Unit 5 Social Psychology and Culture

Article 5
Subunit 3 Social Motives and Behavior in Cultural Context

12-1-2012

A Cultural Perspective on Intergroup Relations and

Social Identity
James H. Liu
Victoria University of Wellington, [email protected]

Recommended Citation
Liu, J. H. (2012). A Cultural Perspective on Intergroup Relations and Social Identity. Online Readings
in Psychology and Culture, 5(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1119

This Online Readings in Psychology and Culture Article is brought to you for free and open access (provided uses are educational in nature)by IACCP
and ScholarWorks@GVSU. Copyright © 2012 International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology. All Rights Reserved. ISBN
978-0-9845627-0-1
A Cultural Perspective on Intergroup Relations and Social Identity

Abstract
Violent instances of intergroup conflict in recent memory have usually involved cultural
groups, but theory and research on the psychology of intergroup relations is largely culture
free. The two most prominent theories, realistic group conflict theory (RGCT) and social
identity/self-categorization theory (SIT/SCT) provide fundamental insight into basic processes
in intergroup relations: (1) that behavior in intergroup situations is qualitatively different than
that involved in interpersonal situations (including transformations of the self and relationships
with others), (2) competition over material resources is the driver for intergroup conflict, but
psychological identification with a group is sufficient to produce ingroup favoritism, and (3)
social comparisons between groups provide psychological fuel for intergroup conflict. Social
representations of history, encompassing shared knowledge about history and its meaning
distributed across different groups, can be used to derive a more culture-specific approach
to understanding intergroup relations. Empirical results show that popular history is a story
about politics and war, and that historical symbols are part of cultural narratives that can
be used to mobilize public opinion and construct national identity. Universal processes of
intergroup relations and social identity are constrained by societal belief structures, which
in turn are responsive to the identity and generational processes involved in collective
remembering.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0
License.

This article is available in Online Readings in Psychology and Culture: http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol5/iss3/5

 Liu: A Cultural Perspective on Intergroup Relations and Social Identity

Introduction

While the most violent instances of intergroup conflict in recent memory have usually
involved cultural groups, particularly those of ethnicity, nationality, and religion, theory and
research on intergroup relations in psychology is largely culture free. Two of the most
prominent theories, realistic group conflict theory (Sherif, 1966) and social identity theory
(Tajfel & Turner, 1979) provide profound insight into some of the universal causes of and
resolutions to intergroup conflict. These theories converge on the conclusion that
interpersonal behavior is qualitatively different from intergroup behavior. As we shall see,
different cognitive, motivational, and social structures govern behavior in intergroup
compared to interpersonal situations.
Mainstream social psychological theory furnishes an overall understanding of the
processes involved in intergroup conflict, but falls short of explaining the psychological
bases of protracted and difficult to resolve conflicts between ethnic and national groups,
like those in Northern Ireland or Israel. In these cases, a “culture of conflict” has emerged
(Bar-Tal, 2000, 2001; Hammack, 2011). To understand such conflict and its resolution,
social and cross-cultural psychologists have developed ways to operationalize the political
culture of a society and apply this to intergroup relations. One such approach is to study
social representations (Moscovici, 1988) of history (Liu & Hilton, 2005), because such
historical representations popularly center around intergroup conflict (Liu et al., 2009,
2012). These representations provide powerful arguments for validating national identities
(Liu, Lawrence, Ward, & Abraham, 2002), facilitating or preventing intergroup forgiveness
after war (Hanke et al., in press), justifying social movements (Liu & Gastardo-Conaco,
2011), legitimizing the claims of one group against another group for restitution or its denial
(Liu, Wilson, McClure, & Higgins, 1999; Sibley, Liu, Duckitt, & Khan, 2008). They limit the
ways in which groups can make favorable social comparisons against one another. They
motivate cultural continuity (Gezentsvey-Lamy, Ward, & Liu, in press; Sani et al., 2007).
The feedback loop between representations of history, social identities, and public
policies and commemorations (Olick & Robbins, 1998) creates a cultural background to
understand intergroup conflict (Liu & Allen, 1999). This incorporates culture into the more
universal approaches that are typical of traditional social psychology. Perhaps the most
fundamental universals about intergroup conflict are expressed by realistic group conflict
theory, so this is the best place to begin.

