Towards tolerance: Representations of superordinate categories and perceived ingroup prototypicality

According to Mummendey and Wenzel (1999), group members tend to perceive their ingroup, relative to an outgroup, as more prototypical of the superordinate category encompassing both groups. Hence, they tend to regard the outgroup as deviating from the norms of the superordinate category. Factors that inhibit perception of relative ingroup prototypicality should thus promote intergroup tolerance. In two experiments, the representation of the superordinate category was manipulated. Both an undefinable prototype (Experiment 1; N=63) and a complex representation (Experiment 2; N=88) led to a decrease in relative ingroup prototypicality. Dual identification with the ingroup and the superordinate category increased relative ingroup prototypicality, which was negatively correlated with positive attitudes towards the outgroup. The findings supported Mummendey and Wenzel’s assumptions about the conditions that lead to intergroup tolerance.     

Leadership under uncertainty: When leaders who are non-prototypical group members can gain support

Social identity theory of leadership (Hogg & van Knippenberg, 2003) research confirms that group members support group prototypical leaders more strongly than non-prototypical leaders. Two studies examined the prediction derived from uncertainty–identity theory (Hogg, 2007) that this relationship between leader prototypicality and support weakens when group members have elevated self-related uncertainty, due to increased support for non-prototypical leaders. Student participants indicated their level of uncertainty and their support for a prospective student leader who was prototypical or non-prototypical of students at their university–prototypicality was a between-subjects variable in Study 1 (N = 98), and a within-subjects variable in Study 2 (N = 132). As predicted, participants supported the prototypical leader more strongly than the non-prototypical leader, but this effect was significantly weakened (Study 2) or disappeared (Study 1) under uncertainty, due to a significant increase in support for the non-prototypical leader. Implications for empowerment of non-prototypical leaders are discussed.     

When failing feels good—Relative prototypicality for a high-status group can counteract ego-threat after individual failure

Two studies demonstrate that members of high-status groups (i.e., men and students of business administration) but not members of low-status groups (i.e., women and education students) react with an increase in state self-esteem after an alleged poor performance on a fictitious intelligence test. This Failure-as-an-Asset (FA) effect is only observed when the high-status ingroup (i.e., men) is outperformed by a low-status outgroup (i.e., women). In this case, a poor performance will lead to a strong identification with the ingroup due to high ingroup prototypicality. As predicted, the effects of experiencing success or failure on self-esteem were mediated by identification with the ingroup.     

On being peripheral: effects of identity insecurity on personal and collective self‐esteem

We examined collective self‐esteem and personal self‐esteem as a function of anticipated changes in one's prototypicality within a valued ingroup. In Study 1 (N = 80), all participants received information that they were currently peripheral group members. Expectations for the future were then manipulated, with some expecting to become more prototypical and others expecting they would be even more peripheral in the future. In addition, the source of future movement (either the group or the self) was varied. It was found that when the group was the source of movement, those who expected to shift to a more prototypical position in the future had higher collective self‐esteem than those who expected to change to an even more peripheral position. In contrast, those who anticipated an even more peripheral position had higher personal self‐esteem than those who expected to become more prototypical in the future. In Study 2 (N = 100), intragroup position at present (peripheral versus prototypical) and future intragroup position (peripheral versus prototypical) were manipulated orthogonally. It was found that future expectations only affected self‐esteem among those with an insecure current identity, but not among those who were currently prototypical of the ingroup. In addition, ingroup favoritism was mediated by self‐esteem changes among those whose identity was insecure. The importance of a dynamic framework for investigating group processes is stressed. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Urban district identity as a common ingroup identity: The different role of ingroup prototypicality for minority and majority groups

In this paper, we examined how identification with urban districts as a common ingroup identity and perceived ingroup prototypicality influence the attitudes of residents toward other ethnic groups in their neighborhood. The overall conclusion of two field studies (N = 214 and N = 98) is that for majority‐group members, there may be a positive relation between identification with an overarching identity and outgroup attitudes but only when they perceive their ingroup as low in prototypicality for the overarching group (Study 1 and 2). Conversely, for minority‐group members, there may be a positive relation between identification and outgroup attitudes but only when they perceive their ingroup as high in prototypicality for the overarching group (Study 2). Outgroup prototypicality did not moderate the relation between identification and outgroup attitudes. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Group status is related to group prototypicality in the absence of social identity concerns

Based on self-categorization theory, group status should be positively related to group prototypicality when the relevant superordinate category is positively valued. In this case, high-status groups should be perceived to be more prototypical than low-status groups even in the absence of concerns about maintaining a positive social identity. To test this hypothesis, a minimal group study was conducted in which participants (N = 139) did not belong to any of the groups involved. Consistent with predictions, participants perceived high-status groups to be significantly more prototypical than low-status groups. Consistent with self-categorization theory's cognitive analysis, these results demonstrate that the relation between group status and group prototypicality is a relatively basic and pervasive effect that does not depend on social identity motives.     

