + 0.31 (Condor, Brown & Williams, 1987; Grant, 1989; Hinkle, Taylor & Fox- Cardamone, 1989). Taken as a whole, however, these studies indicate that strong group identification does not always seem to set in motion the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:05

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

G R O U P AN13 INTERGROUP PERCEPTlONS 61

comparative and competitive train of psychological processes postulated by social identity theory.

In contrast to this evidence, a study conducted in the political domain (Kelly, 1988) showed strong support for the ingroup identification-intergroup differen- tiation link. Subjects were supporters of various political parties and were asked to make a number of judgements about ingroup and outgroup members. The independent variables used to explain variation in these judgements were (1) strength of ingroup identification; (2) perceived conflict between the aims of the ingroup and those of the outgroup (based on realistic conflict theory, Sherif, 1966); and (3) the amount of self-reported contact with supporters of each group (based on the contact hypothesis; see Hewstone & Brown, 1986).

Findings indicated that strength of ingroup identification made the most significant contribution in multiple regression analyses (range of p coefficients = + 0.34 to + 0.50, p < 0.01 in all cases), followed by perceived conflict. It was concluded that individuals who identified strongly with political groups were much more likely than weak identifiers to draw clear distinctions between in- and outgroup members in favour of the ingroup.

Attempting to explain the discrepancy between these findings and previous findings from occupational and laboratory contexts, Hinkle and Brown (1990) argue that social identity processes may not apply equally in different group contexts. They present a typology of group contexts around the two dimensions of collectivisthndividualistic orientation and comparative/non-comparative ide- ology. The dimension of collectivism/individualism “. . . refers to the extent to which cultures emphasize interpersonal competition, individual achievement and separation from the in-group versus cooperation within the group, collec- tive achievements and close ties with in-group members” (pp. 65-66; see Hofstede, 1980; Triandis el af., 1988; Wheeler, Reis & Bond, 1989). The second dimension of comparativehon-comparative ideology (renamed relationall autonomous orientation; Brown et a/ . , 1992) refers to the extent to which the culture or context encourages social comparisons as a means of group evalua- tion. Thus, it is possible for a group to be highly collectivist in its orientation but not concerned with social comparison, e.g. families, therapy groups. I t is argued that predictions derived from social identity theory will be most appropriate for groups characterized by a collectivist and comparative (relational) orientation and that this explains the positive findings from a political context and from the one other study (concerning rival schools; Abrams, 1984) where support for the role of ingroup identification was found.

Empirical support for the typology was found in a study by Hinkle, Brown and Ely (1990). Responses to a collectivism/individualism scale and a group ideology scale were used to divide subjects into the taxonomy’s four cells. Whilst significant correlations between ingroup identification and intergroup differentiation were obtained in the individualistic/comparative and collectivisthon-comparative cells (+ 0.33 and + 0.47 respectively), the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:05

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

62 CAKOIJNL: KELLY

correlation in the collectivistkomparative cell was substantially larger (+ 0.79, p < 0.001; see also Brown et al., 1992 for further evidence).

A subsequent study in a political context (Kelly, 1990a) confirmed that strong group identification was associated not only with the tendency to dif- ferentiate on dimensions concerning psychological attributes, but also to ex- aggerate the political differences between in- and outgroup members. In this latter regard, respondents were asked to provide their own opinions concern- ing a range of topical political issues and also to indicate how they thought a typical member of the orher group would respond. These scores enabled “differentiation” scores to be computed based on the difference between own positions and attributed positions of a typical outgroup member, as well as “understanding” scores based on the difference between attributed outgroup positions and actual outgroup positions. These “understanding” scores pro- vide two types of information: firstly, mugnirude, i.e. the degree of accuracy with which the outgroup position is perceived; and, secondly, direction. This latter dimension reveals a tendency either toward stereotyping, where the groups perceive one another inaccurately in conventionally stereotyped dir- ections, or a tendency toward assimilation, where group members perceive the positions of the two groups to be closer than they are in reality (Allen & Stephenson, 1983, 1985).

Results indicated that the stronger the individual’s identification with the political ingroup, the more he or she differentiated between own positions and the attributed positions of a typical outgroup member across a range of political issues. It was also expected that this tendency to greater differentia- tion on the part of strong political identifiers would lead them to have less accurate perceptions of the outgroup’s true position. This hypothesis was only partially supported but is consistent with related research by Allen and Ste- phenson (1983). They found that using a procedural manipulation to enhance the salience of group membership led to a polarization of attributions as intergroup perceptions became more stereotypical. This issue is developed in the next section.

In sum, findings from this area suggest that group identification is associ- ated with intergroup differentiation but that this link is strongest in certain types of group, such as political groups, whose orientation is both collectivist and comparative. Under these conditions, individuals who identify strongly with the ingroup will be inclined to differentiate clearly between the ingroup and its members on the one hand, and outgroups and their members on the other hand.

Group Identification and Stereotyping

In a discussion of the relationship between group identification and stereotyp- ing, Turner (1982) states that, “The cognitive output of a functioning social

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:05

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

GROUP A N D INI’ERGKOUP PERCEPTIONS 63

identification is, in a nutshell, stereotypic perception” (p. 29). A number of early investigations into racial prejudice provided some evidence for this idea in that those majority group members for whom race provided a relatively more important source of identity, were more likely to accentuate perceived similarity within the minority outgroup (e.g. Secord, Bevan & Katz, 1956; Taj- fel, Sheikh & Gardner, 1964). More recent research into the cognitive processes underlying gender stereotyping has suggested a positive association between degree of sex-role identification and the propensity to organize incoming infor- mation by sex and (less consistently) to perceive men and women in stereotyp- ical ways (Frable & Bem, 1985; Taylor, 1981; Taylor & Faleone, 1982).

Related research across a range of different group contexts has examined the impact of situational cues on intergroup perception. It is predicted that enhancement of the situational salience of group membership will promote stereotypical perception, as well as group cohesiveness (Dion, 1979), ad- herence to group norms (Wilder & Shapiro, 1984) and ingroup bias (Gerard & Hoyt, 1974). Wilder (1984) found that stereotypical perception of the out- group was enhanced when subjects made their judgements in the presence of the outgroup-a manipulation which presumably promoted the salience of group membership (see also Allen & Stephenson, 1983). In a study concern- ing self-perception, Hogg and Turner (1987a) found that under conditions in which sex category membership was expected to be salient, subjects perceived themselves as more typical of their sex and described themselves more in terms of certain positive aspects of their own sex stereotype.

