Original ArticleJ. M. Phelps et al.

Original Article


J. M. Phelps et al.: IntergrSooucpiaPl ePrscyecphtoiloongya©n220d011I3n2;tVeHgol.orgart4ei4(ofen3P)A:u1tb9tli6its–uh20dine7gs

Intergroup Perception and Proactive
Majority Integration Attitudes


Joshua M. Phelps, Reidar Ommundsen, Salman Türken, and Pål Ulleberg

University of Oslo, Norway


Abstract. Few social psychological investigations have focused on the potential active role of the majority in integration. The present study examines the relationship between intergroup perception and majority attitudes toward the proactive integration of immigrant minorities in Norway. It assesses how and whether perceived entitativity of immigrants, endorsement of counterstereotypic portrayals of immigrants and metaperspectives along the appraisal dimensions of warmth/competence predict the integration attitudes of majority members in Norway as measured by the Majority Integration Efforts (MIE) scale. Correlational and multiple regression analysis yielded two strong (perceptions of positive immigrant integration intentions and perceived entitativity) and two moderate (perceptions of high immigrant competence in Norwegian society and metawarmth) predictors of these attitudes. Further analysis indicated that the main effect of perceived immigrant entitativity on MIE attitudes was partially mediated by perceptions of counterstereotypic intentions and competence. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed. We conclude by highlighting how the perception of immigrants’ positive integration intentions and their heterogeneity as a group may best promote majority support for proactive inte- gration efforts.

Keywords: majority attitudes, integration, intergroup perception, entitativity, stereotypes


Integration may be viewed as a multifaceted process for establishing better intergroup relations in multicultural so- cieties. It ideally involves adaptation by both the immigrant minority and the dominant majority groups (Berry, 1997; Common Basic Principles [CBP], 2010; Eriksen, 2007; Penninx, 2003). “Traditional” social psychological re- search that may contribute toward understanding integra- tion has predominantly focused on reducing majority prej- udice (see Paluck & Green, 2009) or in acculturation psy- chology on a strategy of immigrant adaptation (Berry,
1997). Prejudice-reduction strategies often aim to trans- form negative intergroup attitudes and stereotypes in order to promote tolerance via positive intergroup contact (Dix- on, 2001), or by changing group boundaries and social cat- egories to reduce intergroup bias (Gaertner et al., 1999; Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000). Yet, these efforts may be too passive and insufficiently effective to produce long-lasting changes in social structure to improve the collective status of disadvantaged groups (Dixon, Durrheim, & Tredoux,
2005, 2007; Dovidio, Gaertner, & Saguy, 2009; Park &
Judd, 2005; Phelps, Eilertsen, Türken, & Ommundsen,
2011). In acculturation psychology, meanwhile, integration is conceived of mainly as an adaptation strategy made by immigrants within an adaptation context framed by “dom- inant” majority members and their ideologies (Berry, 1997; Bourhis, Möise, Perreault, & Senécal, 1997; Montreuil & Bourhis, 2001). However, the few empirical studies from the standpoint of the majority in the acculturation paradigm

usually focus upon which strategies majority members want immigrants to choose – not on their own role or re- sponsibility (Phelps, submitted).
In contrast, some social scientists (e.g., Penninx, 2003; Ringen, 2005) argue for advocating a more central, respon- sible, and active role for majority members in their rela- tionships with immigrants. This goes beyond tolerance pro- motion, prejudice reduction, or the endorsement of immi- grant acculturation strategies. Some studies reflecting this position have assessed different factors involved in actively helping or supporting policies aimed at improving the sta- tus of minorities (e.g., Breugelmans & Van de Vijver, 2004; Jackson & Esses, 2000). The present study advances a new area of such research involving the assessment of majority attitudes toward their own (potential) proactive role in in- tegration and social change (Phelps et al., 2011) because fostering majority tolerance may not be enough to improve intergroup relations (Pittinsky & Montoya, 2009; van Qua- quebeke, Henrich, & Eckloff, 2007).
The idea of proactive majority integration entails major- ity members recognizing that they may play an active part in the adaptation of (mainly) “non-Western” immigrants (see e.g., Open Society Institute [OSI], 2010; Ringen,
2005). This means they not only tolerate immigrants and change their prejudiced stereotypes, but also come to value diversity and actively make adjustments in their own soci- ety in order to make immigrants feel welcome. Such ac- commodations could be anything from providing general

