New Zealand Journal of Psychology, June 1998
v27 n1 p21(7)
Social identity in young New Zealand children. Judith Bruce;
Heather Curtis; Lucy Johnston.
Abstract: A study was conducted to compare the ethnic identity
and preferences of Maori children attending a school with bilingual
education or a school without a bilingual program. Researchers also
studied in-group favoritism in regard to dark and light skinned
individuals. Results showed that although students preferred in-group
identity, they would prefer to be light-skinned when they grow older.
Full Text: COPYRIGHT 1998 New Zealand Psychological Society
The present research compared the ethnic identity and preferences of
young Maori children who attended either a bilingual unit within a state
school or a state school without a bilingual unit. In addition, ingroup
favouritism was investigated through the attribution of positive and
negative behaviours to dark and light skinned targets. Results
demonstrated stronger ingroup identity, but also stronger outgroup
preference, amongst Maori children at the school without a bilingual unit
than amongst Maori children at the bilingual unit. Outgroup favouritism in
the attribution of positive behaviours was seen at both schools. Results
are discussed in terms of social identity.
Categorisation of individuals on the basis of distinguishing features,
such as skin colour, is a fundamental stage of social perception (Brewer,
1988; Fiske & Neuberg, 1990; Stangor, Lynch, Duan & Glass, 1992;
Tajfel, 1981). By age three, almost seventy percent of children can
differentiate people by the colour of their skin and the use of skin
colour in categorisation is dominant (Aboud, 1988; Davey, 1983; Brown,
1995; Milner, 1983; Stangor et al., 1992). Social Identity Theory (Tajfel,
1978; Tajfel & Turner, 1986) argues that such categorisation is a
precursor of in-group bias and favouritism and the development of negative
beliefs about members of groups to which one does not belong. Underlying
this ingroup bias, it is argued, is the desire of people to have a
positive self esteem, or social identity. Part of one's esteem or identity
is derived from the groups one is a member of and so the more positively
these groups are perceived, the greater the positive esteem individuals
can draw from their membership of such groups (Turner, 1981). Favourable
comparisons with other groups (ingroup bias or favouritism), therefore
enhance one's social identity (Cialdini & Richardson, 1980; Lemyre
& Smith, 1985; Oakes & Turner, 1980). There are numerous examples
in the literature of ingroup favouritism based on racial categorisations
(Brewer, 1988; Fiske & Neuberg, 1990; Stangor et al., 1992; Tajfel
& Wilkes, 1963; Vaughan, 1988), even from children (Aboud, 1983;
Brown, 1995; Davey, 1983; Milner, 1983). Davey (1983), for example, showed
young children to demonstrate marked ethnocentrism in their distribution
of sweets amongst unknown children of the same and different ethnicity to
themselves.
Ingroup bias is, however, moderated by the relative status of the
comparison groups. Whilst majority group members display ingroup bias
(Wagner, Lampen, & Syllwasschy, 1986), there are many examples of
minority group members being more egalitarian or even displaying an
outgroup bias; that is showing favouritism toward the majority group of
which they are not a member (Brown & Abrams, 1986; Espinoza &
Garza, 1985; Ng, 1985; Sachdev & Bourhis, 1991; van Knippenberg,
1984). Aboud (1983), for example, showed both majority and minority group
children, aged 5-7 years, to display greater assignment of positive traits
to members of the majority ethnic group and negative traits to members of
the minority ethnic group. Similarly, Davey (1983) noted that a number of
minority group children in her study displayed outgroup preferences.
It is important to remember that membership of a minority group has
less to do with number than with social status and who has access to
power, including better education and health (Sachdev & Bourhis, 1991;
Tajfel, 1981; Wagley & Harris, 1958). Members of majority groups may,
therefore, find it easier to make positive intergroup comparisons than
members of minority groups. In turn, members of minority groups may
attempt to identify with the majority group, in order to achieve higher
status and esteem. Such identification with an outgroup is only feasible
as a means of bolstering self esteem if group boundaries are permeable and
it is possible to move from membership of one group to another (van
Knippenberg & Ellemers, 1993). Although some people can `pass' as
members of more than one ethnic group (e.g., about 12-15% of New
Zealanders can claim to belong to more than one ethnic group), for most
individuals ethnic group boundaries are impermeable.