To provide direct evidence of the impact of group identification on percep- tions of in- and outgroup members, Kelly (1989) conducted a study amongst the supporters of a political party, the British Labour Party. Sixty-four sub- jects were divided into weak identifiers (non-activists) and strong identifiers (activists) and into experimental conditions of low group salience and high group salience (induced by watching a videotape of the then leader of the main rival political party, Margaret Thatcher). Analysis confirmed that signifi- cantly higher levels of group identification were expressed by activists (rather than non-activists) and by subjects in the high (rather than low) salience condition. Subjects provided ratings of the degree of variability amongst both ingroup and outgroup members along a number of different dimensions. They did so by placing two marks for each dimension on an unmarked 100 mm line, within which they felt most group members would fall (see Jones, Wood & Quattrone, 1981; Quattrone & Jones, 1980; Wilder, 1984). Smaller variability ratings, therefore, indicated more stereotypical perception. The results con- firmed that the party activists, characterized by strong group identification, gave significantly smaller variability ratings than the non-activists (Table 3.1). Whilst the ratings of subjects in the high salience condition were smaller than those of subjects in the low salience condition, this difference was not statis- tically significant.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:05

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

64 CAROI.INE KELLY

Table 3.1 conditions

Mean variability ratings (cm) of ingroup and outgroup in 4 experimental

Katings of the Outgroup

Salience Salience Salience Salience

Ratings of the Ingroup High Low High Low

~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~

Activists 6.29 6.63 6.42 6.72 Non-activists 7.20 7.58 7.37 7.69

Rangc = 1-10 Adapted from Kelly, 1989. Table I

A comparison of outgroup versus ingroup ratings shows that, overall, out- group members were seen in a more stereotypical fashion than ingroup mem- bers. This is compatible with the usual “outgroup homogeneity effect” (see Quattrone, 1986, for an overview) which has been found consistently in a variety of group contexts (e.g. Jones, Wood & Quattrone, 1981; Judd, Ryan & Park, 1991; Kelly, 1988; Linville, Fischer & Salovey, 1989; Linville & Jones, 1980; Marques, 1990; Park & Rothbart, 1982; Quattrone & Jones, 1980). This effect refers to the tendency to perceive “us” as “individuals”, whilst perceiv- ing “them” as “all alike”.

However, the aggregate scores presented in Table 3.1 mask some import- ant differences across the different dimensions. These were categorized on a continuum according to their relevance to the political categorization divid- ing in- from outgroup members. Of most relevance was group members’ perceived support for specific political issues (e.g. strong trade unions); fol- lowed by their perceived support for broader political values underlying these issues (e.g. collectivism); followed by personality traits which were related to the political values (e.g. loyal); followed by completely unrelated personality traits (e.g. friendly). When the sixteen dimensions were cate- gorized in this way (four of each type), the results showed a rather more complex picture (Table 3.2).

Table 3.2 Mean variability ratings (cm) of ingroup and outgroup on 4 types of dimen- sion (collapsing across experimental conditions)

Ratings of the Outgroup Activists Non-activists Activists Non-activists

Ratings of the Ingroup

Issues 5.83 7.06 5.43 7.03 Values 6.15 7.29 6.20 7.31 Relevant Traits 6.87 1.44 7.20 7.68 Irrelevant Traits 7.12 7.78 7.46 8.09

Rangc = 1-10 Adapted from Kelly, 1989, Table I

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:05

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

GROUP A N D INTERGROUP PERCEPTIONS 65

First of all, there was a strong main effect for the relevance of the dimen- sion, such that the more relevant the dimension, the smaller the variability ratings in line with previous theorizing and research on this question (Simon, 1992; Simon & Brown, 1987; Turner, 1982, 1987; Wilder, 1984). Secondly, comparison of ingroup versus outgroup ratings shows that whilst there was a clear outgroup homogeneity effect for the personality dimensions (both relev- ant and irrelevant), this was not the case for the dimensions concerning polit- ical values or issues. Indeed, in the case of the issues, the ingroup was, if anything, seen as more homogeneous than the outgroup, particularly by the activists.

These differences are suggestive of the motivational processes which under- lie stereotyping in addition to the cognitive processes which have been the focus of much previous debate (e.g. Judd & Park, 1988; Park & Hastie, 1987; Park & Judd, 1990; Park, Judd & Ryan, 1991). Specifically, the present find- ings are consistent with other research which has shown that where there is some strategic value in appearing united, individuals may be motivated to stress ingroup homogeneity (Brown & Smith, 1989; Brown & Wootton- Millward, 1992; Mullen & Hu, 1989; Simon & Brown, 1987; Simon & Mummendey, 1990; Simon & Pettigrew, 1990). This tendency is likely to be particularly marked amongst individuals who identify strongly with their group. In a political context, these strong identifiers can achieve a positive social identity from the perception that their group comprises members who are heterogeneous in their personal characteristics, but united around certain key political objectives. Simon (1992) refers to this latter tendency as “the social identity principle” in perceived group homogeneity, according to which group members stress relative ingroup homogeneity with respect to attributes relevant to their social identity.

In sum, the evidence suggests that individuals characterized by strong group identification will tend to see both in- and outgroups as more homogeneous. The relative perceptions of in- as opposed to outgroup homogeneity will depend on the type of dimension under consideration and the possible value attached to belonging to a homogeneous ingroup.

Responses to Attempted Social Influence

The impact of group identification on intergroup perceptions has important implications for responses to attempted social influence. To begin with, group identification will affect those perceptions of the source of influence (ingroup or outgroup) which have hitherto been deemed so important in determining the success of influence campaigns (Moscovici, 1985). Thus, strong identifiers will have a significantly more positive view of the ingroup’s behavioural style (as consistent, flexible, etc.) and a significantly more negative view of the outgroup’s behavioural style (as inconsistent, rigid, etc.) (Kelly, 1990a). Thus

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:05

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

66 CAROLINE KELLY

i t is important to emphasize the subjective nature of perceived behavioural style. These perceptions may in turn affect susceptibility to influence (Maass & Clark, 1984; Mugny, 1982).

Group identification may also play a more direct role in determining re- sponses to attempted social influence. Principles derived from social identity theory and, more recently, self-categorization theory (Turner et al., 1987) suggest that influence from a source perceived as an outgroup may be resisted because acceptance implies a re-definition of social identity as perceived out- group characteristics are attributed to the self (Abrams & Hogg, 1990; Mugny, 1982; Mugny et al., 1984). The stronger the individual’s sense of ingroup identification, the morc negative the perception of those outgroup charac- teristics. Thus, stronger identification with the ingroup will increase resistance by increasing the psychological cost of accepting outgroup influence (Martin, 1988a, b).

The greater effectiveness of ingroups as opposed to outgroups in exerting social influence has been confirmed in a number of studies (e.g. Clark & Maass, 1988a, b; Maass, Clark & Haberkorn, 1982; Martin, 1988a, b, c; Mugny, 1982; Mugny, Kaiser & Papastamou, 1983; Mugny & Papastamou, 1982), although there are some important differences according to the type of influ- ence. Specifically, some studies which have examined indirect measures of influence (i.e. measures only indirectly linked to the source’s argument) have found no difference between ingroups and outgroups on these measures (e.g. Martin, 1988a, b; see also Mugny & PCrez, 1985; PCrez & Mugny, 1987).

Indeed, in direct contrast to the proposed superiority of ingroups, PCrez and Mugny (1987) argue that under certain conditions, the perception of a shared group identity uniting the source and the target may actually inhibit acceptance of influence. Thus, it is suggested that if fellow ingroup members are perceived negatively for whatever reason, then their psychological close- ness may be threatening to the social identity of the target who will respond by polarizing in the opposite direction to avoid a “costly, symbolic categorical confusion” (PCrez & Mugny, 1990, p. 160; see also Mugny et al., 1986; Mugny, Kaiser & Papastamou, 1983; Volpato eta!., 1990).

