Beyond Contact: Intergroup Contact in the Context of Power Relations

Abstract

This work investigated how group-based power affects the motivations and preferences that members of advantaged and disadvantaged groups bring to situations of contact. To measure the preferred content of interactions, desires to address particular topics in intergroup contact were assessed for both experimental groups (Study 1) and real groups (Study 2). As predicted, across both studies, the desire to talk about power was greater among members of disadvantaged than of advantaged groups. This difference was mediated by motivation for change in group-based power. Study 2 further demonstrated that more highly identified members of disadvantaged groups wanted to talk about power more. Members of advantaged groups generally preferred to talk about commonalities between the groups more than about group-based power, and this desire was greater with higher levels of identification. However, perceiving that their group's advantage was illegitimate increased the desire of advantaged group members to address power in intergroup interactions.

Commonality and the Complexity of “We”: Social Attitudes and Social Change

“…That is, low-power group members' greater preference, relative to that of high-power group members, to discuss points of difference occurred because they had a greater motivation for a change in the power structure. Saguy et al (2008) also obtained this pattern of preference to discuss commonality and difference with members of real groups differing in social status and power in Israel and so replicated the mediating effect of motivation for social change on interest in talking about group differences. In addition, members of the highstatus group (Ashkenazim) who were more highly identified with their group displayed greater interest in talking about commonality, whereas members of the low-status group (Mizrahim) who were more highly identified with their group showed a greater preference to talk about differences.…”

“…In a pair of studies, one with laboratory groups and the other with ethnic groups varying in status in Israel (Ashkenazim, high status; Mizrahim, low status), Saguy et al (2008) provided evidence in support of this hypothesis. In the laboratory study, group position was manipulated by giving one group control over valued resources (experimental credit) for both groups.…”

“…The second study generalized and extended the findings with respect to minority groups by examining the relation of positive intergroup contact to attitudes, perceptions of the inequality and outgroup fairness, and support for social change in a naturalistic intergroup context. The laboratory study (Saguy et al, in press, Study 1) manipulated power between two randomly assigned groups (as in Saguy et al, 2008) by giving the highpower group the position of assigning extra course credits to the two groups. Before the high-power group members allocated the credits, members of both groups interacted with instructions to focus on either intergroup commonalities or differences.…”

Influence of Intragroup Dynamics and Intergroup Relations on Authenticity in Organizational and Social Contexts: A Review of Conceptual Framework and Research Evidence

“…Indeed, members of advantaged subgroups may unconsciously or strategically choose to promote inauthentic messages that obscure and draw attention away from group-based role and status differences and power (Jackman, 1994;Ruscher, 2001). Saguy, Dovidio, and Pratto (2008) found that, when given a choice of topics to discuss, members of lower status subgroups preferred to talk about topics related to group differences, whereas members of higher status subgroups displayed greater desire to talk about topics addressing commonalities between the subgroups. In actual interaction between high -and low -status subgroup members, discussions typically gravitate in an clearly inauthentic, selfalienated way to commonality.…”

“…In contrast, disadvantaged subgroup members display greater support for ideologies and mentality that de-legitimize existing system structure (e.g., endorsement of human rights, humanitarianism in an exploitative or tyrannical social system) and have a greater self-congruent desire for egalitarian changes in the relationship between the subgroups (Saguy, Dovidio, & Pratto, 2008). The status of subgroups within a larger group, organization, community or society not only defines the roles and relations of their members, but also shapes members' authenticity in experiencing and expressing their psychological needs, feelings, values, attitudes and personal identity.…”