Realistic Group Conflict Theory

Realistic group conflict theory emerged in the 1960’s out of an era when a more individual-
level approach, authoritarian personality theory (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswick, Levinson, &
Sanford, 1950; see Altemeyer, 1996 for a contemporary approach to right-wing
authoritarianism), was dominant. It carries the classic insight of social psychology, that it is
the structure of the situation, not personal characteristics of the individual (or an aggregate
of individuals) that determines human behavior (Sherif, 1966). According to the theory,
intergroup conflict is caused by an incompatibility of goals regarding material resources. It

Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2011 3

 Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 5, Subunit 3, Chapter 5

is the struggle over such material resources as land, oil, gold, and labor that is the source
of intergroup conflict, not personal characteristics like a prejudiced personality.
Sherif, Sherif, Harvey, and White's (1961) work at Robber’s Cave was a seminal
demonstration of detailed predictions of the theory. In the first, interpersonal phase of their
field experiment, a small group of about 25 normal 11-12 year old boys interacted with one
another in conditions of normal play. Then, in the second, intragroup group phase of the
experiment, the boys were divided into two groups and allowed freedom to organize their
activities. Within each group a structure emerged, with some boys becoming leaders, and
more central to the social network and decision making of the group than others. Each
group developed its own norms for favored activities and places.
In the third, intergroup phase of the experiment, the two groups of boys were brought
into contact with one another under competitive conditions involving mutually incompatible
goals. The boys were pitted against one another in sporting competitions for prizes, and
were brought into situations like a party where there was food enough only for one group,
and one group was invited before the other one. One can imagine the feelings of the boys
who arrived expecting a party only to find the other group having eaten all the food.
The third phase demonstrated some crucial results for realistic group conflict theory.
It was predicted and found that behavioral structures change as a consequence of shifting
from interpersonal to group to intergroup contact (phases 1-3). Within group solidarity was
at its peak when intergroup hostility was most severe. Friendships formed during the first,
interpersonal phase did not survive the second and third phases of the experiment.
Interpersonal associations with members of the other group were no longer tolerated
under conditions of intergroup conflict. This is reminiscent of what happened during the
breakup of the former Yugoslavia, where even strong interpersonal bonds like friendship
and marriage were often unable to survive the larger conflict.
Furthermore, the sociometric preferences for boys (e.g., friendship choices) changed
between the second and third phases. Tougher, more conflict oriented boys were preferred
as leaders for conflict. One boy previously considered a bully became a hero. Another boy,
who was a leader during the intragroup phase, lost his status when he refused to come out
to confront the rival group of boys during a raid.
These effects showed that group behavior and structure becomes qualitatively
different under conditions of involving intergroup conflict compared to an intragroup
situation. The entire structure of the group, from friendship to activity preferences changed
as a consequence of the demands of the intergroup competition.
In the fourth and final phase of the experiment, it was discovered that only a series
of superordinate goals was able to reduce the intergroup conflict. These are goals that
require the cooperation of both groups to achieve. Sherif and his colleagues engineered a
series of crises that endangered the ability of the camp to continue, such as threatening
the camp’s water supply or having supply truck fall into a ditch. They organized the two
groups of boys to work together to resolve the crises. For example, boys from the two
groups worked together to search for the leak in the water supply, and both groups of were
needed to pull the truck out of the ditch.

http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol5/iss3/5 4
 Liu: A Cultural Perspective on Intergroup Relations and Social Identity

These superordinate goals had the effect of pulling the two groups together, whereas
such strategies as sermons by a priest, negotiations between leaders, and joint social
activities were ineffective. Throughout the experiment, it was the structure of the situation
that dictated behavior rather than personal preferences. A resolution to conflict was
obtained by addressing the conflict situation itself rather than using more interpersonal
avenues like improving relationships between the leaders or other group members.
This solution was revolutionary, since the main theories about resolving interethnic
conflict at the time were the contact hypothesis (see Allport, 1954) and the aforementioned
authoritarian personality theory. In the contact hypothesis, equal status contact, enabling
members of different groups to form friendships, is supposed to reduce intergroup tension.
The mixed results of the school desegregation program in the United States to improve
race relations between blacks and whites (Cook, 1985; Gerard, 1988) showed that in real
life, mere increased contact between groups is not enough to break down stereotypes and
reduce tension. There is something qualitatively different about intergroup behavior that is
more than the sum of individual relationships or personalities.

Social Identity Theory

The powerful insights of realistic group conflict theory were elaborated on by social identity
theory, which emerged in the 1970’s and became by the 1990’s the most important theory
of intergroup relations in psychology. While Sherif demonstrated that mutually incompatible
goals are sufficient to create intergroup conflict, Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, and Flament (1971)
showed that this was not necessary. In the minimal group paradigm (Brewer, 1979), the
only thing necessary to create prejudice and discrimination between groups is a relevant
and salient self-categorization, or social identity. Just the awareness of belonging to a
group that is different than another group is enough to create prejudice in favor of the in-
group against the out-group.
In the minimal group paradigm, people who do not know one another and who are
not allowed to interact with one another are brought into a lab. They are classified into two
groups invented for the purpose of the experiment, like “dot underestimators and dot
overestimators” or “Klee preferers or Kandinsky preferers”. These “minimal groups” are
fictional. In fact, membership in the group is randomly assigned, but subjects in the
experiment believe they are relevant and valid. This belief alone is sufficient to induce in-
group favoritism when assigning rewards to people who are identified only by their group
membership. Without any history of prior contact, without any knowledge of any other
members of the group, without any meaning of the groups in society, without any
knowledge about competence or relative status, subjects in the minimal group paradigm
tend to allocate rewards in a way that maximizes the difference between the in-group and
the out-group instead of dividing the rewards equally. So a person who believes that he or
she is a “dot underestimator” will give more money to another person whom they have
never met before, but is identified also as a “dot underestimator” compared to someone
who is identified as a “dot overestimator”.

Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2011 5

 Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 5, Subunit 3, Chapter 5

Subsequent research showed that this in-group favoritism effect (Brewer, 1979)
applies primarily to rewards, and not punishments (or subtracting resources). That is, in
the minimal groups paradigm the subjects favors other in-group members by giving them
more rewards, but do not necessarily mean to derogate or punish out-group members
(Mummendey et al., 1992).
These startling results gave birth to social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). This
theory details the cognitive-motivational bases to intergroup behavior within persons, just
as realistic group conflict theory details the structural bases for intergroup behavior
surrounding people. According to social identity theory, elaborated in its successor self-
categorization theory (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987), each person has
a range of self-definitions, some of them group memberships. To the extent that a person
identifies with a group (that is, sees the group as a part of himself or herself), they are
motivated to evaluate this group positively. Social comparisons where the in-group is
evaluated as superior to a relevant out-group are necessary to maintain group-based self-
esteem. People favor the in-group over the out-group in the minimal group paradigm in
order to establish a social order where the in-group is superior to the out-group.
Of course, in society, there is inequality between groups and it is not possible for
every group to make positive social comparisons (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). For instance,
in the US it would be difficult for Blacks to make favorable social comparisons for their
group on the dimension of wealth. The theory details several ways that group members will
react to unfavorable social comparison. If the negative social comparisons are considered
to be legitimate and stable, and the boundaries between groups are impermeable, then the
person will try social creativity strategies like changing the dimensions of comparison (e.g.,
they may be richer than us, but we are nicer than them) or who is the comparison group
(e.g., we may not be better than other Japanese, but we are better than the Koreans).
These strategies make the person feel better without changing the actual conditions of the
world. Or, if the boundaries are permeable, then the person will try to “pass” into the
advantaged group. This is an individual mobility strategy. The individual tries to become a
member of the advantaged group and leave behind his or her original group. In
multicultural societies, such a strategy is called assimilation. Only when the negative social
comparisons are considered to be both illegitimate and unstable (changeable) will a group
engage in overt conflict to try to overturn the existing social order.
Social identity theory is less optimistic than realistic group conflict theory about the
prospects for world peace. Realistic group conflict theory implies that if there were enough
resources for everyone, there should be no reason for war. But social identity theory
implies that the battle is not only for material resources, but for group-based esteem.
Moreover, the only way to establish group-based esteem is by comparison to other groups.
Social comparisons for intergroup superiority, rather than a struggle for materials
resources, are seen as a second major basis for intergroup conflict.
The primary strategy for reducing intergroup conflict according to identity-based
approaches is to attempt to change the basis for self-categorization to be more inclusive.
Interventions attempt to somehow incorporate out-group members into some level of
identification with the self, be it as a superordinate category (e.g., “We are all Asians”) or

http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol5/iss3/5 6
 Liu: A Cultural Perspective on Intergroup Relations and Social Identity

as two positively related groups under a superordinate (e.g., blacks and whites think of
themselves as Americans while at the same time as acknowledging themselves as
ethnically different) (see Gaertner, Dovidio, Anastasio, Bachman, & Rust, 1993).

Cultures and Conflict

The study of intergroup relations in social psychology is centered in experimental or

