Search results

Intergroup misunderstandings : interactions and divergences in realities, goals, and strategies -- Prejudice and intergroup interaction -- Acculturation and immigrant-host community relations in multicultural settings -- How do they see us? The vicissitudes of metaperception in intergroup relations -- Intergroup misunderstandings in emotion communication -- Interpretation of interaction : responsiveness to verbal and nonverbal cues -- Worlds apart : the universality of racism leads to divergent social realities -- Why do they not perceive us as we are? Ingroup projection as a source of intergroup misunderstanding -- Infrahumanization : the differential interpretation of primary and secondary emotions -- Divergent social realties, depending on where you sit : perspectives from the stereotype content model -- Maintaining the illusion of meritocracy : how men and women interactively sustain gender inequality at work -- Talking about power : group power and the desired content of intergroup interactions -- Majority and minority perspectives on justice and trust : is there a consensus on goals? -- Strategies for prejudice reduction : the norms of nondiscrimination -- Reducing prejudice : common ingroup and dual identity in unequal status intergroup encounters -- The struggle for social equality : collective action versus prejudice reduction -- Intergroup helping as status-organizing processes : implications for intergroup misunderstandings -- Emotional misunderstandings in intergroup negotiations

Intro -- TABLE DES MATIERES -- Série « Psychologie sociale » dirigée par Nicole Dubois -- Introduction -- Chapitre 1. L'attachement au groupe -- Les raisons de l'attachement aux groupes -- Les besoins de survie et de reproduction -- Les besoins de contrôle et de réduction de l'incertitude -- Les besoins de sens et de survie symbolique -- Type de groupes, types de besoins -- Du choix de l'appartenance à l'identification au groupe -- Être membre d'un groupe -- L'autocatégorisation -- Conséquences intergroupes de l'autocatégorisation -- Considérations supplémentaires -- Chapitre 2. La perception et les représentations des groupes -- La perception des groupes -- La catégorisation, l'activation et l'application des stéréotypes -- Le contenu des stéréotypes -- Homogénéité, entitativité et essentialisme -- Les représentations intergroupes -- L'évaluation de la structure intergroupe -- L'évaluation de la menace intergroupe -- Chapitre 3. Des préjugés aux émotions intergroupes -- Les préjugés -- Des facteurs de personnalité aux idéologies -- Les types de préjugés -- Les émotions intergroupes -- Les émotions spécifiques -- Les réactions émotionnelles des groupes dominants -- Les réactions émotionnelles des groupes dominés -- Chapitre 4. La discrimination intergroupe -- Une variété de comportements -- L'appartenance au groupe et comportement intergroupe -- Les comportements de soutien et de maintien du système -- La discrimination dans les groupes dominants -- Les discriminations culturelle, institutionnelle et organisationnelle -- Faire face à la discrimination -- Faire face au stigma -- Les comportements de gestion de l'identité -- Chapitre 5. Du contact intergroupe aux politiques de diversité -- Le contact intergroupe -- Les nouveaux modèles du contact intergroupe -- Le modèle de la personnalisation -- Le modèle de la différentiation mutuelle intergroupe.

Social categorization is a powerful determinant of social behavior. As group membership becomes salient, individuals come to behave as group members and, consequently, appraise interactions according to these salient group identities (Turner, 1987). The aim of the present article is to investigate the impact of social categorization on perceptions and appraisals of a distributive negotiation situation. An experiment is presented in which social categorization of the negotiation partner is manipulated. Results revealed that the social structural factors associated with the partner's group (i.e. social status and group's competition) influence fixed-pie perceptions as well as participants' inferences about their counterpart's target and resistance points. In addition, these effects are mediated by stereotypical evaluations of the counterpart in terms of warmth and competence, respectively.

Although conflicts most often occur between groups, research and theory on conflict management and negotiation have largely focused on the interpersonal system and ignored how groups negotiate a solution to their intergroup conflict. Thus we have a thorough understanding of the motivational, cognitive, and affective processes underlying the development of high quality solutions in interpersonal negotiation, but we know little about the extent to which these insights can be comfortably generalized to intergroup settings. Likewise, the large volume of work on intergroup perceptions and intergroup relations has much to say about intergroup negotiation, but these research areas have rarely been connected and produced systematic analysis. The current Special Issue presents research on these topics and aims at promoting cross-talk between negotiation researchers and social psychologists in the intergroup relation domain.

How one approaches gender differences in general likely influences the way one handles mixed-gender negotiations. In the present paper, we examine general beliefs on how women negotiators do—as opposed to how they "should"—handle gender in order to increase their chances of success. First, we hypothesised that people's general beliefs would support a sexblindness ideology according to which gender is, and indeed should be, ignored in order to succeed. Second, because negotiation comes across as a stereotypically masculine activity, we predicted that prescriptions regarding what women should do to succeed would commonly favour assimilationism (the belief that women need to assimilate to male norms) over sexawareness (the belief that gender differences should be acknowledged and celebrated). We nevertheless predicted a general belief that women might stay away from these prescriptions and rely more on their gender (i.e. endorse sexawareness over assimilationism) within feminine as compared to masculine and neutral-topic negotiations. Together, our two experiments confirm these predictions. We discuss our results in terms of the consequences on women's gender ideology-based strategies, a potentially relevant aspect to their actual negotiating outcomes.

This article investigates the essentialist perception of social categories and differentiates it from two closely related concepts, namely entitativity and natural kind-ness. We argue that lay perceptions of social categories vary along three dimensions: natural kind-ness, entitativity, and essentialism. Depending on whether membership in social categories is forced or chosen, people develop different theories and associate different types of characteristics. Perceived control upon membership in the categories influences perceptions of entitativity and natural kind-ness but has no direct impact on the attribution of essentialism to the groups.

Infra‐humanizing outgroups involves considering outgroups less human and more animal‐like than the ingroup, which is perceived, in essence, as fully human. In this article, the first section presents the theoretical background of infra‐humanization and distinguishes it from related concepts, such as dehumanization. The three basic hypotheses of the theory are then presented with a summary of empirical evidence. Social implications follow. Reasons for the pervasiveness of the phenomenon are examined as well as conditions that lead a specific outgroup to be infra‐humanized. We also explore the consequences of infra‐humanization, such as a lack of forgiveness for the outgroup and the ingroup's justification for past misdeeds against the outgroup, rather than guilt. Policy issues center on ways to combat essentialism, walls of difference between groups, and irrational symbols of superiority. The roles of egalitarian values and of deprovincialized intergroup contact are emphasized.

According to Leyens et al.'s (2000) theory, intergroup discrimination involves a differential appraisal of the ingroup's and the outgroup's uniquely human characteristics. Four experiments investigated how emotions that are considered uniquely (i.e. secondary emotions) and non uniquely (i.e. primary emotions) human (Demoulin et al., 2001a) are differentially associated with the ingroup and the outgroup. Using the Implicit Association Task (IAT) we found a stronger association of ingroup names with uniquely human emotions and of outgroup names with non uniquely human emotions, than the reverse. Whereas Study 2 used negative emotions, all other experiments used positive emotions. In Study 3, two IAT indices were collected: an emotional index and a standard evaluative one. While the outgroup was constituted by North African names in the first three studies, Study 4 staged French-speaking Belgians (i.e. the ingroup) versus Dutch-speaking Belgians (i.e. the outgroup). The results are discussed within the framework of psychological essentialism, according to which uniquely human characteristics form the essence of the ingroup.