When group boundaries are impermeable and joining the higher status
group impossible, minority group members can enhance their self esteem
through the elevation or development of positive in-group characteristics.
Such a strategy both maintains the distinctiveness of the minority group
and enhances their social identity (Lemaine, 1974; Turner, 1975). Attempts
to raise the identity of minority groups has been seen in Wales, Canada
and Europe through the increased use of minority group languages and
increased attention to minority group culture (Brown, 1995; Giles, Bourhis,
& Taylor, 1977). Similarly, there has been an assertive push by the
minority indigenous population in New Zealand, the Maori, for the Maori
language and culture to be taught in New Zealand schools. To this end a
number of bilingual units have been established within primary state
schools. The main aim of the present study was to investigate whether
Maori children attending a bilingual unit at school showed a different
pattern of intergroup evaluations than those attending a school without a
bilingual unit. Bilingual units take a number of forms throughout the
country, ranging from the teaching of specific Maori words in primarily
English language classrooms ("token bilingualism") through to
Maori immersion classrooms. The bilingual unit from which participants in
the reported study were recruited fell in between these end-points.
Classes were predominantly, although not exclusively, taught in Maori and
there was a focus on cultural identity and diversity.
A pre-cursor to ingroup favouritism is, of course, ingroup identity.
Stronger ingroup identification is reflected in greater ingroup
favouritism and outgroup derogation (Brown & Abrams, 1986, van
Knippenberg, 1984). It is possible that minority group members fail to
show ingroup favouritism, or even show outgroup favouritism, as a
consequence of not strongly identifying with the minority ingroup or of
attempting to identify with the majority outgroup. This may be especially
likely for young children whose sense of self-identity is not yet fully
developed (Davey, 1983; Vaughan, 1978; Williams & Morland, 1976).
Studies that have used dolls, photographs or drawings which represent
different ethnic groups and from which children have been asked to choose
the one which most resembles them, and the one they would prefer to be
like, have shown an asymmetry between minority and majority group
children. Majority group children identify with, and show a preference
for, the object which matches their own ethnic group whilst minority group
children, especially at around 5-6 years of age, both identify with and
prefer the majority group object (Aboud, 1983; Davey, 1983; Vaughan, 1978;
Williams & Morland, 1976). It is not surprisingly, then, that minority
group children show an outgroup bias; this is in fact an ingroup bias
toward the (majority) group with which they identify and prefer to be
like, regardless of ethnicity. Attendance at a bilingual unit where the
minority Maori culture and language is emphasized will likely lead to
increased ingroup identity for Maori children. Accordingly, Maori children
at a bilingual unit should show greater ingroup identity and ingroup
favouritism than those attending a school without a bilingual unit (Lynskey,
Ward, & Fletcher, 1991; Vaughan, 1987).
In summary, the present research compared the identity and preferences
of young Maori children attending either a bilingual unit within a state
school or a state school without a bilingual unit. It should be noted,
however, that although a large majority of children attending the
bilingual unit were Maori, no differentiation between children of Maori
and of Pacific Island descent was made in this study(1). Ethnic and
cultural differences between Maori and Pacific Island individuals are
acknowledged, but the decision not to differentiate between them in this
study was made for two reasons. First, the responses to all the questions
in this study were made by choosing between pictures of two faces
identical in all features except skin colour (see below) rather than by
choosing between specifically named ethnic or racial groups. That is,
decisions were based on skin colour rather than on specific ethnicity
which minimized differences between children of Maori and Pacific Island
descent. The assumption that the choice of dark and light skinned target
represent choices for "Maori" and "Pakeha"
respectively is not addressed in the present research. In addition, the
researchers did not want to draw the attention of the children
participating in the study to differences between them which may have
become salient if detailed questions about descent were asked. It should
be noted, however, that the teachers at the schools involved in this study
noted only a very few of the children were of Pacific Island descent (n=3
across the two schools). Second, the socio-economic status, education and
health levels of Maori and Pacific Islanders in New Zealand is similar,
especially in contrast to those of Pakeha(2), leading to the prediction of
a similar pattern of ingroup identity and favoritism in these two groups.
