Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-888d5979f-g6cgc Total loading time: 0.465 Render date: 2021-10-26T00:40:34.088Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

5 - Intergroup Discrimination: Ingroup Love or Outgroup Hate?

from Part I - General Theoretical Perspectives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 November 2016

Marilynn B. Brewer
Affiliation:
Ohio State University
Chris G. Sibley
Affiliation:
University of Auckland
Fiona Kate Barlow
Affiliation:
University of Queensland
Get access

Summary

Intergroup discrimination can be defined broadly as differential treatment of individuals based on social category membership. In many contexts, discrimination takes the form of ingroup bias, whereby members of one's own social categories are evaluated more positively or responded to more favorably than members of other social categories (outgroups). In much of the social psychological literature, discrimination is viewed as the behavioral component of prejudice.

In light of this conflation of prejudice and discrimination, it is interesting that ingroup bias is often referred to as ingroup favoritism (Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, & Flament, 1971), whereas prejudice is most often defined as outgroup hostility (see Dixon, Levine, Reicher, & Durrheim, 2012; Greenwald & Pettigrew, 2014). This chapter reviews theory and empirical research on the relationship between ingroup bias and outgroup hostility and argues that it is important to distinguish between these two loci of discrimination and to recognize that much intergroup discrimination takes the form of ingroup favoritism in the absence of outgroup antagonism.

Ingroup Bias and Ethnocentrism

Ethnocentrism was described by Sumner as a universal characteristic of human social groups whereby

a differentiation arises between ourselves, the we-group, or in-group, and everybody else, or the others-group, out-groups. The insiders in a we-group are in a relation of peace, order, law, government, and industry, to each other … Ethnocentrism is the technical name for this view of things in which one's own group is the center of everything, and all others are scaled and rated with reference to it … Each group nourishes its own pride and vanity, boasts itself superior, exalts its own divinities, and looks with contempt on outsiders.

(Sumner, 1906, pp. 12–13)

