12
Talking About Power: Group
Power and the Desired Content
of Intergroup Interactions
TAMAR SAGUY, FELICIA PRATTO,
JOHN. F. DOVIDIO, and ARIE NADLER
CONTENTS
The Issue: Group Positions and Divergent Realities ........................................... 214
Theoretical Background: Motivations of Dominant
and Subordinate Group Members .................................................................... 215
Historical, Empirical, and Theoretical Background ............................................ 217
Theoretical Framework and Research Support ................................................... 218
Questioning Power Differences Between Israeli Jews and Palestinians ............ 219
Questioning Power Differences in Unequal Power Experimental Groups ........221
Establishing Boundary Conditions .......................................................................223
Conclusion: Implication and Application .............................................................227
References .............................................................................................................230
P
ower disparities between groups are characteristic of human societies,
regardless of their era, culture, economic system, or form of government.
Far-reaching cross-cultural evidence shows that group-based inequality is
ubiquitous, universal, and much more enduring than unstable (Sidanius & Pratto,
1999). Among the most prominent of the social forces contributing to the maintenance of power disparities are the ideological messages that work to legitimize
213
TAF-RT2803X-08-0605-C012.indd 213
8/6/08 9:54:05 PM
214
INTERGROUP MISUNDERSTANDINGS
hierarchy by masking group dominance or making it appear just and natural
(Jackman, 1994).
The current chapter explores the different realities of dominant and subordinate group members and illustrates how these realities influence group members’
perspectives and goals regarding the social structure and its legitimacy. We then
demonstrate how the divergent perceptions and goals of dominant and subordinate group members generate different orientations with respect to the desired
content of intergroup contact, and consider how these promote intergroup misunderstandings. We examine the content of intergroup contact in terms of the issues
that group members wish to discuss in the contact situation. In particular, we focus
on two possible areas of content: talking about social inequality in a critical, delegitimizing way and talking about topics that relate to shared aspects for both
groups while deflecting attention from the power relations. We acknowledge that
factors such as extreme segregation and accelerated intergroup tension can limit
the opportunities for intergroup dialogue. However, we offer ways to understand
the motivations that can explain, and the factors that can affect, dialogue between
dominants and subordinates when opportunities for such interaction exist.
THE ISSUE: GROUP POSITIONS
AND DIVERGENT REALITIES
In a recent study in the United States, Black and White male applicants, who were
equally experienced and skilled, applied for the same jobs (see Wessel, 2005).
Whereas 34% of White applicants were contacted by the employers, only 14% of the
Black applicants were. Even the subgroup of White applicants who indicated they
were imprisoned for drug possession in the past were more likely to be contacted
than the Black applicant with no criminal record. Another 2005 report found that
Black and Latino car buyers had been quoted substantially higher finance rates
than were comparable White buyers (Feagin, 2006, p. xiv).
As illustrated by these examples, group-based dominance implies very different
social realities for members of dominant and subordinate groups (Sidanius & Pratto,
1999). Dominant groups experience far more economic security and less need than
do subordinate groups. When dominant group members look to societal authorities,
such as in educational systems, the legal system (see also the chapter by Tyler in this
volume), and the seats of political power, they are very likely to see members of their
own groups. They are recognized as persons before the law and are implicitly presumed to be good examples of upstanding human beings (Feagin, 2006). The main
institutions of their society perpetuate group advantage so that only some members
of the dominant group must actively work to maintain the group’s superior position.
In contrast, members of subordinate groups find many doors to economic
opportunities closed. They sometimes do not control the fruits of their own labor,
are prevented from obtaining desirable jobs through a variety of kinds of employment discrimination, and suffer underpayment, and unemployment at high rates.
In addition, the paths that could open economic doors for future generations,
such as quality educational opportunities and social networking with those who
TAF-RT2803X-08-0605-C012.indd 214
8/6/08 9:54:05 PM
TALKING ABOUT POWER
215
have economic access, are also blocked. Furthermore, the court system, which
represents the highest justice authority for members of dominant groups, is a
source of violence and intimidation for members of subordinate groups, especially
young men. Young men in subordinate groups are arrested without cause, convicted, imprisoned, and executed at high rates in societies the world over (Sidanius
& Pratto, 1999). Thus, while the world may seem fair, hospitable, and inviting to
members of dominant groups, it often appears to be unjust, dangerous, and exclusionary to members of subordinate groups (see also the chapter by Jones, Campbell, Engleman, & Turner in this volume).
These different realities and divergent perspectives form the basis for the different motivations and goals that dominant and subordinate group members have
regarding the status quo and its legitimacy. As we will propose, these different
motivations, in turn, affect dominant and subordinate group members’ desire for
the content of intergroup interactions, and therefore carry the potential for intergroup misunderstandings.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND: MOTIVATIONS
OF DOMINANT AND SUBORDINATE GROUP MEMBERS
Because dominant and subordinate group members experience different social
realities, they are likely to have different motivations and goals, particularly with
respect to their orientations toward the power structure. Several different theories
converge on this conclusion. Blumer (1958) posited that members of dominant
groups have a basic motivation to maintain their relatively advantageous group
position. This motivation was described as rooted in a general sense of entitlement on the part of people who hold social power. According to the group position
framework, once members of dominant groups feel a threat to this sense of entitlement, they will be motivated to defend their status and remove the threat (see
Bobo, 1999). Hence, a motivation to maintain a position of power is fundamental.
Similarly, realistic group conflict theory (LeVine & Campbell, 1972) posits that
group members are driven by their desire to possess and maintain control over
valued resources. Therefore, members of the subordinate group will compete to
gain resources and status, whereas members of the dominant group will act against
any threat to losing their resources.
