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

Abstract

In a field 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 difference as legitimate or illegitimate, as stable or unstable, and whether they perceive group boundaries as permeable or impermeable, East German participants should differ 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 different regions of East Germany completed a questionnaire on various aspects of life satisfaction. A path model including stability, legitimacy and permeability as predictors, ingroup identification as mediator and identity management strategies as criteria was tested. Results are mainly in line with assumptions on main effects derived from Social Identity Theory. However, some extensions and clarifications with respect to assimilation situations seem to be adequate. In addition, results show that ingroup identification can be regarded as a powerful mediator between perceived intergroup relations and identity management strategies. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The Effect of Group Boundary Permeability on Intergroup Prejudice: The Case of Rural-to-Urban Migrants in China

“…A six-item group boundary permeability scale adapted from Mummendey, Klink, Mielke, Wenzel, and Blanz (1999) was used to measure the perceived group boundary permeability between rural-to-urban migrants and permanent urban residents. The participants chose a number from 1 to 7 to indicate their levels of agreement with items such as 'No matter what effort she/he makes, a rural-to-urban migrant can never become an urban resident' (reverse-scored).…”

Detecting Sociostructural Beliefs about Group Status Differences in Online Discussions

“…In past survey research related to sociostructural beliefs (Kessler and Mummendey, 2002;Mummendey et al, 1999), participants were asked to respond to explicit statements reflecting sociostructural beliefs -for example, It is [justified|right|legitimate|accurate|fair] that [proposition]. However, we found no instances of such explicit expressions in our data.…”

Socio-Structural Intergroup Characteristics as Predictors of Intention to Join University Alumni Association

“…Socio-structural variables have been used to predict collective and individual ingroup members' actions (Mummendey et al, 1999;Plante et al, 2014;Wright, 1997), ingroup bias (Bettencourt et al, 2001), prejudice (Johnson, Terry, & Louis, 2005), and ingroup identification (Ellemers, 1993;Ellemers, Wilke, & van Knippenberg, 1993;Verkuyten & Reijerse, 2008). A wealth of research (e.g., Bettencourt et al, 2001) shows a general tendency for low status group members to leave one's group when the boundaries are permeable.…”

“…A wealth of research (e.g., Bettencourt et al, 2001) shows a general tendency for low status group members to leave one's group when the boundaries are permeable. If low status members view the boundary as impermeable, however, and the intergroup status difference as unstable, then collective action is more likely, especially if the status difference is viewed as illegitimate (Ellemers, 1993;Mummendey et al, 1999). Applied to the university context, students' perceptions of the socio-structural intergroup characteristics may predict students' behaviors toward the university.…”