Some evidence in support of this idea was found in a study of attempted social influence in a political context (Kelly, 1990b). This study focused on a six-month leadership election campaign fought between majority and minor- ity factions of a political party. Measures of influence comprised those direcrly related to the campaign (attitudes towards the leadership candidates) and others only indirectly related to the campaign (attitudes towards a number of political issues where the majority and minority groups were seen to differ). Results showed that the more that minority group members perceived a common group identity uniting the minority and majority factions, the more they polarized away from the majority group on the direct measures of influ- ence. In this case, shared identification may have entailed some psychological

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:05

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

GROUP AND INTERGROUP PERCEPTIONS 67

cost, leading group members to wish to maintain their distinctive minority identity. This wish may have been all the stronger given the significant shifts towards the majority position which minority group members underwent on all the indirect measures-shifts which were positively related to the perception of a common group identity. The relationship between level of ingroup identifica- tion and acceptance of influence was inconsistent in this study, although there was some evidence that majority group members who identified strongly with the ingroup were more resistant to attempted minority influence.

Taken as a whole, the evidence from a number of studies in this area suggests that group identification may have important implications for responses to attempted social influence. This is because of its impact on perceived be- havioural style and because of the high psychological cost which may be en- tailed in the acceptance of outgroup influence by strong group identifiers.

Thus far, the discussion has focused on the effect of group identification on attitudes and perceptions. Summarizing a range of investigations, it is argued that strong group identification is associated with a tendency to differentiate clearly between in- and outgroups in favour of the ingroup, to see both in- and outgroup members in more stereotypical ways, and, consequently, to resist outgroup influence because of the high psychological cost entailed in its ac- ceptance. These effects are strongest in certain types of group and on certain dimensions. Thus, group identification appears to be associated with more conflictual perceptions of “us” and “them”. Below, we turn the focus on conflict behaviour and the relationship between group identification and an individual’s willingness to become involved in collective action.

GROUP IDENTIFICATION AND PARTICIPATION IN COLLECTIVE ACTION

Responding to Status Inequality

An important part of social identity theory concerns the responses of low status group members to perceived inequality, and the formulation that such individuals are faced with three possible strategies in the pursuit of a positive social identity: individual mobility (physical or psychological), social creativity, and social change (see Tajfel & Turner, 1986). It is this third strat- egy which entails collective action to challenge the status quo.

This theoretical framework has been applied to the study of many different social categories. For example, Williams and Giles (1978) argue that these strategies reflect women’s different responses to status inequality, ranging from psychological dissociation from the category of women, promoting the greater value of traditionally “female” qualities such as sensitivity and inter- personal skills, and finally, challenging the status quo through involvement in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:05

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

68 CAROLINE KELLY

feminist groups and collective action (see Skevington & Baker, 1989 for crit- icism of this analysis). A recent empirical study (Breinlinger & Kelly, 1991) shows that it is not possible to categorize all women into these distinct sub- groups, although there are some individuals who express strong individual mobility or social change ideologies. These two strategies have been the focus of most research because of their contrasting implications for change at a societal level.

In addressing the all-important question of what leads the members of low status groups to pursue one or other of these different strategies, social ident- ity theory invokes the idea of perceived “cognitive alternatives” to the status quo. This suggests that if individuals perceive current status relations as il- legitimate and as unstable, they will be more likely to engage in collectivc action (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Thus, activists will see social change as both desirable and aspossible. In the rest of this chapter, evidence relating to these two propositions will be reviewed.

The adoption of a particular response to status inequality is affected by referent informational influence (Hogg & Turner, 1987b; Turner, 1982). Ac- cordingly, individuals categorize themselves as members of particular groups. They learn the norms which are stereotypical for their ingroup and assign a cognitive representation of these norms to thcmselves. As social identity be- comes more salient, behaviour becomes more normative. This may be de- scribed as a process of “self-stereotyping” amongst individuals who identify strongly with their ingroup and is consistent with research discussed earlier into the ingroup homogeneity effect. Thus, in the context of status inequality, individuals will converge on responses which are seen as compatible with their self-categorization. Where ingroup norms encourage individuals to see social change as desirable and possible, this will promote favourable intentions to participate in collective action. Under certain conditions, these intentions will lead to actual behaviour and this, in turn, will feed back to affect attitudes and identity (Figure 3.1). It should be noted that throughout this chapter, the emphasis is on deductive aspects of social categorization, focusing on social categories which are fairly well defined and enduring such as political groups and trade unions. These social categories arc largely taken as the starting- point here for examining individual responses to status inequality. Much less will be said about the inducrive processes whereby social categories are them- selves constructed. This latter focus is particularly relevant to collective action in crowds and other fluid or volatile contexts where identities are more spon- taneous and negotiable (see Reicher, 1987).

Perceiving Social Change as Desirable

The traditional starting-point for social psychological approaches to collective action is the individual’s perception of inequality in either current or future

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:05

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

GROUP AND lNTERGROUP PERCEFI'IONS

Referent informational I n t e n t i a n b i n Influence

69

Part icipo t ion Collective

Action I

I I I '

I I I I L _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - - - - - - - - A

Perception of Social Change as Possible

elaborated route

\I

direct route

Figure 3.1 Responding to status inequality

- - _ _ - _

intergroup status relations. This emphasis has found its most common expres- sion in the study of relative deprivation (e.g. Olson, Herman & Zanna, 1986). In this area, a number of attempts have been made to find empirical support for a direct link between feelings of deprivation and participation in protest activities.

An important distinction has been made between egoistic relative depriva- tion, which is based on comparisons of one's self with other individuals, and collective relative deprivation, which is based on comparisons of one's group with other groups. Evidence suggests that it is the latter which is related to participation in group action (e.g. Walker & Mann, 1987; Dub6 & Guimond, 1986; Grant & Brown, 1992; Tougas & Veilleux, 1989), although the evidence on the whole is not strong (see Gurny & Tierney, 1982 for a review).

One way forward in exploring this issue is to suggest that levels of group identification may moderate the relationship between relative deprivation and behavioural intentions. For example, Haselau el al. (1991) found that egoistic and collective relative deprivation predicted activist intentions amongst pro- and anti-abortion lobbies only amongst subjects who strongly identified with an abortion-related group. Similarly, Struch and Schwartz (1989) found that the impact of predictor variables (e.g. perceived value dissimilarity) on intergroup aggression was particularly strong amongst re- spondents who identified highly with their own group (see also Kelly & Kelly, 1992a).

Closely linked to notions of relative deprivation and social comparison, research has been conducted within the framcwork of social identity theory to examine status inequality and group boundaries. Specifically, research has

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:05

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

70 CAROLINE KELLY

focused on the extent to which group boundaries allow some members of the low status group to “pass” into the advantaged group as a reflection of indi- vidual merit and so enhance their own personal status. The perceived per- meability of group boundaries is important because of the attributions which will be made for low status. Where boundaries are perceived as permeable, low status will be attributed internally to individual merit (promoting individ- ual mobility). Where boundaries are perceived as impermeable, low status will be attributed externally to social structure and category membership (promoting collective action) (Gurin, Gurin & Morrison, 1978; Gurin & Markus, 1989; Klandermans, 1983).

Developing this part of social identity theory, Taylor and McKirnan (1984) propose a five-stage model of intergroup relations which traces a develop- mental sequence in the relations between high and low status groups (see also Taylor & Moghaddam, 1987, Ch. 8). The sequence begins with rigid social stratification (based, for example, on race or sex) (Stage l), then moves to an individualistic ideology (Stage 2) and individual social mobility (Stage 3), where some low status group members pass into the advantaged group. Others fail to do so and, perceiving group boundaries as largely impermeable, instigate consciousness-raising in their original group (Stage 4) which leads to collective action (Stage 5). It is argued that all intergroup relations pass through the same stages in the same sequential manner and that individual upward social mobility will be attempted by low status group members prior to collective action being instigated.