Tajfel (1978; see also Tajfel & Turner, 1979), from the perspective of social
identity theory, proposed that different group members may hold different views
regarding a change in the status quo, depending on the value of their social identity. Briefly, social identity is the part of the self-concept that has to do with a group
membership and is constructed through comparison with other groups. Once the
social identity is positive, usually when the person’s group is high in status compared to another group, group members will be motivated to maintain this positive value. This goal can be achieved by maintaining the status quo. In contrast,
when the social identity is unfavorable (usually when the person’s group is low in
status compared to another group) group members will look for ways to enhance
their social identity. Strategies for improving one’s social identity can involve either
TAF-RT2803X-08-0605-C012.indd 215
8/6/08 9:54:05 PM
216
INTERGROUP MISUNDERSTANDINGS
individual- or group-based orientation, depending on the social context the groups
operate in and on the strength of one’s social identity (see Doosje, Ellemers &
Spears, 1999). For example, when the boundaries between the groups are viewed
as permeable, group members are likely to adopt individual-level strategies to
improve their social identity, such as personal mobility (see the chapter by Ellemers and Barreto in this volume). However, when individual mobility is limited, as
is the case in the current work, group-based strategies, such as collectively acting
toward a change in the status quo, are likely to come into play.
Although it is possible that under some circumstances dominant and subordinate group members may share perceptions and ideologies that will tend to support the status quo (Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004), research more typically identifies
systematic differences between groups that are consistent with the propositions
of the group position framework and social identity theory (see Rubin & Hewstone, 2004). In particular, members of dominant groups are more tolerant and
supportive of group-based hierarchy than are members of subordinate groups, and
they are more likely to endorse ideologies that legitimize group-based inequality
(e.g., Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994). Jones, Campbell, Engleman,
and Turner, in their chapter in this volume, emphasize how Whites and Blacks
in the United States, and dominant and subordinate groups more generally, live
in two different “universal contexts”: one reflecting perceptions of fairness (i.e., a
fundamental belief that the world is fair and just) and the other of discrimination
(i.e., a state of vigilance for racism). For example, despite considerable evidence
of racial discrimination, about 80% of Whites believe that Blacks have the same
chances as Whites to obtain jobs, education, and housing (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999,
p. 110), implying that the reason Blacks are underrepresented or discriminated
against in those areas is due to their own lack of ability or effort rather than racial
discrimination. Furthermore, dominant group members often actively resist social
changes that they perceive as threatening to their own advantage. For example,
despite their stated commitment to equality, most Whites oppose policies that
actually ameliorate inequality, such as affirmative action (Schuman, Steeh, Bobo,
& Krysan, 1997).
In contrast, subordinate group members display greater support for ideologies
that de-legitimize hierarchy (e.g., endorsement of human rights, humanitarianism)
and see social inequalities as more in need of change. For example, a recent survey
found that 80% of Black respondents in Boston viewed racial discrimination as a
significant barrier and nearly half felt they were unwelcome in shopping areas or
restaurants (Josephine, 2005). Moreover, White and Black Americans have very
different perceptions of the racial discrimination that Blacks face today. Over
three quarters (79%) of Whites reported that Blacks “have as good a chance as
Whites” to “get any kind of job,” but less than half (46%) of Blacks shared that view.
Whereas the vast majority (69%) of Whites perceived that Blacks were treated “the
same as Whites,” the majority of Blacks (59%) reported that Blacks were treated
worse than Whites (Gallup, 2002).
In summary, dominant group members tend to have the goal of maintaining
and preserving the status quo, whereas subordinate group members tend to have
the goal of changing the power structure so that their social position can improve.
TAF-RT2803X-08-0605-C012.indd 216
8/6/08 9:54:06 PM
TALKING ABOUT POWER
217
These different goals are reflected in how dominant and subordinate group
members view the social structure, support practices that may facilitate change,
and are generally aware of group-based discrimination. In the remainder of this
chapter, we consider how these different goals of dominant and subordinate group
members influence the desired content of intergroup contact (see also the chapter
by Maquil, Demoulin, & Leyens in this volume).
The content of intergroup contact can take many forms. We view it in terms
of the issues that potential group members wish to address when together in the
contact situation, while considering the relevance of these discussion issues to the
goal of achieving social change toward equality.
HISTORICAL, EMPIRICAL, AND
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Although some of the actions aimed at promoting social change may involve violent resistance on the part of subordinate group members, others are characterized by collective efforts to bring injustice and inequality into people’s conscious
awareness, resulting in a dialogue or public discourse that focuses on the very
issue of power relations. For example, a major goal of the U.S. civil rights movement was to publicly challenge the legitimacy of racial oppression. Racial injustice was publicized by television footage showing Black Americans being treated
as subhuman by police. Similar forms of nonviolent resistance, such as India’s
struggle for independence and South Africa’s struggle to throw off apartheid,
were aimed at raising public awareness and attention to the issue of the illegitimacy of the status quo. Publicly acknowledging and questioning power disparities
therefore serves collective efforts for promoting social change toward equality.
Likewise, on an interpersonal level, Christensen and Heavey (1990) demonstrated
that relationship partners who were not satisfied with their relationship tended
to engage in demanding forms of communication that focused on the source of
dissatisfaction.
Such dialogue about changing the power structure or power relations often
competes against a background of ideological messages that deflect attention from
power differences and thus inhibit change toward equality (Jackman, 1994; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). For example, the prevalent ideological focus on individual
merit in the United States embodied in the protestant work ethic (Katz & Hass,
1988) draws attention away from group-based disadvantage and promotes a general justification of the status quo (e.g., Furnham & Rajamanickam, 1992).
Focusing on commonalities between members of dominant and subordinate
groups may be another way to draw attention away from group power differences
by deemphasizing original group boundaries (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000). When
emphasizing shared aspects to both groups, attention is being turned away from
separate group memberships, and thereby also from the inequality aspect of it,
so that the status quo is unthreatened and its legitimacy is not likely to be called
into question. Furthermore, because collective resistance is more likely to occur
when subordinate group members are highly identified with their group and
TAF-RT2803X-08-0605-C012.indd 217
8/6/08 9:54:06 PM
218
INTERGROUP MISUNDERSTANDINGS
recognize their collective disadvantage (Doosje et al., 1999; Lalonde & Silverman,
1994), focusing on commonalities between groups may reduce the likelihood of
collective action for social change toward equality (Wright, 2001; see also the
chapter by Wright & Lubensky in this volume).
