Stereotyping and stereotypes have long been a crucial part of social psychological research on person perception and social cognition (e.g., Fiske &amp; Taylor, 1984). However, research in this area has typically centered on uncovering the intra-psychic processes of stereotyping, asking for instance whether or not such processes are biased and thus whether or not stereotypes reflect an &lsquo;accurate' or simplified and distorted vision of social reality. Accordingly, the emphasis has been on the representational and psychological function of stereotypes, be it to simplify the overflow of information and preserve the cognitive resources of the perceiver (Fiske &amp; Neuberg, 1990; Brewer, 1988), to provide the perceiver with additional information (Leyens, Yzerbyt &amp; Schadron, 1994) and generally to make sense of social reality (McGarty, Yzerbyt &amp; Spears, 2002), or yet to fulfill motivational needs such as the drive for positive self-evaluation (Tajfel &amp; Turner, 1979; Turner et al., 1987). Far less attention has been devoted to the performative dimension of stereotypes, i.e. to the question of what people may be trying to accomplish through the public expression of stereotypes (Billig, 1995; Klein, 1999; Reicher, Hokpins &amp; Condor, 1997). In particular, the fact that such expression may serve political functions means that stereotypes may not only reflect (accurately or not) social reality but can also be used to shape it. <p>The idea that stereotypes can serve political functions was already proposed by Tajfel (1981) some thirty years ago. Although Tajfel left open the question of intentionality (i.e. whether stereotypes are used on purpose to fulfill these functions), he did insist that stereotypes should not just be seen as psychological representations of reality, but as tools that can help to maintain or transform that reality, through for instance their role in legitimizing or challenging intergroup inequalities. This idea, however, has received little empirical attention even amongst the inheritors of Tajfel (Condor, 1990). The possible role of stereotypes in shaping social reality can be acknowledged as the complementary side of a two-way dialogue between social reality and psychological representations (e.g., see Haslam et al. 2002), yet actual empirical work addressing directly this aspect still remains sparse within the social identity tradition initiated by Tajfel, whilst the emphasis stays on stereotyping as a response to the social reality. </p><p>Notably, Self-Categorization Theory (SCT: see Turner et al., 1987) conceives stereotyping as a psychologically valid but also rather automatic response to the social context. People will categorize themselves and others into groups (and thus perceive and judge them as group members, i.e. in categorical/stereotypical terms) if they perceive that intergroup differences are larger than intra-group differences (comparative fit) and that the content of these differences match the stereotypic expectations as what these intergroup differences should be (normative fit). SCT adds that these features of social reality also interact with the psychological &lsquo;accessibility' of categories (or &lsquo;perceiver readiness'). This refers to an individual's readiness to use a given category as a function of past experience, present expectations and current motives, values, goals and needs. Whilst in theory this concept makes room for the impact of people's social and political goals as well as psychological needs, in practice, this aspect has received little empirical attention. What is more, accessibility is limited to the influence that people's goals may have on the selection of categories that are otherwise entirely shaped by the context. For instance, a prejudiced person may be more prone to see differences between people as intergroup differences, but the differences themselves are set by the context. In the words of Oakes et al. (1994), stereotypes reflect selective but veridical aspects of reality. Again, there is little work looking at what people may be trying to accomplish politically through the use of stereotypes, such as mobilizing others against the target of prejudice.</p><p>Challenging this position is the Social Identity model of Deindividuation Effects (SIDE; see Klein, Spear &amp; Reicher, 2007) which forms the main theoretical basis for this project. Indeed, SIDE underlines that whilst group behavior reflect social identity processes, such behavioral expression of social identity (i.e., identity performance) can also serve strategic functions - a function of identity consolidation, and, more importantly here, a function of mobilization. Through behavior and public judgments based on social identity, people can seek to mobilize others towards the realization of their political projects as to how social reality should be (Reicher &amp; Hopkins, 2001). In this spirit, Sindic &amp; Reicher (2008) have shown, for instance, that within the Scottish context, judgments about the relative prototypicality of the ingroup (i.e. how Scots are representative of the British in general compared to the English) can be used to sustain political positions regarding Scotland's membership in Britain. In a context where the issue of Scottish independence is made salient, people who support independence underline the higher &lsquo;British' prototypicality of the English compared to the Scots, as a way to stress English dominance (and the marginalization of Scots) in Britain and thus the need for independence. However, when faced with the issue of the importance of the Scots within British history, supporters of independence do stress the relative prototypicality of the Scots as a way to underline the fact that their role in such history has been key, even if it is too often ignored. Who the Scots are, then (here in terms of their British prototypicality and in relation to the English), depends very much on what people would like them to be in political terms, and also on the specific context of judgments which determine which specific rhetorical claim best serve this larger political goal.</p><p>The purpose of this project is to apply such reasoning to the issue of immigration and stereotypes about immigrants. The classic view suggest that, for cognitive and/or motivational reason, people hold (often negative) stereotypes about immigrants due to their status as outgroup members, which can lead to prejudice against them and also explain negative attitudes towards immigration. By contrast, we propose to test the idea that the process can also work the other way round. That is, we hypothesize that people who aim to support various political positions about immigration will use different stereotypes in order to sustain their position. Through this process, then, the very representation of immigrants can be constructed in various ways. It also implies that both seemingly positive and negative stereotypes can be used to sustain a particular position, be it against or in support of immigration. Rather than representations of immigrants determining positions towards immigration, it may be people's positions towards that issue that shape their representations (or at least public expression) of immigrants. </p><p>Moreover, following Sindic &amp; Reicher (2008), we also argue that, as this is a strategic process, it should not reflect a stable interpersonal difference. Indeed, our point is that judgments are not just the result of cognitive beliefs but communicative acts aimed at an audience. The implication is that we would also expect people supporting a particular position to use different accounts or stereotypes in different contexts so as to better make their point. For instance, people who oppose immigration may well underline that immigrants are not qualified and hard-working when the issue of social security is made salient, whereas they may emphasize their competitiveness and hard-working qualities when the issue of competition for jobs is made salient. In both case, the purpose is to underline, explain and justify the threat posed by immigrants to &lsquo;our' country (i.e. immigrants are unemployed and a drain on social security vs. immigrants are taking our jobs).</p>