When different means bad or merely worse. How minimal and maximal goals affect ingroup projection and outgroup attitudes

Group members tend to perceive their ingroup relative to an outgroup as more prototypical for a common superordinate group because they project features of their ingroup onto the superordinate group. As a consequence, the ingroup is perceived as more positive than the outgroup (Mummendey & Wenzel, 1999). We extend the ingroup projection model by examining different types of ingroup goals: minimal and maximal goals as well as actual and ideal goals. Minimal goals should engender either‐or thinking and lead to more ingroup projection compared with maximal goals that should involve more nuanced thinking. Ingroup prototypicality in terms of ideal goals (e.g., what we ideally should strive for) was expected to show a stronger relation to outgroup attitudes than ingroup prototypicality in terms of actual goals (e.g., what we are actually striving for). We manipulated minimal and maximal goal orientation and assessed actual and ideal goals. Across two studies, relative ingroup prototypicality was higher in the minimal compared with the maximal goal condition. Moreover, ingroup prototypicality referring to ideal goals showed a stronger relation to outgroup evaluation than ingroup prototypicality referring to actual goals. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Distinctiveness threat and prototypicality: combined effects on intergroup discrimination and collective self-esteem

The combined influence on ingroup bias of threat to group distinctiveness and prototypicality as a group member was examined in two studies. It was predicted, in line with social identity theory, that threat to group distinctiveness would lead to more ingroup bias. In addition, on the basis of self-categorization theory it was predicted that protypical and peripheral group members would react differently to a threat to their group distinctiveness. Only group members who define themselves as prototypical group members should be motivated to defend their threatened distinctiveness by engaging in increased ingroup bias. This hypothesis was first supported in a modified minimal group setting in which threat was operationalized as overlapping group boundaries. These results were then replicated in a second study, using better-established groups, for whom distinctiveness threat was manipulated in terms of intergroup similarity. Moreover, some support was found in Study 2 for the prediction that the opportunity to engage in intergroup differentiation can, under restricted conditions, enhance group-related self-esteem. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd     

Can intergroup behaviors be emitted out of self-determined reasons? Testing the role of group norms and behavioral congruence in the internalization of discrimination and parity behaviors

Bringing self-determination theory to understand why intergroup behaviors are emitted, two studies were conducted to investigate how group norms and individuals' congruence with these norms predicted self-determination to pursue two types of intergroup behaviors (parity and discrimination). Experiment 1 (N = 97) manipulated ingroup norms in favor of parity versus of discrimination and assessed the behavior participants displayed (congruent or incongruent with the norm) and their motivations for emitting this behavior. The manipulated norms significantly influenced group members' behaviors. When the ingroup norm was parity, participants whose behavior was congruent with this norm reported more self-determination to emit this behavior. When the ingroup norm was prodiscrimination, participants whose behavior was congruent with this norm were less self-determined. Experiment 2 (N = 139) replicated and extended these findings in a more conflictual intergroup setting. Results are discussed in light of motivational and intergroup theories.     

We Are the World—and They Are Not: Prototypicality for the World Community,Legitimacy, and Responses to Global Inequality

The relation between developed and developing countries is characterized by inequalities that sometimes hinder actions against worldwide problems. The current research presents an intergroup approach, based on the ingroup projection model, towards an analysis of psychological processes that perpetuate global inequality on a social group level. Precisely, we argue that people from developed countries perceive their group as more prototypical for the world population than they perceive people from developing countries. These perceptions of ingroup prototypicality should in turn relate to legitimacy beliefs and predict unfavorable behavioral intentions towards developing countries. We present two studies that corroborate our hypotheses: In Study 1, participants from a developed country perceived their ingroup as more prototypical for the superordinate group (i.e., world population) than the outgroup (i.e., developing countries), which in turn was related to beliefs that global inequality is legitimate. This finding was replicated in Study 2, and the predicted effect of ingroup prototypicality on behavioral intentions was mediated by legitimacy beliefs. These findings demonstrate that intergroup processes can contribute to perpetuating global inequality.     

