Suchergebnisse

The events of September 11 gave rise to new opportunities to think about intergroup relations and how they can be strengthened. This article summarizes how communities across the nation have initiated activities to help people grieve and to prevent further violence against Arabs, Muslims, and other Middle Easterners and applies a set of research‐based principles on intergroup relations to communities' responses to September 11. The article also demonstrates the importance of moving beyond the current responses to more comprehensive community strategies that are informed by these principles and other lessons learned. These strategies include multipronged approaches that help individuals grieve and heal, engage institutional leaders, and support community action.

Intergroup researchers have the opportunity to access to a wide variety of methods to help deepen theoretical insights about intergroup relations. In this paper, we focus on neuroendocrine measures, as these physiological measures offer some advantages over traditional measures used in intergroup research, are noninvasive, and are relatively easy to incorporate into existing intergroup paradigms. We begin by discussing the major neuroendocrine systems in the body and their measurable biological products, emphasizing systems that have conceptual relevance to intergroup relations. We then describe how to collect, store, and quantify neuroendocrine measures. Altogether, this paper serves as a primer for intergroup researchers interested in adding neuroendocrine measures to their methodological toolkits to enrich the study of intergroup relations.

The current forum is designed to assess the strengths and weaknesses of social identity, social dominance, and system justification as theoretical approaches to the study of intergroup relations. Each of these approaches tries to account for variation in the development of ingroup cohesion and outgroup antipathy among individual group members, across groups, and in different societies—three levels at which theorists have commonly sought explanations for variability in intergroup attitudes and behavior. Social dominance theory is the most ambitious of the theories but does not succeed in explaining intergroup relations equally well at all three levels. However, it has excelled in highlighting individual differences in the need and desire to dominate members of lower‐status groups and in exploring the interaction between individuals and institutions. Social identity theory is primarily concerned with the attributes of groups that foster the development of ingroup bias and examines the conditions under which this occurs. It is more fully developed in this respect than the other approaches but ignores variation at the individual level and, to a lesser degree, the societal level. System justification theory considers a mix of individual‐ and societal‐level factors, focusing on the role of support for the status quo in producing acceptance of status inequalities among members of low‐status groups, even when it is against their own interest to do so. The theory highlights an important problem—the quiescence of low‐status groups—but more work is needed to flesh out the theory and its central concepts.

Research on implicit person theories shows that beliefs about the malleability of human attributes have important implications for social cognition, interpersonal behavior, and intergroup relations. We argue that these implications can be understood within the framework of psychological essentialism, which extends work on implicit theories in promising directions. We review evidence that immutability beliefs covary with a broader set of essentialist beliefs, and that these essentialist beliefs are associated with stereotyping and prejudice. We then present recent studies indicating that associations between implicit person theories and stereotyping may be explained in terms of essentialist beliefs, implying a significant role for these beliefs in the psychology of group perception. Finally, we propose ways in which research and theory on essentialist beliefs might clarify and advance research on implicit person theories.