Examining research on group members’ preferences for general forms of intergroup relations further reveals that dominant group members tend to behave in
ways that direct attention to aspects that they share in common with members of
the subordinate group. Specifically, across different intergroup contexts, subordinate group members were found to desire relations that will allow for retaining
their original group identity while still maintaining the ties with the dominant
group (Dovidio, Gaertner, Niemann, & Snider, 2001; van Oudenhoven, Prins,
& Buunk, 1998). In contrast, dominant group members endorsed relations that
emphasized common connections between the groups, but at the same time they
preferred that subordinates relinquish their original group membership (a preference for “assimilation” over integration).
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
AND RESEARCH SUPPORT
In general, our review of the literature reveals that whereas members of dominant
groups are typically oriented toward forms of intergroup relations that emphasize
common connections rather than issues of power, subordinate group members
tend to direct attention to the group identity and the power aspect of their relationships. As historical examples demonstrate, questioning power can be instrumental
in revealing the illegitimacy of power differences and promoting the awareness
and realization of the need for changes in the status quo. Therefore, in a series of
studies of intergroup relations, we hypothesized that subordinate group members
would have a greater desire to talk about power in a critical, delegitimizing way
than would dominant group members. Furthermore, we expected that dominant
group members would prefer to discuss commonalities between the groups more
than issues related to the power relations.
We tested these predictions in three studies, which varied in methodologies
and in the nature of intergroup relation. Each examined the goals of dominant and
subordinate group members and how they shape the group members’ desire to
talk about power or about commonalities in intergroup interaction. The fi rst study
reports qualitative research that explored the perspectives and goals of JewishIsraelis and Palestinians from the Occupied Territories in regard to intergroup
contact. The second study was a laboratory analogue to low- and high-powered
groups, in which group power was manipulated experimentally and its effects on
the goals and the desired content of intergroup contact were assessed. The third
study was a field experiment among Israeli Jews whose ethnicities differ in their
social and political power in Israel. This experiment looked at the moderating role
of group identification and also investigated how an intervention designed to delegitimize social inequality may motivate dominant group members toward talking
about power as well.
TAF-RT2803X-08-0605-C012.indd 218
8/6/08 9:54:06 PM
TALKING ABOUT POWER
219
QUESTIONING POWER DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
ISRAELI JEWS AND PALESTINIANS
The purpose of this study was to explore processes that can facilitate or hinder successful contact and trust building between members of groups that differ in power
and that have a long history of conflict and animosity (Nadler & Saguy, 2004; Saguy
& Nadler, 2006). For 40 years now, the state of Israel has had control over the lives
and resources of over 3 million Palestinians living in territories that were occupied
by Israel in 1967. Almost all aspects of the Palestinians’ lives, from energy supplies,
to actual locomotion, are governed by Israeli authorities. For example, whenever a
Palestinian wishes to move from one part of the occupied territories (e.g., Gaza) to
another (e.g., a city in the West Bank), formal Israeli authorization is still needed
and often denied. Recent political developments in the Middle East resulted in an
Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip towards the end of 2005, yet, Palestinians
do not have complete autonomy in the West Bank and many aspects of the Palestinians’ lives are still governed by the Israeli authorities. The purpose of this study
was to explore the potential similarities and differences in the ways that Israeli
Jews and Palestinians saw the nature of their relations and expressed their goals
for intergroup interaction.
The data were based on semi-structured interviews with Israeli Jews and Palestinians who were the heads of various projects designed to bring Palestinians and
Israeli Jews together to interact. These joint projects were initiated following the
signing of the Oslo agreements in 1993 and funded by international nongovernmental organizations (i.e., NGOs). The interviewees were 10 Israelis and 4 Palestinians. Recruitment of Palestinian participants was curtailed due to the tensions
between Israelis and Palestinians during the time of the interviews (i.e., 2001,
right after the outbreak of hostility between the parties in October 2000) and the
fact that the interviewer (the first author) is an Israeli Jew. Each interview lasted
about 90 minutes. On the basis of pilot interviews and literature on intergroup
contact (Pettigrew, 1998), the researchers sought to explore how the interviewees’ perceptions of the power relations, social identity processes, institutional factors, and the structure of the contact setting affected the intergroup interactions
(Nadler & Saguy, 2004). Those topics were presented to the interviewees merely
as points of reference, allowing the respondent to focus on any elements that he or
she believed were most important.
One recurring theme in the analysis was the differences in needs, goals, perceptions, and expectations that Palestinians and Israeli Jews had regarding their
interactions during the joint projects. Several interviewees, both Palestinians and
Israeli Jews, stated that the participation of Israeli Jews in the project was a way to
“clean their conscience” and to feel better about their relative advantage, whereas
for the Palestinians, the projects represented a mechanism for social change. This
view was succinctly expressed in the following quote: “The Israelis come [to the
project] in order to be able to sleep better at night whereas the Palestinians come
in order to get the Israelis’ sleep disrupted.”
Moreover, the interviews revealed that these different goals were linked to
different preferences regarding the structure and the content of the joint project.
TAF-RT2803X-08-0605-C012.indd 219
8/6/08 9:54:06 PM
220
INTERGROUP MISUNDERSTANDINGS
Palestinians expressed a clear desire to address issues related to the conflict
between the groups, regardless of the actual topic that was the intended focus of
the project. For instance, one Palestinian interviewee who codirected a project
on medical issues commented, “I kept saying, I don’t care about cardiology, what
I care about is the conflict; and if it was only for cardiology, I wouldn’t have been
there.” Similarly, Palestinian interviewees consistently introduced issues related
to the conflict between the groups and expressed their dissatisfaction with their
disadvantaged position in the social structure. As another Palestinian participant
remarked, “It is not enough for me that the Jews will express sympathy with me… .
I want to know what you [the Israelis] will be willing to do in order for my situation
to improve.” Another stated, “if there is no awareness of the inequality things are
still progressing, but who does the progress favor?… The Jews need to be aware of
their advantaged position in these relationships.”
