This research introduces and examines the relatively novel concept of category indispensability. It is examined whether the perception of subgroup indispensability for the identity of a superordinate category is associated with majority members’ acceptance of minority rights. We investigated the role of perceived national category indispensability of immigrants for native’s acceptances of immigrants’ expressive cultural rights. The general hypothesis tested is that higher perceived category indispensability of immigrant groups is associated with higher acceptance. Results from four studies provide support for this hypothesis among native Dutch participants living in the Netherlands. Furthermore, the relationship was found to be mediated by a sense of common dual belonging and by deprovincialization beliefs.
AsendorpfJ. B.ConnerM.De FruytF.De HouwerJ.DenissenJ. J. A.FiedlerK.. . .WichertsJ. M. (2013). Recommendations for increasing replicability in psychology. European Journal of Personality, 27, 108-119.
2.
BrewerM. B. (2008). Deprovincialization: Social identity comp-lexity and outgroup acceptance. In WagnerU.TroppL. R.FinchilescuG.TredouxC. (Eds.), Improving intergroup relations: Building on the legacy of Thomas F. Pettigrew (pp. 160-176). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
3.
BrownR.HewstoneM. (2005). An integrative theory of inter-group contact. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 37, pp. 255-343). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
4.
CraigM. A.RichesonJ. A. (2012). Coalition or derogation? How perceived discrimination influences intra-minority inter-group relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 757-777.
5.
DeauxK.VerkuytenM. (2014). The social psychology of multiculturalism: Identity and intergroup relations. In Benet-MartinezV.HongY. Y. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multicultural identity: Basic and applied psychological perspectives (pp. 118-138). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
6.
DovidioJ. F.GaertnerS. L.SaguyT. (2007). Another view of “we”: Majority and minority group perspectives on a common ingroup identity. In StroebeW.HewstoneM. (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 296-330). London, England: John Wiley.
7.
FodorJ. A.LeporeE. (1996). The Red Herring and the Pet Fish: Why concepts still can’t be prototypes. Cognition, 58, 253-270.
8.
GaertnerS. L.DovidioJ. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common in-group identity model. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
9.
GaertnerS. L.RustM. C.DovidioJ. F.BachmanB. A.AnastasioP. A. (1994). The contact hypothesis: The role of a common in-group identity on reducing intergroup bias. Small Group Research, 25, 224-249.
10.
GuimondS.CrispR. J.De OliveiraP.KamiejskiR.KteilyN.KuepperB.. . .ZickA. (2013). Diversity policy, social dominance, and intergroup relations: Predicting prejudice in changing social and political contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 941-958.
11.
GuimondS.De OliveiraP.KamiesjkiR.SidaniusJ. (2010). The trouble with assimilation: Social dominance and the emergence of hostility against immigrants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34, 642-650.
12.
HahnA.JuddC. M.ParkB. (2010). Thinking about group differences: Ideologies and national identities. Psychological Inquiry, 21, 120-126.
13.
HartmannD.GerteisJ. (2005). Dealing with diversity: Mapping multiculturalism in sociological terms. Sociological Theory, 23, 218-240.
14.
HaslamS. A. (2001). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach. London, England: SAGE.
15.
HenrichJ.HeineS. J.NorenzayanA. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 33, 61-135.
16.
HenryP. J. (2008). College sophomores in the laboratory redux: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology’s view of the nature of prejudice. Psychological Inquiry, 19, 49-71.
17.
HertelG.NiemeyerG.ClaussA. (2008). Social indispens-ability or social comparison: The why and when of motivation gains of inferior group members. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 1329-1363.
18.
JostJ. T. (2006). The end of the end of ideology. American Psychologist, 61, 651-670.
19.
MakelM. C.PluckerJ. A.HegartyB. (2012). Replications in psychological research: How often do they really occur?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 537-542.
20.
MartinovicB.VerkuytenM. (2013). We were here first, so we determine the rules of the game’: Autochthony and prejudice toward out-groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 637-647.
21.
MummendeyA.WenzelM. (1999). Social discrimination and tolerance in intergroup relations: Reactions to intergroup difference. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 158-174.
22.
Ng Tseung-WongC.VerkuytenM. (2010). Intergroup evalua-tions, group indispensability, and prototypical judgments: A study in Mauritius. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13, 621-638.
23.
PettigrewT. F. (1997). Generalized intergroup contact effects on prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 173-185.
24.
PrinzJ. J. (2012). Regaining composure: A defense of prototype compositionality. In HinzenW.MacheryE.WerningM. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compositionality (pp. 437-453). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
25.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891.
26.
RattanA.AmbadyN. (2013). Diversity ideologies and intergroup relations: An examination of colorblindness and multiculturalism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 12-21.
27.
SacksH. (1972). On the analysability of stories by children. In GumperzJ. J.HymesD. (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication (pp. 325-345). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
28.
SibleyC. G.LiuJ. H. (2007). New Zealand=bicultural? Implicit and explicit associations between ethnicity and nationhood in the New Zealand context. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 1222-1243.
29.
SimonsD. J. (2014). The value of direct replication. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 76-80.
30.
SindicD.ReicherS. D. (2009). “Our way of life is worth defending”: Testing a model of attitudes towards superordinate group membership through a study of Scots’ attitudes towards Britain. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 114-129.
31.
SmeekesA.VerkuytenM.PoppeE. (2012). How a tolerant past affects the present: Historical tolerance and the acceptance of Muslim expressive rights. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1410-1422.
32.
ThomsenL.GreenE. G. T.SidaniusJ. (2008). We will hunt them down: How social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism fuel ethnic persecution of immigrants in fundamentally different ways. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1455-1464.
33.
TurnerJ. C.HoggM. A.OakesP. J.ReicherS. D.WetherellM. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
34.
UfkesE. G.OttenS.Van der ZeeK.GiebelsE.DovidioJ. (2012). Urban district identity as a common ingroup identity: The different role of ingroup prototypicality for minority and majority groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 706-717.
35.
VerkuytenM. (2011). Assimilation ideology and outgroup attitudes among ethnic majority members. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14, 789-806.
36.
VerkuytenM.KhanA. (2012). Interethnic relations in Malaysia: Group identifications, indispensability, and common belonging. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 16, 132-139.
37.
VerkuytenM.ThijsJ.BekhuisH. (2010). Intergroup contact and ingroup reappraisal: Examining the deprovincialization thesis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73, 398-416.
38.
VerkuytenM.YildizA. A. (2010). Religious identity consolidation and mobilisation among Turkish Dutch Muslims. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 436-447.
39.
WagnerU.ChristO.HeitmeyerW. (2010). Anti-immigration bias. In DovidioJ. F.HewstoneM.GlickP.EssesV. M. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of prejudice, stereo-typing and discrimination (pp. 361-376). London, England: SAGE.
40.
WaldzusS.MummendeyA.WenzelM.BoettcherF. (2004). Of bikers, teachers, and German groups’ diverging views about their prototypicality. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 385-400.
41.
WaldzusS.MummendeyA.WenzelM.WeberU. (2003). Towards tolerance: Representations of superordinate catego-ries and perceived in-group prototypicality. Journal of Experi-mental Social Psychology, 39, 31-47.
42.
WenzelM.MummendeyA.WaldzusS. (2007). Superor-dinate identities and intergroup conflict: The in-group projection model. European Review of Social Psychology, 18, 331-372.
43.
WittchenM.SchlerethD.HertelG. (2007). Social indispensability in spite of temporal and spatial separation: Motivation gains in a sequential task during anonymous cooperation on the internet. International Journal of Internet Science, 2, 12-27.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
