Subgroup Relations: A Comparison of Mutual Intergroup Differentiation and Common Ingroup Identity Models of Prejudice Reduction

By Matthew J. Hornsey, M. Hogg. 2000

422 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/522a91b98d001edca879e53cd17bc62d655f37d1

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Collective Action—and Then What? (2009, background): “…of differences between the groups, increasing cognitions of rejection (Barlow, Louis, & Hewstone, 2009), or perceived discrimination (Branscombe, Schmitt, & Harvey, 1999), or by creating defensive resistance to an attempted imposition of a superordinate identity (e.g., Hornsey & Hogg, 2000).”
Religious Group Identification and Inter-Religious Relations: A Study Among Turkish-Dutch Muslims (2007, background): “This is particularly likely in the context of a very strong Muslim identity that minimizes feelings of identity threat (Hornsey & Hogg, 2000).”
Superordinate identities and intergroup conflict: The ingroup projection model (2007, background): “…of dual identities, of maintaining subgroup identities within a superordinate identity in line with a multiculturalist approach (Berry, 1984; Hornsey & Hogg, 2000b; Huo, Smith, Tyler, & Lind, 1996; Park & Judd, 2005), our model suggests that, to avoid the pitfalls of ingroup projection,…”
Facing Differences With an Open Mind: Openness to Experience, Salience of Intragroup Differences, and Performance of Diverse Work Groups (2008, neutral): “That is, when a team consists of strong subgroups, appreciating differences within the group may help to overcome the negative effects of subgroup categorization (Hornsey & Hogg, 2000).”
Understanding and Addressing Contemporary Racism: From Aversive Racism to the Common Ingroup Identity Model (2005, background): “These clues lead us to other researchers’ work and ideas (e.g., Hornsey & Hogg, 2000; Mummendey & Wenzel, 1999), which provide us with new insights.”
Is Pluralism a Viable Model of Diversity? The Benefits and Limits of Subgroup Respect (2006, methodology): “One set of experiments manipulated the salience of self-relevant social identities and found that an emphasis on both the common and subgroup identities led to greater levels of prejudice reduction than a sole emphasis on the common identity (Hornsey & Hogg, 2000a).”
The conflict of harmony: Intergroup contact, commonality and political solidarity between minority groups (2012, background): “…may allow for greater potential for collective action and political solidarity with other minority groups in response to commonality messages, possibly a result of decreased distinctiveness threat and bias directed at other minority groups (Crisp, Stone, & Hall, 2006; Hornsey & Hogg, 2000).”
Dual identities in intergroup contact: group status and size moderate the generalization of positive attitude change (2006, methodology): “Group diversity is recognized when everyone has dual identities, all within a shared social framework (Brown & Wade, 1987; Deschamps & Brown, 1983; Dovidio et al., 1998; Hornsey & Hogg, 2000a, 2000b; van Leeuwen, van Knippenberg, & Ellemers, 2002).”
Increasing perceived variability reduces prejudice and discrimination (2011, background): “Agivengroupmaybeseenasmore heterogeneous when it is considered to be a subgroup of the superordinate category than when it is de ﬁ ned as an out-group (Hornsey & Hogg, 2000).”
Subgroup prejudice based on skin color among Hispanics in the United States and Latin America (2002, background): “Such attitudes have been variously labeled subgroup prejudice (Hornsey & Hogg, 2000) and intragroup prejudice (Dor–Shav, Friedman & Tcherbonogura, 1978).”
SOCIAL IDENTITY IN INDUSTRIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY: CONCEPTS, CONTROVERSIES AND CONTRIBUTIONS (2006, background): “…experimental and field research suggests that a simple blending of two old identities into a single new one can be problematic because it poses a threat to group distinctiveness (Branscombe, Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 1999; Breakwell, 1983; Hornsey & Hogg, 2000a; Jetten, Spears, & Manstead, 1997).”