Seeing the world with the eyes of the outgroup — The impact of perspective taking on the prototypicality of the ingroup relative to the outgroup

The positive effect of perspective taking on favorable attitudes towards stigmatized individuals and outgroups is well established (Batson et al., 1997). We draw on the ingroup projection model (Mummendey & Wenzel, 1999) to better understand the processes underlying this effect. Based on their egocentric perspective, ingroup and outgroup members have different representations of the superordinate group (perspective divergence) so that the ingroup is perceived as more relatively prototypical of the superordinate group, leading to negative outgroup evaluation. We hypothesize that the positive effect of perspective taking on outgroup attitudes is due to a reduction of relative ingroup prototypicality. Across three studies with different manipulations of perspective taking, we found that participants who were taking the perspective of an outgroup member evaluated the outgroup more positively and were less inclined to perceive their ingroup as more relatively prototypical. The effect of perspective taking on outgroup attitudes was mediated by relative ingroup prototypicality.     

Effort in the face of difference: Feeling like a non‐prototypical group member motivates effort

Three studies examined the relationship between individuals' perceived “prototypicality” in a group, their subsequent self‐presentation goals, and individual effort in that group. Consistent with the finding that feelings of marginal ingroup membership status elicit a desire to seek stronger social connections within ingroups, we predicted that non‐prototypical group members will have more salient self‐presentation goals than prototypical members, and as such will exert more individual effort to exhibit the value of their membership to the group. Correlational Study 1 confirmed that non‐prototypical group members may be more likely than prototypical members to volunteer for activities that would benefit their group. Two experimental studies were then conducted to test the causal influence of feelings of prototypicality while also identifying theoretically relevant moderating conditions of perceived task efficacy (Study 2) and public versus private task performance (Study 3). These findings suggest that effortful performance in groups is partly motivated by the desire to foster social ties. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Prototypes are attractive because they are easy on the mind

People tend to prefer highly prototypical stimuli--a phenomenon referred to as the beauty-in-averageness effect. A common explanation of this effect proposes that prototypicality signals mate value. Here we present three experiments testing whether prototypicality preference results from more general mechanisms-fluent processing of prototypes and preference for fluently processed stimuli. In two experiments, participants categorized and rated the attractiveness of random-dot patterns (Experiment 1) or common geometric patterns (Experiment 2) that varied in levels of prototypicality. In both experiments, prototypicality was a predictor of both fluency (categorization speed) and attractiveness. Critically, fluency mediated the effect of prototypicality on attractiveness, although some effect of prototypicality remained when fluency was controlled. The findings were the same whether or not participants explicitly considered the pattern's categorical membership, and whether or not categorization fluency was salient when they rated attractiveness. Experiment 3, using the psychophysiological technique of facial electromyography, confirmed that viewing abstract prototypes elicits quick positive affective reactions.     

Processing Illness Information: The Role of Disease Prototypes

Recently Bishop and Converse (1986) proposed that information about physical symptoms is interpreted by relating those symptoms to preexisting disease prototypes. The two present studies further examined this formulation by testing hypotheses concerning the speed of processing symptom information as well as associations made to sets of physical symptoms as a function of prototypicality. As predicted, Experiment 1 showed that response time to highly prototypical symptom sets was significantly shorter than that for symptom sets containing irrelevant symptoms. Also as predicted, the results of Experiment 2 showed significant differences in the associations made by experiment participants to symptom sets as a function of the prototypicality of the symptoms in those sets. Participants made more category-based associations to highly prototypical symptom sets than to those lower in prototypicality but made more associations to individual symptoms for symptom sets low in prototypicality. Implications for the prototype hypothesis and for understanding the processing of illness information are discussed.     

