El voleibol de platja

Top-down approaches that examine the relationship between societal ideologies and intergroup attitudes take the macro-level as a starting point. They investigate how wider, taken for granted ideas about group differences and immigrant adaptation within a society (macro level) or group (meso level) influence or are expressed in social interaction/context. These approaches are also more diverse in terms of theory, methodology, and unit of analysis than bottom-up perspectives. Jost et al.’s (2009, p. 316) notion of top-down processes as investigating a ‘discursive superstructure’ attempts to highlight the influence of societal factors on the meso and micro levels. In particular, language/discourse is examined as a frame for understanding how majority members possess intergroup attitudes which may affect or constrain their intergroup behaviour and perceptions. There are two traditions I will consider within these approaches: (1) ideological framing and labelling, and (2) everyday life

approaches.

Ideological framing and labelling

Jost et al. (2009, p. 316) depict top-down approaches as studying “attitudes through exposure to ideological bundles (social representations) that are social constructed by political elites (elected officials, party representatives, and media).” This adequately describes recent experimental studies on how interethnic (diversity) ideologies may influence majority members’ outgroup attitudes and intergroup perception (e.g., Morrison, Plaut, & Ybarra, 2010; Richeson & Nussbaum, 2004; Verkuyten, 2005b, 2011; Vorauer & Sasaki, 2010, 2011;

28

Wolsko, Park, Judd, & Wittenbrink, 2000). Verkuyten (2011) highlights how ideological framing studies have tended to focus upon three distinct diversity ideologies (assimilation, multiculturalism, and colour-blindness) which have to different degrees been shown to influence outgroup (prejudiced) attitudes, intergroup perception, and racial or ingroup bias.

They have also been linked to preferred representations of one-group or dual identity for majority & minority members (Dovidio, Saguy, & Gaertner, 2010). Wolsko et al.’s (2000) experimental studies found that both multiculturalism and colour-blind ideologies could lead to more positive outgroup attitudes, but differences in intergroup perception in terms of stereotypical category differentiation. Moreover, their ideological framing manipulations have been used in a growing number of experiments (e.g., Correll, Park, & Smith, 2008; Gutiérrez

& Unzueta, 2010; Richeson & Nussbaum, 2004; Vorauer & Sasaki, 2010, 2011).

Studies of labelling on outgroup attitudes identify dominant ways of categorizing groups and examine how linguistic representations (i.e. symbolic boundaries) may influence evaluative judgments of target groups or policies (e.g., Stewart, Pitts, & Osbourne, 2011;

Verkuyten & Thijs, 2010). Morrison & Chung (2011) found that framing majority members’

self-identification (White vs. European American) influenced their support for

multiculturalism and levels of prejudice. Meanwhile, Verkuyten and Thijs (2010) showed that the use of Turkish-Dutch hybrid labels to describe minorities led to majority members’

possession of more favourable outgroup attitudes. These experimental ideological framing and labelling studies are also complimentary to the everyday-life approaches described below as they attempt to manipulate ideologies or test the effects of linguistic labels used in everyday (and political) discourse.

Everyday life: language and social representations

‘Everyday life’ top-down approaches investigate ideology and intergroup attitudes by studying language and communicative processes in actual social interaction. These

approaches are theoretically and methodologically diverse. At the most general level, a common feature of everyday life approaches is that attitudes are considered to be socially shared based on group membership and context (van Dijk, 1998). When it comes to social groups and policy, intergroup attitudes may therefore be regarded to reflect the meso level where “macro level factors” are mediated in social interaction (e.g., Deaux, 2006, p. 6).

Intergroup attitudes “locate” individuals in relationship to others within a “social matrix”

29

through discourse (and social representations) and involve social actions (Augoustinos et al., 2006). Attitudes in these studies may therefore be characterized as “the expression of appraisals in actual talk” (Verkuyten, 2005c, p. 227). Further mapping this onto ideology, van Dijk (1998) argues that the concept of attitude “accounts for the ‘common ground’ of socially shared opinions of groups of people and for the ways these allow group members to interact, to coordinate and to organize their social practices, even in different contexts” (p. 46).

As majority members’ intergroup attitudes are understood as connected to wider ideological discourses at the macro level everyday life approaches tend to investigate the consequences that these attitudes have, as expressed through representations and discourse, for the inclusion or exclusion of minority groups. Therefore, these studies may examine ideologies as socially shared patterns of discourse concerning group differences, immigrant adaptation, and policies for handling diversity in everyday contexts. This may involve analysis of lay (e.g., Verkuyten, 2005c) or elite political and media discourse (e.g., Condor, 2011;

Papers I and IV). For example, Verkuyten’s (2005c) discursive study illustrated how ways of constructing immigration as either a result of personal or lack of choice were related to differences in endorsement of multiculturalism. Other empirical studies have examined ideologies and intergroup attitudes through expressions of racism (van Dijk, 1998) or nationalism (Every & Augoustinos, 2008), prejudice denial in dialogue (Condor et al., 2006;

Figgou & Condor, 2006; Condor & Figgou, 2012) or opinions on policy (Augoustinos, Tuffin,

& Every, 2005)⁸. Everyday life approaches are more plural in terms of unit of analysis adopted in empirical research in comparison with the previous three perspectives outlined above.

They may approach ideologies and intergroup attitudes through an individual’s utterances in favour or opposition of policies or outgroups (micro level), the dialogical or co-construction of discourse on outgroups in group discussions (meso level), or patterns of word use in media discourse such as in Papers I and IV (macro level).

To conclude, this section of Chapter 3 has aimed to present a brief outline of current trends involving how the relationship between ideologies and intergroup attitudes is conceived of and investigated at different levels within intergroup relations research focusing on

majority members. The two approaches and four perspectives will form the basic foundation

8 Not all empirical investigations within everyday life approaches make direct use of the attitude concept. Thus, one must to a larger degree infer that intergroup attitudes are investigated when majority members’ (ideological) evaluations or beliefs and opinions concerning other groups or diversity polices are studied as expressed in discourse.

30

for Chapter 6, where I will attempt to more precisely connect the two different strands of research taken up in the present thesis.