Over the past 50 years of empirical research on intergroup relations, this propensity to privilege ingroupers over outgroupers has been well established, confirming the power of we-they distinctions to produce differential evaluation, liking, and treatment of other persons depending on whether or not they are identified as members of the ingroup category.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albarello, F., & Rubini, M. (2012). Reducing dehumanisation outcomes towards Blacks: The role of multiple categorisation and of human identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 875–882.Google Scholar
Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Ancok, D., & Chertkoff, J. M. (1983). Effects of group membership, relative performance, and self-interest on the division of outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1256–1262.Google Scholar
Balliet, D., Wu, J., & De Dreu, C. (2014). Ingroup favoritism in cooperation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 1556–1581.Google Scholar
Bar-Tal, D. (1993). Patriotism as fundamental beliefs of group members. Politics and the Individual, 3, 45–62.Google Scholar
Bennett, M., Lyons, E., Sani, F., & Barrett, M. (1998). Children's subjective identification with the group and in-group favouritism. Developmental Psychology, 34, 902–909.Google Scholar
Bernstein, M., Young, S., & Hugenberg, K. (2007). The cross-category effect: Mere social categorization is sufficient to elicit an own-group bias in face recognition. Psychological Science, 15, 706–712.Google Scholar
Bizumic, B., Duckitt, J., Popadic, D., Dru, V., & Krauss, S. (2009). A cross-cultural investigation into a reconceptualization of ethnocentrism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 871–899.Google Scholar
Blanz, M., Mummendey, A., & Otten, S. (1997). Normative evaluations and frequency expectations regarding positive and negative outcome allocations between groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 165–176.Google Scholar
Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307–324.Google Scholar
Brewer, M. B. (1981). Ethnocentrism and its role in interpersonal trust. In Brewer, M. and Collins, B. (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and the social sciences (pp. 345–360). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brewer, M. B. (1996). In-group favoritism: The subtle side of intergroup discrimination. In Messick, D. & Tenbrunsel, A. (Eds.), Codes of conduct: Behavioral research into business ethics (pp. 160–170). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: In-group love or out-group hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55, 429–444.Google Scholar
Brewer, M. B. (2008). Deprovincialization: Social identity complexity and outgroup acceptance. In Wagner, U., Tropp, L., Finchilescu, G., & Tredoux, C. (Eds.), Improving intergroup relations. Building on the legacy of Thomas F. Pettigrew (pp. 160–176). Oxford: Blackwell.
Brewer, M. B. (2010). Social identity complexity and acceptance of diversity. In Crisp, R. (Ed.), The psychology of social and cultural diversity (pp. 11–33). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Brewer, M. B., & Campbell, D. T. (1976). Ethnocentrism and intergroup attitudes: East African evidence. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Brewer, M. B., & Gaertner, S. L. (2001). Toward reduction of prejudice: Intergroup contact and social categorization. In Brown, R. & Gaertner, S. (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intergroup processes (pp. 451–472). Oxford: Blackwell.
Brewer, M. B., & Kramer, R. M. (1986). Choice behavior in social dilemmas: Effects of social identity, group size, and decision framing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 543–549.Google Scholar
Brewer, M. B., & Schneider, S. (1990). Social identity and social dilemmas: A double-edged sword. In Abrams, D. & Hogg, M. (Eds.), Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances (pp. 22–41). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Bruins, J., Platow, M., & Ng, S. H. (1995). Distributive and procedural justice in interpersonal and intergroup situations. Social Justice Research, 8, 103–121.Google Scholar
Buchan, N., Brewer, M., Grimalda, G., Wilson, R., Fatas, E., & Foddy, M. (2011). Global social identity and global cooperation. Psychological Science, 22, 821–828.Google Scholar
Buchan, N., Croson, R., & Dawes, R. M. (2002). Swift neighbors and persistent strangers: A cross-cultural investigation of trust and reciprocity in social exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 108, 161–206.Google Scholar
Buttelmann, D., & Bohm, R. (2014). The ontogeny of the motivation that underlies in-group bias. Psychological Science, 25, 921–927.Google Scholar
Cameron, J., Alvarez, J., Ruble, D., & Fuligni, A. (2001). Children's lay theories about ingroup and outgroups: Reconceptualizing research on prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 118–128.Google Scholar
Cashdan, E. (2001). Ethnocentrism and xenophobia: A cross-cultural study. Current Anthropology, 42, 760–765.Google Scholar
Castelli, L., Tomelleri, S., & Zogmaister, C. (2008). Implicit ingroup metafavoritism: Subtle preference for ingroup members displaying ingroup bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 807–818.Google Scholar