Empirical research into perceived group boundaries has been conducted by Ellemers el al. (1988, see chapter by Ellemers, this volume). They found that permeable group boundaries tended to reduce levels of ingroup identification in low status groups because of the possibilities presented for individual mobility. Moreover, in a further experiment, members of low status groups with permeable boundaries identified more with the higher status group than did members of low status groups with impermeable boundaries and this anticipatory identification was most pronounced for group members with high individual ability (Ellemers, van Knippenberg & Wilke, 1990). Commenting on these findings, van Knippenberg and Ellemers (1990) argue that, “. . . im- permeable group boundaries force group members to seek collective solu- tions” (pp. 140-141; see also Tajfel, 1975).

Further research by Wright, Taylor and Moghaddam (1990) created three types of group boundary dividing high and low status groups: open, almost closed (tokenism), and completely closed. Findings provided some support for the hypothesis that subjects perceiving open group boundaries would pursue individual action whilst subjects faced with a completely closed group would show a greater interest in collective action. In this study, subjects showed a strong preference for individual action even where access to the advantaged group was restricted to tokenism. Wright, Taylor and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:05

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

GKOUP A N D INI‘ERGROUP PERCEPJ‘IONS 71

Moghaddam argue that if a low status group member is primarily concerned with self-interest, then as long as there is the slightest possibility of personal advancement, there will be little appeal in improving the status of the whole group through collective action.

In studying the role of self-interest as a determinant of action, Taylor et al. (1987, exp. 1) used the distinction between distributive injustice (concerned with resource distribution among individuals) and procedural injustice (invol- ving the manner in which distribution is arrived at). They argued that the latter, which concerns the collectivity, would be more likely to provoke collec- tive action in response. However, results indicated that an unjust procedure alone was insufficient to produce collective action but had to be coupled with an unjust distribution which affected the actor personally. The significance of personal consequences as a determinant of action received some further sup- port in a subsequent study (Wright, Taylor & Moghaddam, 1990), in which individuals near to access to the advantaged group were provoked into action to a greater extent by an arbitrary change in procedures than were subjects disranr from the advantaged group for whom the change had no personal consequences (see also Taylor et al., 1987, exp. 2) .

These findings conflict somewhat with the findings of Dub6 and Guimond (1986), who found some evidence that it is not individuals’ concern for their own well-being which underlies their participation in mass protest, but their defence of highly symbolic principles (see also Abelson, 1982; Kinder & Sears, 1981; Lydon & Zanna, 1990). This suggests that under certain conditions, concerns for self-interest may be subordinate to wider group concerns. Thus, in his discussion of social co-operation, Turner (1987) argues that, “To the degree that the self is depersonalized, so too is self-interest’’ (p. 65; see also Brewer & Schneider, 1990). Where individuals identify strongly with low status groups, one would predict a greater willingness to take collective action regardless of personal interests.

To sum up, an important determinant of participation in collective action is the perception of injustice in current status relations and the belief that social change is desirable. This may be because group boundaries are perceived as impermeable and social change is necessary in order to improve low status.

Perceiving Social Change as Possible

Perceiving social change as desirable is an important aspect of participation in collective action-alone, however, this belief may not be sufficient. There is some evidence to suggest that in order to participate, individuals must also believe that collective action will be effective in bringing about social change, i.e. that social change is possible (see Klandermans, 1989). Of course, this latter belief is not necessarily confined to the short-term. Participants may have very long time horizons which may even extend beyond their own

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:05

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

72 CAROLINE KE1.I.Y

lifetimes (Andrews, 1991) and may conceptualize change in a very gradual piecemeal fashion, where the immediate objective is to convert others to one’s viewpoint before social change can occur. Moreover, effectiveness can be determined on a number of different levels. In research into collective action in trade unions, Klandermans (1984a) distinguishes between the goal of action (demand for a shorter working week, for example) and the belief that the goal of action will be instrumental for achieving broader social change (reducing unemployment, for example).

Addressing the perceived instrumentality of collective action, a number of studies focusing on individual differences in antinuclear war activity have suggested that a key factor is that of political efficacy, i.e. the sense that the individual citizen can have an impact on the political process. For example, Fiske (1987) argues that, “The antinuclear activist believes that nuclear war is preventable, not inevitable, and that citizens working together can influence government action to decrease the chance of a nuclear war” (p. 213; see also Hamilton ef aL, 1987; Locatelli & Holt, 1986; Tyler & McGraw, 1983; Wolf, Gregory & Stephan, 1986). It is argued that the activist’s specific sense of “nuclear efficacy” is linked to a broad sense of personal (rather than external) control over life events in general (locus of control; Rotter, 1966) which leads him or her to become involved in other types of political activity as well (but see Levenson, 1981).

However, not all studies have supported the hypothesized relationship be- tween efficacy and behaviour. For example, Schofield and Pavelchak (1989) found that a television film about nuclear war led to a reduction in levels of efficacy but an increase in intentions to take part in antinuclear behaviours. Tyler and McGraw (1983) found that activist behaviour was unrelated to judgements about the effectiveness of past political behaviour. Fox and Schofield (1989) found that efficacy had no impact in analyses predicting behavioural intentions; these were instead predicted by prior antinuclear po- litical activity, gender, attitudes towards disarmament and the salience of the issue to the individual (regarding this last point, see Anderson, 1983; Fiske, 1987; Fiske, Pratto & Pavelchak, 1983; Gregory, Cialdini & Carpenter, 1982; Hamilton, Chavez & Keilin, 1986).

Alternative approaches to the perceived effectiveness of collective action tend to move away from the idea of generalized individual dispositions. One such approach is resource mobilization theory (e.g. McCarthy & Zald, 1977), which focuses on structural and organizational determinants of behaviour. According to this theory, people’s willingness to engage in collective action is determined by the presence or absence of mobilization resources-such as the power that comes from offering essential services and the knowledge that other similar low status groups have mobilized. Research by Martin, Brick- man and Murray (1984) found that i t was these factors rather than feelings of relative deprivation which determined participation in collective action.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:05

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

GROUP AND INTERGROUP PEKCEPTIONS 73

In an attempt to develop a social-psychological expansion of resource mo- bilization theory, Klandermans (1984a) argues that participation is the result of rational decision processes whereby people weigh up the costs and benefits involved. Based on expectancy-value theory (Feather, 1982), three motives underlying participation may be distinguished: (1) goal motives concerning the achievement of the collective goal, e.g. the expectation that individual participation will help to achieve success; (2) social motives concerning the expected reactions of significant others, e.g. the expected approval or disap- proval of friends and family; and (3) reward motives concerning the non-social costs and benefits of participation, e.g. the expected time and effort involved (see Klandermans, 1984b). The willingness to participate in collective action is proposed as the weighted sum of these motives, each of which comprises a multiplicative relation between perceived probability and evaluation. Empiri- cal support for this approach derives from studies of trade union participation (Klandermans, 1984a, b, 1986a, b), which suggest that goal motives are the most important of the three determinants (see also Flood, in press).

