Throwing off the dark legacy when going down: Experience of status loss undermines reparation intentions prompted by narratives of the ingroup's past wrongdoings.

Two experiments tested whether group members' reparation intentions towards victims of the ingroup's past wrongdoings depend on their experience of relative status change. We manipulated born-free White South Africans' experience of accessibility of memories of past ingroup wrongdoings and their current experiences of status loss. For participants believing in the ingroup's responsibility for past wrongdoing towards Black South Africans during Apartheid, status-loss experiences reduced reparation intentions prompted by the experience of memorizing examples of such wrongdoing as easy (Experiment 1, N = 193), and the ease to remember wrongdoing examples increased reparation intentions only if participants were reminded of status stability, but not if they were reminded of status loss (Experiment, N = 126). We conclude that the implications of narratives referring to past ingroup wrongdoings are contingent upon their relational function in ongoing social change processes.

The Neglected C of Intercultural Relations. Cross-Cultural Adaptation Shapes Sojourner Representations of Locals.

We investigated, by means of the Reverse Correlation Task (RCT), visual representations of the culturally dominating group of local people held by sojourners as a function of their degree of cross-cultural adaptation. In three studies, using three different methods (reduced RCT, full RCT, conceptual replication) with three independent samples of sojourners and seven independent samples of Portuguese and US-American raters, we gathered clear evidence that poor adaptation goes along with more negative representations of locals. This indicates that sojourner adaptation is reflected, at a social-cognitive level, in the valence of outgroup representations.

They (Don't) Need Us: Functional Indispensability Impacts Perceptions of Representativeness and Commitment When Lower-Status Groups Go Through an Intergroup Merger.

Intergroup changes occur often between subgroups who are asymmetric in status (e.g., size, power, prestige), with important consequences for social identification, especially among the members of lower-status groups. Mergers offer an example of such changes, when subgroups (merger partners) merge into a common, superordinate group (post-merger group). Lower-status subgroups frequently perceive they are less represented in the post-merger group, therefore committing less to the changes a merger implies. Five studies offered an intergroup relations' perspective on mergers (N's = 479, 150, 266, 113, and 229, respectively), examining how functional indispensability (instrumental contribution of the ingroup) positively influences perceptions of representativeness in the post-merger group (relative ingroup prototypicality), which, in turn, affect post-merger identification and, finally, change commitment. Additionally, the role of cognitive information processing (heuristic vs. systematic) on prototypicality was explored. Results suggest that functional indispensability impacts relative ingroup prototypicality (Studies 1-5), and this may be moderated by information processing (Study 2). Moreover, prototypicality and identification with the superordinate post-merged group mediated the effect of functional indispensability on change commitment (Studies 1-3). These findings provide important theoretical insights into prototypicality perceptions held by lower-status merger partners and minority groups in general, by identifying functional indispensability as a source of prototypicality other than relative status. In addition, by proposing a functional approach to the relations between social groups, these findings suggest better practices for managing structural changes, such as combining sources of strategic/functional and identity fit when announcing an intergroup change.

Keeping in Touch with Context: Non-verbal Behavior as a Manifestation of Communality and Dominance.

This research investigated the influence of observed touch on the perceptions of communality and dominance in dyadic interactions. We manipulated four key situational features of haptic behavior in two experiments: the initiation, reciprocity, the degree of formality of touch (Studies 1 and 2), and the context of the interaction (Study 2). The results showed that the default perception of touch, irrespective of whether it is initiated or reciprocated, is the communal intention of the toucher. Furthermore, the initiation of touch was seen as an act of dominance, particularly, when the contact between the actors was primed as being hierarchical. Reciprocation neutralized the perceived asymmetry in dominance, but such inferences seemed to hinge on the fit of the touch with the context: reciprocation of formal touch reduced the asymmetry in the hierarchical context, whereas reciprocation of informal touch reduced the asymmetry in the non-hierarchical context.

Change commitment in low-status merger partners: The role of information processing, relative ingroup prototypicality, and merger patterns.

Merger announcements cause stress among employees, often leading to low change commitment, especially among employees from the lower-status merger partner. Such stress influences how deeply employees process merger-relevant information. Previous research examined how merger patterns that preserve versus change status differences impact merger support, but did not address how employees' information processing may influence this relationship. The current research addresses this gap through a scenario experiment, focusing on the low-status merger partner. The interplay between merger patterns and information processing was examined regarding employees' prototypicality claims in relation to merger support. Results suggest that an integration-equality merger pattern increases change commitment via prototypicality claims in the new organization, conditional to employees' systematic information processing.

Complex inclusive categories of positive and negative valence and prototypicality claims in asymmetric intergroup relations.

