This study investigates intergroup perceptions between the members of minority and majority factions of a political party. Two hypotheses were tested derivedfrom the social identity approach to intergroup relations. First, it was predicted that minority group members would display higher levels of intergroup differentiation than majority group members, associated with a lower level of intergroup understanding. Second, it was predicted that, within each group, level of ingroup identification would be positively related to intergroup differentiation. A postal questionnaire was completed by 136 members of the British Labour Party, 92 supporters of the majority group, and 44 supporters of the minority group. Findings confirmed both hypotheses, and further investigation suggested that the significance of ingroup identification derived from its impact on ingroup ratings rather than on outgroup ratings. The implications of these findings for the underlying dynamics of intergroup differentiation are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ALLEN, P. T., & STEPHENSON, G. M.Inter-group understanding and size of organization. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 1983, 21, 312-329.
2.
ALLEN, P. T., & STEPHENSON, G. M.The relationship of inter-group understanding and inter-party friction in industry. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 1985, 23, 203-213.
3.
BREWER, M. B.In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 1979, 86, 307-324.
4.
BROWN, R. J., & SMITH, A.Perceptions of and by minority groups: The case of women in academia. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1989, 19, 61-75.
5.
BROWN, R. J., & WILLIAMS, J. A.Group identification: The same thing to all people?Human Relations, 1984, 37, 547-564.
6.
BROWN, R. J., CONDOR, S., MATHEWS, A., WADE, G., & WILLIAMS, J. A.Explaining intergroup differentiation in an industrial organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 1986, 59, 273-287.
7.
CLARK, R. D., III, & MAASS, A.The role of social categorization and perceived source credibility in minority influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1988, 18, 381-394.
8.
GERARD, H. B.When and how the minority prevails. In S. Moscovici, G. Mugny, and E. Van Avermaet (Eds.), Perspectives on minority influence, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l'Homme, 1985.
9.
GERARD, H. B., & HOYT, M. F.Distinctiveness of social categorization and attitude toward ingroup members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 29, 836-842.
10.
HINKLE, S., & CROOK, K. F.Identification, importance of comparison dimensions and intergroup differentiation. Paper presented at the International Conference on Social Identity, University of Exeter, July 1987.
11.
HINKLE, S., & SCHOPLER, J.Ethnocentrism in the evaluation of group products. In W. G. Austin and S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations. Monterey, California: Brooks Cole, 1979.
12.
HINKLE, S., & SCHOPLER, J.Bias in the evaluation of ingroup performance and outgroup performance. In S. Worchel and W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed.). Chicago: Nelson Hall, 1986.
13.
HINKLE, S., TAYLOR, L., FOX-CARDAMONE, A., & CROOK, K. F.Intragroup identification and intergroup differentiation: A multi-component approach. British Journal of Social Psychology, 1989, 28, 305-317.
14.
KELLY, C.Intergroup differentiation in a political context. British Journal of Social Psychology, 1988, 27, 319-332.
15.
MARTIN, R.Ingroup and outgroup minorities: Differential impact upon public and private responses. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1988, 18, 39-52.
16.
McGUIRE, W. J., McGUIRE, C. V., & WINTON, W.Effects of household sex composition on the salience of ones gender in the spontaneous self-concept. Journal of Experimental Sccial Psychology, 1979, 15, 77-90.
17.
MOSCOVICI, S.Innovation and minority influence. In S. Moscovici, G. Mugny, and E. Van Avermaet (Eds.), Perspectives on minority influence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l'Homme, 1985.
18.
MOSCOVICI, S., & PAICHELER, G.Social comparison and social recognition: Two complementary processes of identification. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups. London: Academic Press, 1978.
19.
MUGNY, G.Negotiations, image of the other and the process of minority influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1975, 5, 209-228.
20.
MUMMENDEY, A., & SIMON, B.Better or different? III: The impact of importance of comparison dimension and relative in-group size upon intergroup discrimination. British Journal of Social Psychology, 1989, 28, 1-16.
21.
OAKER, G., & BROWN, R. J.Intergroup relations in a hospital setting: A further test of social identity theory. Human Relations, 1986, 39, 767-778.
22.
SACHDEV, I., & BOURHIS, R. Y.Minimal majorities and minorities. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1984, 14, 35-52.
23.
SACHDEV, I., & BOURHIS, R. Y.Status differentials and intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1987, 17, 277-293.
24.
SIMON, B., & BROWN, R. J.Perceived intragroup homogeneity in minority-majority contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1987, 53, 703-711.
25.
TAJFEL, H., & TURNER, J. C.The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In S. Worchel and W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago: Nelson Hall, 1986.
26.
WETHERELL, M.Social identity and group polarization. In J. C., Turner, M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher, & M. Wetherell, Rediscovering the social group: A selfcategorization theory. Oxford and New York: Blackwell, 1987.