Correia, I., Vala, J., & Aguiar, P. (2007). Victim's innocence, social categorization, and the threat to the belief in a just world. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 31–38.Google Scholar
Darley, J. M., & Latane, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 377–383.Google Scholar
De Cremer, D., & Van Vugt, M. (1999). Social identification effects in social dilemmas: A transformation of motives. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 871–893.Google Scholar
de Dreu, C. (2010). Social value orientation moderates ingroup love but not outgroup hate in competitive intergroup conflict. Group Process and Intergroup Relations, 13, 701–713.Google Scholar
deDreu, C., Greer, L. L., Handgraaf, M. J., Shalvi, S., Van Kleef, G. A., Baas, M.Feith, S. W. (2010). The neuropeptide oxytocin regulates parochial altruism in intergroup conflict among humans. Science, 328, 1408–1411.Google Scholar
Diehl, M. (1990). The minimal group paradigm: Theoretical explanations and empirical findings. In Stroebe, W. & Hewstone, M. (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 263–292). Chicester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Dion, K. L. (1973). Cohesiveness as a determinant of ingroup-outgroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 163–171.Google Scholar
Dixon, J., Levine, M., Reicher, S., & Durrheim, K. (2012). Beyond prejudice: Are negative evaluations the problem and is getting us to like one another more the solution? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35, 411–466.Google Scholar
Duckitt, J., & Mphuthing, T. (1998). Group identification and intergroup attitudes: A longitudinal analysis in South Africa. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 80–85.Google Scholar
Dunham, Y., & Emory, J. (2014). Of affect and ambiguity: The emergence of preference for arbitrary ingroups. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 81–98.Google Scholar
Foddy, M., Platow, M., & Yamagishi, T. (2009). Group-based trust in strangers: The role of stereotypes and expectations. Psychological Science, 20, 419–422.Google Scholar
Freshman, C. (2000). Whatever happened to anti-Semitism? How social science theories identify discrimination and promote coalitions between “different” minorities. Cornell Law Review, 85, 313–442.Google Scholar
Gaertner, L., Iuzzini, J., Witt, M., & Orina, M. (2006). Us without them: Evidence for an intragroup origin of positive in-group regard. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 426–439.Google Scholar
Gaertner, S. L, & Dovidio, J. (1977). The subtlety of White racism, arousal, and helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 691–707.Google Scholar
Gaertner, S., & Dovidio, J. (1986). The aversive form of racism. In Dovidio, J. & Gaertner, S. (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 61–89). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Gaertner, S., & McLaughlin, J. (1983). Racial stereotypes: Associations and ascription of positive and negative characteristics. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46, 23–30.Google Scholar
Gerard, H. B., & Hoyt, M. (1974). Distinctiveness of social categorization and attitude toward in-group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 836–842.Google Scholar
Golby, A., Gabrieli, J., Chiao, J., & Eberhardt, J. (2001). Differential responses in the fusiform region to same-race and other-race faces. Nature Neuroscience, 4, 845–850.Google Scholar
Gonsalkorale, K., Sherman, J. W., Allen, T. J., Klauer, K. C., & Amodio, D. M. (2011). Accounting for successful control of implicit racial bias: The roles of association activation, response monitoring, and overcoming bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1534–1545.Google Scholar
Greenwald, A. G., & Pettigrew, T. F. (2014). With malice toward none and charity for some: Ingroup favoritism enables discrimination. American Psychologist, 69, 669–684.Google Scholar
Halabi, S., Statman, Y., & Dovidio, J. (2015). Attributions of responsibility and punishment for ingroup and outgroup members: The role of just world beliefs. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 18, 104–115.Google Scholar
Halevy, N., Bornstein, G., & Sagiv, L. (2008). “Ingroup love” and “outgroup hate” as motives for individual participation in intergroup conflict. Psychological Science, 19, 405–411.Google Scholar
Hehman, E., Mania, E., & Gaertner, S. (2010). Where the division lies: Common ingroup identity moderates the cross-race facial-recognition effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 445–448.Google Scholar
Hehman, E., Stanley, E., Gaertner, S., & Simons, R. (2011). Multiple group membership influences face recognition: Recall and neurological evidence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 1262–1268.Google Scholar
Hewstone, M. (1990). The “ultimate attribution error”? A review of the literature on intergroup causal attribution. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 311–335.Google Scholar
Hinkle, S., & Brown, R. (1990). Intergroup comparisons and social identity: Some links and lacunae. In Abrams, D. & Hogg, M. (Eds.), Social identity theory: Construction and critical advances (pp. 48–70). London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Huo, Y., Smith, H., Tyler, T., & Lind, E. (1996). Superordinate identification, subgroup identification, and justice concerns. Psychological Science, 7, 40–45.Google Scholar