Based on the premise that groups' social standing and regard depend on their prototypicality for superordinate categories, minorities can be understood to suffer from the fact that they are considered as less prototypical than majorities. Previous research has shown that complex (vs. simple) representations of superordinate categories can reduce majority members' tendency to perceive their in-group as more prototypical than the out-group. The current research tested whether such complex representations also increase minorities' own perceived relative in-group prototypicality (RIP), leading to more balanced prototypicality judgments from both majorities and minorities. In Study 1 (N = 76), an experiment with two artificial groups of unequal status, a complex representation of a superordinate category increased the comparatively low RIP of the lower status subgroup. Consistently, in Study 2 (N = 192), a correlational study with natural groups, the relation between perceived complexity of the superordinate category and RIP was positive for members of the lower status group but negative for members of the higher status comparison group. In Study 3 (N = 160), an experiment with natural groups, a more complex representation of the superordinate category led lower and higher status groups to perceive greater equality in terms of relative prototypicality not only for a positive but also for a negatively valued superordinate category. These results have important implications for the understanding of social change: As superordinate identity complexity implies that included subgroups are more equally prototypical, it offers a normative alternative that helps minorities to challenge asymmetric status relations vis-à-vis majorities, but also promotes hope that majorities show bipartisanship in supporting such social change.

Conservatism is not the missing viewpoint for true diversity.

The target article diagnoses a dominance of liberal viewpoints with little evidence, promotes a conservative viewpoint without defining it, and wrongly projects the U.S. liberal-conservative spectrum to the whole field of social psychology. Instead, we propose to anticipate and reduce mixing of theorizing and ideology by using definitions that acknowledge divergence in perspective, and promote representative sampling and observation of the field, as well as dialogical publication.

Are attitudes the problem, and do psychologists have the answer? Relational cognition underlies intergroup relations.

The focus on negative attitudes toward other groups has led to a dichotomy between the prejudice reduction and the collective action approach. To solve the resulting problems identified by Dixon et al., we suggest analyzing the psychological processes underlying the construction of relationships (and their alternatives) between own and other groups.

How do we assign punishment? The impact of minimal and maximal standards on the evaluation of deviants.

To explain the determinants of negative behavior toward deviants (e.g., punishment), this article examines how people evaluate others on the basis of two types of standards: minimal and maximal. Minimal standards focus on an absolute cutoff point for appropriate behavior; accordingly, the evaluation of others varies dichotomously between acceptable or unacceptable. Maximal standards focus on the degree of deviation from that standard; accordingly, the evaluation of others varies gradually from positive to less positive. This framework leads to the prediction that violation of minimal standards should elicit punishment regardless of the degree of deviation, whereas punishment in response to violations of maximal standards should depend on the degree of deviation. Four studies assessed or manipulated the type of standard and degree of deviation displayed by a target. Results consistently showed the expected interaction between type of standard (minimal and maximal) and degree of deviation on punishment behavior.

Of bikers, teachers and Germans: groups' diverging views about their prototypicality.

The in-group projection model hypothesizes that members of social groups generalize attributes of their in-group to a superordinate category that provides dimensions for comparisons between in-group and out-group (in-group projection). As a result, both groups in an intergroup situation should disagree about their relative prototypicality for the superordinate category. Three studies confirmed this prediction. In Study 1 (N = 54), it was found that different groups of motor bikers (chopper-bikers vs. sport-bikers) perceived their own subgroup to be the more typical biker group than the respective out-group. Study 2 (N = 60) showed the same divergence of perspectives in the context of more formal subgroups of teachers (primary-school teachers vs. high-school teachers). In a third study (N = 157), the relative character of in-group projection was demonstrated in an intergroup context with strong reality constraints due to differences in group size, status and power. Although there was consensus between both groups that the majority (West Germans) was more prototypical of the superordinate group (Germans) than the minority (East Germans), majority members perceived the groups' difference in prototypicality to be greater than minority members did.

The ingroup as pars pro toto: projection from the ingroup onto the inclusive category as a precursor to social discrimination.

In an approach to intergroup discrimination and tolerance, it is assumed that the outgroup's difference from the ingroup is evaluated with reference to the prototype of the higher-order category that includes both groups. Two correlational studies yielded evidence that (a) group members tend to perceive their ingroup as relatively prototypical for the inclusive category (projection), (b) members highly identified with both ingroup and inclusive category (dual identity) tend to project most, and (c) relative prototypicality is related to negative attitudes toward the outgroup. The latter relation was further specified in Study 3, manipulating the valence of the inclusive category. Projection was related to more negative attitudes toward the outgroup when the inclusive category was primed positively but to more positive attitudes when it was primed negatively. The meaning of dual identities for intergroup relations is discussed.