The impact of attendance at a bilingual unit on Pacific Island children
is, however, hard to predict.
It was hypothesized that Maori/Pacific Island children attending the
bilingual unit would show greater ingroup identity and preference
(choosing the dark skinned target) than those attending the school without
a bilingual unit. Similarly, it is predicted that the Maori/Pacific Island
children attending the bilingual unit would show greater ingroup
favouritism on the attribution of positive and negative behaviours to dark
and light-skinned targets than those attending the school without a
bilingual unit.
Method
Participants
Thirty-four Maori and Pacific Island children, aged 5-6 years, at
Christchurch primary schools took part in the study. Twenty-four of the
children attended a bilingual unit and 10 attended a school without a
bilingual unit. All children came from a similar socioeconomic background.
In addition 18 Pakeha children attending the school without a bilingual
unit completed the identity part of the study for comparison purposes.
Materials
Eight traits (four positive/four negative) were selected from Oliver
and Vaughan (1988) for use in this study. Two of the positive (kind,
friendly) and two of the negative (aggressive, gets into trouble) traits
were stereotypic of Maori and the other two positive (clever, rich) and
two negative (conceited, selfish) traits were stereotypic of Pakeha. For
each of these eight traits, a question was developed which asked the
respondent to select which individual was the most likely to perform a
behaviour indicative of that trait. Examples of the sentences used are:
"Which girl do you think would not share her sweets?" (selfish);
"Which man do you think gets into fights?" (aggressive). In
addition four filler questions in which respondents selected the
appropriate objects were included. Questions were pilot tested with
children of similar age to those who took part in the main study, to
ensure comprehension.
Four cards, each showing a pair of identical head and shoulders
drawings were prepared. In order to ensure the faces were identical in
shape and features, the cards were prepared by drawing one of the faces
and then photocopying it to produce the second face. The faces were then
coloured in; one of each pair was coloured to represent light skin and one
to represent dark skin, with appropriate hair and eye colours in each
case. Two of the cards had pairs of male faces and two cards had pairs of
female faces, in each case one card was of adult faces and one of
children's faces. One card was used for each of the questions above. For
example, with the question, "Which girl do you think would not share
her sweets?" the card with the two children's female faces was used
and for the question, "Which man do you think gets into fights?"
the card with the two adult male faces was used. In addition, four cards
with objects for the filler questions (e.g., a cat and a dog) were
prepared. Each drawing had either a triangle or a circle above it to
correspond with the response sheets. The response sheet for each question
had a circle and a triangle on it. Respondents ticked the symbol which
matched the drawing on the card which they thought was the correct one.
Two extra cards, with adolescent faces on were prepared for the preference
question (see below).
Procedure
Informed consent was obtained from the school principals and from the
children's parents/guardians, who were made fully aware of the nature and
purpose of the study. In addition, the children were free to stop
participating in the study at any time if they so wished. Identical
procedures were followed at the two schools involved in the study.
The first part of the study was conducted as a class exercise. The task
was presented to the children as a choosing game. All children indicated
that they knew what a circle and a triangle were. They were given a trial
question in order to be certain that they understood the instructions and
knew how to give their answer on the response sheets. After the trial
question, the children were given the twelve questions detailed above.
Each question was read aloud by one of the experimenters whilst the other
experimenter held up the appropriate picture card. The children were asked
to tick either the circle or the triangle for each question. Although they
were permitted to tick `both' or `neither', the children were encouraged
once, before the first question was presented, to choose either the circle
or triangle if they could do so. However, it was explained that it was
quite alright to tick the `neither' or `both' responses if they wanted to
do so. There was no coercion of the children to choose either the circle
or triangle during the study and on a number of occasions children did
tick the `both' or `neither' box(3).