Ito, T., Thompson, E., & Cacioppo, J. (2004). Tracking the timecourse of social perception: The effects of racial cues on event-related brain potentials. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1267–1280.Google Scholar
Jetten, J., Spears, R., & Manstead, A. R. (1996). Intergroup norms and intergroup discrimination: Distinctive self-categorization and social identity effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1222–1233.Google Scholar
Kawakami, K., Williams, A., Sidhu, D., Choma, B. L., Rodriguez-Bailón, R., Cañadas, E.Hugenberg, K. (2014). An eye for the I: Preferential attention to the eyes of ingroup members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 1–20.Google Scholar
Kosterman, R., & Feshbach, S. (1989). Toward a measure of patriotic and nationalistic attitudes. Political Psychology, 10, 257–274.Google Scholar
Kramer, R. M., & Goldman, L. (1995). Helping the group or helping yourself? Social motives and group identity in resource dilemmas. In Schroeder, D. A. (Ed.), Social dilemmas: Perspectives on individuals and groups (pp. 49–67). New York: Praeger.
Krieger, L. H. (1998). Civil rights Perestroika: Intergroup relations after affirmative action. California Law Review, 86, 1251–1333.Google Scholar
Levin, D. T. (2000). Race as a visual feature: Using visual search and perceptual discrimination tasks to understand face categories and the cross-race recognition deficit. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 559–574.Google Scholar
Levine, M., Prosser, A., Evans, D., & Reicher, S. (2005). Identity and emergency intervention: How social group membership and inclusiveness of group boundaries shape helping behaviour. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 443–453.Google Scholar
Lewis, G. J., & Bates, T. C. (2010). Genetic evidence for multiple biological mechanisms underlying in-group favoritism. Psychological Science, 21, 1623–1628.Google Scholar
McFarland, S., Webb, M., & Brown, D. (2012). All humanity is my ingroup: A measure and studies of identification with all humanity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 830–853.Google Scholar
Meertens, R., & Pettigrew, T. F. (1997). Is subtle prejudice really prejudice? Public Opinion Quarterly, 61, 54–71.Google Scholar
Miller, D. T., Downs, J. S., & Prentice, D. A. (1998). Minimal conditions for the creation of a unit relationship: The social bond between birthdaymates. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 475–481.Google Scholar
Monteith, M., Ashburn-Nardo, L., Voils, C., & Czopp, A. (2002). Putting the brakes on prejudice: On the development and operation of cues for control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1029–1050.Google Scholar
Mullen, B., Brown, R., & Smith, C. (1992). In-group bias as a function of salience, relevance, and status: An integration. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 103–122.Google Scholar
Mummendey, A., & Otten, S. (1998). Positive-negative asymmetry in social discrimination. European Review of Social Psychology, 9, 107–143.Google Scholar
Mummendey, A., Simon, B., Dietze, C., Grunert, M., Haeger, G., Kessler, S., … Schaferhoff, S. (1992). Categorization is not enough: Intergroup discrimination in negative outcome allocations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 125–144.Google Scholar
Ng, S. H. (1984). Equity and social categorization effects on intergroup allocation of rewards. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 165–172.Google Scholar
Otten, S., & Moskowitz, G. (2000). Evidence for implicit evaluative in-group bias: Affect-biased spontaneous trait inference in a minimal group paradigm. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 77–89.Google Scholar
Otten, S., & Wentura, D. (1999). About the impact of automaticity in the minimal group paradigm: Evidence from affective priming tasks. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 1049–1071.Google Scholar
Paladino, M.-P., & Castelli, L. (2008). On the immediate consequences of intergroup categorization: Activation of approach and avoidance motor behavior toward ingroup and outgroup members. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 755–766.Google Scholar
Pauker, K., Weisbuch, M., Ambady, N., Adams, R., & Sommers, S. (2009). Not so Black and White: Memory for ambiguous group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 795–810.Google Scholar
Pettigrew, T. F. (1997). Generalized intergroup contact effects on prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 172–185.Google Scholar
Pettigrew, T. F., & Meertens, R. (1995). Subtle and blatant prejudice in Western Europe. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 57–75.Google Scholar
Pierce, K. P. (2006). Asymmetrical perceptions of group-based employment disparities: Differences in subjective evaluations of advantage-based and disadvantage-based discrimination. Unpublished dissertation. Ohio State University.
Platow, M., Foddy, M., Yamagishi, T., Lim, L., & Chow, A. (2012). Two experimental tests of trust in in-group strangers: The moderating role of common knowledge of group membership. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 30–35.Google Scholar
Platow, M., McClintock, C., & Liebrand, W. (1990). Predicting intergroup fairness and in-group bias in the minimal group paradigm. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 221–239.Google Scholar
