INTERGROUP OR INTRAGROUP? Jiro Takai, PhD Department of Educational - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

CROSS-CULTURAL EXCHANGE ： INTERGROUP OR INTRAGROUP? Jiro Takai, PhD Department of Educational Psychology Nagoya University

Beliefs about cross-cultural exchange  According to the mere exposure theory (Zajonc, 1967), simple repetitive contact is enough to promote intergroup understanding and acceptance  The intergroup contact hypothesis , claimed that this is just too simple, and suggested certain precedent conditions are necessary for this to happen

Intergroup contact hypothesis  Social psychologists have delineated specific conditions under which ingroup-outgroup contact can become constructive, and hence, successful  Allport (1954) claimed that equal-group status within the contact situation, common goals, intergroup cooperation, and institutional support are necessary for successful exchange  Amir (1976) suggested the additional conditions of voluntary participation, and intimacy of the contact

Idealized versus actual contact  Intergroup contact theory outlines the ideal conditions, but in actual life, meeting all conditions is unrealistic  Berry (1997) gives us an idea of what might happen when conditions go awry

Maintaining cultural identity: Berry’s (1997) typology of acculturation Is it important to maintain good relations with hosts? YES NO Is it important to maintain own YES IN INTE TEGR GRATI TION SEGREG EGATION TION cultural identity? ASSIMILA IMILATION TION MARGIN RGINALI ALIZA ZATION TION NO

The issue  What social, cultural, institutional, and interpersonal forces might be there which may impede idealistic intergroup contact between host students and international students?  Just what is it that makes our efforts to promote quality cross-cultural exchange to turn out in vain?  Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) may give us the answer

Social Identity Theory  Theory constructed to explain intergroup conflict  We have both inclusion and differentiation needs, hence see ourselves in terms of group membership in social categories  Those in our group are the ingroup (“us”), those who are not are the outgroup (“them”): this functions to clarify our identity, and serve our identity needs  We gain our self-esteem depending on how our ingroup is evaluated, so we like to keep our ingroup superior to the outgroup  Because of this, we favor our ingroup while we disrespect the outgroup

Applying SIT principles to international graduate education  Universities, or individual departments within universities, must therefore, concern themselves on how they can structure the interaction between host and international students such that the goal of international educational exchange can be realized at the micro-level  Some international education models based on SIT and contact theory tenets will be proposed

SIT says: intergroup=nasty intragroup=sweet  If international students see themselves differently from the hosts, and vice versa, we have intergroup contact, and they won’t be able to see each other beyond their social categories  The two groups perceive one another as competing for limited resources, and cooperation will not likely materialize  One way around this is to emphasize the fact that they are all fellow grad students, having membership in a single, mutual category  We can induce recategorization, decategorization, or subcategorization

Decategorization model  Person-based contact as opposed to category-based  If grad students can become unaware of the categories of international and host , this can be actualized  Decategorization can be institutionally induced by increasing personal level contact between students, through collaborative projects, parties and other informal social gatherings, study groups

Decategorization model International Student International Student People perceive Host Student each other as Host individuals, not Student members of categories

Recategorization model  Create a common-identity, superordinate group that subsumes both international and hosts  No need to deny the existence of these categories, but make students aware they are part of a larger, more important category  Emphasizing the laboratory, or the department that the students belong to should do the trick  Accentuate the notion of teamwork  Students gain a common, more salient membership within a group consisting of mutually compatible goals, and their ethnicity or nationality becomes unimportant

Recategorization model People just simply forget that they are of certain categories, Inter- International because they see national Student each other as Host members of the Host same category. Graduate Student Inter- national Host Host Student Inter- national

Subcategorization model  Respective category identities remain salient, but structuring the nature of their relationship in a manner such as to foster collaboration and cooperation is induced  Without the presence of the other group, nobody can realize any goals  Mutual interests, and dependence in pursuing them bring groups together, but if one party does not live up to the expectations of the other, this can seriously backfire

Subcategorization model International International Student Student People know they are of different categories, but see each other Host Host pursuing the same mutually inclusive Student Student goals, so group membership does not matter

Institutionally managing positive contact and category awareness  The air of competition may hamper positive intercultural interaction between host and international students, and they may increasingly become aware of the “us” versus “them” distinction  Managing the level of awareness of the classes of students is often overlooked, and this can lead to unpleasant experiences on both international, and host students  Of course, this is easy to say, but when it comes down to doing it, it’s another story

Some suggestions  Increase personal level contact between international and hosts (including graduate students and faculty)  Hold parties and get-togethers  Encourage collaborative research  Launch some group projects  Induce “buddy systems” or tutoring systems  “International residences” should be just that, having host students live with internationals rather than being exclusive quarters for the latter  Grants and fellowships not toward individuals, but to host/international constituted groups

Conclusion  In this presentation, reference to social psychological theories of intergroup contact were made in offering some models of international exchange at the graduate student level  What can be done, at what level remains to be seen, but the scope of this presentation is to give food to thought

Thanks for your attention! Please address inquiries to: Jiro Takai Nagoya University jtakai@cc.nagoya-u.ac.jp

Reference  Allport, G. W. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice . Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.  Amir, Y. (1976). The role of intergroup contact in change of prejudice and ethnic relations. In P. A. Katz (Ed.), Towards the Elimination of Racism (pp. 73-123). New York: Plenum Press.  Berry, J.W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review , 46 , 5-34.  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 . Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole .  Zajonc, R.B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere Exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 9 , 1-27.