Smith and collaborators presented strong response time evidence for overlapping mental representations of the self and relevant ingroups, and they interpreted their findings as reflecting that people define themselves in terms of their ingroups. Besides on inferences from ingroup to self (self-stereotyping) however, self-ingroup overlap could also be based on inferences from the self to the ingroup (self-anchoring). The present research tackled this interpretational ambiguity and empirically distinguished self-anchoring versus self-stereotyping as processes possibly under-lying self-ingroup overlap. Results from three studies revealed stronger evidence for inferences from self to ingroup (selfanchoring) than the other way round (self-stereotyping).
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alicke, M. D., Klotz, M. L., Breitenbecher, D. L., Yurak, T. J., & Vredenburg, D. S. (1995). Personal contact, individuation, and the better-than-average effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 804-825.
2.
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationships as including other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 241-253.
3.
Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (2000). The mind in the middle: A practical guide to priming and automaticity research. In C. M. Judd & H. T. Reis (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 253-285). New York: Cambridge University Press.
4.
Baumeister, R. F. (1998). The self. In S. T. Fiske & D. T. Gilbert (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 680-740). New York: McGraw-Hill.
5.
Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475-482.
6.
Brown, R. (2000). Social identity theory: Past achievements, current problems and future challenges. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 745-778.
7.
Cadinu, M. R., & De Amicis, L. (1999). The relationship between the self and the ingroup: When having a common conception helps. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 58, 226-232.
8.
Cadinu, M. R., & Rothbart, M. (1996). Self-anchoring and differentiation processes in the minimal group setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 661-677.
9.
Clement, R. W., & Krueger, J. (2000). The primacy of self-referent information in perceptions of social consensus. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 279-299.
10.
Clement, R. W., & Krueger, J. (2002). Social categorization moderates social projection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology38, 219-231.
11.
Coats, S., Smith, E. R., Claypool, H. M., & Banner, M. J. (2000). Overlapping mental representation of self and in-group: Reaction time evidence and its relationship with explicit measures of group identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 304-315.
12.
Fazio, R. H. (1991). A practical guide to the use of response latency in social psychological research. In C. Hendrick & M. S. Clark (Eds.), Research methods in personality and social psychology: Review of personality and social psychology(Vol. 11, pp. 74-97). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
13.
Gaertner, L., Sedikides, C., & Graetz, K. (1999). In search of self-definition: Motivational primacy of the individual self, motivational primacy of the collective self, or contextual primacy? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology76, 5-18.
14.
Gramzow, R. H., Gaertner, L., & Sedikides, C. (2001). Memory for in-group and out-group information in a minimal group context: The self as an informational base. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 188-205.
15.
Hager, W., & Hasselhorn, M. (1994) Handbuch deutschsprachiger Wortnormen [Handbook of norms for German words]. Goettingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
16.
Krueger, J. (1998). On the perception of social consensus. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 163-240.
17.
Mullen, B., Brown, R., & Smith, C. (1992). Ingroup bias as a function of salience, relevance, and status: An integration. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 103-122.
18.
Otten, S. (2002). “Me” and “us” or “us” and “them”? The self as a heuristic for defining minimal ingroups. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology(Vol. 13, pp. 1-34). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
19.
Otten, S. (2004). Self-anchoring as predictor of in-group favoritism: Is it applicable to real group contexts? Cahier Psychologie Sociale, 22, 427-443.
20.
Otten, S. (2005). The in-group as part of the self: Reconsidering the link between social categorization, in-group favoritism and the self-concept. In M. D. Alicke, D. Dunning, & J. Krueger (Eds.), The self in social perception(pp. 273-292). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
21.
Otten, S., & Bar-Tal, Y. (2002). Self-anchoring in the minimal group paradigm: The impact of need and ability to achieve cognitive structure. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 5, 267-284.
22.
Otten, S., & Wentura, D. (2001). Self-anchoring and ingroup favoritism: An individual-profiles analysis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 525-532.
23.
Schubert, T. W., & Otten, S. (2002). Overlap of self, ingroup, and outgroup: Pictorial measures of self-categorization. Self and Identity, 1, 353-376.
24.
Sedikides, C., & Brewer, M. B. (Eds.). (2001). Individual self, relational self, collective self. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
25.
Simon, B., & Hamilton, D. L. (1994). Self-stereotyping and social context: The effects of relative in-group size and in-group status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 699-711.
26.
Smith, E. R. (1996). What do connectionism and social psychology offer each other? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology70, 893-912.
27.
Smith, E. R., Coats, S., & Walling, D. (1999). Overlapping mental representations of self, in-group, and partner: Further response time evidence and a connectionist model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 873-882.
28.
Smith, E. R., & Henry, S. (1996). An in-group becomes part of the self: Response time evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 635-642.
29.
Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology1, 149-178.
30.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S.Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
31.
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193-210.
32.
Tropp, L. R., & Wright, S. C. (2001). Ingroup identification as the inclusion of ingroup in the self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin27, 585-600.
33.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