In contrast, Israeli Jews expressed support primarily for the aspects of the
project that emphasized themes and elements common to Palestinian and Israeli
Jews and obfuscated the original national identities and consequent group-power
differences. For example, the following Jewish interviewee explained why the
two groups should seek common ground: “Once they have a common interest,
a common language, it is easier for them to understand each other.” Another
Israeli Jew observed, “When the project deals with the confl ict, it won’t lead to
anything and can even be harmful. It won’t change the history … but when they
are interacting on an occupational basis that interests both sides the dialog will
be useful.”
The different orientations of Palestinians and Israeli Jews reflect the different
perspectives and preferences that distinguish subordinate and dominant groups
more generally. As we described earlier, members of dominant groups were found
to prefer relations that emphasized their common identity with members of the
subordinate group, whereas minority group members preferred interactions that
both recognized group differences and common connections (see also the chapter
by Monteiro, Guerra, & Rebelo in this volume). Moreover, experiences of these
types differentially related to the satisfaction with intergroup interactions. For
example, Dovidio, Gaertner, and Kafati (2000) found that for Whites, intergroup
contact with minority group members produced higher levels of satisfaction when
it felt more like they were members of a common group. In contrast, minority
group members found the contact most satisfying and productive when they felt
that their racial or ethic group identity was acknowledged as well. As suggested by
Dovidio et al. (2000), these different perspectives and preferences, if not understood and appreciated, can exacerbate rather than reduce misunderstandings
through intergroup contact.
One of the difficulties in interpreting the results of this interview study is that
the small number of participants and the particular history of their intergroup conflict may limit its generalizability. That is, the particular cultural stances of Israeli
Jews and Palestinians, rather than group power differences per se, may be what
created the differences observed in their goals and motivations toward a change
in the status quo and their willingness to talk about power relations. To provide a
TAF-RT2803X-08-0605-C012.indd 220
8/6/08 9:54:07 PM
TALKING ABOUT POWER
221
much more stringent test of our hypotheses, we conducted an experiment in which
power difference between groups was manipulated.
QUESTIONING POWER DIFFERENCES IN
UNEQUAL POWER EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS
This experiment directly examined the effects of power differences between groups
on dominant and subordinate group members’ motivations for change in the power
structure and on their desire to talk about power and about common connections
during anticipated intergroup interaction. Participants, U.S. college students, were
assigned to groups (underestimators or overestimators) ostensibly on the basis of
responses to a dot estimation task revealing their perceptual style (Gerard & Hoyt,
1974) but actually randomly. One group was given high power, having the responsibility for assigning extra course credit to participants in the session, whereas the
other group had low power due to having no input on the distribution of credits.
Participants were then told that before the allocation of credits would take place,
the members of the two groups would have a chance to engage in a discussion,
and the nature of that discussion would be determined by the preferences expressed
by the participants in the session.
Consistent with the cover story and in order to measure the desire to talk about
power and commonalities, we asked participants to indicate the degree to which
they would like to discuss different possible topics. Some of the topics explicitly
questioned the power differences between the groups (e.g., “discussing ways by
which we can try and change the fact that only one group will get to decide how
the credits will be allocated”), whereas others referred to topics emphasizing participants’ common connection (e.g., “things I have in common with other people
in this study, either underestimators or overestimators”). To assess their motivation
to change the power structure between the groups, we asked participants to rate
their agreement with statements regarding the procedure for allocating course
credits in the session (e.g., “If I could, I would try to change the other stages in this
study so that people from both groups will get the chance to allocate credits”).
We hypothesized that members of the low-power (subordinate) group would
have a stronger desire to discuss topics questioning the power structure than would
members of the high-power (dominant) group; and that these differences would be
mediated by differences in motivations for change in the power structure. Further,
we expected that members of the high-power group would prefer to discuss topics emphasizing common connections among the groups than to discuss power
differences between the groups. We also explored whether among the low-power
group the desire to talk about power would be stronger than the desire to discuss
commonalities.
As expected, members of low-power groups reported stronger motivation to
change the power structure between the groups than did members of the highpower groups. With respect to the desire for the discussion topics, a significant
interaction between group position (high vs. low power) and discussion topic type
TAF-RT2803X-08-0605-C012.indd 221
8/6/08 9:54:07 PM
222
INTERGROUP MISUNDERSTANDINGS
High-Power Group
Desire to Discuss Topic
4.4
Low-Power Group
4.2
4.0
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.2
3.0
2.8
Talking Critically
About Power
Talking About
Commonalities
Figure 12.1 Desires of high- and low-power laboratory group members to talk about
power critically and to talk about intergroup commonalities (1 = not at all; 7 = very
much).
was obtained. As illustrated in Figure 12.1, low-power group members demonstrated a stronger desire to discuss topics in which group-based power was questioned than did high-power group members. Moreover, as predicted, the effect of
group power position on the desire to talk about topics that questioned power differences between the groups was mediated by motivation for change. That is, members of the low-power group had a stronger motivation for a change in the power
relations compared to members of the high-power group, which in turn enhanced
their desire for talking about topics that questioned power relations. There were no
significant differences between high- and low-power group members with respect
to talking about commonalities, although low-power group members had a slightly
stronger desire to do so. Furthermore, and consistent with the predictions, highpower group members preferred to talk about commonalities more than about
power. Among the low-power group members the opposite pattern emerged; they
preferred to talk about power more than about commonalities.
Thus far, using two different methodologies, the two studies we have presented
provide convergent support for our predictions. As suggested by the group position framework and social identity theory, being part of a low-power group (even
when this group was arbitrarily created) resulted in a higher motivation to change
the unequal social structure compared to being part of a high-pow er group. Our
results further demonstrated that this higher motivation for social change explained
the low-power group members’ greater willingness to explicitly question groupbased power. These findings suggest that talking about power has an instrumental
function for subordinate group members; namely, it is seen as a means of affecting
the social change subordinate group members desire.
TAF-RT2803X-08-0605-C012.indd 222
8/6/08 9:54:07 PM
TALKING ABOUT POWER
223
ESTABLISHING BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
Although members of dominant groups may be relatively unlikely to talk about
power, contextual influences can potentially enhance their willingness to do so.