Taken alone, the expectancy-value approach presents a rather individualis- tic picture of the potential participator weighing up costs and benefits and calculating the chances of success. Schrager (1985) criticizes the approach for being insensitive to the way that attitudes develop in interaction with people and in the course of historical experience and comments that it “. . , overin- ternalizes the very public stage of collective action” (p. 858). In particular, she argues that the low salience of collective goals in the particular campaign studied by Klandermans (1984a), led participants to adopt a more calculative approach than they might have done had they been more strongly moved. Similarly, Kelly and Kelly (1992b) suggest that cost-benefit calculations will be relatively more important as determinants of action amongst individuals characterized by low levels of group identification. Also suggestive of the idea that participation is not driven purely by calculations of effectiveness is Oliver’s (1984) finding that activists in neighbourhood groups were more pessimistic than non-activists about the prospects for effective collective ac- tion but were motivated by the feeling: “if you won’t do it, nobody else will”. Schrager (1985) argues that, “Collective action is more than the sum of econ- omistic calculations: social and ideological factors figure powerfully in people’s willingness to act” (p. 859; see also Klandermans, 1985).

Support for the role of social factors relating to group membership comes from a study into trade union activism by Kelly and Kelly (1992a; Table 3.3) which brings together a number of the themes which have been discussed in this chapter. In this study, members of a trade union in Britain indicated their levels of prospective activism on a number of different behavioural measures. They also completed measures concerning group identification (with the union), collectivistlindividualistic orientation, stereotyping, perceived conflict (between workers and management), relative deprivation, political efficacy

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:05

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

74 CAROLINE K 8 L I . Y

Table 3.3 Predicting union activism: standardized regression coefficients (ps)

Dependent Dependent Variable (1): Variable (2):

Independent Less ‘Difficult’ More ‘Difficult’ Variables Forms of Action’ Forms of Action2

Group identification Collectivist orientation Outgroup stereotyping Perceived conflict Collective relative deprivation Political efficacy Expectancy-value calcirlotiotis Goal motives Social motives Reward motives

+ 52** + 14** + 18** - 07 + 05 - 01

+ 09 - 04

00

+ 60** - 08 + 07 + 01 +04 - 07

+ 02 + 04 + 01

I R*(Adj.) = 0.54, (F(9269) = 37.09**) Less ‘difficult’ forms of action: discuss union affairs with collcagues; attend union rallicsl demonstrations; attend branch meetings; read union journalshnagazines; vote in union elections; take part in industrial action. * R2(Adj.) = 0.34, (F(9269) = 16.63**) More ‘difficult’ forms of action: stand as an elected branch official; be a union delegate at a national meeting; speak at branch nicetings; help with union campaigns. Decimal points have been omitted from cocfficienis. ** / I < 0.01; II = 350

and expectancy-value calculations. Expectancy-value calculations were cate- gorized into (1) goal motives (value of the goal of action and the expectation that participation will help to achieve success); (2) social motives (expected reactions of significant others and motivation to comply); and (3) reward motives (expectations of non-social costs and benefits of participation) (see Klandermans, 1984b).

Factor analysis of the behavioural measures indicated that they were loaded on two factors which could be interpreted as relating to more or less “difficult” forms of action in the sense of making the individual more or less visible to others. Subsequent regression analysis using these two factors as dependent variables showed that the psychological correlates of these two types of activity were somewhat different (see Klandermans, 1986a; McShane, 1986).

In the case of the less “difficult” forms of action, behavioural intentions were significantly and positively related to a collectivist orientation; to stereo- typic perception of the outgroup; and finally, and most significantly, to the individual’s level of group identification (with the union). Of the expectancy- value measures, only the goal motives approached statistical significance. In the case of the more “difficult” forms of action, the only significant correlate

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:05

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

GROUP A N D INTERGROUP PERCEPTIONS 75

of intention was group identification. Further analyses, which examined the possible moderating effect of group identification, indicated a broadly similar pattern of results amongst strong and weak group identifiers: collective relative deprivation, however, appeared to be somewhat more important for strong identifiers and political efficacy somewhat more important for weak identifiers.

To sum up, the belief that it is possible to bring about social change through collective action may make an important difference to an individual’s willing- ness to participate. However, this belief is inevitably a subjective judgement which will be the target of influence attempts and will be affected by self- categorization. A striking example is provided by Andrews’ (1991) psycholog- ical study of life-time socialist activists for whom the belief that socialist movements would be successful in the end was an important part of their identities as socialists.

Taken together, the two beliefs-that social change is desirable and possible-provide the activist with cognitive alternatives to the status quo. The relative importance of the two beliefs is likely to depend somewhat on the type of action. For example, Klandermans (1989) suggests that expecta- tions of success will play a more important role for relatively costly forms of action (e.g. going on strike), while the perceived importance of the goal of action and the discontent behind it will play a more important role for less costly forms of action (e.g. attending a demonstration) (see also Pinard & Hamilton, 1986).

From Intentions to Actions

Favourable attitudes towards collective action in general do not necessarily correlate strongly with participation in specific behaviours. In their review of research into the attitude-behaviour relationship, Ajzen and Fishbein (1977) formulated a “principle of compatibility”. According to this principle, two indicators of a given disposition are said to be compatible with one another to the cxtent that their target, action, context and time elements are assessed at identical levels of generality or specificity. Thus, in order to predict individual involvement in a specific instance of collective action, specific attitudinal measures are needed relating to the target at which the action is directed, the particular action involved, the context in which the action occurs, and the time of its occurrence. At a higher level of generality, measures of global attitudes only allow prediction of a general tendency to participate in collective action.

Moreover, even when attitudinal and behavioural measures are compatible, the correlation between the two is likely to be less than perfect. This is because the individual may not have complete control over behaviour. In his review of the control factors which may intervene between behavioural inten- tions and actual behaviour, Ajzen (1988) distinguishes two types. The first refers to internal factors, such as the individual’s skills, abilities, and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:05

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

76 CAHOLJNE KEI.1.Y

knowledge; and the second refers to external factors, such as time, oppor- tunity, and dependence on others. Incorporating perceptions of behavioural control is a way of taking into account some of the realistic constraints that may prevent intentions being translated into actual behaviour (see Ajzen, 1988; Ajzen & Madden, 1986).

A Direct Route to Collective Action

Once the individual has become involved in collective action over a period of time, a more direct route to participation may become established. Responses to status inequality will be reinforced through interaction with others who share a common view and identification with the group will be strengthened. A new category of “activists” becomes established and the individual increasingly sees hidherself (and is seen by others) as a member of this category. Taking part in collective action then becomes the direct and overt expression of this social identity and the means by which it is renewed and made positive. Some tenta- tive support for this idea derives from the study of union activism by Kelly and Kelly (1992a) which showed that the only significant correlate of involvement in more “difficult” forms of activity (usually only undertaken by longstanding activists) was level of identification with the union.

Also relevant is Lydon and Zanna’s (1990) suggestion that people feel especially committed to those experiences that they see as diagnostic of their values. In their study, value relevance was shown to predict commitment in the face of adversity. Under conditions of low adversity, values made very little difference in predicting expressed commitment to various personal projects. However, under high adversity, those who saw their values as relevant to their project felt more committed than those who saw their values as less relevant. In the present context, this approach suggests that once an activist identity has formed, individuals will continue to participate in collective action to the extent that such action is seen as relevant to their social identity and values.

I t is through this feedback loop that the more inductive aspects of social categorization come into play in the ways in which identities themselves are reconstructed and given meaning through action. As Reicher (1987) com- ments, “. . . social identity determines the form of social behaviour and is at the same time changed through that behaviour” (p. 201). Participation in collective action will affect the meaning and salience of social identity and thereby facilitate further participation.

CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions derived from this chapter may be simply stated: strong group identification brings the social world into sharper focus by promoting clear

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:05

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

GROIJP AND INTERGROIJP PERCEPTIONS 77

distinctions between “us” and “them”, and facilitates participation in collec- tive action by promoting shared perceptions within the ingroup concerning the desirability and possibility of social change. Participation in collective action feeds back to affect individual attitudes and perceptions and may lead to the development of a new social identity as an activist. Thus, activism does not just serve an instrumental function as a means to achieving an end, but also serves an expressive function as a public statement of an individual’s social identity and values.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Research discussed in this chapter was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council and the Nuffield Foundation. I am grateful to the editors, to two anonymous reviewers and to Rupert Brown for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this chapter.

REFERENCES

Abelson, R.P. (1982). Three models of attitude-behaviour consistency. In M.P. Zanna, E.T. Higgins & C.P. Herman (Eds), Consistency irt Social Behavioiir: The Ontario Symposium, Vol. 2 , Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 13146.

Abrams, D. (1984). Social Identiry, Selfawareness and Jntergroicp Behavioicr. Doctoral thesis, University of Kent.

Abrams, D. & Hogg, M.A. (1990). Social identification, self-categorization and social influence. European Review of Social Psychology, 1, 195-228.

Ajzen, I. (1988). Attiticdes, Personality and Behaviour, Milton Keynes: Open Univer- sity Press.

Ajzen, 1. & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behaviour relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84,888-918.

Ajzen, I. & Madden, T.J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, inten- tions and perceived behavioral control. Joiirttal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22,453-74.

Allen, P.T. & Stephenson, G.M. (1983). Inter-group understanding and size of organ- ization. British Joiirnnl of Jnditstrial Relations, 21, 312-29.

Allen, P.T. & Stephenson, G.M. (1985). The relationship of inter-group understand- ing and inter-party friction in industry. British Joiirnnl of Indirstrial Relations, 23,

Anderson, C.A. (1983). Imagination and expectation: The effect of imagining be- havioural scripts on personal intentions. Joiirnol of Personnlity and Social Psychol-

Andrews, M. (1991). Lifetimes of Commitment: Aging, Politics, Psychology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Breinlinger, S. & Kelly, C. (1991) Women’s responses to status inequality: A test of social identity theory. Unpublished MS. Birkbeck College, University of London.

203- 13.

ogy, 45,293-305.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:05

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

78 CAROLlNE KELLY

Brewer, M.B. & Schneidcr, S.K. (1990). Social identity and social dilemmas: A double- edged sword. In D. Abrams & M.A. Hogg (Eds), Social Identity Theory: Con- structive and Critical Advances, London: Harvester Wheatsheaf, pp. 169-84.

Brown, R.J., Condor, S.. Mathews, A., Wade, G. & Williams, J.A. (1986). Explaining intergroup differentiation in an industrial organization. Joitrnal of Occupational

Brown, R.J., Hinkle, S., Ely, P.G., Fox-Cardamone, L., Maras, P. & Taylor, L.A. (1992). Recognising group diversity: Individualist-collectivist and autonomous- relational social orientations and their implications for intergroup processes. Un- published MS. University o f Kent.

Brown, R.J. & Smith, A. (1989). Perceptions of and by minority groups: The case of women in academia. European Journal of Social Psychology, 19,61-75.

Brown, R.J. & Williams, J.A. (1984). Group identification: The same thing to all people? Human Relations, 37,547-64.

Brown, R.J. & Wootton-Millward, L. (1992). Perceptions of group homogeneity during group formation: Further evidence for the ingroup homogeneity effect. Unpublished MS. University of Kent.

Clark, R.D., Ill & Maass, A. (1988a). Social categorization in minority influence: The case of homosexuality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18,347-64.

Clark, R.D. 111, & Maass, A. (1988b). The role of social categorization and perceived source credibility in minority influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18,

Condor, S., Brown, R.J. & Williams, J.A. (1987). Social identification and intergroup behaviour. Quarterly Journal of Social Affairs, 3,299-317.

Dion, K.L. (1979). Intergroup conflict and intragroup cohesiveness. In W.G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Montcrey. CA: Brooks Cole, pp. 21 1-25.

DubC, L. & Guimond, S. (1986). Relative deprivation and social protest: The personal- group issue. In J.M. Olson, C.P. Herman & M.P. Zanna (op. cit.), pp. 201-17.

Ellemers, N., van Knippenbcrg, A., De Vries, N.K. & Wilke, H. (1988). Social identi- fication and permeability of group boundaries. Eiiropean Journal of Social Psychol-

Ellemers, N., van Knippenbcrg, A. & Wilke, H. (1990). The influence of permeability of group boundaries and stability of group status on strategies of individual mobility and social change. British Joiirnal of Social Psychology, 29,233-46.

Feather, N.T. (1982). Expectations and Actions: Expectancy-Value Models in Psychol- ogy, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Fiske, S.T. (1987). People’s reactions to nuclear war. American Psychologist, 42,

Fiske, S.T., Pratto, F. & Pavelchak, M. (1983). Citizens’ images of nuclear war. Journal of Social Issues, 39,4 1-65.

Flood, P. (in press). An expectancy value analysis of the willingness to attend union meetings. Journal of Occupational Psychology.

Fox, D.L. & Schofield, J.W. (1989). Issue salience, perceived efficacy and perceived risk: A study of the origins of anti-nuclear war activity. Joiirnal of Applied Social

Frable, D.E.S. & Bern, S.L. (1985). I f you are gender schematic, all members of the opposite sex look alike. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49,459-68.

Gerard, H.B. & Hoyt, M.F. (1974). Distinctiveness of social categorization and attitude towards ingroup members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29,83642.

Psychology, 59,273-87.

381-94.

ogy, 18,497-513.

207-17.

Psychology, 19,805-27.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:05

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

GROIJP A N D INTERGROUP PEHCEPI'IONS 79

Grant, P.R. (1989). Some correlational evidence that perceived threat moderates the relationship between social identity and ingroup-outgroup differentiation. Paper presented at the British Psychological Society, Annual Conference, St. Andrews, April 1989.

Grant, P.R. & Brown, R.J. (1992). From ethnocentrism to collective protest: Re- sponses to relative deprivation and threats to social identity. Unpublished MS. Uni- versity of Kent.

Gregory, W.C., Cialdini, R.B. & Carpenter, K.M. (1982). Self-relevant scenarios as mediators of likelihood estimates and compliance: Does imagining make it so? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43,89-99.

Gurin, P., Gurin, G. & Morrison, B. (1978). Personal and ideological aspects of internal and external control. Social Psychology, 41,275-96.

Gurin, P. & Markus. H. (1989). Cognitive consequences of gender identity. In S. Skevington & D. Baker (op. cif .) , pp. 152-72.

Gurny, J.N. & Tierney, K.T. (1982). Relative deprivation and social movements: A critical look at twenty years of theory and research. The Sociological Quarterly, 23, 3347.

Hamilton, S.B., Chavez, E.L. & Keilin, W.G. (1986). Thoughts of Armageddon: The relationship between nuclear threat attitudes and cognitivelemotional responses. International Journal of Mental Health, 15,189-207.

Hamilton, S.B., Knox, T.A., Keilin, W.G. & Chavez, E.C. (1987). In the eye of the beholder: Accounting for the variability in cognitivelaffective responses to the threat of nuclear war. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17,927-52.

Haselau, J., Fox-Cardamone, D.L., Hinkle, S. & Brown, R.J. (1991). The Abortion Controversy: A Look at Activists on Both Sides of the Conflict. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, IL, May 1991.