Social Psychology 2013; Vol. 44(3):196–207 © 2012 Hogrefe Publishing
DOI: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000104




economic assistance for immigrants to establish them- selves in a new society, to offering driver’s license tests in their mother tongue. This conceptualization of proactive integration presupposes the willingness to actively incor- porate immigrant minorities into the receiving society. It also corresponds to the rhetoric and definition based on “mutual accommodation” currently in use in European Un- ion policy (CBP, 2010; OSI, 2010).
The present study explores the extent to which members of a majority society support proactive inclusion as well as
some potential antecedents of such attitudes. We have de- veloped a psychometric measure, the Majority Integration Efforts (MIE) scale, which assesses the integration atti- tudes of majority members within three interrelated do- mains: openness to diversity, and willingness to agree to cultural and structural changes in order to accommodate and respect immigrants (Phelps et al., 2011). Construct val- idation of the MIE scale in Norway showed that it relates meaningfully to important prejudice predictors of right- wing authoritarianism (RWA, Altemeyer, 1981; Zakrisson,
2005) and social dominance orientation (SDO, Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994), and cosmopolitan identity (Türken & Rudmin, in press), but less so to per- sonality constructs (Big 5, International Personality Item Pool, n.d.). Although the MIE construct is not considered a mirror opposite of prejudice or the equivalent of (passive) tolerance, a key finding was that an unwillingness to favor proactive integration efforts was associated with RWA and SDO.
These findings exemplify one of two lines of research involving the quest for antecedents of outgroup attitudes (see Meeus, Duriez, Vanbeselaere, Phalet, & Kuppens,
2009). Previous research has consistently showed that rel- atively stable personality factors (e.g., Big 5) and ideolog- ical worldviews such as RWA and SDO predict variation in attitudes toward minorities (Hodson, 2009). Further- more, RWA and SDO are conceived to lie psychologically between personality and social attitudes, and may thus be partly malleable. Nevertheless, focusing on individual ideological orientations and dispositional factors may be less efficient if the aim is to change negative attitudes re- lated to outgroup members. Instead, the improvement of intergroup relations between majority and immigrant mi- nority members may best be accomplished in the second line of research, which is focused on situational factors that influence outgroup attitudes (Meeus et al., 2009). There- fore, a reasonable extension to understand what may influ- ence (or predict) MIE attitudes is to examine contextual and potentially malleable factors that “structure” social cognition – and more specifically intergroup perception.
At a general level, social cognition is a basis for human interaction (e.g., Strack & Förster, 2009). Moreover, an in- dividual’s construals and perceptions of other individuals and groups have often proved alterable through social in- fluence (e.g., Ross & Nisbett, 1991). Consequently, the pre- sent study examines the extent to which the willingness of majority members to incorporate immigrants is related to

how majority members perceive immigrants as a group. In particular, we investigate how the perceived entitativity of immigrants and the universal dimensions of warmth and competence examined with respect to the endorsement of counterstereotypic portrayals of immigrants and metaper- ception (i.e., what majority members think immigrants think of them) may be related to and predict MIE attitudes.



Intergroup Perception and MIE Attitudes

Perceived Outgroup Entitativity

Research on perceived entitativity – the degree in which a collection of people are perceived as being bonded together in a cohesive or homogeneous unit (Campbell, 1958; Ham- ilton & Sherman, 1996; Lickel et al., 2000) – has illustrated how entitativity is important as an antecedent for inter- group perception (e.g., Spencer-Rodgers, Hamilton, & Sherman, 2007; Yzerbyt, Judd, & Corneille, 2004), and that it may influence stereotype change (Rothbart & Park,
2004). One seemingly common finding is that perceivers possess more extreme or negative evaluations of outgroups when the outgroup is seen as more entitative (e.g., Abelson, Dasgupta, Park, & Banaji, 1998; Dasgupta, Banaji, & Ableson, 1999; Grzesiak-Feldman, & Suszak, 2008). Fur- thermore, the perception of entitative groups may also lead to more distrust and negative impressions of outgroups (Wildschut, Insko, & Pinter, 2004). It may even result in collective retribution, i.e., judging the whole group based on the (mis)behavior of individual group members (Den- son, Lickel, Curtis, Stenstrom, & Ames, 2006). It thus seems reasonable to explore w