PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN Hornsey, Hogg / SUBGROUP RELATIONS Subgroup Relations: A Comparison of Mutual Intergroup Differentiation and Common Ingroup Identity Models of Prejudice Reduction Matthew J. Hornsey Michael A. Hogg University of Queensland Two studies examined relations between groups (humanities and math-science students) that implicitly or explicitly share a common superordinate category (university student). In Experi- ment 1, 178 participants performed a noninteractive decision- making task during which category salience was manipulated in a 2 (superordinate category salience) × 2 (subordinate cate- gory salience) between-groups design. Consistent with the mutual intergroup differentiation model, participants for whom both categories were salient exhibited the lowest levels of bias, whereas bias was strongest when the superordinate cate- gory alone was made salient. This pattern of results was repli- cated in Experiment 2 (N = 135). In addition, Experiment 2 demonstrated that members of subgroups that are nested within a superordinate categor y are more sensitive to how the superordi- nate category is represented than are members of subgroups that extend beyond the boundaries of the superordinate category. Theories of how to manage relations between ethnic groups have traditionally reflected two contrasting posi- tions: assimilation and multiculturalism. Assimilation argues that for any large social entity, energy should be directed toward refocusing group loyalties from the sub- group level to the superordinate level. Given time, sub- group identities will evaporate, leaving a unified and homogeneous core within which relations among indi- viduals will be purely intragroup in nature. Multiculturalism differs philosophically from assimi- lation in that it assumes that people are motivated to retain their cultural heritages. As a result, attempts to blend groups may result in a deepening of ingroup loyal- ties and a crystallization of subgroup boundaries, pro- ducing ethnocentrism, prejudice, and discrimination. Multiculturalism did not evolve from social psychologi- cal research; rather, it is a policy that has developed largely as a result of political pressure from minority groups (Moghaddam & Solliday, 1991). But in terms of its fundamental assumptions, it clearly shares a similar theoretical heritage with social identity theory (SIT) (e.g., Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner, 1982). SIT argues that social categories are represented in our minds as social identities, which, when they are con- textually salient, help describe and prescribe our behav- ior in that context. When social identities are salient, self-enhancement is best achieved by the adoption of strategies and attitudes that achieve or maintain a sense of ingroup superiority relative to the outgroup. This may include feelings of ingroup pride, ingroup loyalty, derogatory attitudes toward outgroups, and/or prejudi- cial behavior toward outgroup members. Like multicul- turalism, SIT argues that certain identities are cogni- tively inescapable and thus fundamental to self-concept. Consistent with this, questionnaire studies in Canada (Berry, Kalin, & Taylor, 1977; Lambert, Mermegis, & Tay- lor, 1986; O’Bryan, Reitz, & Kuplowska, 1976; Taylor, Moghaddam, & Tchoryk-Pelletier, 1989) and the United States (Glazer & Moynihan, 1970; Greely, 1974) show that both majority and minority groups experience posi- tive attitudes toward the maintenance of their own cul- ture and language. Authors’ Note: We are grateful to Richard Moreland and two anony- mous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Matthew J. Hornsey, School of Psychology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia; e-mail: matthewh@ psy.uq.edu.au. PSPB, Vol. 26 No. 2, February 2000 242-256 © 2000 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc. 242 by guest on February 9, 2016 psp.sagepub.com Downloaded from