Drawing upon a social identity approach, three studies focus on the elicitors of intergroup admiration by investigating the relationship between admiration for an outgroup and this outgroup’s prototypicality for a superordinate category. In Study 1 (N = 314), we find empirical support for a positive association between prototypicality and admiration in cross-national survey data. In Study 2 (N = 52), we provide experimental evidence for the relationship between admiration and prototypicality by manipulating different facets of prototypicality: admiration for an outgroup occurs only when the group is perceived as prototypical in relation to the ideal of the superordinate category, but not in relation to the category average. Study 3 further explores the importance of prototypicality for a superordinate category. We present an analysis of online comments to news articles (N = 477) referring to positive regard of outgroups and highlight the role of prototypicality in these discussions. Overall, we contribute to research on admiration by showing that the elicitation of admiration is dependent on the social identities involved, providing an identity-situated analysis of this positive group-based emotion.
AlexanderM. G.BrewerM. B.HermannR. K. (1999). Images and affect: A functional analysis of out-group stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 78–93. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.77.1.78
2.
AlgoeS. B.HaidtJ. (2009). Witnessing excellence in action: The “other-praising” emotions of elevation, gratitude, and admiration. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4, 105–127. doi:10.1080/17439760802650519
3.
BarsalouL. W. (1985). Ideals, central tendency, and frequency of instantiation as determinants of graded structure in categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 629–654. doi:10.1037/0278–7393.11.1–4.629
4.
BertholdA.MummendeyA.KesslerT.LueckeB.SchubertT. (2012). When different means bad or merely worse. How minimal and maximal goals affect ingroup projection and outgroup attitudes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 682–690. doi:10.1002/ejsp.1878
5.
BorkenauP. (1990). Traits as ideal-based and goal-derived social categories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 381–396. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.58.3.381
6.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
7.
BurnettR. C.MedinD. L.RossN. O.BlokS. V. (2005). Ideal is typical. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/ Revue Canadienne De Psychologie Expérimentale, 59, 3–10. doi:10.1037/h0087453
8.
CuddyA. J.FiskeS. T.GlickP. (2007). The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 631–648. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.92.4.631
9.
DavisT.LoveB. C. (2010). Memory for category information is idealized through contrast with competing options. Psychological Science, 21, 234–242. doi:10.1177/0956797609357712
10.
FesslerD. M.HaleyK. J. (2003). The strategy of affect: Emotions in human cooperation. In HammersteinP. (Ed.), The genetic and cultural evolution of cooperation (pp. 7–36). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11.
FieldingK. S.HoggM. A.AnnandaleN. (2006). Reactions to positive deviance: Social identity and attribution dimensions. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9, 199–218. doi:10.1177/1368430206062077
12.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J. C.GlickP.XuJ. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.82.6.878
13.
GaertnerS. L.DovidioJ. F.AnastasioP. A.BachmanB. A.RustM. C. (1993). The common ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 1–26. doi:10.1080/14792779343000004
14.
HaidtJ.MorrisJ. P. (2009). Finding the self in self-transcendent emotions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 7687–7688. doi:10.1073/pnas.0903076106
15.
HaidtJ.SederP. (2009). Admiration and awe. In SanderD.SchererK. R. (Eds.), Oxford companion to affective science (pp. 4–5). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
16.
HaslamS. A.ReicherS. D.PlatowM. J. (2012). The new psychology of leadership: Identity, influence and power. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
17.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
18.
HenrichJ.Gil-WhiteF. J. (2001). The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22, 165–196. doi:10.1016/S1090–5138(00)00071–4
19.
Immordino-YangM. H.McCollA.DamasioH.DamasioA. (2009). Neural correlates of admiration and compassion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 8021–8026. doi:10.1073/pnas.08103
KesslerT.MummendeyA. (2002). Sequential or parallel processes? A longitudinal field study concerning determinants of identity-management strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 75–88. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.82.1.75
22.
KesslerT.NeumannJ.MummendeyA.BertholdA.SchubertT.WaldzusS. (2010). How do we assign punishment? The impact of minimal and maximal standards on the evaluation of deviants. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1213–1224. doi:10.1177/0146167210380603
23.