As noted earlier, protest movements have attempted to create social change by
bringing social injustice to the attention of dominant group members. In addition,
principles of fairness, equity, and legitimacy were shown to have the potential to
motivate people to behave in ways that benefit others even at costs to themselves
and their group (Montada, 1996; Taylor, 1990). Thus, the need to see oneself as a
just and moral human being can be directed toward improving intergroup relations
by raising justice concerns among dominant group members. Indeed, research has
demonstrated that perceiving one’s group advantage as illegitimate increases dominant group members’ support for compensation and collective apology (e.g., Iyer,
Leach, & Crosby, 2003) as well as more positive outgroup perceptions (e.g., Powell, Branscombe, & Schmitt, 2005). Thus, we further sought to examine whether
inducing dominant group members to perceive their group’s advantaged status
as illegitimate would increase their desire to talk about power with subordinate
group members.
Although subordinate group members are generally more motivated for social
change than are dominant group members, acknowledgment of the illegitimacy
of their disadvantaged group position may further enhance their motivation to
improve their social identity (e.g., Ellemers, Wilke, & van Knippenberg, 1993;
Wright, 1997). Therefore, when the intergroup inequality is perceived as illegitimate, it is likely that both members of subordinate and dominant groups will have
a greater tendency to support a behavior that may promote social change toward
equality, such as talking about power. However, to the extent that members of
subordinate groups already perceive differences in group status as less legitimate
than do members of dominant groups, the effect of emphasizing the illegitimacy
of these differences may be particularly pronounced among members of dominant
groups.
In addition to testing the possible effects of perceived legitimacy, we also
examined whether ingroup identification would moderate the effects we found in
the previous studies. Social identity theory suggests that people who identify more
strongly with their group are more motivated to support actions that will improve
or protect the status of their group. For example, when group identity was made
salient subordinate group members were more likely to participate in collective
protest to achieve social equality (Lalonde & Silverman,1994), and greater identification with high-status groups predicted more bias in favor of one’s group (Scheepers, Spears, Doosje, & Manstead, 2003). Because we view the desire to talk about
power as an identity-enhancing strategy on the part of subordinate group members and the desire to talk about commonality as a potentially identity-protecting
one, we hypothesized that identification would moderate the effects we obtained
in the previous studies.
Participants in this third study were members of one of two ethnic groups
in Israel: either Ashkenazim (i.e., people born in North America or Europe or
TAF-RT2803X-08-0605-C012.indd 223
AQ1
8/6/08 9:54:07 PM
224
INTERGROUP MISUNDERSTANDINGS
whose parents were born on those continents) or Mizrahim1 (i.e., people born in
Asia or Africa or whose parents were born on those continents). This distinction
is the most prominent one among Israeli Jews. Inequality between the two ethnic
groups is well documented in levels of education, average income, and general
prestige—all favoring the Ashkenazim (see Smooha, 2003; http://www.cbs.gov.il).
Hence, Ashkenazim and Mizrahim in Israel were chosen to represent dominant
and subordinate groups in the current study, respectively (see also Levin, Sidanius,
Rabinowitz, & Federico, 1998).
Participants completed a survey that was introduced as measuring opinions
regarding a future “discussion encounter” between ethnic groups in Israel. Each
participant was then presented with an article about Ashkenazim and Mizrahim.
The first part of the article, which all participants read, stressed the inequality
between the groups, describing actual social disparities. The second part of the
article was varied systematically to manipulate perceptions of the Ashkenazim’s
advantaged status as legitimate or illegitimate. In the legitimate condition, a professor commented in the newspaper article on the inequality using arguments that
justified and legitimized the Ashkenazim’s advantage status. For example, the professor noted that Ashkenazim are harder workers than are Mizrahim. In the illegitimate condition, the professor employed arguments that attributed the inequality
to unfair practices and social barriers. The professor explained, for instance, that
the Ashkenazim were the ones with the power and that they discriminated against
Mizrahim. The dependent measures included motivation for greater equality
between Ashkenazim and Mizrahim and preferences for discussion topics that
were either questioning the inequality explicitly or addressing topics that were
related to the common identity between the groups (e.g., involving cultural similarities). Questions on this survey also assessed participants’ level of identification
with their ethnic group.
As intended by the manipulation of legitimacy, participants who read the article that described the inequality as due to discrimination perceived the inequality
as more illegitimate compared to participants who read the article that justified
the disparities (across both Ashkenazim and Mizrahim). Nevertheless, in both
cases, the perceptions reflected different levels of illegitimacy rather than legitimate versus illegitimate ones (i.e., below the midpoint of 4 on a 1 to 7 scale ranging
from extremely illegitimate to extremely legitimate). Thus, the differences created
by the manipulation were primarily in the visibility and the difficulty to deny the
illegitimacy of the power relations.
As expected, replicating our laboratory experiment, a significant interaction
between group position (dominant vs. subordinate) and discussion topic type was
obtained (see Fig. 12.2). As in the previous, laboratory study, there was not a significant difference between dominant group members and subordinate group
1
In Hebrew, the terms Sephardim (translates to “from Spain”) and Mizrahim (translates to
“Orientals”) are used interchangeably and refer to the same group of Jews of Asian/African
descent. We used the term Mizrahim because it reflects a more contemporary definition, is
commonly used by Israeli sociologists (e.g., Smooha, 2003), and refers to any Jew with Eastern,
rather than Western, origin (also those who do not have a historic link to Spain).
TAF-RT2803X-08-0605-C012.indd 224
8/6/08 9:54:07 PM
TALKING ABOUT POWER
225
Dominant Group
(Ashkenazim)
5.5
Desire to Discuss Topic
Subordinate Group
5.0
(Mizrahim)
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
Talking Critically
About Power
Talking About
Commonalities
Figure 12.2 Desires of dominant and subordinate group members in Israel (Ashkenazim
and Mizrahim) to talk about power critically and to talk about intergroup commonalities
(1 = not at all; 7 = very much).
members in their desire to talk about commonalities, although, unlike the previous study, dominant group members showed a slightly greater desire to talk about
commonalities than did subordinate group members. However, subordinate group
members (Mizrahim) did have a significantly stronger desire than did dominant
group members (Ashkenazim) to talk about power critically. Also replicating the
findings of our previous study, this difference in desire to talk about power was
partially mediated by the stronger motivation for social change of subordinate
group members relative to dominant group members.