Hewstone, M. & Brown, R.J. (Eds) (1986). Confact and Conpicf in Intergroup Encoun- ters, Oxford: Blackwell.

Hinkle, S.W. & Brown, R.J. (1990). Intergroup comparisons and social identity: Some links and lacunae. In D. Abrams & M.A. Hogg (Eds), Social Identity Theory: Con- sfriictive and Critical Advances, London: Harvester Wheatsheaf, pp. 48-70.

Hinkle, S.W., Brown, R.J. & Ely, P.G. (1990). IndividualismlCollectivism, Group Ide- ology and Intergroup Processes. Paper presented al British Psychological Society, Annual Conference, London, December 1990.

Hinklc, S.W., Taylor, L.A. & Fox-Cardomone, D.L. (1989). Intragroup identification and intergroup differentiation: A multicomponent approach. British Journal of So- cial Psychology, 28,305-19.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hogg. M.A. & Turner, J.C. (1987a). Intergroup behaviour, self-stereotyping and the

salience of social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 32540. Hogg, M.A. & Turner, J.C. (1987b). Social identity and conformity: A theory of

referent informational influence. In W. Doise & S. Moscovici (Eds), Current Issues in European Social Psychology, Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jones, E.E., Wood, G.C. & Quattrone, G.A. (1981). Perceived variability of personal characteristics in in-groups and out-groups: The role of knowledge and evaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7,523-28.

Judd, C.M. & Park, B. (1988). Out-group homogeneity: Judgements of variability at the individual and group levels. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 778-88.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:05

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

80 CAROl.INE KELLY

Judd, C.M., Ryan, C.S. & Park, €3. (1991). Accuracy in the judgement of in-group and out-group variability. Joiirnal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61,366-79.

Kelly, C. (1988). Intergroup differentiation in a political context. British Joicrnal of Social Psychology, 21,319-32.

Kelly, C. (1989). Political identity and perceived intragroup homogeneity. British Joiir- nal of Social Psychology, 28,239-50.

Kelly, C. (19SH)a). Social identity and intergroup perceptions in minority-majority con- texts. Human Relations, 43,583-99.

Kelly, C. (1990b). Social identity and levels of influence: When a political minority fails. British Joirrnal of Social Psychology, 29,289-301.

Kelly, C. & Kelly, J.E. (1992a). Who gets involved in collective action? Social psycho- logical determinants of individual participation in trade unions. Unpublished MS. Birkbeck College, University of London.

Kelly, J.E. & Kelly, C. (1992b). Industrial action. In J.F. Hartley & G.M. Stephenson (Eds), Employment Relations: The Psychology of lnfliience and Control at Work, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 246-68.

Kinder, D.R. & Sears, D.O. (1981). Prejudice and politics: Symbolic racism versus racial threats to the good life. Joirrnal of Personality arid Social Psychology, 40,

Klandermans, P.G. (1983). Rotter’s 1.E.-scale and socio-political action taking: The balance of 20 years of research. Eiiropean Joiirnal of Social Psychology, 13,399-415.

Klandermans, P.G. (1 984a). Mobilization and participation: Social psychological expansions of resource mobilization theory. American Sociological Review, 49,

Klandermans, P.G. (1984b). Mobilization and participation in trade union action: An expectancy-value approach. Joiirnal of Occiipational Psychology, 51, 107-20.

Klandermans, P.G. (1985). Individuals and collective action: Rejoinder to Schrager. American Sociological Review, 50, 860-61.

Klandermans, P.G. (1986a). Psychology and trade union participation: Joining, acting and quitting. Joitrnal of Occiipational Psychology, 59, 189-204.

Klandermans, P.G. (1986b). Perceived costs and benefits of participation in union action. Personal Psychology, 39, 379-97.

Klandermans, P.G. (1989). Grievance interpretation and success expectations: the so- cial construction of protest. Social Behavioiir, 4, 113-25.

Levenson, H. (1981). Differentiating among internality, powerful others and chance. In H.M. Lefcourt (Ed.), Research with the Locus of Control Constriict, Vol. I : Assess- ment methods. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 15-63.

Linville, P.W., Fischer, G.W. & Salovey, P. (1989). Perceived distributions of charac- teristics of ingroup and outgroup members: Empirical evidence and a computer simulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 165-88.

Linville, P.W. & Jones, E.E. (1980). Polarized appraisals of out-group members. Jour- nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38,689-703.

Locatelli, M.G. & Holt, R.R. (1986). Anti-nuclear activism, psychic numbing and mental health. International Joirrnal of Mental Health, 15, 143-61.

Lydon, J.E. & Zanna, M.P. (1990). Commitment in the face of adversity: A value- affirmation approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1040-47.

Maass, A. & Clark, R.D. 111 (1984). Hidden impact of minorities: Fifteen years of minority influence research. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 428-50.

Maass, A., Clark, R.D., 111 & Haberkorn, G. (1982). The effects of differential ascribed category membership and norms on minority influence. Eiiropenn Journal of Social

414-31.

583-600.

Psychology, 12.89-104.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:05

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

GROUP AND INTERGROlJP PERCEPTIONS 81

Marques, J.M. (1990). The black-sheep effect: Outgroup homogeneity in social com- parison settings. In D. Abrams & M.A. Hogg (Eds.), Social Identity Theory: Con- structive and Critical Advances, London: Harvester Wheatsheaf, pp. 131-51.

Martin, J., Brickman, P. & Murray, A. (1984). Moral outrage and pragmatism: Explan- ations for collective action. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 20,484-96.

Martin, R. (1988a). Ingroup and outgroup minorities: Differential impact upon public and private responses. European Journnl of Social Psychology, 18, 39-52.

Martin, R. (1988b). Minority influence and social categorization: A replication. Euro- peon Journal of Social Psychology, 18,369-73.

Martin, R. (1988~). Minority influence and ‘trivial’ social categorization. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18,465-70.

McCarthy, J.D. & Zald, M.N. (1977). Resource mobilization and social movement: A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 121241.

McShane, S.L. (1986). The multidimensionality of union participation. Journal of Oc- cupational Psychology, 59, 177-87.

Moscovici, S. (1985). Innovation and minority influence. In S. Moscovici, G. Mugny & E. Van Avermaet (Eds), Perspectives on Minority Influence, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, and Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de I’Homme, pp. 9-51.

Mugny, G. (1982). The Power of Minorities, London: Academic Press. Mugny, G., Ibhilez, T., Elejabarrieta, F., Iiiigucz, L. & Perez, J.A. (1986). Conflicto,

identificatibn y poder en la influencia minoritaria. Revistn de Psicologia Social, 1,

Mugny, G., Kaiser, C. & Papastamou, S. (1983). Influence minoritaire, identification et relations entre groupes: etude experimentale autour d’une votation. Cahiers de Psychologie Sociale, 19, 1-30.

Mugny, G., Kaiser, C., Papastamou, S. & Perez, J.A. (1984). Intergroup relations, identification and social influence. British Journnl of Social Psychology, 23, 317-22.

Mugny, G. & Papastamou, S. (1982). Minority influence and psycho-social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 12,379-94.

Mugny, G. & Perez, J.A. (1985). Influence sociale, conflit el identification: etude experimentale autour d’une persuasion ‘manquee’ lors d’une votation. Cahiers de Psychologie Sociale, 6 , 1-13.

Mullen, B. & Hu, L. (1989). Perceptions of ingroup and outgroup variability: A meta- analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 10,233-52.