The instrumental use of group prototypicality judgments

Recently, Waldzus et al. [Waldzus, S., Mummendey, A., Wenzel, M., & Boettcher, F. (2004). Of bikers, teachers and Germans: Groups’ diverging views about their prototypicality. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 385-400] have shown that ingroup members often tend to judge the ingroup as more prototypical of the superordinate group than other subgroups. In this paper, we argue that, in addition to the motivational processes that have been posited to explain this phenomenon, prototypicality judgments may vary according to instrumental considerations. In particular, those who believe their ingroup interest to be undermined by remaining part of the common group will downplay ingroup’s prototypicality as a way to sustain their separatist position. In a first study (N = 63), we found that Scottish respondents who support Scottish independence judged the Scots to be less prototypical of Britain than the English, as compared with Scots who do not support independence. In a second study (N = 191), we manipulated the rhetorical context within which prototypicality judgments were made. Results showed that the pattern found in study 1 only applied when the issue of independence was made salient. When the issue of the importance of Scottish history in Britain was made salient, the opposite pattern appeared, i.e. supporters of independence judged the Scots more prototypical than the English compared to non-supporters. These results were also interpreted in instrumental terms.     

Fear and uncertainty in the face of death: The role of life after death in group identification

Terror management theory argues that mortality‐induced terror motivates group identification. Uncertainty–identity theory argues that uncertainty about what happens after death motivates group identification. Two experiments were conducted to test the latter reasoning. In Experiment 1 (n = 187), mortality salience was manipulated, and uncertainty about the afterlife was measured to predict national identification. As hypothesized, mortality salience strengthened identification only among those who were uncertain about the afterlife. In Experiment 2 (n = 177), mortality salience was manipulated as before, but belief in an afterlife was also manipulated—participants were primed to believe that there was an afterlife, there was not an afterlife, or the existence of an afterlife was uncertain. As in Experiment 1, mortality salience strengthened identification only among those who were existentially uncertain. These experiments show that uncertainty plays a significant role in reactions to mortality salience, and support uncertainty–identity theory's analysis of the role of self‐uncertainty in ideological conviction and group behavior. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Sexual harassment under social identity threat: the computer harassment paradigm

Two laboratory experiments investigated the hypothesis that threat to male identity would increase the likelihood of gender harassment. In both experiments, using the computer harassment paradigm, male university students (N=80 in Experiment 1, N=90 in Experiment 2) were exposed to different types of identity threat (legitimacy threat and threat to group value in Experiment 1 and distinctiveness threat and prototypicality threat in Experiment 2) or to no threat and were then given the opportunity to send pornographic material to a virtual female interaction partner. Results show that (a) participants harassed the female interaction partner more when they were exposed to a legitimacy, distinctiveness, or prototypicality threat than to no threat; (b) this was mainly true for highly identified males; and (c) harassment enhanced postexperimental gender identification. Results are interpreted as supporting a social identity account of gender harassment.     

Being uncertain about what? Procedural fairness effects as a function of general uncertainty and belongingness uncertainty

Do different forms of uncertainty account for different procedural fairness effects? We hypothesized that general uncertainty accounts for fairness judgments, whereas belongingness uncertainty accounts for group identification. Experiment 1 manipulated general versus belongingness uncertainty. Participants in the general uncertainty condition regarded the procedures as fairer when they were granted than denied voice, whereas participants in the belongingness uncertainty condition showed stronger group identification when they were granted than denied voice. Experiment 2 split the belongingness uncertainty condition into family and stranger uncertainty. Only participants in the family-belongingness uncertainty condition identified with their group when they were granted than denied voice. The findings have implications for the construct of uncertainty, models of procedural fairness, and group membership.     

Social Identity Theory and the Crisis of Confidence in Social Psychology: A Commentary, and Some Research on Uncertainty Reduction

The role played by social identity theory in responding to the crisis of confidence in social psychology is described. It is a theory that addresses group processes and intergroup relations by separating and articulating different levels of explanation. Social categorization depersonalizes perception, cognition, affect and conduct in terms of relevant ingroup or outgroup prototypes, and social categorization of self, in conjunction with beliefs about the nature of intergroup relations, is responsible for specific manifestations of group behavior. Social identity theory continues to develop. In this article we focus on the motivational role of subjective uncertainty reduction in social identification – a model is outlined (Hogg & Mullin, 1999), and data from a 2 × 2 minimal group experiment in which categorization and uncertainty were orthogonally manipulated ( N = 151) are presented. As predicted, categorization produced discrimination, elevated identification, and reduced uncertainty, but only, or more markedly, under conditions where subjective uncertainty was relatively high.