Intergroup relations are of crucial importance in contemporary times, with concerns around social representations, social influence and collective action remaining salient. A core aspect of intergroup conflict revolves around the notion of joint projects, whereby different collectives seek to promote their own project through processes of joint intentionality. Nonetheless, we contend that intergroup relations research can tackle the notion of projects more fruitfully by studying the mutual understandings of projects of groups in conflict. Accordingly, we propose an action-oriented reformulation for intergroup relations research, which is contrasted with the standard object-oriented formula. Object-oriented research either (a) emphasizes the study of social objects without regard for their different construal by members of conflicting groups, or (b) focuses on 'social representations of' the objects in question, without regard for the projects that such representations serve. Contrastingly, action-oriented research (a) seeks to understand a collective's 'social re-presentation for' a specific project; and (b) studies the social and alternative re-presentation of objects and projects as a systemic product of intergroup relations. We then present illustrative examples of objectoriented research, followed by a study concerning Arab-Maltese relations in Malta as an example of action-oriented research. We end by making recommendations for future research on intergroup relations, with the aim of shedding light on the processes that bind coalitions for collective action.

where she directs the MSc programme in Social and Cultural Psychology. Her research focuses on the socio-cultural psychology of representations, public spheres and community development. Her latest research examines human development under poverty and urban segregation, focusing on trajectories of self and community in the favelas of Rio de Janeiro. A new edition of 'Knowledge in Context' is coming out with Routledge Classics in 2017. LUKE JOSEPH BUHAGIAR is a doctoral candidate in social psychology at the University of Malta. His research interests focus on methodology, argumentation, the theory of social representations and coalitional psychology.

Concerns about immigration are salient in the European Union and in Malta in particular. Previous research has demonstrated deep antipathy towards the Arab community in Malta, and social representations of Arabs are mired in a conflation of ethnic and religious categories with negative connotations. This paper presents evidence of the potency, within the public sphere, of negative arguments from cultural essentialism, concerning the integration of Arabs in Europe. The data were obtained abductively from a data corpus containing positive, mixed and negative arguments about Arabs and their integration. Results pointed towards the almost total exclusivity of arguments from cultural essentialism. These posited Arabic culture as an underlying essence that makes integration difficult or impossible. Different forms of culturally essentialist views varied in their emphasis of different aspects of cultural essentialism. Reductionist, determinist, delineatory and temporal aspects of cultural essentialism were all emphasised by respondents. The essentialist exceptions to negative arguments from cultural essentialism were rare and were posed tentatively by participants. Their paucity and manner of delivery substantiate the claim that it is strictly an Arabic cultural essence

No abstract

No abstract

Social scientific work on argumentation is yet to address the perennial tension between social cognition and social constructionism. Moreover, argumentation‐based qualitative analysis protocols are needed for interview and textual data. Nonetheless, argumentation models remain too complex to reflect everyday argumentation and are not necessarily reflective of underlying cognitive processes. This presents the need for further theorising social behaviour, with a view to formulating a model of argumentation that (a) is parsimonious, and (b) aligns with the literature on joint projects, due to the fact that in social cognition terms, argumentation is for doing. In this paper, we draw upon interdisciplinary literature on argumentation, noting convergences among different approaches. We then proceed to consider the socio‐cognitive bedding provided by Lay Epistemic Theory, to present our Minimal Model of Argumentation (MMA). In MMA, interlocutors are held to make claims concerning an issue of concern, and defend them using warrants, evidence and qualifiers. We end by providing empirical examples supporting the utility of our model in qualitative research.

Goochani, Ghanian, Baradaran & Azadi's (2017) study provides support for an extension of the theory of planned behaviour through inclusion of the variables of Trust and Perceived Benefits in the determination of attitudes. Considering the fact that the only other direct effect observed in this study is exercised by Subjective Norms, we argue that this new model provides support for the sociocultural determination of attitudes and, by extension, planned behaviour. We argue that understanding behavioural intentions for cultivating Bt rice requires an understanding of the social representations concerning this technology and its regulation in Iran. We further argue that due concern is required regarding the evolution of these representations over time. We conclude by proposing different avenues for future research.

No abstract