survey-based studies that do not conceptualize their prior history. Not surprisingly, the
main attempt by social psychology to intervene in intergroup relations at a societal level
(desegregation between blacks and whites in the U.S. based on the contact hypothesis)
was not a big success. Cook (1985), in his review of the mixed results of school
desegregation, argued that the theoretical conditions required for contact hypothesis to
succeed (equal status contact in a supportive environment) were never met, but critics
have pointed out that these preconditions were not realistic (Gerard, 1988). The historical
experience of African Americans has been different than that of every other ethnic group in
the United States. No other group was brought en masse as slaves, and no other group
has endured the same degree of prejudice and discrimination against them. It is possible
that the contact hypothesis was insufficient to overcome the long history of conflict and the
associated power structures that maintain inequality between whites and blacks in the
United States.
Because so many societal factors impact on real intergroup conflict between ethnic
or national groups, social psychologists have struggled to conceptualize psychological
variables that may intervene in these societal level processes. One promising avenue to
incorporate societal level processes, and hence culture into the psychological study of
intergroup conflict is to study social representations of history (Hilton & Liu, 2008; Liu &
Hilton, 2005). Research on the content of popular representations of history across
cultures (Liu, 1999; Liu et al., 2005, 2009, 2012) has revealed that intergroup conflict is at
the core of how mass publics reconstruct the past.
In a cross-national study involving twelve cultures, Liu et al. (2005) found that World
War II was nominated as the most important event in world history, and that Hitler was
nominated as the most influential (and negatively perceived) person in the last thousand
years. Intergroup conflict constituted between 28-52% (M = 42%) of the total events
nominated in the twelve samples, by far the largest category of events. These basic
findings were replicated in 12 more societies by Liu et al. (2009), with the major change
being that 9-11 (post-2001) replaced events related to the Cold War and the collapse of the
Soviet block (from data gathered in the 1990s) as the second most important set of conflict
related events after the World Wars. In African countries (Cabecinhas et al., in press),
colonization and independence (frequently involving warfare) formed a second set of
conflict related events after the world wars. So while the specific instances of conflict
varied from time to time and from place to place around the anchor of the World Wars, the
importance of conflict in the narration of national identities appears to be culture-general
(Liu & Laszlo, 2007).

Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2011 7

 Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 5, Subunit 3, Chapter 5

In the specific histories of nations such as Singapore, Malaysia, New Zealand,

Philippines, Taiwan, and the Philippines (Huang, Liu, & Chang, 2004; Liu et al., 1999,
2002; Liu & Gastardo-Conaco, 2010), intergroup relations and political events associated
with the founding of the state were dominant themes. But the story within which the conflict
was configured (see Wertsch, 2002) differed somewhat from society to society. In all 4
societies, colonization was important, but New Zealand's historical narrative was
configured as a bicultural relationship between its indigenous people and European
settlers, whereas the other stories moved from colonization to national independence.
Hence, if history is a summary of the wisdom and experience of past generations,
then it is clear that the main lessons from history concern behavioral tendencies of other
groups when it comes to conflict (Liu & Hilton, 2005).
This makes the position of some nations in international relations more difficult than
others. Germany must behave more carefully than other nations when sending troops
abroad, because their role in World War II during the Nazi period is well-remembered (Liu
et al., 2005, 2009). For example, Hilton, Erb, Dermot, and Molian (1996) found that
independent of pocketbook variables, the willingness of British and French to enter into the
European Union depended on how they perceived the causes of Germany’s behavior
during the war. If it was due to character flaws rather than situational causes, they were
less likely to want to join the EU, presumably because they did not trust the Germans. In
general, “collective guilt” is increasingly becoming an important topic in the literature (see
Doosje, Branscombe, Spears, Manstead, 1998).
A more general analysis of the role of history in intergroup relations can be achieved
by examining the structure and content of societal beliefs.

Social Representations of History: From Hegemonic to Emancipated

Social representations are societal belief structures that link people to larger collectives
(Moscovici, 1988). There are three forms of social representations, each relevant for
understanding how culture-specific forms of intergroup relations can emerge. Unlike other
psychological variables, social representations are content-oriented. In the theory of social
representations, content and process are inter-connected. As we shall see, more universal
processes of intergroup relations are constrained and put into culture-specific forms
through representations.
When social representations are hegemonic, or consensual among all groups, they
are treated as though they were a reality. Because there is little variability among
hegemonic social representations, they are not useful as individual difference variables.
However, they can be used to understand how strong consensus allows societies and
peoples to move together as one, and enact culture specific solutions to their problems.
When something that is social is treated as though it were a reality, it has the power to
create new realities through social policies.
For example, in New Zealand, all groups now consider the Treaty of Waitangi,
signed between the British Crown and Maori chieftains in 1840, to be the most important
event in New Zealand history (Liu et al., 1999). This gives Maori (indigenous Polynesians,

http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol5/iss3/5 8
 Liu: A Cultural Perspective on Intergroup Relations and Social Identity

