Intergroup RelationsThe phenomena discussed here are probably better known to psychologists,since they constitute the core of the social psychological study of intergrouprelations. Although it may be difficult to distinguish this domain of immigrationresearch from the large general literature on the topic, there are a few differentiat-ing features: First, the groups are usuallyculturallydefined (including specificfeatures of language, religion, status, and “race”), more than is the case for inter-group relations generally (where the focus is often on “minorities” or other genericcategories, such as “Asians”). Second, immigrants are typically lessfamiliarto theresident population, making more salient the well-established relationshipbetween familiarity and attraction. For example, when holding specific culturalPsychology of Immigration621
background constant, immigrants (compared to those born and raised in a particu-lar country) are usually rated less favorably (e.g., Berry & Kalin, 1995; Kalin,1996). And third, immigrants are typically lesssimilarto the resident population,making more salient the similarity-attraction relationships. In keeping with this,those who seek to assimilate and who undergo greater behavioral shifts (towardreceiving society norms) may experience less discrimination (Mummendey &Wenzel, 1999).Ethnic stereotyping, ethnic attitudes, and ethnic prejudice can be studied withrespect to both the receiving society and immigrants. Thus, as for studies ofacculturation, mutual orreciprocalviews need to be taken into account. Justas acculturation research tends to focus only on nondominant groups, however,intergroup relations research has been largely concerned with studying only domi-nant groups. In ethnic stereotype research there is a tradition of considering domi-nant groups’ views of others (heterostereotypes) and sometimes of themselves(autostereotypes); few studies, however, have examined the auto- and hetero-stereotypes held by the numerous nondominant groups in a reciprocal way. Brewerand Campbell (1976) did so, revealing a pattern of complex relationships, includ-ing universal ingroup favoritism, a widely shared hierarchy of outgroup accep-tance, and “balance” in dyadic attitudes (see also Berry & Kalin, 1979; Kalin &Berry, 1996). Such multigroup designs are of special importance in immigrantstudies for two reasons. First, there is often competition among immigrant groupsfor favor and status in the receiving society; hence a complex network of attitudesis the essential research focus in such situations. Second, many countries nowcompete to attract immigrants; hence immigrants’ attitudes toward the receivingsociety are an essential counterpart to the attitudes held by the larger society towardthem.