496 Social Conflict, Harmony, and Integration
mutual intergroup differentiation modeldoes not seek to
change the basic category structure of the intergroup contact
situation, but to change the intergroup affect from negative to
positive interdependence and evaluation.
In order to promote positive intergroup experience,
Hewstone and Brown (1986) recommended that the contact
situation be structured so that members of the respective
groups have distinct but complementary roles to contribute to-
ward common goals. In this way, both groups can maintain
positive distinctiveness within a cooperative framework.
Evidence in support of this approach comes from the results of
an experiment by Brown and Wade (1987) in which work
teams composed of students from two different faculties en-
gaged in a cooperative effort to produce a two-page magazine
article. When the representatives of the two groups were as-
signed separate roles in the team task (one group working on
figures and layout, the other working on text), the contact ex-
perience had a more positive effect on intergroup attitudes than
when the two groups were not provided with distinctive roles
(see also Deschamps & Brown, 1983; Dovidio, Gaertner, &
Validzic, 1998).
Hewstone and Brown (1986) argued that generalization of
positive contact experiences is more likely when the contact
situation is defined as an intergroup situation rather than as an
interpersonal interaction. Generalization in this case is direct
rather than requiring additional cognitive links between posi-
tive affect toward individuals and toward representations of the
group as a whole. This position is supported by evidence, re-
viewed earlier, that cooperative contact with a member of an
out-group leads to more favorable generalized attitudes toward
the group as a whole when category membership is made
salient during contact (e.g., Brown, Vivian, & Hewstone, 1999;
van Oudenhoven, Groenewoud, & Hewstone, 1996).
Although in-group–out-group category salience is usually
associated with in-group bias and the negative side of inter-
group attitudes, cooperative interdependence is assumed to
override the negative intergroup schema, particularly if the
two groups have differentiated, complementary roles to play.
Because it capitalizes on needs for distinctive social identi-
ties, the mutual intergroup differentiation model provides
a solution that is highly stable in terms of the cognitive-
structural aspects of the intergroup situation. The affective
component of the model, however, is likely to be less stable.
Salient intergroup boundaries are associated with mutual dis-
trust (Schopler & Insko, 1992), which undermines the poten-
tial for cooperative interdependence and mutual liking over
any length of time. By reinforcing perceptions of group dif-
ferences, this differentiation model risks reinforcing negative
beliefs about the out-group in the long run; intergroup anxi-
ety (Greenland & Brown, 1999; Islam & Hewstone, 1993)
and the potential for fission and conflict along group lines
remain high.
In addition, theoretical approaches and interventions are
often guided by the perspective of the majority group. Indeed,
because the majority group typically possesses the resources,
focusing strategies for reducing conflict and enhancing social
harmony on the majority group have considerable potential.
However, it is not enough, and without considering all of the
groups involved, these strategies can be counterproductive.
Intergroup relations need to be understood from the perspec-
tive of each of the groups involved. We consider the issue of
multiple perspectives in the next section.HARMONY AND INTEGRATION: MAJORITY AND
MINORITY PERSPECTIVESThe perspectives that majority and minority group members
take on particular interactions and on intergroup relations in
general may differ in fundamental ways. The attributions and
experiences of people in seemingly identical or comparable
situations may be affected by ethnic or racial group member-
ship (see Crocker & Quinn, 2001). In the United States,
Blacks perceive less social and economic opportunity than do
Whites (Schuman, Steeh, Bobo, & Krysan, 1997). Cross-
culturally, the generally nonstigmatized ethnic and racial
majorities perceive intergroup contact more positively than
do minorities (S. Gaertner, Rust, Dovidio, Bachman, &
Anastasio, 1996; Islam & Hewstone, 1993). Distinctiveness,
associated with numerical minority status or the salience of
physical or social characteristics, can exacerbate feelings of
stigmatization among members of traditionally disadvan-
taged groups (e.g., Kanter, 1977; Niemann & Dovidio, 1998).
More generally, group status has profound implications
for the experience of individuals, their motivations and
aspirations, and their orientations to members of their own
group and of other groups. As Ellemers and Barreto (2001)
outlined, responses to the status of one’s group depend on
whether one is a member of a low- or high-status group, the
importance of the group to the individual (i.e., strength of
identification), the perceived legitimacy of the status differ-
ences, and the prospects for change at the individual or group
level (see also Branscombe & Ellemers, 1998). Wright
(2001; see also Tajfel & Turner, 1979) further proposed that
people in low-status groups will be motivated to pursue col-
lective action on behalf of their group, rather than seek per-
sonal mobility, when they identify strongly with the group or
when possibilities for individual mobility are limited, when
intergroup comparisons produce perceptions of disadvantage
and that disadvantage is viewed as illegitimate, and when