What Do You Mean by "European"? Evidence of Spontaneous Ingroup Projection
ABSTRACT The ingroup projection model posits that group members project ingroup features onto a superordinate category. The present research aimed at isolating the cognitive underpinnings of this process. If ingroup projection is a spontaneous cognitive process, a superordinate category prime should facilitate the processing of the ingroup prototype rather than the outgroup prototype. Three studies support this hypothesis by comparing subliminal semantic priming in two different populations, an intra- versus intergroup situation, and with an ingroup prototype manipulated by changing the intergroup context. Results indicated that the superordinate category prime facilitated the processing of ingroup rather than outgroup traits (Experiment 1) and that these traits depended on the particular content of the ingroup prototype made salient by different contexts (Experiments 2 and 3). The findings indicate that the cognitive representation of the superordinate category is based on ingroup traits and that this representation is context dependent.
Full-textDOI: · Available from: Melanie C. Steffens, Aug 13, 2015
- SourceAvailable from: Amélie Mummendey
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "This methodological paradigm thus provided further evidence for ingroup projection and, in this case, also showed more clearly the direction of the process from the ingroup onto the superordinate category. Bianchi et al. (2007, Study 2) used a similar approach in combination with their implicit measurement of ingroup projection. In a lexical decision task, a subliminal prime ''European'' (compared to a neutral prime ''XXXXXXX'') facilitated German participants' recognition of counter-British attributes when the British were a salient outgroup, and counter-Italian attributes when Italians were the salient outgroup. "
ABSTRACT: 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.European Review of Social Psychology 01/2007; 18(1-1):331-372. DOI:10.1080/10463280701728302 · 2.18 Impact Factor
Article: Implicit Attitude Measures[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Arguably, one of the most thriving research areas in current psychology is assessing attitudes and related constructs with implicit measures, which we define as those indirect measures that rely on response latencies or other indices of spontaneous trait association, the activation of action semantics, or even real behavior. This research area is united by a shared excitement about the discoveries enabled by these measures, be they related to social attitudes and behavior, clinical disorders, consumer decisions, or self-representations, among others. As this enumeration suggests, in spite of the common excitement about the new research questions implicit measures allow us to investigate, there is much diversity in this research. First of all, these approaches bridge subdisciplines of psychology traditionally characterized by little cross-talk. Furthermore, the variety of implicit measures used is already broad and still growing, given variants and implementations of these implicit measures in different samples and research approaches. Given this diversity, we deemed it appropriate to summarize research that focuses either on the comparison of different implicit measures or on the mechanisms underlying one of the measures. Such knowledge is necessary and helpful to determine which measure to employ in a given research context and also to be aware of limitations of certain measures and advantages of others. Thus, the articles collected in this special issue compare two or more different implicit measures, or they focus on the measurement properties of one. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)Zeitschrift für Psychologie 01/2009; 218(1):1-3. DOI:10.1027/0044-3409/a000001 · 0.81 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Previous research suggested that relative ingroup prototypicality is a basis for ingroup bias. To test the boundary conditions of this phenomenon, we hypothesized that people particularly rely on relative ingroup prototypicality as a basis for ingroup bias if the prototypicality information is derived from a homogeneous and simple ingroup representation. We, therefore, predicted increased ingroup bias together with a stronger relation between prototypicality and ingroup bias if the ingroup is formed of consistent group members only. In two experiments, we used different subtyping manipulations and showed that the exclusion of inconsistent parts of the ingroup leads to a strong relation between relative ingroup prototypicality and ingroup bias, whereas this relation was nonsignificant without subtyping. Furthermore, ingroup bias was more pronounced after subtyping. These results confirm that the homogeneity and the simplicity of the ingroup representation is an important moderator for the relation between ingroup projection and intergroup judgments.Experimental Psychology 02/2009; 56(3):156-64. DOI:10.1027/1618-3126.96.36.199 · 2.22 Impact Factor