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.
Bargh, J.A., & Chartrand, T.L. (2000). The mind in the middle: A practical guide to priming and automaticity research. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 253-285). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
2.
Bianchi, M., Machunsky, M., Steffens, M., & Mummendey, A. ( 2009). Like me or like us: Is ingroup projection just social projection?Experimental Psychology, 56, 198-205.
3.
Blair, I. ( 2002). The malleability of automatic stereotypes and prejudice . Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 242-261.
4.
Brewer, B.M. ( 1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475-482.
5.
Brown, R., & Hewstone, M. ( 2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.). Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 37, pp. 255-343). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
6.
Devos, T., & Banaji, M.R. ( 2005). American = White?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 447-466.
7.
Dovidio, J.F., Gaertner, S.L., & Saguy, T. ( 2007). Another view of "we": Majority and minority group perspectives on a common ingroup identity. European Review of Social Psychology , 18, 296-330.
8.
Dovidio, J.F., Kawakami, K., Smoak, N., & Gaertner, S.L. (2009). The roles of implicit and explicit processes in contemporary prejudice. In R. E. Petty, R. H. Fazio, & P. Brinol (Eds.), Attitudes: Insights from the new implicit measures (pp. 165-192). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
9.
Gonzalez, R., & Brown, R. ( 2003). Generalization of positive attitude as a function of subgroup and superordinate group identifications in intergroup contact. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 195-214.
10.
Haslam, S.A., Turner, J.C., Oakes, P.J., McGarty, C., & Hayes, B.K. ( 1992). Context-dependent variation in social stereotyping: I. The effects of intergroup relations as mediated by social change and frame of reference. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 3-20.
11.
Hopkins, N., & Murdoch, N. ( 1999). The role of the "other" in national identity: Exploring the context-dependence of the national ingroup stereotype. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 9, 321-338.
12.
Hopkins, N., Regan, M., & Abell, J. ( 1997). On the context dependence of national stereotypes: Some Scottish data. British Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 553-563.
13.
Krueger, J.I., Acevedo, M., & Robbins, J.M. ( 2006). Self as a sample. In F. Klaus & J. Peter (Eds.), Information sampling and adaptive cognition (pp. 353-377). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
14.
Maass, A., Salvi, D., Arcuri, L., & Semin, G. ( 1989). Language use in intergroup contexts: The linguistic intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 981-993.
15.
Machunsky, M., & Meiser, T. ( 2009). Ingroup projection as a means to define the superordinate category efficiently: Response time evidence. Social Cognition , 27, 57-75.
16.
Mummendey, A., & Kessler, T. ( 2008). Migration und integration. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 48, 514-528.
17.
Mummendey, A., & Wenzel, M. ( 1999). Social discrimination and tolerance in intergroup relations: Reactions to intergroup difference. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 158-174.
18.
Ratcliff, R. ( 1993). Methods for dealing with reaction times outliers. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 510-532.
19.
Rosch, E., Mervis, C.B., Gray, W.D., Johnson, D.M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382-439.
20.
Sibley, C.G., & Liu, J.H. ( 2007). New Zealand = bicultural? Implicit and explicit association between ethnicity and nationhood in the New Zealand context. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 1222-1243.
21.
Stangor, C., & Schaller, M. ( 2000). Stereotypes as individual and collective representations . In C. Stangor (Ed.), Stereotypes and prejudice: Essential readings (pp. 64-82). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
22.
Strack, F., & Deutsch, R. ( 2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior . Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 220-247.
23.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J.C. ( 1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
24.
Turner, J.C. ( 1987). A self-categorization theory. In J. C. Turner, M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher , & M. S. Wetherell (Eds.), Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory (pp. 68-88). Oxford , UK: Basil Blackwell.
25.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. ( 1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability . Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207-232.
26.
Waldzus, S., & Mummendey, A. ( 2004). Inclusion in a superordinate category, ingroup prototypicality, and attitudes towards outgroup. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 466-477.
27.
Waldzus, S., Mummendey, A., & Wenzel, M. ( 2005). When "different" means "worse": In-group prototypicality in changing intergroup contexts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 76-83.
28.
Wenzel, M., Mummendey, A., & Waldzus, S. ( 2007). Superordinate identities and intergroup conflict: The ingroup projection model. European Review of Social Psychology , 18, 331-372.
29.
Wenzel, M., Mummendey, A., Weber, U., & Waldzus, S. ( 2003). The ingroup as pars pro toto: Projection from the ingroup onto the inclusive category as a precursor to social discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 461-473.
30.
Wittenbrink, B., Judd, C.M., & Park, B. ( 1997). Evidence for racial prejudice at the implicit level and its relationship with questionnaire measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 262-274.
31.
Yzerbyt, V.Y., & Demoulin, S. (in press). Intergroup relations. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
