Submission Info

Abstract Submission

The deadline for abstract submission is 31 October 2026. Late submissions may be considered after this date only if space is available.

Abstracts should be maximum 200 words and must clearly align with the conference focus on intergroup communication. 

To enhance and ensure fit to the topic and history of the field of “intergroup communication”, see the current 8 Principles of intergroup communication below.  These, in due course, will be fine-tuned, amended, and/or expanded. Your own abstract might align well with one or more of these Principles, or might be moving toward suggesting additional Principles. But we draw your attention to them so that all potential attendees can understand the context of our Conference.

Presentation formats include:

• Talks: 15 minutes + 5 minutes Q&A

• Blitz presentations: 5 minutes

• Posters

We reserve the right to adjust presentation formats depending on submission numbers and programme requirements. This will be communicated upon acceptance.

If you have any questions, contact f.fasoli@surrey.ac.uk 

Intergroup Communication Principles 

Giles, H., Hansen, K., & Gardikiotis, A. (2025). Prologuing and communicating intergroup communication matters. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 33(5), 719-7285. https://10.1080/15456870.2025.2525798

1. Language patterns and other diverse modes of communication can serve, on- and off-line, as markers of, and sometimes criteria and boundaries for, the social categories to which group members belong, and with which they are perceived by others.

2. Ingroup members’ accounts of their intergroup histories and demographics, along with their communicative practices, can signify distinctive cultures in terms of normative routines, values, and world views. These accounts and cultures can coexist with those of comparative others, from whom the ingroups can differentiate, and even denigrate and stigmatise, or dehumanise with hate speech.

3. Ingroup members’ perceptions and interpretations of the rhetorical positions and linguistically-biased messages of outgroups directed towards them – even moral praise – can be negatively construed by recipients from the ingroup, often fostering within them anxieties and uncertainties, and even harmful reactions.

4. Ingroup perceptions – often shaped by media and public discourse – of egregious outgroup actions against ingroup members can trigger emotionally-charged, polarising rhetoric. This may amplify grievances, deepen intergroup divisions, mobilise retaliatory or collective action, and foster offline conflict and violence.

5. Ingroup members of social disadvantaged and marginalised groups will strive, and sometimes be strategically encouraged (especially with the ‘allyship’ and support of dominant or socially advantaged groups) to acquire the privileged group’s communicative features. The privileged group can, ironically in reactance, move communicatively away from what would be construed as identity-threatening tactics.

6. Outgroup narratives negatively targeting disadvantaged minorities are likely to thwart the minority group’s mobilisation toward collective action and redressal. This effect often occurs through routes of fear and helplessness and, potentially, can lead to deteriorated psychological well-being and health problems among the disadvantaged group.

7. Through the communicative creation and expression of group norms in their social networks and media platforms, ingroups can control and negotiate the normativity of everyday life, enabling their members to recognise deviancies by others that can lead to discrediting and marginalising such offenders.

8. Individuals who convincingly express the best normative communicative routines, values, and world views of their ingroup, can emerge as trusty leaders, thereafter, having the potential to fashion more distinctive cultures, social change, and justice movements16 with a stronger sense of community.