Two studies examined the relationship between categorization, intergroup anxiety and intergroup attitudes (intergroup bias and negative affect). Study 1 consisted of a survey of 236 British and Japanese nationals. Study 2 was a longitudinal study of 54 Japanese students studying in the UK. Of the three categorization variables (interpersonal, superordinate and intergroup), only intergroup categorization was shown to have a relationship to generalized intergroup attitudes. In addition, intergroup anxiety and quality of contact were associated with ingroup bias and negative affect to the outgroup. Study 2 revealed an interaction between intergroup categorization and quality of contact in predicting negative affect. Intergroup anxiety was also associated with increased intergroup categorization. It is concluded that the effects of categorization during contact are still poorly understood, and that intergroup anxiety is a far more powerful variable in contact than the current literature acknowledges. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

This article outlines some of the main social-psychological bases of intergroup con¯ict, illustrating the many ways in which social psychology can contribute to the study of con¯ict. The most convincing theoretical account is provided by perspectives that concentrate on the distinct nature of intergroup phenomena (especially social identity theory). Two of the most promising social-psychological interventions to reduce intergroup con¯ict are also reviewed. The ® rst is based on improving contact between members of previously hostile groups; the second attempts to change the structure of social categorizations (via decategorization, recategorization, and crossed categorization). This social-psychological perspective is proposed as a key part of a necessary, multi-disciplinary approach to intergroup con¯ict.Cet article pre sente certains des principaux fondements socio-psychologiques du con¯it entre groupes et illustre les diffe rentes fac Ë ons par lesquelles la psychologie sociale peut contribuer aÁ l'e tude du con¯it. L' interpre  tation the orique la plus convaincante provient des perspectives qui se concentrent sur la nature particulie Á re des phe nomeÁ nes inter-groupes (particulie Á rement la the orie de l'identite  sociale). L' article examine aussi deux des interventions socio-psychologiques les plus prometteuses dans la re duction du con¯it inter-groupes. La premie Á re est base e sur l'ame lioration du contact entre membres de groupes ante rieurement hostiles; la seconde essaie de changer la structure des cate gorisations sociales (par la de cate gorisation, la recate gorisation et la cate gorisation croise  e). Cette perspective socio-psychologique est vue comme une e le ment-cle d'une approche multidisciplinai re du con¯it inter-groupes.

In this paper, we present findings on lay constructions of racism from a focus group study (11 groups, n = 72) with a mixed sample of secondary‐school students in England. We show that racism was, on the whole, ‘othered’: It was located in other times, places, and people or was denied altogether. We show that this way of talking about racism had different uses depending on the identity stakes involved in different interactional contexts. Even in the cases where racism was constructed as common, participants worked hard to make an ‘irrefutable’ argument, which suggests that they were anticipating reputational damage by making a claim for the persistence of racism. We discuss these findings with regard to the different levels of analysis involved in constructions of racism (micro‐interactional, local and broader normative context) and with regard to an ‘end of racism’ discourse that appeared to provide the normative framework for participants' accounts.

Two studies examined the relationship between categorization, intergroup anxiety and intergroup attitudes (intergroup bias and negative aect). Study 1 consisted of a survey of 236 British and Japanese nationals. Study 2 was a longitudinal study of 54 Japanese students studying in the UK. Of the three categorization variables (interpersonal, superordinate and intergroup), only intergroup categorization was shown to have a relationship to generalized intergroup attitudes. In addition, intergroup anxiety and quality of contact were associated with ingroup bias and negative aect to the outgroup. Study 2 revealed an interaction between intergroup categorization and quality of contact in predicting negative aect. Intergroup anxiety was also associated with increased intergroup categorization. It is concluded that the eects of categorization during contact are still poorly understood, and that intergroup anxiety is a far more powerful variable in contact than the current literature acknowledges.