New Zealand = Māori, New Zealand = Bicultural: Ethnic Group Differences in a National Sample of Māori and Europeans
- 671 Downloads
New Zealand (NZ) Europeans show a unique implicit bicultural effect, with research using the Implicit Association Test consistently showing that they associate Māori (the Indigenous peoples) and their own (dominant/advantaged majority) group as equally representative of the nation. We replicated and extended this NZ = bicultural effect in a small online national sample of Māori and NZ Europeans. The NZ European majority showed a consistent NZ = bicultural effect. Māori, in contrast, showed an automatic ingroup NZ = Māori effect. These results are contrary to predictions derived from Social Identity Theory and System Justification Theory, and instead seem more consistent with a model incorporating the pervasive effects of culture-specific symbols on automatic representations of the national category.
KeywordsNational identity Implicit attitudes Māori New Zealand Social representations
This research was funded by Performance Based Research Funds awarded to Chris G. Sibley by the University of Auckland. We thank Annelise Moberly, Missy Purnomo, and Max Harris for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript.
- Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. London. United Kingdom: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
- Jackson, B., & Fischer, R. (2007). Biculturalism in employee selection or ‘who should get the job’? Perceptions of Māori and Pakeha job applicants in a NZ European student sample. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 36, 100–108.Google Scholar
- Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 1–27.Google Scholar
- Liu, J. H. (2005). History and identity: A system of checks and balances for Aotearoa/New Zealand. In J. H. Liu, T. McCreanor, T. McIntosh, & T. Teaiwa (Eds.), New Zealand identities: Departures and Destinations (pp. 69–87). Wellington, NZ: Victoria University Press.Google Scholar
- Sibley, C. G. (2010). The dark duo of post-colonial ideology: A model of symbolic exclusion and historical negation. Manuscript submitted for publication. Google Scholar
- Sibley, C. G., & Liu, J. H. (2004). Attitudes towards biculturalism in New Zealand: Social dominance and Pakeha attitudes towards the general principles and resource-specific aspects of bicultural policy. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 33, 88–99.Google Scholar
- Sibley, C. G., Liu, J. H., & Khan, S. S. (2008). Who are ‘we’? Implicit associations between ethnic and national symbols for Māori and Pakeha in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 38, 2–14.Google Scholar
- Sibley, C. G., Hoverd, W. J., & Liu, J. H. (2009). Social representations of New Zealand national character and identity. Papers on Social Representations.Google Scholar
- Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 23–46). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An intergrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
- The Social Report. (2008). Wellington. NZ: Ministry of Social Development.Google Scholar