The ingroup as pars pro toto: projection from the ingroup onto the inclusive category as a precursor to social discrimination

In an approach to intergroup discrimination and tolerance, it is assumed that the outgroup's difference from the ingroup is evaluated with reference to the prototype of the higher-order category that includes both groups. Two correlational studies yielded evidence that (a) group members tend to perceive their ingroup as relatively prototypical for the inclusive category (projection), (b) members highly identified with both ingroup and inclusive category (dual identity) tend to project most, and (c) relative prototypicality is related to negative attitudes toward the outgroup. The latter relation was further specified in Study 3, manipulating the valence of the inclusive category. Projection was related to more negative attitudes toward the outgroup when the inclusive category was primed positively but to more positive attitudes when it was primed negatively. The meaning of dual identities for intergroup relations is discussed.     

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.     

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.     

Managing one's social identity: Successful and unsuccessful identity management

This work explores the motivational dynamics of social identity management. Following social identity theory, we hypothesized that a threat to a positive social identity elicits specific negative emotions (i.e., outgroup‐directed anger) and motivates identity management. Successful identity management restores a positive social identity and decreases outgroup‐directed anger. However, when a successful identity management is blocked (e.g., because of limited cognitive resources), identity management will be unsuccessful and outgroup‐directed anger will remain at a higher level. This effect of unsuccessful identity management on outgroup‐directed anger should be particularly strong for group members who highly value their group (i.e., high group‐based self‐esteem). A negative comparison outcome is discrepant with these group members' positive view of the ingroup, and therefore, unsuccessful identity management should especially elicit negative emotions (i.e., anger) towards the threatening outgroup. Two studies tested these predictions. Study 1 (N = 110) showed that participants' outgroup‐directed anger increased when threatened under cognitive load. Study 2 (N = 99) demonstrated that this was particularly true for participants high in group‐based self‐esteem. The results' implications for research on the motivational processes underlying social identity management are discussed. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

Uncertainty reduction, self-enhancement, and ingroup identification

Two experiments tested the prediction that uncertainty reduction and self-enhancement motivations have an interactive effect on ingroup identification. In Experiment 1 (N = 64), uncertainty and group status were manipulated, and the effect on ingroup identification was measured. As predicted, low-uncertainty participants identified more strongly with a high- than low-status group, whereas high-uncertainty participants showed no preference; and low-status group members identified more strongly under high than low uncertainty, whereas high-status group members showed no preference. Experiment 2 (N = 210) replicated Experiment 1, but with a third independent variable that manipulated how prototypical participants were of their group. As predicted, the effects obtained in Experiment 1 only emerged where participants were highly prototypical. Low prototypicality depressed identification with a low-status group under high uncertainty. The implications of these results for intergroup relations and the role of prototypicality in social identity processes are discussed.     

Perceived legitimacy of intergroup status differences: its prediction by relative ingroup prototypicality

Research demonstrates that the perceived legitimacy of intergroup status differences has profound effects on intergroup attitudes, emotions and behavior. However, there has only been little intergroup research that predicts the perception of legitimacy. We hypothesize that the perception of legitimate or illegitime status relations depends upon the perceived relative prototypicality of the ingroup for the inclusive category. Since the prototype of the inclusive category provides a normative comparison standard for subgroup evaluation, similarity to this standard (i.e. prototypicality) should be positively evaluated and used to justify high status. A first study in a natural intergroup context (N = 67) offered correlational data in support of the predicted relationship. The second study (N = 60), using Germans as ingroup with Poles as outgroup and Europe as inclusive category, demonstrated that the link between prototypicality and legitimacy is contingent upon the valence of the inclusive category. In order to elucidate the causal direction, the third study manipulated relative prototypicality in an artificial intergroup context (N = 94) and introduced status as a moderator variable. Overall, we found strong support for the hypothesis that legitimacy is related to prototypicality and that this relation is moderated by ingroup status and valence of the inclusive category. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The other side of we: when outgroup members express common identity

Previous research on the common ingroup identity model has focused on how one's representations of members of the ingroup and outgroup influence intergroup attitudes. Two studies reported here investigated how learning how others, ingroup or outgroup members, conceive of the groups within a superordinate category affects intergroup bias and willingness to engage in intergroup contact. Across both studies, high school students who learned that other ingroup members categorized students at both schools within the common identity of "students" showed less intergroup bias in evaluations and greater willingness for contact. However, consistent with the hypothesized effects of identity threat, when participants read that outgroup members saw the groups within the superordinate category, they exhibited a relatively negative orientation, except when ingroup members also endorsed a superordinate identity (Study 1). This result occurred even when the relative status of the groups was manipulated (Study 2).     

