Abstract:Intergroup relations refers to the way in which people who belong to social groups or categories perceive, think about, feel about, and act towards and interact with people in other groups. If you replace the word 'group' in intergroup with, for example, the words 'national' or 'ethnic', then what is meant by intergroup relations becomes clear. We know that inter-ethnic relations refer to how ethnic groups view, treat and interact with one another. We also know that inter-ethnic relations are often competitive… Show more
“…“Intergroup relations are characterized by a struggle over status and prestige” (Hogg , 554). The following sentiments noted by respondents illustrate this struggle:[The auditors] operate in a vacuum, they're very analytical people, they take offense at what we say .…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…At the same time, a social identity is “a characteristic of the relationship between” groups (Kane , 644). Thus, research on intergroup relations broadly encompasses a wide array of theories—including, but not limited to, social identity theory (SIT)—that look at how group members feel about and act toward other groups and their members (Hogg ) . Similarly, while we commonly rely on SIT to understand and analyze our context of the relationship between auditors and IT specialists, we also rely on research on intergroup relations more broadly.…”
Section: Context and Theory Developmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this study, we draw on research on intergroup relations and more specifically on social identity theory. Collectively, this literature suggests that members of different groups view, feel, and act more positively toward each other when they have a stronger, one‐team identity (Hogg ) and that they coordinate and communicate more effectively when the relationship between them is less arduous (Szulanski ; Kane et al ). Theory and evidence are rather limited, however, on the specific ways relationship quality influences coordination and communication (Kane ).…”
While prior research focuses on the audit team made up of auditors, we focus on the collective audit team made up of auditors and specialists—in our context, information technology (IT) specialists. Complex systems in today's audits and researcher and regulator concerns regarding ineffective coordination and communication between the two specializations motivate better understanding of this collective audit team. We investigate how auditors and IT specialists perceive their relationship and how the audit process unfolds when these relationships are good and when they are difficult. Results of interviews conducted with Big 4 audit and IT practitioners provide evidence that they perceive their relationship quality to depend on the level of mutual value and respect. Auditors assert a one‐team view of the collective audit team that includes IT specialists, but IT specialists feel auditors see them as a separate team and a “necessary evil.” The audit process vastly differs between relationships perceived as difficult and good. In difficult relationships, the two specializations often struggle for status, with limited communication or effort to understand how their work fits together. Our findings imply difficult relationships are at risk for poor integration and unsupported reliance on IT functions, shedding light on recurring threats to audit quality identified by PCAOB inspections. In good relationships, auditors and IT specialists appear motivated to engage in frequent and open communication to help understand, coordinate, and complete the audit. Inferences gleaned from good relationships let us highlight prescriptions for audit firms to improve effectiveness of collective audit teams.
“…“Intergroup relations are characterized by a struggle over status and prestige” (Hogg , 554). The following sentiments noted by respondents illustrate this struggle:[The auditors] operate in a vacuum, they're very analytical people, they take offense at what we say .…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…At the same time, a social identity is “a characteristic of the relationship between” groups (Kane , 644). Thus, research on intergroup relations broadly encompasses a wide array of theories—including, but not limited to, social identity theory (SIT)—that look at how group members feel about and act toward other groups and their members (Hogg ) . Similarly, while we commonly rely on SIT to understand and analyze our context of the relationship between auditors and IT specialists, we also rely on research on intergroup relations more broadly.…”
Section: Context and Theory Developmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this study, we draw on research on intergroup relations and more specifically on social identity theory. Collectively, this literature suggests that members of different groups view, feel, and act more positively toward each other when they have a stronger, one‐team identity (Hogg ) and that they coordinate and communicate more effectively when the relationship between them is less arduous (Szulanski ; Kane et al ). Theory and evidence are rather limited, however, on the specific ways relationship quality influences coordination and communication (Kane ).…”
While prior research focuses on the audit team made up of auditors, we focus on the collective audit team made up of auditors and specialists—in our context, information technology (IT) specialists. Complex systems in today's audits and researcher and regulator concerns regarding ineffective coordination and communication between the two specializations motivate better understanding of this collective audit team. We investigate how auditors and IT specialists perceive their relationship and how the audit process unfolds when these relationships are good and when they are difficult. Results of interviews conducted with Big 4 audit and IT practitioners provide evidence that they perceive their relationship quality to depend on the level of mutual value and respect. Auditors assert a one‐team view of the collective audit team that includes IT specialists, but IT specialists feel auditors see them as a separate team and a “necessary evil.” The audit process vastly differs between relationships perceived as difficult and good. In difficult relationships, the two specializations often struggle for status, with limited communication or effort to understand how their work fits together. Our findings imply difficult relationships are at risk for poor integration and unsupported reliance on IT functions, shedding light on recurring threats to audit quality identified by PCAOB inspections. In good relationships, auditors and IT specialists appear motivated to engage in frequent and open communication to help understand, coordinate, and complete the audit. Inferences gleaned from good relationships let us highlight prescriptions for audit firms to improve effectiveness of collective audit teams.
“…A different but equally established tradition of research demonstrates the tendency for people to voluntarily give time, energy, and resources to their social groups. These groups may be as small as three to four people or as large as a company or ethnoreligious group and can consist of known or unknown members (Hogg, 2003, 2013). Experimental studies demonstrate that even when social groups are involuntary and fleeting, such as in the minimal-group paradigm, members as young as 5 years of age willingly give resources and support to their groups (Balliet, Wu, & De Dreu, 2014; Dunham, Baron, & Carey, 2011).…”
As an intensely social species, humans demonstrate the propensity to contribute to other individuals and groups by providing support, resources, or helping to achieve a shared goal. Accumulating evidence suggests that contribution benefits the givers as well as the receivers. The need to contribute during adolescence, however, has been underappreciated compared with more individually focused psychological or social developmental needs. The need is particularly significant during the teenage years, when children’s social world expands and they become increasingly capable of making contributions of consequence. Moreover, contribution can both promote and be a key element of traditionally conceived fundamental needs of the adolescent period such as autonomy, identity, and intimacy. The neural and biological foundations of the adolescent need to contribute, as well as the ways in which social environments meet that need, are discussed. A scientific and practical investment in contribution would synergize with other recent efforts to reframe thinking about the adolescent period, providing potential returns to the field as well as to youths and their communities.
“…The mechanisms of social identity (e.g., "rural consciousness") and intergroup emotion on which the rural resentment hypothesis relies are documented by vast social psychological literatures devoted to the study of intergroup relations (Hogg 2013;Stangor 2004). Individual's identities are derived both from their personal characteristics and histories, as well as their membership in groups (Tajfel and Turner 1986).…”
Section: Resentment Of Government Employees May Account For Voting Bementioning
A recent “rural resentment” hypothesis holds that the rise of conservative politicians in the state of Wisconsin is explained by rural residents’ resentment of beneficiaries of economic advantages, especially government employees (Cramer 2016a). We tested a national rural resentment hypothesis using survey methodology. 3820 respondents representing all 50 US states reported the extent to which they felt resentment- and admiration-related emotions toward public school teachers, state university professors, and agents of departments of natural resources, and reported the presidential candidate they voted for in the 2016 general election. Rural and urban Americans’ resentment of government employees was significantly lower than their admiration for members of those groups. Political party affiliation and education predicted resentment of government employees more than did rural-urban residence. Although Americans residing in rural areas were more likely to have voted for Donald Trump than Americans residing in urban areas, resentment of government employees accounted for a relatively small proportion of this effect.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