After the questions were completed, each child was tested individually
by one of the experimenters. They were first shown the card with the same
sex children's faces as themselves and asked "Which one of these
pictures do you think looks most like you". This was called the
identity question. The children were then shown another card with
adolescent faces on, again the same sex as themselves, and asked
"Which one of these pictures would you most like to look like when
you are older?". This was the preference question. Again the children
had the opportunity to indicate `both' or `neither' in response to the
identity and preference questions(4).
After both tasks were completed, the children were thanked for their
participation and given a small gift.
Results
Identity and Preference Questions
The number of choices of the light and dark skinned target for the
identity and preference questions were calculated for each school. Results
are in Table 1.
Table 1. Number of Endorsements of the Dark and Light Skinned Target as
a Function of Question Type, School and Ethnicity of Respondents.
No Bilingual Unit (n=10)
Target: Dark Skinned Light Skinned
Maori Children
Identity Question 5 3
Preference Question 3 5
Pakeha Children (n=18)
Identity Question 3 15
Preference Question 2 16
Bilingual Unit (n=24)
Target: Dark Skinned Light Skinned
Maori Children
Identity Question 10 14
Preference Question 10 14
Pakeha Children (n=18)
Identity Question
Preference Question
Note: Responses of `both' or `neither' are excluded.
Using t-test comparisons between two percentages for independent
samples(5), comparisons of the proportion of Maori/Pacific Island children
at each school who identified themselves with the dark-skinned target
(.625 vs. .417 for the school without a bilingual unit and the bilingual
unit respectively) and who expressed a preference to be like the
dark-skinned target (.375 vs. .417) revealed no significant differences.
Correct identification of and preference for their own skin colour
would have resulted in the Maori/ Pacific Island children all endorsing
the dark skinned target for both the identity and preference questions.
The observed number of endorsements were compared to those expected
separately for each school. For the identity question, fewer children at
the bilingual unit identified themselves with the dark skinned target than
expected (10 vs. 24, [X.sup.2](1) = 8.17, p [is less than] .01) but at the
school without a bilingual unit, there was no difference between the
observed and expected number of children who selected the dark skinned
target (5 vs. 8). For the preference question, fewer children at the
school without a bilingual unit again choose the dark skinned target than
expected (10 vs. 24, [X.sup.2] (1) = 8.17, p [is less than] .01) and the
trend was in the same direction for children at the bilingual unit (3 vs.
8, [X.sup.2] (1) = 3.13, p [is less than] .08).
It is also interesting to consider the consistency of the responses of
the individual participants across the identity and preference questions.
Of those children attending the bilingual unit who identified themselves
with the dark-skinned target (n= 10), 6 also said they would prefer to be
like the dark-skinned target. Of those who identified themselves with the
light-skinned target (n=14), only 4 said they would prefer to be like the
dark-skinned target. Of the children attending the school without a
bilingual unit who identified themselves with the dark-skinned target
(n-5), only 2 also said that they would also prefer to be like the
dark-skinned target. Of those who identified themselves with the
light-skinned target (n=3), 1 said they would prefer to be like the
dark-skinned target.
For comparison purposes, a group of 18 Pakeha children at the school
without a bilingual unit were given the identity and preference questions.
For both questions, the number of children who chose the light skinned
target was very high and did not differ from that expected (identity: 15
vs. 18; preference: 16 vs. 18). All those children who identified
themselves with the light-skinned target also expressed a preference for
that target, as did one of the children who had identified themselves with
the dark-skinned target.
Trait Questions
Responses were summed across the four positive and the four negative
behaviours and the number of attributions to the dark and the light
skinned targets was calculated in each of the schools. Responses are shown
in Table 2.
Table 2. Number of Attributions of Positive and Negative Behaviours to
the Dark and Light Skinned Target as a Function of School.
No Bilingual Unit (n=10)
Target: Dark Skinned Light Skinned
Positive Behaviours (4 items): 13 22
Negative Behaviours (4 items): 11 23
Bilingual Unit (n=24)
Target: Dark Skinned Light Skinned
Positive Behaviours (4 items): 30 55
Negative Behaviours (4 items): 50 39
Note: Responses of `both' or `neither' are excluded.