a 16% minority) a special place in New Zealand society. In terms of size and negative
statistics on social indicators, Maori are very similar to blacks in the United States. But
unlike in the United States, the civil rights movement to improve the status of Maori has
continued. Drawing from the status of the Treaty, the idea that New Zealand should
become a bicultural nation has gained momentum. There is a Waitangi Tribunal set up to
handle grievances of Maori against the state, and the impact of a bicultural representation
of the nation can be seen in such institutions as universities and the national museum (Te
Papa). It is reflected in a national psychology where the Maori minority is viewed as
symbolically representative of the nation at both the implicit and explicit levels together
with the NZ European majority (Sibley & Liu, 2007). Such a pattern is unique among
Anglo-settler nations (see for example, Devos & Banaji, 2005 for American data).
But the representational status of the treaty, while important, is less than hegemonic.
While an historical representations serve to legitimize the place of a group in society and
justify its claims for resources, these claims are frequently contested. A counter-discourse
to conceptualizing Maori as having a legitimate historical grievance for a greater share of
national resources as a consequence of the injustices of colonization is prevalent. Sibley
et al. (2008) describe this pattern as symbolic inclusion but resource-based exclusion or
marginalization. Historical negation is an ideology that maintains white material privilege
while including Maori as symbolic of the nation: it acknowledges that past injustices
occurred, but they belong to the past, and should not affect resource allocations today
because this would create a fresh injustice (against the majority). New Zealand's
intergroup relations is thus peaceful but contested (Ward & Liu, 2012).
By contrast, when social representations of history are polemical, or in serious
disagreement across different groups, they indicate the presence of historically rooted
conflict. One group may have an historical grievance against another group, and this may
require special treatment to resolve. Polemical representations indicate “fault lines” in
society where the relationships between groups may become tense or break.
Devine-Wright’s (2001) work on commemorations in Northern Ireland illustrate the
manner in which history can function as a polemic in society. Catholics were found to
evaluate the Orange parades more negatively than Protestants. Those Protestants who
participated in the parades (which commemorate the conquest of Northern Ireland by
British Protestants) were more likely to evaluate the parades positively, to oppose change,
and to regard history as being a more important foundation of their sense of identity
compared to those Protestants who did not to participate.
In Northern Ireland, such a public commemoration of an historical event is used by
one group to legitimize their position and to build in-group solidarity in the face of fierce
opposition from another group. The conflict between Catholics and Protestants in Northern
Ireland is centuries old. A system of societal beliefs and practices (e.g., an atmosphere of
collective fear, emphasis on security and delegimization of the opponent), evolves in such
a situation that makes conflict reduction very difficult. A similar case is found in Israel (Bar-
Tal, 1999, 2001), where Palestinian and Jewish narratives of history are polemical with one
another, narrating contrasting tales of calamitous loss versus the joyful fulfillment of a
return to ancestral lands (Hammack, 2011).

Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2011 9

 Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 5, Subunit 3, Chapter 5

The final type of social representation is emancipated. This means that different
versions co-exist in different groups of society, but they are either generally not in conflict,
or only in conflict under limited circumstances.
The current situation in Taiwan is illustrative of how problems of the past can be
connected to current political situations (Huang et al., 2004). Traditionally, Taiwan was a
part of China, but Japan took over for about 50 years prior to World War II. After the war,
the Kuomingtang (KMT) led by Chiang Kai-shek accepted the surrender of the island from
Japan, and almost immediately silenced local dissent violently. This event is today
consensually recognized as the most important event in Taiwanese history. While all
Taiwanese think of February 28th as a tragedy, where one group of Chinese (not native to
Taiwan) killed and oppressed another group (native to Taiwan), they differ in how they
evaluate Chiang Kai-shek, the author of the tragedy. Native province Chinese evaluate him
badly, whereas outside province Chinese (those who arrived as refugees or as soldiers
with the KMT, or are children of those immigrants) evaluate him somewhat favorably. For
native province Taiwanese, the February 28^th incident symbolizes their need for
independence and their mistrust of governance by mainland Chinese. This is a big
problem because China does not accept Taiwan as a separate nation. Outside province
Chinese are less vociferous in their support for Taiwanese independence, and feel more
connected to traditional Chinese culture.
It is not as though there is often conflict between native province Chinese and
outside province Chinese. Most of the time, they live in harmony, and province of origin is
not an issue. But around election time, there are serious differences of opinion between
the two groups about the future of the relationship with mainland China. Huang et al.
(2004) found that in the 2000 election, the historical evaluation of Chiang Kai-shek was a
significant predictor of the vote for President between a native province and outside
province candidate, even after controlling for demographic group and social identity. This
shows how history is still influential for political decisions today. And it is not just history
itself, but its connection to present day politics that makes the representations a powerful
influence in societal dynamics.
Social representations of history are considered to moderate the relationship
between identities at different levels of inclusiveness (Liu et al., 2002). When the
perception of history is consensual or hegemonic across all sub-groups in a society, then it
is hypothesized that the relationship between national and subgroup identity (e.g.,
ethnicity) will be positive; if there are polemics regarding history, then it is hypothesized
that the relationship between national and subgroup identity will be negative for the
minority group. Emancipated representations are hypothesized to lead to a zero
correlation.
In effect, history functions as a resource that can be used to legitimize the position of
groups in society (Liu & Hilton, 2005). If all groups agree on the representation of history,
then there is no problem. Alternatively, as in New Zealand, one group (Maori) may invoke
historical injustices as a reason why they should receive more resources from society; they
may criticize the current society as unjust or unfair. If the dominant group is unable to
make concessions that satisfy the disadvantaged group, as in Northern Ireland or Israel,

http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol5/iss3/5 10
 Liu: A Cultural Perspective on Intergroup Relations and Social Identity

then intergroup conflict is exacerbated. One group may seek to gain their independence
from the national group, such as the Palestinian search for a state separate from Israel. In
this extreme case, there will be a negative correlation between ethnic identity (Palestinian)
and national identity (Israeli).
The struggle for history is an integral part of intergroup polemics. Who did right and
who did wrong, who has the right to this land and who does not, what is remembered and
what is forgotten, these are issues rooted in history and its representation becomes a
resource to position different groups as they try to justify their claims (Paez & Liu, 2011).

