Intergroup evaluations, group indispensability and prototypicality judgments: A study in Mauritius

Group Processes and Intergroup Relations

Volumn 13, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 621-638

  Tseung Wong, Caroline Ng ^a   Verkuyten, Maykel ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MAURITIUS   (Mauritius)

^b UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

group identifications; integroup evaluations; relative ingroup indispensability; relative ingroup prototypicality

Indexed keywords

EID: 77956804160     PISSN: 13684302     EISSN: 14617188     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1368430210369345     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Aiken, L.S., & West, S.G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. London: Sage.
2. Aumeerally, N. (2005). The ambivalence of postcolonial Mauritius: Policy versus practice in education: A reading of official and popular multiculturalism. International Journal of Cultural Policy,11, 307-323.
3. Benoist, J. (1985). Les îles créoles [The Creole Isles]: Martinique, Guadeloupe, Réunion, Maurice. Hérodote,37/38, 53-75.
4. Bettencourt, B.A., Dorr, N., Charlton, K., & Hume, D.L. (2001). Status differences and ingroup bias: A meta-analytic examination of the effects of status stability, status legitimacy, and group permeability. Psychological Bulletin,127, 520-542.
5. Boswell, R. (2005). Unraveling le malaise Créole: Hybridity and marginalization in Mauritius. Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, 12, 195-221.
6. Boswell, R. (2006). Le malaise Créole: Ethnic identity in Mauritius. Oxford: Berghan Books.
7. Brewer, M. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,17, 475-482.
8. Brown, R., & Wade, G. (1987). Superordinate goals and intergroup behaviour: The effect of role ambiguity and status on intergroup attitudes and task performance. European Journal of Social Psychology,17, 131-142.
9. Carroll, B.W., & Carroll, T. (2000). Accomodating ethnic differences in a modernizing democratic state: Theory and practice in the case of Mauritius. Ethnic and Racial Studies,23, 120-142.
10. Central Statistics Office. (2007). Mauritius in figures. Retrieved December 12, 2008, from http://www.gov.mu/portal/goc/cso/file/pop09.pdf.
11. Crisp, R.J., Stone, C.H., & Hall, N.R. (2006). Recategorization and subgroup identification: Predicting and preventing threats from common ingroups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 230-243.
12. Deaux, K., Reid, A., Mizrahi, K., & Ethier, K.A. (1995). Parameters of social identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,68, 280-291.
13. Deschamps, J-C., & Brown, R.J. (1983). Superordinate goals and intergroup conflict. British Journal of Social Psychology,22, 189-195.
14. Devos, T., & Banaji, M.R. (2005). American = White? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,88, 447-466.
15. Dovidio, J.F., Gaertner, S.L., Hodson, G., Riek, B.M., Johnson, K.M., & Houlette, M. (2006). Recategorization and crossed categorization: The implications of group salience and representations for reducing bias. In R. J. Crisp & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Multiple social categorization: Processes, models and applications(pp. 65-89). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
16. Dovidio, J.F., Gaertner, S.L., & Saguy, T. (2007). Another view of we: Majority and minority group perspectives on a common ingroup identity. European Review of Social Psychology, 18, 296-330.
17. Eisenlohr, P. (2006). Little India: Diaspora, time and ethnolinguistic belonging in the Hindu Mauritius. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
18. Eisenlohr, P. (2007). Creole publics: Language, cultural citizenship, and the spread of the nation in Mauritius. Comparative Studies in Society and History,49, 968-996.
19. Eriksen, T.H. (1994). Nationalism, Mauritian style: Cultural unity and ethnic diversity. Comparative Studies in Society and History,36, 549-574.
20. Eriksen, T.H. (1995). We and us: Two modes of group identification. Journal of Peace Research,32, 427-436.
21. Eriksen, T.H. (2004). Ethnicity, class, and the 1999 Mauritian riots. In S. May, T. Modood, & J. A. Squires (Eds.), Ethnicity, nationalism and minority rights (pp. 78-95). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22. Gaertner, S.L., & Dovidio, J.F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
23. Gaertner, S.L., Dovidio, J.F., Anastasio, P.A., Bachman, B.A., & Rust, M.C. (1993). The common ingroup identity model: Recategorisation and the reduction of intergroup bias. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), The European review of social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 1-26). London: Wiley.