Comparisons of the proportion of positive behaviours attributed to the
dark-skinned target across the schools revealed no significant difference
(.371 vs. .353 for the school without a bilingual unit and the bilingual
unit respectively). For the negative behaviours, however, there was a
greater attribution to the dark-skinned target by children at the
bilingual unit than those at a school without a bilingual unit (.324 vs.
.562; p [is less than] .05).
At both schools there was a greater number of attributions of the
positive behaviours to the light than the dark-skinned target (bilingual
unit: 55 vs. 30, [X.sup.2] (1) = 7.35, p [is less than]. 01; no bilingual
unit: 22 vs. 13, [X.sup.2] (1) = 2.89, p = .08). At the bilingual unit
there was no difference in the number of attributions of the negative
behaviours to the dark and light-skinned targets (50 vs. 39). At the
school without a bilingual unit, however, there was a greater number of
attributions of the negative behaviours to the light-skinned than to the
dark-skinned targets (23 vs. 11, [X.sup.2] (1)=4.24, p [is less than]
.05).
Discussion
The results obtained offered little support for our experimental
hypotheses. We predicted that Maori/ Pacific Island children who attended
a bilingual unit would have a stronger ingroup identity and preference,
based on skin-colour, than Maori/Pacific Island children who attended a
school without a bilingual unit. Our results indicated no difference in
either identity or preference between the schools. However, a smaller
proportion of the children at the bilingual unit identified themselves
with the dark skinned target than expected whereas at the school without a
bilingual unit there was no difference between the observed and expected
frequency of identification with the dark skinned target. ingroup identity
may, then, have been stronger at the school without a bilingual unit, in
contrast to our predictions. It is interesting to note, however, that
children at both schools showed a bias toward the light-skinned target in
response to the preference question.
Although Maori/Pacific Island children at the school without a
bilingual unit were likely to identify themselves with the dark skinned
target, the responses on the preference question suggested that this was
not a positive ingroup identification. The majority of the children at
this school indicated that they would prefer to be like the light skinned
target when they are older. This preference for the light-skinned target
was seen even amongst those children who identified themselves with the
dark-skinned target. It is possible that the Maori/Pacific Island children
at the school without a bilingual unit identified themselves with the dark
skinned target because ethnic differences were salient at that school. In
a school where Pakeha children dominate in both number and culture it is
possible that attention is drawn to children who are visibly distinctive
through having a different coloured skin and that this distinction is
treated as indicative of inferiority, especially through playground
teasing and the like. These children may then develop a very strong
awareness of their ingroup identity, but not a positive identity. Support
for this is seen in the responses to the preference question. In the
bilingual unit an individual child's ethnicity may not be salient as it is
not indicative of status within that school. Accordingly, children at the
bilingual unit may show less strong ingroup identity awareness than
children at the school without a bilingual unit, and show a less strong
bias toward the light skinned target on the preference task, as was seen
in the present results. Note that the responses of the Pakeha children of
the same age at the school without a bilingual unit showed a very strong
identity with and preference for the light-skinned target. It is unlikely,
therefore, that the responses of the Maori/Pacific Island children were
due to chance responding or any confusion or lack of clarity with the
task.
Bias toward the light skinned target on the preference question need
not indicate a dissatisfaction with being Maori or a Pacific Islander or
with the cultural values of their ethnicity, but may simply reflect an
acknowledgment by the children of the higher status of light skinned
individuals in many aspects of New Zealand society (e.g., in occupational
and educational settings). The bias toward the light skinned target may,
then, indicate a striving toward high social status when older. Future
research needs to include more detailed questioning of the motivations
underlying responses to the identity and preference questions in order to
disentangle issues of positive ingroup identity and social status.