Dynamics between Representations, Collective Remembering, Identity, and Politics

The process through which an event enters into history is only now beginning to be
understood (Pennebaker, Paez, & Rimé, 1997). There appears to be a critical period
between the ages of 15-25 where political events are particularly well remembered by
individuals, but whether other generations share this memory depends on whether the
event can be connected to current political issues relevant to society. Every 20-30 years a
society looks back into the past and engages in the reconstruction of events relevant to its
current political interests (Igartua & Paez, 1997). For example, the Spanish Civil War
(1936-39) was presented from the perspective of the victors for twenty years, but after
General Franco (the victor) died in 1975, there appeared many movies from the
perspective of the losers, questioning how the war affected the nation. As Spain was in the
process of becoming more democratic after the authoritarian Franco regime, its current
politics and identity dictated that it should attempt to reconstruct the past.
Hence, there is a feedback loop between representations of the past and the social
identities of the here and now (Liu & Allen, 1999; Liu & Hilton, 2005). As we have argued,
social representations of history limit the ability of some groups to make positive social
comparisons with others, and facilitate the ability of other groups to make arguments
backed by the legitimacy of history. Political groups and leaders are well aware of this, and
so immediately after an event occurs the dominant group and leaders in power attempt to
present their version of the events as authoritative (Igartua & Paez, 1997; Reicher &
Hopkins, 2001). They may attempt to forget an event entirely (or at least seek historical
closure, see Hanke et al., 2012), or to present themselves positively. Sometimes, an event
is so important as to warrant commemoration (Frijda, 1997; Olick & Robbins, 1998), as it
generates a sufficient level of emotion-driven conversations in society as to create a new
representation (Rimé, 1997). Such collective remembering is an attempt to establish a
consensus about the past, and mark it as a part of present identity.
But not all groups may participate in such commemoration (Devine-Wright, 2001).
Over time, the political agenda of the present may change; different groups could become
dominant, and then an attempt will be made to reconstruct the past. Representations bear
the imprint of these political processes of collective remembering. It will be up to future
research to establish the causal links more clearly.

Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2011 11

 Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 5, Subunit 3, Chapter 5

Conclusion

The psychological study of collective remembering and social representations of history

has developed significantly over the past decade and a half. Societal belief structures and
generational processes appear to be important tools in developing a cultural perspective
on intergroup relations in psychology. Universal processes of intergroup relations and
social identity are constrained by societal belief structures, which in turn are responsive to
the identity and generational processes involved in collective remembering.
At present, it is too early to speculative about whether this approach can bring new
solutions to perennial problems of intergroup relations. Most of the work that has been
done is more descriptive than prescriptive. But the process of constructing and
reconstructing consensus about history appears to be an important tool to locate social
psychological research into the specific contexts where they can be most profitably
applied.

References

Adorno, T., Frenkel-Brunswick, E., Levinson, D., & Sanford, N. (1950). The authoritarian
personality. New York: Harper.
Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian spectre. London, United Kingdom: Harvard
University Press.
Bar-Tal, D. (2000). From intractable conflict through conflict resolution to reconciliation:
Psychological analysis. Political Psychology, 21, 351-365.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00192
Bar-Tal, D. (2001). Why does fear override hope in societies engulfed by intractable
conflict, as it does in the Israeli society? Political Psychology, 22, 601-627.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00255
Brewer, M.B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-
motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307-324.
Cabecinhas, R., Liu, J.H., Licata, L., & Klein, O., Mendes, J., & Feijó, J. (in press). Hope in
Africa? The impact of different narrative cues for representations of world history and
the future in six African countries. International Journal of Psychology.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2011.560268.
Cook, S. W. (1985). Experimenting on social issues: The case of school desegration.
American Psychologist, 40, 452-460. http://dx.doi.org/0.1037//0003-066X.40.4.452
Devine-Wright, P. (2001). History and identity in Northern Ireland: An exploratory
investigation of the role of historical commemorations in contexts of intergroup
conflict. Peace & Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 7, 297-315.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327949PAC0704_01
Devos, T., & Banaji, M. R. (2005). American = White? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 88, 447-466. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.447

http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol5/iss3/5 12
 Liu: A Cultural Perspective on Intergroup Relations and Social Identity

