Socio‐structural characteristics of intergroup relations and identity management strategies: results from a field study in East Germany

Abstract

In a ®eld study in East Germany, predictions by Social Identity Theory concerning relations among socio-structural characteristics of intergroup relations (stability, legitimacy, permeability) and identity management strategies (e.g. social competition) were examined. In general, East Germans were expected to consider their status position as inferior compared to West Germans. Moreover, depending on whether they regard such a status di€erence as legitimate or illegitimate, as stable or unstable, and whether they perceive group boundaries as permeable or impermeable, East German participants should di€er with respect to identity management strategies such as change of status relations, change of categorization, change of comparison dimension, change of comparison object and change of group membership. Five hundred and seventeen participants from di€erent regions of East Germany completed a questionnaire on various aspects of life satisfaction. A path model including stability, legitimacy and permeability as predictors, ingroup identi®cation as mediator and identity management strategies as criteria was tested. Results are mainly in line with assumptions on main e€ects derived from Social Identity Theory. However, some extensions and clari®ca-tions with respect to assimilation situations seem to be adequate. In addition, results show that ingroup identi®cation can be regarded as a powerful mediator between perceived intergroup relations and identity management strategies.

How groups cope with collective responsibility for ecological problems: Symbolic coping and collective emotions

“…Another way of coping with negative collective emotions is to adopt identity negotiation strategies to achieve a positive social identity (Deaux & Ethier, 1998). According to social identity theory (Mummendey, Klink, Mielke, Wenzel, & Blanz, 1999;Tajfel & Turner, 1979), identity strategies can be personal (leaving the ingroup) or collective (e.g., using new dimensions for ingroup comparisons; changing group values; changing the comparison groups; and entering into competition with the outgroup) depending on the specific intergroup context.…”

Social hierarchies and intergroup discrimination: The case of the intermediate status group

“…It has been repeatedly shown that when resources are limited intergroup competition is more likely to occur (Brewer, 1986;Esses, Jackson, & Armstrong, 1998;LeVine & Campbell, 1972;Sherif, 1966). For example, in a minimal group setting, Mummendey and Schreiber (1983) found that intergroup bias was drastically reduced when a less restrictive modality of comparison (e.g., in-group outcomes were independent of those of the out-group) was employed (see also Monacelli, Sari, & Carugati, 2000;Mugny, Sanchez-Mazas, Roux, & Pérez, 1991). On the basis of these findings, we argue that for social identity of intermediate status group members, limited resources condition should be more threatening (e.g., downward displacement is more likely to occur) than unlimited resources condition.…”

Nationalism and Its Explanations

“…The individual's sense of positive self-identity serves as another affective determinant. A low sense of positive self-identity (such as may result from a clear failure of one's "old" ideology) motivates individuals to develop a very positive or extremely positive national attitude (see Blank, 1997;Bloom, 1990;Csepeli & Örkény, 1993;Mummendey, Klink, Mielke, Wenzel, & Blanz, 1999;Smith, 1991;Tajfel & Turner, 1986;Weinreich, 1991).…”