We also predicted that Maori/Pacific Island children attending a
bilingual unit would show more ingroup favouritism than children attending
a school without a bilingual unit, although this was predicated on support
for our first hypothesis that children at the bilingual unit would show
stronger ingroup identification than children at the school without a
bilingual unit. Children attending both schools displayed outgroup
favouritism on the positive behaviours, attributing more of the positive
behaviours to the light-skinned than to the dark-skinned targets. This
finding is consistent with past research in which minority group children
attributed more positive behaviours to outgroup targets than to ingroup
targets (Aboud, 1983; Brown & Abrams, 1986; Davey, 1983; Espinoza
& Garza, 1985; Ng, 1985; Sachdev & Bourhis, 1991; van Knippenberg,
1984). These results again indicated that attending a bilingual unit did
not reduce the tendency for minority group children to demonstrate
outgroup favouritism. Indeed, given the results for the negative
behaviours where children at the school without a bilingual unit showed
ingroup favouritism (attributing more of the negative behaviours to the
light than the dark-skinned target), attendance at the bilingual unit may
actually have increased the overall tendency of the children toward
outgroup favouritism.
Taken together our results offered little support for our hypotheses
that attendance a bilingual unit would increase the ingroup identity of
Maori children and reduce their outgroup favouritism. Although, a positive
ingroup identity is valuable for self esteem (Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel &
Turner, 1986), reducing the use of racial/ethnic cues as a means of
categorizing individuals may also have positive benefits for society. The
results from our identity question are consistent with the idea that
racial cues may be less salient and less strongly associated with social
status in the bilingual unit than in the school without a bilingual unit,
but this conclusion awaits further research.
A number of limitations of the present research which caution against
overgeneralization of the findings must also be acknowledged. Only a small
number of participants, especially at the school without a bilingual unit,
were used in the present research. The low number of Maori/Pacific Island
children attending the school without a bilingual unit (which was situated
in an area of the city with a high Maori/Pacific Island population) may
indicate a preference of parents/ guardians to send their Maori/Pacific
island children to bilingual units, indicating that parents do value the
additional cultural education that such a unit provides. The present
research only recruited participants from one bilingual unit so caution
must be taken at generalizing the findings to other bilingual units, given
the variation in the nature of these units. The present study also used a
single measure of identity in which children were asked to select a light
or dark shaded face, choosing that which they thought looked most like
them. It is possible that this measure is not a good measure of identity,
merely of physical appearance. Providing only two faces also prevented
children indicating any mixture of identity with both Maori and Pakeha.
Future research should, therefore, include additional measures of identity
which are not dependent solely on visual, physical features. Finally, it
must also be acknowledged that the research was designed and conducted by
Pakeha experimenters and it is possible that cultural differences between
the experimenters and the children tested led to the particular pattern of
responses seen. Replication of this study using Maori experimenters would
be especially beneficial.
Notes
(1) Children from other ethnic groups (e.g., Chinese, Indian) were
excluded from the reported analyses (n=2) although they did complete the
study (so as not to distinguish them from the other children in the class
who were completing the study).
(2) Pakeha is the Maori term for Anglos, the majority population in New
Zealand.
(3) A total of 29 (10.7%) `both' or `neither' responses were received
on this task. The frequency of these responses did not differ across
schools (11 in the school without a bilingual unit and 18 in the bilingual
unit). These responses were omitted from the analyses reported.
(4) A total of 2 (5.9%) `both' or `neither' responses were received on
this task. These responses were omitted from the analyses reported.
(5) |t| = Sqrt[(N1*N2)/(N1+N2)]*|p1-p2|/Sqrt(p*q) where
p=(p1*N1+p2*N2)/(N1+N2) and q=1-p
References
Aboud, F. E. (1988). Social and cognitive bases of ethnic identity
constancy. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 184, 217-230.
Brewer, M. B. (1988). A dual process model of impression formation. In
T.K. Srull & R.S. Wyer (Eds.), Advances in Social Cognition, Vol. 1.
(pp. 1-36). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brown, R. J. (1995). Prejudice: Its social psychology. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Brown, R. J. & Abrams, D. A. (1986). The effects of intergroup
similarity and goal interdependence on intergroup attitudes and task
performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 78-92.
Cialdini, R. B. & Richardson, K. D. (1980). Two indirect tactics of
image management: Basking and blasting. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 39, 406-415.
Davey, A. (1983). Learning to be prejudiced. London: Edward Arnold.
