ON THE NATURE OF PREJUDICE

Ingroup Affiliations and Prejudice 65moderation was found by Struch and Schwartz (1989) in an Israeliinterreligious context. They observed that perceptions of conflicting goals(a variable related to deprivation) were correlated with aggressive intentionstowards the outgroup, but that the correlation was noticeably strongeramongst those participants who identified strongly with their ingroup. Asimilar interaction between a group conflict variable – this time betweenthe actual experience (or not) of a particular intergroup dispute – andidentification was observed by Brown et al. (2001) in a study of Britishvisitors to France. The effects of the conflict on negative evaluations ofFrench people were more marked amongst more strongly identified respondents.These results suggest that identification might indeed qualifythe effects of deprivation on prejudice.When one considers whether identification can explain (or mediate) theeffects of deprivation, the picture is more complicated. It is true that somestudies have found identification and deprivation to be positively correlated(consistent with the “mediation hypothesis”) (Kessler & Mummendey,2002; Mummendey, Kessler, Klink, & Mielke, 1999; Tropp & Wright,1999). However, less consistent with the mediation idea, others havefound the variables to be unrelated (Tougas & Veilleux, 1988; Guimond &Dube-Simard, 1983) or even negatively related (Zagefka & Brown, inpress). Furthermore, the direction of causality here is ambiguous. Doesidentification increase perceived deprivation because more highly identifiedgroup members desire more for their group (Tropp & Wright, 1999)?Or do deprivation and discrimination increase identification because of agreater sense of shared fate and perceived threat (Branscombe, Schmitt, &Harvey, 1999)? Most likely, future research will reveal that some elementof bi-causality will be closer to the mark (Tougas & Beaton, 2002).Has Allport Been Supported?What have been the major insights gained in the 50 years since thepublication of Allport’s The Nature of Prejudice, and how have Allport’sobservations and ideas stood the test of time? It is striking that Allportanticipated many of the research issues that proved to be important later:for example the importance of the self-enhancement motive, the “content”of social identities, and identity strength. Further, the concept of“reference groups” is reflected in some of the thinking in acculturationresearch, and the distinction between ingroup bias and outgroup derogationhas proved useful. Finally, Allport may well have been correct in suggesting