The Ingroup as Pars Pro Toto: Projection From the Ingroup Onto the Inclusive Category as a Precursor to Social Discrimination
ABSTRACT 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.
- SourceAvailable from: Nilanjana Dasgupta
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "For example, one study found that German participants perceived attributes associated with Germans as being more prototypical of the superordinate category " European " than were attributes associated with any other European country (Wenzel, Mummendey, Weber, & Waldzus , 2003). Another study found that both business students and psychology students perceived their own major as being more prototypical of the superordinate category " students " in general than were other majors (Wenzel et al., 2003). Consistent with the above findings, national identity research has found White Americans view American nationality in terms of the prototypical attributes of their own racial group and view racial and ethnic minority groups as peripheral to the definition of who is American (Cheryan & Monin, 2005; Devos & Banaji, 2005; Devos, Gavin, & Quintana, 2010; Devos & Ma, 2008; Yogeeswaran & Dasgupta, 2010; Yogeeswaran et al., 2011, 2012). "
ABSTRACT: Three experiments integrated several theories in psychology and sociology to identify the conditions under which multiculturalism has positive versus negative effects on majority group members' attitudes and behavioral intentions toward ethnic minorities. On the basis of social cognitive construal theories, we predicted and found that construing multiculturalism in abstract terms by highlighting its broad goals reduced White Americans' prejudice toward ethnic minorities relative to a control condition, whereas construing multiculturalism in concrete terms by highlighting specific ways in which its goals can be achieved increased White Americans' prejudice relative to the same control (Experiments 1 and 2). Using social identity threat research, we found that construing multiculturalism in abstract terms decreased the extent to which diversity was seen as threatening national identity, whereas construing it in concrete terms increased the extent to which diversity was seen as threatening national identity; threat in turn fueled prejudice (Experiments 2 and 3). Perceivers' political orientation moderated the effects of multiculturalism construals on prejudicial attitudes and social distancing behavioral intentions (Experiment 3). Symbolic threat to national identity but not realistic threat to national resources mediated these effects. Collectively, these experiments demonstrate when multiculturalism leads to positive versus negative intergroup outcomes, why, and how political orientation shapes prejudice and behavioral intentions toward ethnic minorities. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved).Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 03/2014; 106(5). DOI:10.1037/a0035830 · 5.08 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "Consequently, subgroups differ regarding the representation of the common superordinate group. Wenzel et al. (2003) confirmed this perspective divergence by showing that psychology-and business-students had different representations of the relevant superordinate group " students in general " . While psychology students perceived more similarities between students in general and the ingroup of psychology students, business students perceived more similarities between students in general and their ingroup business students. "
ABSTRACT: 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 super-ordinate 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.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "The next question is whether Christians and non-Christians differ in the explicit association they make between being Christian and being an American. Our survey results show that Christians and non-Christians dramatically differ in their response to the question on the importance of being a Christian, supporting Wenzel et al.'s (2003) finding that subgroup members project their sub-group characteristics onto the super-ordinate group. Only about one-third of non-Christians (37 percent) believe being Christian is prototypical of Americans whereas almost two-thirds of Christians (63 percent) believe this to be true. "
ABSTRACT: If many consider the United States to be a Christian nation, how does this affect individuals who are American citizens but not Christian? We test two major hypotheses: 1) Americans consider Christians to be more fully American than non-Christians. We examine whether Americans explicitly and implicitly connect being Christian with being a true American; and 2) Christian Americans are more likely to be patriotic and set exclusive boundaries on the national group than non-Christian Americans. Among non-Christians, however, those who want to be fully accepted as American will be more patriotic and set more exclusive boundaries to emulate prototypical Americans than non-Christians who place less emphasis on national group membership. We test these hypotheses using data from a survey and from an Implicit Association Test. We find that Americans in general associate being Christian with being a true American. For Christians, this is true both explicitly and implicitly. For non-Christians, only the implicit measure uncovers an association. We also found that non-Christians exhibit significantly more pro-national group behaviors when they desire being prototypical than when they do not.Politics and Religion 06/2013; 6(02):373-401. DOI:10.1017/S1755048312000697