Espinoza, J. A. & Garza, R. T. (1985). Social group salience and
interethnic cooperation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21,
380-392.
Fiske, S. T. & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum of impression
formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of
information and motivation on attention and interpretation. In L.
Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 23 (pp.
1-74). New York: Academic Press.
Giles, H., Bourhis, R. Y., & Taylor, D. M. (1977). Towards a theory
of language in ethnic group relations. In H. Giles (Ed.), Language,
ethnicity and inter-group relations. (pp. 307-348). London: Academic
Press.
Lemaine, G. (1974). Social differentiation and social originality.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 4, 17-52.
Lemyre, L. & Smith, P. (1985). Intergroup discrimination and self
esteem in the minimal group paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 49, 660-670.
Lynskey, M. T., Ward, C. & Fletcher, G. J. O. (1991). Stereotypes
and intergroup attributions in New Zealand. Psychology and Developing
Societies, 3, 113-127.
Milner, D. (1983). Children and race. Ten years on. London: Allan
Sutton.
Ng, S. H. (1985). Bias in reward allocation resulting from personal
status, group status and allocation procedure. Australian Journal of
Psychology, 37, 297-307.
Oakes, P. J. & Turner, J. C. (1980). Social categorisation and
intergroup bias: Does minimal intergroup discrimination make social
identity more positive? European Journal of Social Psychology, 10,
295-301.
Oliver, P. & Vaughan, G. M. (1988). Minority group homogeneity and
cognitive complexity. Unpublished manuscript, Auckland University.
Sachdev, I. & Bourhis, R. Y. (1991). Power and status differentials
in minority and majority group relations. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 21, 1-14.
Stangor, C., Lynch, L., Duan, C., & Glass, B. (1992).
Categorisation of individuals on the basis of multiple social features.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 207-218.
Tajfel, H. (1978). The psychological structure of intergroup relations.
In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the
social psychology of intergroup relations. London: Academic Press.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in
social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of
intergroup behaviour. In S. G. Worchel & W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology
of intergroup relations (2nd edition; pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Tajfel, H. & Wilkes, A. L. (1963). Classification and quantitative
judgement. British Journal of Psychology, 54, 101-114.
Turner, J. C. (1975). Social comparison and social identity: Some
prospects for intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology,
5, 5-34.
Turner, J. C. (1981). The experimental social psychology of intergroup
behaviour. In G. M. Stephenson & H. Giles (Eds.), Intergroup behaviour.
Oxford: Blackwell.
van Knippenberg, A. F. M. (1984). Intergroup differences in group
perceptions. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), The social dimension: European
developments in social psychology (vol. 2; pp. 560-578). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
van Knippenberg, A. F. M. & Ellemers, N. (1993). Strategies in
intergroup relations. In. M. A. Hogg and D. Abrams (Eds.), Group
motivation: Social psychological perspectives, pp. 17-32. London:
Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Vaughan, G. M. (1978). Social change and intergroup preferences in New
Zealand. European Journal of Social Psychology, 8, 297-314.
Vaughan, G. M. (1987). A social psychology model of ethnic identity
development. In J. S. Phinney & M. J. Retheram, Children's ethnic
socialisation: Pluralism and development. London: Sage.
Vaughan, G. M. (1988). The psychology of intergroup discrimination. New
Zealand Journal of Psychology, 17, 114.
Wagley, C. & Harris, M. (1958). Minorities in the new world. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Wagner, U., Lampen, L., & Syllwasschy, J. (1986). Ingroup
inferiority, social identity, and outgroup devaluation in a modified
minimal group study. British Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 15-23.
Williams, J. E. & Morland, J. K. (1976). Race, color and the young
child. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Address for correspondence: Dr. Lucy Johnston Department of Psychology
University of Canterbury Private Bag 4800 Christchurch New Zealand Fax: 03
364 2181 E-mail: psyc380@psyc.canterbury.ac.nz
The reported research was carried out in partial fulfillment of the
honours program in Psychology at the University of Canterbury by the first
two authors, under the supervision of the third author. The order of the
first two authors was decided alphabetically, and does not reflect any
differential contribution to the project. |