24. Gaertner, S.L., Mann, J.A., Dovidio, J.F., Murrell, A.J., & Pomare, M. (1990). How does cooperation reduce intergroup bias? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,59, 692-704.
25. Gaertner, S.L., Mann, J.A., Murrell, A.J., & Dovidio, J.F. (1989). Reduction of intergroup bias: The benefits of recategorisation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,57, 239-249.
26. Gaertner, S.L., Rust, M.C., Dovidio, J.F., Bachman, B.A., & Anastasio, P.A. (1994). The contact hypothesis: The role of a common ingroup identity on reducing intergroup bias. Small Group Research,25, 224-249.
27. Haslam, S.A. (2004). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
28. Hempel, L.M. (2009). Power, wealth, and common identity: Access to resources and ethnic identification in a plural society. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 32, 460-489.
29. Hewstone, M., & Brown, R.J. (1986). Contact is not enough: An intergroup perspective on the contact hypothesis. In M. Hewstone & R. J. Brown (Eds.), Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters (pp. 1-44). Oxford: Blackwell.
30. Hogg, M.A., & Hornsey, M.J. (2006). Self-concept threat and multiple categorization within groups. In R. J. Crisp & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Multiple social categorization: Processes, models and applications (pp. 112-136). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
31. Hornsey, M.J., & Hogg, M.A. (2000a). Assimilation and diversity: An integrative model of subgroup relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 143-156.
32. Hornsey, M.J., & Hogg, M.A. (2000b). Subgroup relations: A comparison of mutual intergroup differentiation and common ingroup identity model of prejudice reduction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,26, 242-256.
33. Kamp, H., & Partee, B. (1995). Prototype theory and compositionality. Cognition,57, 129-191.
34. Laville, R. (2000). In the politics of the rainbow: Creoles and civil society in Mauritius. Journal of Contemporary African Studies,18, 277-294.
35. Leach, C.W., Ellemers, N., & Barreto, M. (2007). Group virtue: The importance of morality (vs. competence and sociability) in the positive evaluations of ingroups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,93, 234-279.
36. Miles, W.F.S. (1999). The Creole malaise in Mauritius. African Affairs,98, 211-228.
37. Mummendey, A., & Wenzel, M. (1999). Social discrimination and tolerance in intergroup relations: Reactions to intergroup difference. Personality and Social Psychology Review,3, 158-174.
38. Nave, A. (2000). Marriage and the maintenance of ethnic group boundaries: The case of Mauritius. Ethnic and Racial Studies,23, 329-352.
39. Oakes, P., Haslam, S.A., & Turner, J.C. (1998). The role of prototypicality in group influence and cohesion: Contextual variation in the graded structure of social categories. In S. Worchel, J. F. Morales, P. Pãez, & J. C. Deschamps (Eds.), Social identity: International perspectives(pp. 75-92). London: Sage Publications.
40. Rips, L.J., & Collins, A. (1993). Categories and resemblance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 468-486.
41. Roccas, S., & Brewer, M. (2002). Social identity complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 88-106.
42. Sacks, H. (1972). On the analysability of stories by children. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication (pp. 325-345). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
43. Sibly, C.G., & Liu, J.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.
44. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.
45. Sindic, D., & Reicher, S.D. (2008). The instru-mental use of group prototypicality judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1425-1435.
46. Sniderman, P., & Hagendoorn, L. (2007). When ways of life collide: Multiculturalism and its discontent in the Netherlands. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
47. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-48). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
48. Ullrich, J. (2009). Reconsidering the relative in relative ingroup prototypicality. European Journal of Social Psychology,39, 299-310.
49. Waldzus, S., Mummendey, A., Wenzel, M., & Weber, U. (2003). Towards tolerance: Representations of superordinate categories and perceived ingroup prototypicality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,39, 31-47.
50. Wenzel, M., Mummendey, A., & Waldzus, S. (2007). Superordinate identities and intergroup conflict: The ingroup projection model. European Review of Social Psychology, 18, 331-372.
51. Wenzel, M., Mummendey, A., Weber, U., & Waldzus, S. (2003). The ingroup as pars pro toto: Projection from the ingroup onto the inclusive category as a precursor to social discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,29, 461-473.