Platow, M., O'Connell, A., Shave, R., & Hanning, P. (1995). Social evaluations of fair and unfair allocations in interpersonal and intergroup situations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 363–381.Google Scholar
Platow, M., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2001). A social identity analysis of leadership endorsement: The effects of leader ingroup prototypicality and distributive intergroup fairness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1508–1519.Google Scholar
Plant, E. A., & Devine, P. (2009). The active control of prejudice: Unpacking the intentions guiding control efforts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 640–652.Google Scholar
Ratner, K., & Amodio, D. (2013). Seeing “us vs them”: Minimal group effects on neural encoding of faces. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 298–301.Google Scholar
Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwarz, S., Halvy, N., & Eidelson, R. (2008). Toward a unifying model of identification with groups: Integrating theoretical perspectives. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 280–306.Google Scholar
Shaw, J., Brazy, P., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Promoting us or preventing them: Regulatory focus and manifestations of intergroup bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 433–446.Google Scholar
Struch, N., & Schwartz, S. (1989). Intergroup aggression: Its predictors and distinctness from in-group bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 364–373.Google Scholar
Sturmer, S., Snyder, M., Kropp, A., & Siem, B. (2006). Empathy-motivated helping: The moderating role of group membership. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 943–956.Google Scholar
Sumner, W. G. (1906). Folkways. New York: Ginn.
Tajfel, H., Billig, M., Bundy, R., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149–178.Google Scholar
Tanis, M., & Postmes, T. (2005). A social identity approach to trust: Interpersonal perception, group membership and trusting behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 413–424.Google Scholar
Tarrant, M., Branscombe, N., Warner, R., & Weston, D. (2012). Social identity and perceptions of torture: It's moral when we do it. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 513–518.Google Scholar
Tyler, T., Degoey, P., & Smith, H. (1996). Understanding why the justice of group procedures matters. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 913–930.Google Scholar
Valdesolo, P., & DeSteno, D. (2007). Moral hypocrisy: Social groups and the flexibility of virtue. Psychological Science, 18, 689–690.Google Scholar
Van Bavel, J., & Cunningham, W. (2012). A social identity approach to person memory: Group membership, collective identification, and social role shape attention and memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1566–1578.Google Scholar
Van Bavel, J., Packer, D., & Cunningham, W. (2008). The neural substrates of ingroup bias: A functional magnetic resonance imaging investigation. Psychological Science, 19, 1131–1139.Google Scholar
Van Bavel, J., Packer, D., & Cunningham, W. (2011). Modulation of the fusiform face area following minimal exposure to motivationally relevant faces: Evidence of ingroup enhancement (not outgroup disregard). Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 3343–3354.Google Scholar
Van Bavel, J., Swencionis, J., O'Connor, R., & Cunningham, W. (2012). Motivated social memory: Belonging needs moderate the own-group bias in face recognition. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 707–713.Google Scholar
Van Leeuwen, E., Ashton-James, C., & Hamaker, R. (2014). Pain reduces discrimination in helping. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 602–611.Google Scholar
Weber, J. G. (1994). The nature of ethnocentric attribution bias: In-group protection or enhancement? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 482–504.Google Scholar
Wenzel, M. (2000). Justice and identity: The significance of inclusion for perceptions of entitlement and the justice motive. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 157–176.Google Scholar
Wilson, T., & Brekke, N. (1994). Mental contamination and mental correction: Unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 117–142.Google Scholar
Wit, A. P., & Kerr, N. L. (2002). “Me versus just us versus us all”: Categorization and cooperation in nested social dilemmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 616–637.Google Scholar
Wit, A. P., & Wilke, H. (1992). The effect of social categorization on cooperation in three types of social dilemmas. Journal of Economic Psychology, 13, 135–151.Google Scholar
Yee, M., & Brown, R. (1992). Self-evaluations and intergroup attitudes in children aged three to nine. Child Development, 63, 619–629.Google Scholar
Young, S., Hugenberg, K., Bernstein, M., & Sacco, D. (2012). Perception and motivation in face recognition: A critical review of theories of the cross-race effect. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16, 116–142.Google Scholar
Yuki, M., Maddux, W., Brewer, M. B., & Takemura, K. (2005). Cross-cultural differences in relationship- and group-based trust. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 48–62.Google Scholar
11
Cited by

Send book to Kindle

To send this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Send book to Dropbox

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Send book to Google Drive

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×