Sharing moral values: anticipated ingroup respect as a determinant of adherence to morality-based (but not competence-based) group norms

This research examines how moral values regulate the behavior of individual group members. It argues that group members behave in line with moral group norms because they anticipate receiving ingroup respect when enacting moral values that are shared by ingroup members. Data from two experimental studies offer evidence in support. In Study 1 (N = 82), morality-based (but not competence-based) ingroup norms determined whether members of a low-status group opted for individual versus collective strategies for status improvement. This effect was mediated by anticipated ingroup respect and emerged regardless of whether group norms prescribed collectivistic or individualistic behavior. These effects were replicated in Study 2 (N = 69), where no comparable effect was found as a result of moral norms communicated by a higher status outgroup. This indicates that social identity implications rather than interdependence or more generic concerns about social approval or importance of cooperation drive these effects.     

Superordinate identities and intergroup conflict: The ingroup projection model

This chapter summarises results from a research programme on the psychological basis of tolerance and discrimination in intergroup relations, with particular consideration of the role of superordinate identities. According to the ingroup projection model, a relevant superordinate group provides dimensions and norms for comparisons between ingroup and outgroup. Groups gain positive value or status when they are considered prototypical for the (positively valued) superordinate group. Group members tend to generalise (project) distinct ingroup characteristics onto the superordinate category, implying the relative prototypicality of their ingroup. To the extent that outgroup difference is regarded as a deviation from the ethnocentrically construed prototype it is evaluated negatively. Our research studied consequences and determinants of ingroup projection, as well as moderators of its implications. The findings contribute to a deeper understanding of the processes involved in intergroup discrimination and indicate new pathways for the reduction of prejudice, towards mutual intergroup appreciation and tolerance.     

What children remember about ingroup and outgroup peers: effects of stereotypes on children's processing of information about group members

Three studies are reported about children's memory for stereotypic behaviors attributed to ingroup and outgroup members. According to research and theory in social cognition, cues present in the situation make cultural representations about group members accessible, and once primed, influence all phases of the information processing sequence. In Study 1, Euro Canadian and Native Canadian children (N=98) recalled stereotypic behaviors attributed to ingroup and outgroup members. In Study 2 (N=87), the influence of individual difference variables was explored. In Study 3 (N=32), the memory of Native Canadian children living on a First Nation reserve for behaviors attributed to ingroup and outgroup members was studied. Biases in recall were found in Studies 1 and 2, but in Study 3, outgroup favoritism, typically found among low status group members, was reversed among children attending a heritage school. Among the individual difference measures examined, age and level of cognitive development predicted what was remembered about group members. Older Euro Canadian children recalled more negative behaviors about outgroup members than did younger children, and more cognitively mature children recognized more information about ingroup than outgroup members. Results were discussed in terms of cognitive and situational factors influencing children's processing of group-relevant information and the challenges children in low status groups face in maintaining a sense of cultural identity.     

Group identification moderates attitudes toward ingroup members who confront discrimination

Three studies examined the hypothesis that group identification moderates African Americans’, Asian Americans’, and women’s attitudes toward fellow ingroup members who challenge an outgroup member’s discriminatory comments or who do not speak up about the comments. Highly identified racial minorities expressed more positive attitudes toward ingroup members who confronted discriminatory comments compared to those who did not confront; whereas weakly identified minorities did not express different attitudes across the two conditions. Among women, the weakly identified expressed more negative attitudes toward other women who confronted discrimination relative to those who did not confront; whereas highly identified women did not differentially evaluate ingroup members in the two conditions. The less women identified with their group, the more negatively they evaluated ingroup members who confronted sexism. This research highlights the important role of group identification in understanding how members of devalued groups respond toward ingroup members who take a stand against discrimination.     

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.     