Furthermore, dominant group members had a stronger preference to talk
about commonalities than to talk about power, a finding that is also consistent
with the laboratory experiment. However, among the subordinate group members,
talking about power was not preferred more than talking about commonalities
(as it was in our previous study). A possible reason for this lack of difference may
be that because the dominant group members are higher in status and control
in the social system, subordinate group members are likely to desire a common
connection with them, even while subordinates are motivated for social change.
Therefore, among subordinate group members, talking about power may coexist
with a desire to address commonalities with members of the dominant group; a
pattern that is consistent with research showing that subordinate group members
desire both to be part of the dominant group and to retain their original identity
(Dovidio et al., 2001; van Oudenhoven et al., 1998). Perhaps this pattern was not
obtained in the laboratory experiment because the groups were not interdependent on dimensions other than the power one (specific to that experimental session) and thus subordinate group members had little interest to be on good terms
with the dominant group.
TAF-RT2803X-08-0605-C012.indd 225
8/6/08 9:54:08 PM
226
INTERGROUP MISUNDERSTANDINGS
Beyond replicating the effects obtained in the previous studies regarding the
desire to talk about power, an additional aspect of this study was the exploration of
the role of identification. As we hypothesized, the effect of level of identification on
talking about power was moderated by group position. Ingroup identification did
not predict talking about power for dominant group members, but it did significantly predict talking about power for subordinate group members. In particular,
Mizrahim who identified more strongly with their ethnic group had a stronger
desire to talk about power critically in an intergroup encounter. With respect to
talking about commonalities there was no significant interaction between group
position and identification. However, examination of the correlation between identification and commonality-talk revealed that among dominant group members,
high identifiers had a greater desire to talk about commonalities (r = .34), whereas
among subordinate group members’ identification was not related to the desire to
talk about commonalities (r = .03). These results provide additional support for our
proposition regarding the instrumental function talking about power represents
for subordinate group members’ collective interests. Further, we also obtained the
expected association between identification with dominant groups and the desire
for addressing commonalities.
Another important aspect of this study was the manipulation of the legitimacy
of the differences in group position and its effect on group members’ desire to
talk about power. The anticipated statistical interaction between group position
(dominant vs. subordinate) and legitimacy on willingness to discuss power was
obtained (see Fig. 12.3). As expected, dominant group members were more willing
to talk about power when the group status differences were portrayed as illegitimate rather than legitimate. Subordinate group members’ interest in talking about
Legitimate
Disparities
Desire to Talk About Power
5.5
Illegitimate
Disparities
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
Dominant Group
(Ashkenazim)
Subordinate Group
(Mizrahim)
Figure 12.3 Desires of dominant and subordinate group members in Israel (Ashkenazim
and Mizrahim) to talk about power critically as a function of the legitimacy of disparities
between the groups (1 = not at all; 7 = very much).
TAF-RT2803X-08-0605-C012.indd 226
8/6/08 9:54:08 PM
TALKING ABOUT POWER
227
power critically was comparably high across both the legitimate and illegitimate
conditions.
In summary, this study replicated the effects of group position on the desire
to talk about power and supported our predictions regarding ingroup identification and perceived illegitimacy. Among subordinate group members (Mizrahim),
the more the group members identified with the group the more they wanted
the intergroup contact to address issues of power. For the dominant group members, higher identification with the group was associated with more desire to direct
the attention in the contact toward issues that Mizrahim and Ashkenazim share
in common. Furthermore, for the dominant group members (Ashkenazim), perceiving the inequality as illegitimate resulted in greater willingness to question
power.
CONCLUSION: IMPLICATION AND APPLICATION
Taken together, the studies we have described present a consistent picture of
the different experiences, perspectives, motivations, and goals of dominant and
subordinate groups. In interviews with Israeli Jews and Palestinians, in a laboratory experiment in which groups were assigned different levels of power, and in
research examining ethnic groups in Israel, subordinate group members displayed
strong desire to talk about power differences compared to members of dominant
groups, who preferred primarily to talk about commonalities between groups in
intergroup encounters.
Moreover, our research also revealed key mediating mechanisms and moderating factors. Motivations for social change toward equality generally mediated the
difference in the desire to talk about power for dominant and subordinate groups.
Subordinate group members who identified more with their group were more
highly motivated to talk critically about power differences, and dominant group
members who were more highly identified with their group also had a greater
desire to discuss commonalities. Further, dominant group members who perceived their advantaged status as relatively illegitimate were more willing to talk
critically about the power differences between the groups. Our findings therefore
suggest a way to motivate dominant group members to participate in the type of
discussion that is generally desired by subordinate groups. Thus, emphasizing the
illegitimacy of power relations can form a basis for a type of intergroup dialogue
that can speak to the needs of both groups and thereby contribute to a reduction
in intergroup misunderstandings.
Nevertheless, we note that under real-world circumstances, there may be significant limits to the extent to which dominant group members will acknowledge
their advantage as illegitimate. Several forces are consistently working to maintain the dominant group members’ low recognition of the potential illegitimacy
of power relations. These forces include active suppression of issues revealing
inequality and injustice, mostly implemented by the mass media and the public
discourse, and they also include the basic drive for justice that leads people to
see their worlds, and their own status within it, as just and fair (Montada, 1996).
TAF-RT2803X-08-0605-C012.indd 227
8/6/08 9:54:08 PM
228
INTERGROUP MISUNDERSTANDINGS
Furthermore, as suggested by Leach, Snider, and Iyer (2002), because the dominant group is considered the norm, rather than a superior category, privileges are
taken for granted.
The research we presented also sheds light on recent findings in the contact
literature showing that dominant and subordinate group members are not affected
the same way by intergroup interactions (Dovidio et al., 2000; Tropp & Pettigrew, 2005). This work reveals that intergroup contact is seen as less pleasant and
less productive and results in less promotion of positive intergroup attitudes for
members of subordinate groups than for members of dominant groups. Our findings demonstrate that motivation for social change, which is largely group-based,
affects the way dominant and subordinate group members enter contact situations.