Doosje, B., Branscombe, N. R., Spears, R. & Manstead, A. S. R. (1998). Guilty by

association: When one’s group has a negative history. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 75, 872-886. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.75.4.872
Frijda, N. H. (1997). Commemorating. In J. W. Pennebaker, D. Paez, & B. Rimé, (Eds.),
Collective memory of political events (pp. 103-130). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C., (1993). The
common ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup
bias. European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 1-26.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14792779343000004
Gerard, H. B. (1988). School desegregation: The social science role. Eliminating racism:
Profiles in controversy. In P. A. Katz & D. A. Taylor (Eds.), Eliminating racism (pp.
225-236). New York: Plenum Press.
Gezenstvey-Lamy, M., Ward, C., & Liu, J. H. (in press). Motivation for ethno-cultural
continuity. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology.
Hammack, P. L. (2011). Narrative and the politics of identity: The cultural psychology of
Israeli and Palestinian youth. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hanke, K., Liu, J. H., Hilton, D.J., Milewicz, M., Garber, I., Huang, L.L., Gastardo-Conaco,
C., Wang, F.X. (in press). When the past haunts the present: Intergroup forgiveness
and historical closure in post-World War II societies in Asia and in Europe.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations.
Hilton, D. J., Erb, H-P., Dermot, M., & Molian, D. J. (1996). Social representations of
history and attitudes to European unification in Britain, France and Germany. In G. M.
Breakwell & E. Lyons (Eds), Changing European identities: Social psychological
analyses of social change. International series in social psychology (pp. 275-295).
Woburn, MA, US: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Hilton, D. J., & Liu, J. H. (2008). Culture and inter-group relations. The role of social
representations of history. In R. Sorrentino & S. Yamaguchi (eds.), The Handbook of
motivation and cognition: The cultural context (pp. 343-368). New York: Guilford.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-373694-9.00015-5
Huang, L. L., Liu, J. H., & Chang, M. L. (2004). The “Double Identity” of Taiwanese
Chinese: A dilemma of politics and culture rooted in history. Asian Journal of Social
Psychology, 7, 149-189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-839x.2004.00141.x
Igartua, J. & Paez, D. (1997). Art and remembering traumatic collective events: The case
of the Spanish Civil War. In J. W. Pennebaker, D. Paez, & B. Rimé (Eds.), Collective
memory of political events (pp.79-102). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Liu, J. H. (1999). Social representations of history: Preliminary notes on content and
consequences around the Pacific Rim. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 23, 215-236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0147-1767(98)00036-4
Liu, J. H. & Allen, M. W. (1999). The evolution of political complexity in Maori Hawke's Bay:
Archaeological history and its challenge to intergroup theory in psychology. Group
Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 3, 64-80.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//1089-2699.3.1.64

Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2011 13

 Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 5, Subunit 3, Chapter 5

Liu, J. H., & Gastardo-Conaco, C. (2011). Theory and methods of a representational

approach to understanding social movements: The role of the EDSA revolution in a
national psychology of the Philippines. Social Justice Research, 24, 168-190.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11211-011-0131-x
Liu, J. H., Goldstein-Hawes, R., Hilton, D., Huang, L. L., Gastardo-Conaco, C., Dresler-
Hawke, E., Pittolo, F., Hong, Y. Y., Ward, C., Abraham, S., Kashima, Y., Kashima, E.,
Ohashi, M., Yuki, M., & Hidaka, Y. (2005). Social representations of events and
people in world history across twelve cultures. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology,
36, 171-191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022104272900
Liu, J. H., & Hilton, D. J. (2005). How the past weighs on the present: Social
representations of history and their role in identity politics. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 44, 537-556. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/014466605X27162
Liu, J. H., & László, J. (2007). A narrative theory of history and identity: Social identity,
social representations, society and the individual. In G. Moloney & I. Walker (eds.)
Social representations and identity: Content, process and power, p 85-107. London:
Palgrave Macmillan. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9780230609181
Liu, J. H., Lawrence, B., Ward, C., & Abraham, S. (2002). Social representations of history
in Malaysia and Singapore: On the relationship between national and ethnic identity.
Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 3-20.
Liu, J. H., Paez, D., Hanke, K., Rosa, A., Hilton, D. J., Sibley, C., et al. (2012). Cross cultural
dimensions of meaning in the evaluation of events in world history? Perceptions of
historical calamities and progress in cross-cultural data from 30 societies. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43, 251-272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022110390926
Liu, J.H., Paez, D., Slawuta, P., Cabecinhas, R., Techio, E., Kokdemir, D., Sen, R., Vincze, O.,
Muluk, H., Wang, F.X., & Zlobina, A. (2009). Representing world history in the 21st
century: The impact of 9-11, the Iraq War, and the nation-state on the dynamics of
collective remembering. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40, 667-692.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022109335557
Liu, J. H., Wilson, M. W., McClure, J., & Higgins, T. R. (1999). Social identity and the
perception of history: Cultural representations of Aotearoa/New Zealand. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 1021-1047. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-
0992(199912)29:8<1021::AID-EJSP975>3.0.CO;2-4
Moscovici, S. (1988). Notes towards a description of social representations. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 211-250.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420180303
Mummendey, A., Simon, B., Dietze, C., Grunert, M., Haeger, G., Kessler, S., Lettben, S., &
Schaferhoof, S. (1992). Categorization is not enough: Intergroup discrimination in
negative outcome allocation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 125-
144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(92)90035-I
Olick, J., & Robbins, J. (1998). Social memory studies: From “collective memory” to the
historical sociology of mnemonic practices. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 105-
140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.105

