Based on an integration of research on ingroup projection, self-anchoring and social identification, three experiments investigated whether projection of ingroup characteristics to a superordinate category would be moderated by both the perceived complexity (number of defining prototypes) and coherence (structural clarity, organization) of the superordinate category. We predicted that ingroup projection would be prevented by the presence of either a complex or coherent superordinate representation. However, we also predicted that complexity would reduce ingroup projection at the expense of superordinate category identification, while coherence would not. We observed the predicted interaction between superordinate category complexity and coherence in three studies: a complex or coherent superordinate category led to lower levels of projection. However, only complexity of the superordinate category reduced superordinate group identification. These findings clarify and refine our understanding of the conditions under which ingroup projection can be discouraged, and the cognitive mechanisms involved.
Bianchi, M., Mummendey, A., Steffens, M., & Yzerbyt, V. ( 2010). What do you mean by European? Evidence for spontaneous ingroup projection. Manuscript submitted for publication.
2.
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.
3.
Brewer, M.B., Manzi, J.M., & Shaw, J.S. ( 1993). In-group identification as a function of depersonalization, distinctiveness, and status. Psychological Science,4,88-92.
4.
Brown, R., Vivian, J., & Hewstone, M. ( 1999). Changing attitudes through intergroup contact: The effects of group membership salience. European Journal of Social Psychology ,29,741-764.
5.
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.
6.
Commission for Racial Equality (CRE). (2005 ). Citizenship and belonging: What is Britishness?London: Commission for Racial Equality.
7.
Crisp, R.J., & Hogg, M.A. ( 2010). Depersonalization and projection in groups: Two paths to uncertainty reduction and self-construal. Unpublished manuscript.
8.
Devos, T., & Banaji, M.R. ( 2005). American = White?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,88,447-466.
9.
Dovidio, J.F., Gaertner, S.L., & Validzic, A. ( 1998). Intergroup bias: Status, differentiation, and a common in-group identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ,75,109-120.
10.
Fiske, S.T. ( 1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping . American Psychologist, 48, 621-628.
11.
Gaertner, S.L., & Dovidio, J.F. ( 2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
12.
Gaertner, S.L., Dovidio, J.F., Anastasio, P.A., Bachman, B.A., & Rust, M.C. (1993). The common ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 1-26). London : Wiley.
13.
Goodwin, S.A., Gubin, A., Fiske, S.T., & Yzerbyt, V.Y. ( 2000). Power can bias impression processes: Stereotyping subordinates by default and by design. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,3,227-256.
14.
Haslam, S.A. (2004). Psychology in organization: The social identity approach (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
15.
Haslam, S.A., & Parkinson, B. ( 2005). Pulling together or pulling apart? Towards organic pluralism in social psychology. The Psychologist,18,550-552.
16.
Hewstone, M., & Brown, R. ( 1986). Contact is not enough: An intergroup perspective on the "contact hypothesis". In M. Hewstone & R. Brown (Eds.), Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters (pp. 1-44). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
17.
Hogg, M.A. ( 2000a). Subjective uncertainty reduction through self-categorization: A motivational theory of social identity processes. European Review of Social Psychology,11, 223-255.
18.
Hogg, M.A. ( 2000b). Social identity and social comparison. In J. Suls & L. Wheeler (Eds.), Handbook of social comparison: Theory and research (pp. 401-422). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
19.
Hogg, M.A. ( 2007). Uncertainty-identity theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 39, pp. 70-126). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
20.
Hogg, M.A., Sherman, D.K., Dierselhuis, J., Maitner, A.T., & Moffitt, G. ( 2007). Uncertainty, entitativity, and group identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,43, 135-142.
21.
Judd, C.M., & McClelland, G.H. (1989). Data analysis: A model comparison approach. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
22.
Kuiper, N.A., & Rogers, T.B. ( 1979). Encoding of personal information: Self-other differences . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,37,499-514.
23.
Leonardelli, G.J., & Brewer, M.B. ( 2001). Minority and majority discrimination: When and why. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,37,468-485.
24.
Machunsky, M., & Meiser, T. ( 2010). Ingroup projection or prototype projection? Cognitive and motivational components of biased prototypicality judgments in group perception . Manuscript submitted for publication.
25.
Macrae, C.N., Milne, A.B., & Bodenhausen, G.V. (1994). Stereotypes as energy-saving devices: A peek inside the cognitive toolbox. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,66, 37-47.
26.
McGarty, C., Haslam, A., Hutchinson, K.J., & Grace, D.M. ( 1995). Determinants of perceived consistency: The relationship between group entitativity and the meaningfulness of categories. British Journal of Social Psychology,34,237-256.
27.
Mummendey, A., & Wenzel, M. ( 1999). Social discrimination and tolerance in intergroup relations: Reactions to intergroup difference. Personality and Social Psychology Review,3,158-174.
28.
Otten, S. ( 2002). "Me and us" or "us and them"? The self as a heuristic for defining minimal groups. European Review of Social Psychology ,13,1-33.
29.
Otten, S., & Epstude, K. ( 2006). Overlapping mental representations of self, ingroup, and outgroup: Unraveling self-stereotyping and self-anchoring. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,32,957-969.
30.
Rosch, E.H., Mervis, C.B., Gray, W.D., Johnson, D.M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology,8,382-439.
31.
Sherman, J.W., Macrae, C.N., & Bodenhausen, G.V. (2000). Attention and stereotyping: Cognitive constraints on the construction of meaningful social impressions . European Review of Social Psychology, 11, 145-175.
32.
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). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
33.
Turner, J.C. ( 1981). The experimental social psychology of intergroup behaviour . In J. C. Turner & H. Giles (Eds.), Intergroup behaviour (pp. 53-78). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
34.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. ( 1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability . Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207-232.
35.
Waldzus, S., & Mummendey, A. ( 2004). Inclusion in a superordinate category, in-group prototypicality, and attitudes towards out-groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,40,466-477.
36.
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.
37.
Waldzus, S., Mummendey, A., Wenzel, M., & Boettcher, F. ( 2004). Of bikers, teachers and Germans: Groups’ diverging views about their prototypicality. British Journal of Social Psychology,43,385-400.
38.
Waldzus, S., Mummendey A., Wenzel, M., & Weber, U. ( 2003). Towards tolerance: Representations of superordinate categories and perceived ingroup prototypicality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,39,31-47.
39.
Wenzel, M. ( 2001). A social categorization approach to distributive justice: Social identity as the link between relevance of inputs and need for justice . British Journal of Social Psychology,40,315-335.
40.
Wenzel, M. ( 2004). A social categorisation approach to distributive justice . European Review of Social Psychology,15,219-257.
41.
Wenzel, M., Mummendey, A., & Waldzus, S. ( 2007). Superordinate identities and intergroup conflict: The ingroup projection model. European Review of Social Psychology ,18, 331-372.
42.
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(4),461-473.
