| dc.description.abstract | This research aimed at testing the Common Ingroup Identity Model (CIIM). According to the CIIM,
negative attitudes between groups can be decreased by constituting a superordinate identity. The
CIIM has proven effective in laboratory settings, but was now applied to the real life context of the
Kurdish conflict. The conflict is still vivid in Turkish society. The Turkish and Kurdish migrant
populations are also responsive to incidents related to the Kurdish conflict. Both in Turkey and The
Netherlands, problems arise between groups of Turks and Kurds. In order to find a way to fight
intergroup tension, the Common Ingroup Identity Model was put to the test. Two separate studies
were conducted. For the Turkish sample, the respondents’ adherence to a specific superordinate
identity was measured. In the Dutch sample a measure of the basic level of superordinate identity
was combined with a prime of superordinate identity that was assigned to half the respondents. All
respondents assigned a level of responsibility for the conflict to the ingroup and the outgroup. This
measure of conflict perception was hypothesized to moderate the negative link between
superordinate identity and negative stereotyping. In Turkey, the main effect was only found for
Turks. Outgroup conflict perception was positively related to negative stereotyping as an
independent predictor. The prime in the Dutch sample was only effective for Kurds. Ingroup and
outgroup conflict perception interacted with the prime and the basic level superordinate identity,
but the patterns vary across the ethnic groups. The general conclusion is that superordinate
identity is involved in intergroup attitudes in different settings. This means that the Common
Ingroup Identity Model is a promising tactic in manipulating attitudes through superordinate
identity. However, this research did not succeed in finding an effective way to decrease negative
stereotyping using the CIIM. | |