http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol5/iss3/5 14
 Liu: A Cultural Perspective on Intergroup Relations and Social Identity

Paez, D., & Liu, J. H. (2011). Collective memory of conflicts. In D. Bar-Tal (Ed.), Intergroup
conflicts and their resolution: Social psychological perspectives, (pp. 105-124). New
York: Psychology Press.
Pennebaker, J. W., Paez, D., & Rimé, B. (1997). Collective memory of political events.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Reicher, S., & Hopkins, N. (2001). Self and nation. London, United Kingdom: Sage.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00246
Rimé, B. (1997). How individual emotional episodes feed collective memory. In J. W.
Pennebaker, D. Paez, & B. Rimé (Eds.), Collective memory of political events (pp.
131-146). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Sani, F., Bowe, M., Herrera, M., Manna, C., Cossa, T., Miao, X., et al. (2007). Perceived
collective continuity: Seeing groups as entities that move through time. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 1118-1134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.430
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social
hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sherif, M. (1966). Group conflict and cooperation. London, United Kingdom: Routledge
and Kegan Paul.
Sherif, M., Sherif, C., Harvey, & White, B. J. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation:
The Robber’s Cave experiment. Norman, OK: Institute of Group Relations,
University of Oklahoma. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3709118
Sibley, C. S., Liu, J. H., Duckitt, J., & Khan, S. S. (2008). Social representations of history
and the legitimation of social inequality: The form and function of historical negation.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 542-565.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.449
Sibley, C. S., & Liu, J. H. (2007). New Zealand = bicultural? Implicit and explicit
associations between ethnicity and nationhood in the New Zealand context.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 1222-1243.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.459
Tajfel, H., Billig, M., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and
intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149-177.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420010202
Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin
& S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47).
Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987).
Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. New York: Basil
Blackwell.
Ward, C., & Liu, J. H. (2012). Balancing indigenous rights and multicultural responsibilities:
Ethnic relations in Aotearoa/New Zealand. In D. Landis (Ed.), Handbook of
ethnopolitical conflict. New York: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-
0448-4_3
Wertsch, J. V. (2002). Voices of collective remembering. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge
University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613715.010

Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2011 15

 Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 5, Subunit 3, Chapter 5

About the Author

James Hou-fu Liu is Professor of Psychology at Victoria University of Wellington, New

Zealand, and Co-Director of its Centre for Applied Cross Cultural Research
(http://cacr.victoria.ac.nz). He obtained a Bachelor’s Degree in Computer Science from
the University of Illinois and once worked as an aerospace engineer. He then completed a
PhD in social psychology at UCLA, followed by a post-doctoral fellowship on dynamical
social impact theory at Florida Atlantic University. He has been teaching at Victoria
University of Wellington since 1994. His research is in cross-cultural political psychology,
specializing in narratives and representations of history and identity. He has more than 130
publications, with edited volumes including New Zealand Identities: Departures and
Destinations, Restorative Justice and Practices in New Zealand, Ages Ahead: Promoting
intergenerational relationships, and Progress in Asian Social Psychology, Volumes 2 and
6. He was Editor-in-Chief of the Asian Journal of Social Psychology from 2008-2011, and
is currently President-Elect of the Asian Association of Social Psychology. A naturalized
citizen of two countries, he describes himself as a “Chinese-American-New Zealander”.

Discussion Questions

1. What aspects of intergroup conflict would you consider to be universal and what
aspects to be culture specific?
2. How do social representations of knowledge influence the conduct of intergroup
relations?
3. Evaluate the ability of social identity theory/self-categorization theory and realistic
conflict theory to provide a comprehensive account of intergroup dynamics.
4. Describe some differences in intergroup behaviour between a collective and an
individualist group that you know. How can you explain/understand these differences?
5. What do you think are the critical historical events and people in your country? How do
these events/people influence the conduct of intergroup relations in your country?
6. How would you go about studying the processes that people use to construct a
historical narrative about themselves as a group? e.g., Would you examine school
textbooks, national commemorations, family albums, or what?
7. What do historical processes imply about the resolution of intergroup conflict?

http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol5/iss3/5 16