LynchE. B.ColeyJ. D.MedinD. L. (2000). Tall is typical: Central tendency, ideal dimensions, and graded category structure among tree experts and novices. Memory & Cognition, 28, 41–50. doi:10.3758/BF03211575
24.
MajorB.GramzowR. H.McCoyS. K.LevinS.SchmaderT.SidaniusJ. (2002). Perceiving personal discrimination: The role of group status and legitimizing ideology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 269–282. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.82.3.269
25.
MangoA. (2011). Ataturk. New York, NY: Hachette.
26.
NewbyA. G. (2009). “In building a nation few better examples can be found”: Norden and the Scottish Parliament. Scandinavian Journal of History, 34, 307–329. doi:10.1080/03468750903134749
27.
OnuD. (2009). Choosing high status, low status or… the status quo? Explorations of mutually beneficial relations between groups of unequal status (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Exeter, UK.
28.
OnuD.KesslerT.SmithJ. R. (2016). Admiration: A conceptual review. Emotion Review. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1754073915610438
29.
OnuD.SmithJ. R.KesslerT. (2015). Intergroup emulation: An improvement strategy for lower status groups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 18, 210–224. doi:10.1177/1368430214556698
30.
PettigrewT. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65–85. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65
31.
PittinskyT. L. (2012). Us plus them: Tapping the positive power of difference. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
32.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
ShiotaM. N.KeltnerD.JohnO. P. (2006). Positive emotion dispositions differentially associated with Big Five personality and attachment style. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1, 61–71. doi:10.1080/17439760500510833
38.
SimonB.OakesP. (2006). Beyond dependence: An identity approach to social power and domination. Human Relations, 59, 105–139. doi:10.1177/0018726706062760
39.
SindicD.ReicherS. D. (2008). The instrumental use of group prototypicality judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1425–1435. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.05.007
40.
SmithR. H. (2000). Assimilative and contrastive emotional reactions to upward and downward social comparisons. In SulsJ.WheelerL. (Eds.), Handbook of social comparison (pp. 173–200). New York, NY: Springer.
41.
StoreyB. (2011). The problem of admiration in Rousseau’s “sad and great system.”The Journal of Politics, 73, 735–747. doi:10.1017/S0022381611000429
42.
SweetmanJ.SpearsR.LivingstoneA. G.MansteadA. S. R. (2013). Admiration regulates social hierarchy: Antecedents, dispositions, and effects on intergroup behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 534–542. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.10.007
43.
TurnerJ. C.HoggM. A.OakesP. J.ReicherS. D.WetherellM. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.
44.
Van de VenN.ZeelenbergM.PietersR. (2011). Why envy outperforms admiration. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 784–795. doi:10.1177/0146167211400421
45.
Van KnippenbergD. (2011). Embodying who we are: Leader group prototypicality and leadership effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 1078–1091. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.09.004
46.
Van LeeuwenE.TäuberS.SassenbergK. (2011). Knocking on the outgroup’s door: Seeking outgroup help under conditions of task or relational conflict. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 33, 266–278. doi:10.1080/01973533.2011.589339
47.
VoorspoelsW.VanpaemelW.StormsG. (2011). A formal ideal-based account of typicality. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 1006–1014. doi:10.3758/s13423–011–0122–9
48.
WaldzusS.MummendeyA.WenzelM.BoettcherF. (2004). Of bikers, teachers and Germans: Groups’ diverging views about their prototypicality. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 385–400. doi:10.1348/0144666042037944
49.
WaldzusS.MummendeyA.WenzelM.WeberU. (2003). Towards tolerance: Representations of superordinate categories and perceived ingroup prototypicality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 31–47. doi:10.1016/S0022–1031(02)00507–3
50.
WeberU.MummendeyA.WaldzusS. (2002). Perceived legitimacy of intergroup status differences: Its prediction by relative ingroup prototypicality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 449–470. doi:10.1002/ejsp.102
51.
WenzelM.MummendeyA.WaldzusS. (2007). Superordinate identities and intergroup conflict: The ingroup projection model. European Review of Social Psychology, 18, 331–372. doi:10.1080/10463280701728302
52.
WrightA. (2009). The SNP and UK relations. In HassanG. (Ed.), The modern SNP: From protest to power (pp. 177–190). Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.