Oakcr, G. & Brown, R.J. (1986). Intergroup relations in a hospital setting: A further test of Social Identity Theory. Human Relations, 39,767-78.

Oliver, P. (1984). “If you don’t do it, nobody else will”: Active and token contributors to local collective action. American Sociologicnl Review, 49,601 -10.

Olson, J.M., Herman, C.P. & Zanna, M.P. (Eds) (1986). Relative Deprivation and Social Comparison: The Ontario Symposium, Vol. 4, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Park, B. & Hastie, R. (1987). The perception of variability in category development: Instance- versus abstraction-based stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social

Park, B. & Judd, C.M. (1990). Measures and models of perceived group variability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 173-91.

Park, B., Judd. C.M. & Ryan, C.S. (1991). Social categorization and the representation of variability information. European Review of Social Psychology, 2,211-47.

Park, B. & Rothbart, M. (1982). Perception of out-group homogeneity and levels of social categorization: Memory for the subordinate attributes of in-group and out- group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42,1051-68.

39-56.

Psychology, 53,621-35.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:05

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

82 CAROLINE KELLY

Perez, J.A. & Mugny, G. (1987). Paradoxical effects of categorization in minority influence: When being an outgroup is an advantage. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17,157-69.

PCrez, J.A. & Mugny, G. (1990). Minority influence, manifest discrimination and latent influence. In D. Abrams & M.A. Hogg (Eds.), Social Identity Theory: Constructive and Critical Advances, London: Harvester Wheatsheaf, pp. 152-68.

Pinard, M. & Hamilton, R. (1986). Motivational dimensions in the Quebec indepen- dence movement: A test of a new model. In L. Kriesberg (Ed), Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change, Vol. 9, Greenwich CT: JAI Press, pp. 225-80.

Quattrone, G.A. (1986). On the perception of a group’s variability. In S. Worchell & W.G. Austin (Eds), Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Chicago, IL: Nelson Hall.

Quattrone, G.A. & Jones, E.E. (1980). The perception of variability within in-groups and out-groups: Implications for the law of small numbers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38,141-52.

Reicher, S.D. (1987). Crowd behaviour as social action. In J.C. Turner et al. (op. cit.),

Rotter, J.B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80. (Whole No. 609).

Schofield, J. & Pavelchak, M. (1989). Fallout from “The Day After”: The impact of a television film on attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19,433-48.

Schrager, L.S. (1985). Private attitudes and collective action. American Sociological Review, 50,858-59.

Secord, P.F., Bevan, W. & Katz, B. (1956). The Negro stereotype and perceptual accentuation. Journal of Abnormal orid Social Psychology, 53.78-83.

Sherif, M. (1966). Group Conflict and Cooperation: Their Social Psychology, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Simon, B. (1992). The perception of ingroup and outgroup homogeneity: Reintroduc- ing the intergroup context. European Review of Social Psychology, 3,l-30.

Simon, B. & Brown, R.J. (1987). Perceived intragroup homogeneity in minority- majority contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53,703-1 1.

Simon, B. & Mummendey, A. (1990). Perceptions of relative group size and group homogeneity: We are the majority and they are all the same. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20,351 -56.

Simon, B. & Pettigrew, T.F. (1990). Social identity and perceived group homogeneity: Evidence for the ingroup homogeneity effect. European Joiirnal of Social Psychol-

Skevington, S. & Baker, D. (Eds) (1989). The Social Identity of Women, London: Sage. Struch, N. & Schwartz, S.H. (1989). Intergroup aggression: Its predictors and distinct-

ness from in-group bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56,364-73. Tajfel, H. (1975). The exit of social mobility and the voice of social change. Social

Science Information, 14, 101-18. Tajfel, H., Sheikh, A.A. & Gardner, R.C. (1964). Content of stereotypes and the

inference of similarity between members of stereotyped groups. Actn Psychologica,

Tajfel, H. &Turner, J.C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In S. Worchel & W.G. Austin (Eds). Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Chicago: Nelson Hall, pp. 7-24.

Taylor, D.M. & McKirnan, D.J. (1984). A five-stage model of intergroup-relations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23,291-300.

Taylor, D.M. & Moghaddam, F.M. (1987). Theories of Intergroup Relations: Interna- tional Social Psychological Perspectives, New York: Praeger.

pp. 171-202.

ogy, 20,269-86.

22,191-201.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:05

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

GROlJP AND INTERGROUP PER<:EPI'IONS 83

Taylor, D.M.. Moghaddam, F.M., Gamble, I. & Zellerer, E. (1987). Disadvantaged group responses to perceived inequality: From passive acceptance to collective ac- tion. Journal of Social Psychology, 127,259-72.

Taylor, S.E. (1981). A categorization approach to stereotyping. In D. Hamilton (Ed.), Cognitive Processes in Stereotyping and Intergroup Behaviour. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 83-1 14.

Taylor, S.E. & Falcone, H. (1982). Cognitive bases of stereotyping: The relationship between categorization and prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8,

Tougas, F. & Veilleux, F. (1989). Who likes affirmative action: Attitudinal processes among men and women. In F.A. Blanchard & F.S. Crosby (Eds), Afirmative Action in Perspective, NY: Springer-Verlag, pp. 1 1 1-24.

Triandis. H.C., Bontempo, R., Villareal. M.J., Asai, M. & Lucca. N. (1988). Individual- ism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships. Jour- nal of Personality nnd Social Psychology, 54,323-28.

Turner, J.C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Socinf Identity arid Intergroup Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, and Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de I'Homme, pp. 15-40.

Turner, J.C. (1987). A self-categorization theory. In J.C. Turner et al. (op. cit.), pp.

Turner, J.C., Hogg, M.A., Oakes, P.J., Reicher, S.D. & Wetherell, M.S. (1987). Re- discovering the Social Group: A Self-categorization Theory, Oxford: Blackwell.

Tyler, T.R. & McGraw, K.M. (1983). The threat of nuclear war: Risk interpretation and behavioural response. Journal of Social Issues, 39,2540.

van Knippenberg. A. & Ellemers, N. (1990). Social identity and intergroup differentia- tion processes. European Review of Social Psychology, l, 137-69.

Volpato, C., Maass, A., Mucchi-Faina, A. & Vitti, E. (1990). Minority influence and social categorization. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20. 119-32.

Walker, 1. & Mann, L. (1987). Unemployment, relative deprivation and social protest. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13,275-83.

Wheeler, L., Reis, H.T. & Bond, M.H. (1989). Collectivism-individualism in everyday social life: The Middle Kingdom and the Melting Pot. Joitrnal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57,79-86.

Wilder, D.A. (1984). Predictions of belief homogeneity and similarity following social categorization. British Joitrnnl of Social Psychology, 23,323-33.

Wilder, D.A. & Shapiro, P.N. (1984). The role of out-group cues in determining social identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47,34248.

Williams, J.A. & Giles, H. (1978). The changing status of women in society: An intergroup perspective. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation Between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, London: Academic Press,

Wolf, S., Gregory, W.L. & Stephan, W.G. (1986). Protection motivation theory: Pre- diction of intentions to engage in anti-nuclear war behaviours. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16,3 10-21.

Wright, S.C., Taylor, D.M. & Moghaddam, F.M. (1990). Responding to membership in a disadvantaged group: From acceptance to collective protest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58,994-1003.

426-32.

42-67.

pp. 431-50.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:05

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14