Therefore, it is not surprising that they also leave the interactions with different
consequences.
Along the same lines, realizing that relative group position impacts group
members’ goals with respect to the interaction explains why even when both dominant and subordinate group members approach their interactions with constructive intentions, the results may still be intergroup misunderstandings. Despite the
richness of the contact literature (see Brown & Hewstone, 2005, for a review),
few studies have examined the desired content of intergroup contact, and to our
knowledge none have considered the aspects of addressing the power relations in
the contact. We propose that intergroup contact can be even more effective if the
different realities, perceptions, motivations, and goals of members of dominant
and subordinate groups are understood, acknowledged, and incorporated into the
structure of the contact situation.
Furthermore, talking about power in an intergroup contact can also serve the
purpose of raising awareness about group-based hierarchy in dominant group
members and by that, possibly contributing to a larger scale social change toward
greater equality. Although movements for social change can be initiated by subordinate groups (e.g., the civil rights movement in the United States, India’s struggle
for independence) the power to implement social changes toward equality typically resides within the dominant group members. Hence, even when subordinates
challenge the social inequality they are not likely to promote a change unless the
dominant group members will acknowledge that illegitimate inequality indeed
exists. As we illustrated in this chapter, social protesters often used the questioning of power as a tool for promoting social change for this very reason. Although
talking about power is by no means an equivalent to an actual social change, we
propose that it can represent an important step toward an egalitarian change in
power. Thus, our research has the potential for direct practical application for promoting intergroup equality.
The School for Peace in Israel, for example, incorporates many of the processes and principles we identified in this chapter for understanding and improving intergroup relations. It developed out of the experiences of Jews and Arabs
living together in the same village, whose founder’s initial intent was to break
the existing stereotypes and ameliorate national conflict by creating a peaceful,
cooperative Arab–Jewish community. They named the village “Oasis of Peace” to
reflect this idea. However, with time, the residents of the village realized that the
TAF-RT2803X-08-0605-C012.indd 228
8/6/08 9:54:08 PM
TALKING ABOUT POWER
229
asymmetry in power that characterized the relationship between Arabs and Jews
outside the village had penetrated their community. For example, the dominant
language in the village was still Hebrew, despite the efforts to have both languages
(Hebrew and Arabic) taught and spoken in the village. As a result, the residents
felt that their original identities and statuses were intensified through this experience of ongoing interaction. Ironically, then, the attempt to overcome the barriers
of national origin resulted in an ongoing dialogue about group differences and
produced heightened awareness of the asymmetry in power that characterized the
relation between Arabs and Jews (Halabi, 2004).
From this experience grew the School for Peace. Like the community, the
school began with a clear intention of breaking down stereotypes by bringing
together Jews and Arabs from outside the village, for jointly rewarding activities.
Parallel to the development in the village, the founders reevaluated their original
program and developed a new approach that was based on two key insights derived
from the experience of participants in their intergroup encounters: (a) Despite the
attempts to eliminate group distinctions, national identities remained salient in
the intergroup activities; and (b) because group identities were salient, the asymmetrical power relationships between Jews and Arabs played a critical role in
determining the nature and outcome of their interactions. The program was then
restructured to have encounters designed to raise awareness of this very issue of
inequality in order to facilitate understanding of the meaning of being a member
of a dominant group or a subordinate group. This understanding was hypothesized
to form the foundation for a change in how participants think and feel about the
other group, as well as about their own group.
In this sense, the encounters within the School for Peace reflect the importance of talking about power as part of the process for ameliorating intergroup
conflict and oppression. However, the experience of the School for Peace also demonstrates that this is not an easy process (Halabi, 2004). The realization that one is
part of a group that is oppressing another is typically accompanied by frustration
and often resentment on part of the dominant group members. Moreover, voicing
dissatisfaction with the status quo on the part of subordinate group members is also
costly when considering their desire to stay “on good terms” with members of the
dominant group. Nevertheless, consistent with our conceptual analysis, the experience of the School for Peace shows that the joint acknowledgment of power differences in intergroup encounters, the recognition of unfair advantage by dominant
group members, and the feeling of subordinate group members of being respected
(see Fiske, Harris, Russell, & Shelton’s chapter in this volume) are key elements for
changing the nature of group relations in fundamental egalitarian ways.
In conclusion, as we noted at the beginning of this chapter, the intensity of
some conflicts (e.g., the current intergroup tension between Israeli Jews and Palestinians in the Occupied Territories) can limit opportunities for dialogue between
group members. Nevertheless, even within the larger context of conflict, opportunities for contact can exist, such as was the case following the signing of the
Oslo agreements between Palestinians and Israelis in 1993. The work we have
presented in this chapter demonstrates that although fostering intergroup contact
is an important step toward reducing conflict, it is also critical to understand the
TAF-RT2803X-08-0605-C012.indd 229
8/6/08 9:54:08 PM
230
INTERGROUP MISUNDERSTANDINGS
different motivations and goals of dominant and subordinate group members to
avoid intergroup misunderstanding that can exacerbate conflict. Understanding
the different perspectives and realities of dominant and subordinate groups and
recognizing their different desires for the content of intergroup interactions are
critical for a comprehensive conceptual understanding of intergroup relations and,
as the School for Peace illustrates, developing interventions and programs that can
enhance communication and reduce conflict in practical ways.
REFERENCES
Blumer, H. (1958). Race prejudice as a sense of group position. Pacific Sociological Review,
1, 3–7.
Bobo, L. (1999). Prejudice as group position: Micro-foundations of a sociological approach
to racism and race relations. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 445–472.
Brown, R., & Hewstone, M. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. In M. P.
Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 37, pp. 255–343). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Christensen, A., & Heavey, C. L. (1990). Gender and social structure in the demand/ withdraw
pattern of marital conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 73–81.
Doosje, B., Ellemers, N., & Spears, R. (1999). Commitment and intergroup behaviour. In
N. Ellemers, R. Spears & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment and
content (pp. 84–107). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Dovidio, J. F, Gaertner, S. L., & Kafati, G. (2000). Group identity and intergroup relations:
The Common In-Group Identity Model. In S. R. Thye, E. J. Lawler, M. W. Macy &
H. A. Walker (Eds.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 17, pp. 1–34). Stamford, CT:
JAI Press.
Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Neimann, Y. F., & Snider, K. (2001). Racial, ethnic, and
cultural differences in responding to distinctiveness and discrimination on campus:
Stigma and common group identity. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 167–188.
Ellemers, E., Wilke, H., & van Knippenberg, A. (1993). Effects of the legitimacy of low
group or individual status on individual and collective status enhancement strategies.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 766–778.
Feagin, J. R. (2006). Systematic racism: A theory of oppression. New York: Routledge.
Furnham, A., & Rajamanickam, R. (1992). The Protestant Work Ethic and Just World beliefs
in Great Britain and India. International Journal of Psychology, 27, 401–416.
Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The Common Ingroup
Identity Model. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Gallup (2002). Poll topics & trends: Race relations. Washington, DC: The Gallup Organization. http://www.gallup.com/poll/topics/race.asp.
Gerard, H. B., & Hoyt, M. F. (1974). Distinctiveness of social categorization and attitudes toward ingroup members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29,
836–842.
Halabi, R. (Ed.) (2004). Israeli and Palestinian identities in dialogue: The school for peace
approach. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Iyer, A., Leach, C. W., & Crosby, F. J. (2003). White guilt and racial compensation: The
benefits and limits of self-focus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29,
117–129.
Jackman, M. (1994). The velvet glove: Paternalism and conflict in gender, class and race
relations. Berkeley: University of California Press.
TAF-RT2803X-08-0605-C012.indd 230
8/6/08 9:54:09 PM
TALKING ABOUT POWER
231
Josephine, L. (2005). We don’t feel welcome here: African Americans and Hispanics in
metro Boston. Boston, MA: Harvard University Civil Rights Project (research report,
Harvard University).
Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory:
Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881–920.
Katz, I., & Hass, R. G. (1988). Racial ambivalence and American value conflict: Correlational and priming studies of dual cognitive structures. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 55, 893–905.
Lalonde, R. N., & Silverman, R. A. (1994). Behavioral preferences in response to social
injustice: The effects of group permeability and social identity salience. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 78–85.
Leach, C. W., Snider, S. L., & Iyer, A. (2002). “Poisoning the consciences of the fortunate”:
The experience of relative advantage and support for social equality. In I. Walker &
H. J. Smith (Eds.), Relative deprivation: Specification, development, and integration
(pp. 136–163). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Levin, S., Sidanius, J., Rabinowitz, J. L., & Federico, C. (1998). Ethnic identity, legitimizing ideologies, and social status: A matter of ideological asymmetry. Political Psychology, 19, 373–404.
LeVine, R. A., & Campbell, D. T. (1972). Ethnocentrism: Theories of conflict, ethnic attitudes, and group behavior. New York: John Wiley.
Montada, L. (1996). Trade offs between justice and self-interest. In L. Montada & M. J.
Lerner (Eds.), Current societal concerns about justice (pp. 259–274). New York: Plenum Press.
Nadler, A., & Saguy, T. (2004). Reconciliation between nations: Overcoming emotional
deterrents to ending conflicts between groups. In H. Langholtz & C. E. Stout (Eds.),
The Psychology of Diplomacy (pp. 29–46). New York: Praeger.
Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup Contact Theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49,
65–85.
Powell, A. A., Branscombe, N. R., & Schmitt, M. T. (2005). Inequality as “ingroup privilege” or “outgroup disadvantage”: The impact of group focus on collective guilt and
interracial attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 508–521.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763.
Rubin, M., & Hewstone, M. (2004). Social identity, system justification, and social dominance: Commentary on Reicher, Jost and Banaji, and Sidanius et al. Political Psychology, 25, 823–844.
Saguy, T., & Nadler, A. (2006). Social psychology and the process of trust building: Interviews with Israelis and Palestinians involved in joint projects. Megamot, 44(2),
354–374.
Scheepers, D., Spears, R., Doosje, B., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2003). Two functions of
verbal intergroup discrimination: Identity and instrumental motives as a result of
group identification and threat. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29,
568–577.
Schuman, H., Steeh, C., Bobo, L., & Krysan, M. (1997). Racial attitudes in America:
Trends and interpretations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy
and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Smooha, S. (2003). Jewish ethnicity in Israel as a persistent real phenomenon. Iyunim Bitkumat Israel, 13, 413–425.
TAF-RT2803X-08-0605-C012.indd 231
8/6/08 9:54:09 PM
232
INTERGROUP MISUNDERSTANDINGS
Tajfel, H. (1978). Social categorization, social identity and social comparison. In H. Tajfel
(Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of
intergroup relations (pp. 61–76). London: Academic Press.
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 (pp. 33–48).
Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Taylor, T. R. (1990). Justice, self interest and the legitimacy of legal and political authority.
In J. J. Mansbridge (Ed.), Beyond self-interest (pp. 171–179). Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press.
Tropp, L. R., & Pettigrew, T. F. (2005). Relationships between intergroup contact and
prejudice among minority and majority status groups. Psychological Science, 16,
951–956.
van Oudenhoven, J. P., Prins, K. S., & Buunk, B. (1998). Attitudes of minority and majority
members towards adaptation of immigrants. European Journal of Social Psychology,
28, 995–1013.
Wessel, D. (2005). Racial discrimination: Still at work in the US? Retrieved on May 26,
2005, from The Wall Street journal online, http://www.careerjournal.com/myc/
dicersity/20030916-wessel.html.
Wright, S. C. (1997). Ambiguity, social influence, and collective action: Generating collective protest in response to tokenism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23,
1277–1290.
Wright, S. C. (2001). Restricted intergroup boundaries: Tokenism, ambiguity and tolerance
of injustice. In J. T. Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy (pp. 223 –
256). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
TAF-RT2803X-08-0605-C012.indd 232
8/6/08 9:54:09 PM
Author Query
AQ1: Please confirm change here to North America.
TAF-RT2803X-08-0605-C012.indd 233
8/6/08 9:54:09 PM