Striving for difference: On the spontaneous preference for ingroup members who maximize ingroup positive distinctiveness

Previous research demonstrated that individuals spontaneously prefer ingroup members who display ingroup favoritism rather than egalitarian behaviors (Castelli, Tomelleri, & Zogmaister, 2008). In the current work, we explored what specific strategies toward ingroup favoritism are spontaneously preferred. Results from four studies showed that ingroup members who made it possible for the ingroup to achieve a positive intergroup differentiation were preferred as compared to ingroup members who maximized the absolute gain for the ingroup. Study 5 further demonstrated that in the search for positive distinctiveness people are sensitive to the ratio between the gains of the ingroup and outgroup. Study 6 ruled out a possible alternative explanation. Overall, the current findings indicate that group members who set the difference from an outgroup elicit the most positive spontaneous responses demonstrating that the search for a positive intergroup distinctiveness automatically affects intragroup perception. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Social identity and worldview validation: the effects of ingroup identity primes and mortality salience on value endorsement

In this article, the authors report an investigation of the relationship between terror management and social identity processes by testing for the effects of social identity salience on worldview validation. Two studies, with distinct populations, were conducted to test the hypothesis that mortality salience would lead to worldview validation of values related to a salient social identity. In Study 1, reasonable support for this hypothesis was found with bicultural Aboriginal Australian participants (N = 97). It was found that thoughts of death led participants to validate ingroup and reject outgroup values depending on the social identity that had been made salient. In Study 2, when their student and Australian identities were primed, respectively, Anglo-Australian students (N = 119) validated values related to those identities, exclusively. The implications of the findings for identity-based worldview validation are discussed.     

Striving for success in outgroup settings: effects of contextually emphasizing ingroup dimensions on stigmatized group members' social identity and performance styles

For members of stigmatized groups, being confronted with highstatus outgroup members threatens social identity and undermines performance on status-relevant dimensions. Two experiments examined whether the negative effects of outgroup contexts are alleviated when value is expressed for a dimension on which the stigmatized ingroup excels. Specifically, the authors assessed whether ingroup versus outgroup context and contextual value for ingroup dimensions affects group members' reactions to failure on status-relevant dimensions and subsequent performance. Experiment 1 showed that in comparison to ingroup contexts, outgroup contexts induce stigmatized group members to protect social identity and to feel more agitated following negative performance feedback. Experiment 2 showed that when others in the context emphasize the importance of a dimension on which the ingroup excels, the negative effects of outgroup contexts are alleviated, stigmatized group members feel more cheerful concerning an upcoming task, and task performance is characterized by a focus on success.     

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.     

Perceiving ingroup members who use stereotypes: implicit conformity and similarity

Previous studies have shown that people subtly conform more to ingroup members who use stereotype‐consistent rather than stereotype‐inconsistent information when describing an outgroup member (Castelli, Vanzetto, Sherman, & Arcuri, 2001 ). In the present article, we will address two important issues. First, we will examine whether this subtle conformity toward stereotypers is related to individuals' prejudice level (Study 1). Second, we will examine one of the processes that underlie the perception of ingroup members who use stereotype‐consistent information, hypothesizing that individuals implicitly feel more similar to such sources than to ingroup members who use stereotype‐inconsistent information (Study 2). Both hypotheses were confirmed and results are discussed in terms of the distinction between implicit and explicit attitudes and their implications in the maintenance of social stereotypes. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Stretching the boundaries: strategic perceptions of intragroup variability

We hypothesised that people would strategically alter their perceived intragroup variability on ingroup‐threatening traits in order to maintain positive perceptions of their self and their ingroup. Specifically, we predicted that people would perceive (1) greater relative outgroup homogeneity and (2) greater general intragroup variability on ingroup negative and outgroup positive traits. We confirmed the outgroup homogeneity prediction in a minimal group experiment (N=80) and a gender group experiment (N = 164). In a second gender group experiment (N = 137), we found that ingroup size moderated this effect: only minority group members showed the predicted pattern of outgroup homogeneity. Evidence for the general intragroup variability prediction was less conclusive. We discuss the results in terms of variability strategies. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Competitive victimhood as a response to accusations of ingroup harm doing

Accusations of unjust harm doing by the ingroup threaten the group's moral identity. One strategy for restoring ingroup moral identity after such a threat is competitive victimhood: claiming the ingroup has suffered compared with the harmed outgroup. Men accused of harming women were more likely to claim that men are discriminated against compared with women (Study 1), and women showed the same effect when accused of discriminating against men (Study 3). Undergraduates engaged in competitive victimhood with university staff after their group was accused of harming staff (Study 2). Study 4 showed that the effect of accusations on competitive victimhood among high-status group members is mediated by perceived stigma reversal: the expectation that one should feel guilty for being in a high-status group. Exposure to a competitive victimhood claim on behalf of one's ingroup reduced stigma reversal and collective guilt after an accusation of ingroup harm doing (Study 5).