Based on the argument that the ingroup projection model may not be applicable to the minority group when addressing the effect of relative ingroup prototypicality (RIP) on outgroup attitudes, two studies investigated whether RIP and its effects on outgroup attitudes differ for the majority (Han) and an ethnic minority group (Tibetan). We measured RIP and outgroup attitudes in Study 1 (N = 164) and manipulated RIP in Study 2 (N = 145). The results indicated that the Hans presented high RIP, whereas the Tibetans presented low RIP. The effects of RIP on outgroup attitudes were moderated by group size: High RIP among Hans resulted in negative outgroup attitudes, whereas high RIP among Tibetans led to positive outgroup attitudes. These findings imply that improving the minority group’s RIP by making its culture prototypicality equal to that of the majority group would lead to positive outgroup attitudes.
BergsiekerH. B.SheltonJ. N.RichesonJ. A. (2010). To be liked versus respected: Divergent goals in interracial interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 248–264. doi:10.1037/a0018474
2.
BianchiM.MummendeyA.SteffensM. C.YzerbytV. Y. (2010). What do you mean by “European”? Evidence of spontaneous ingroup projection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 960–974. doi:10.1177/0146167210367488
3.
BrewerM. B. (2007). The importance of being we: Human nature and intergroup relations. American Psychologist, 62, 726–738. doi:10.1037/0003–066X.62.8.728
4.
BrewerM. B.GonsalkoraleK.van DommelenA. (2013). Social identity complexity: Comparing majority and minority ethnic group members in a multicultural society. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16, 529–544. doi:10.1177/1368430212468622
5.
CorrellJ.ParkB.Allegra SmithJ. (2008). Colorblind and multicultural prejudice reduction strategies in high-conflict situations. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 11, 471–491. doi:10.1177/1368430208095401
6.
DevosT.BanajiM. R. (2005). American = White?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 447–466. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.88.3.447
7.
ElkinsZ.SidesJ. (2007). Can institutions build unity in multiethnic states?American Political Science Review, 101, 693–708. doi:10.1017/S0003055407070505
8.
GaertnerS. L.DovidioJ. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. Philadelphia, PA: The Psychology Press.
9.
GaertnerS. L.DovidioJ. F. (2009). A common ingroup identity: A categorization-based approach for reducing intergroup bias. In NelsonT. (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice (pp. 489–506). Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis.
10.
HornseyM. J.HoggM. A. (1999). Subgroup differentiation as a response to an overly inclusive group: A test of optimal distinctiveness theory. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 543–550. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099–0992(199906)29:4<543::AID-EJSP945>3.0.CO;2-A
11.
HuynhQ.DevosT.AltmanH. R. (2015). Boundaries of American identity: Relations between ethnic group prototypicality and policy attitudes. Political Psychology, 36, 449–468. doi:10.1111/pops.12189
12.
KesslerT.MummendeyA. (2009). Why do they not perceive us as we are? Ingroup projection as a source of intergroup misunderstanding. In DemoulinS.LeyensJ. P.DovidioJ. F. (Eds.), Intergroup misunderstandings: Impact of divergent social realities (pp. 135–148). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
13.
KesslerT.MummendeyA.FunkeF.BrownR.BinderJ.ZagefkaH.. . . MaquilA. (2010). We all live in Germany but . . . Ingroup projection, group-based emotions and prejudice against immigrants. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 985–997. doi:10.1002/ejsp.673
14.
LeonardelliG. J.PickettC. L.BrewerM. B. (2010). Optimal distinctiveness theory: A framework for social identity, social cognition, and intergroup relations. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 63–113. doi:10.1016/S0065–2601(10)43002–6
15.
MaelF.AshforthB. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103–123. doi:10.1002/job.4030130202
16.
MummendeyA.WenzelM. (1999). Social discrimination and tolerance in intergroup relations: Reactions to intergroup difference. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 158–174. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0302_4
Ng Tseung-WongC.VerkuytenM. (2010). Intergroup evaluations, group indispensability and prototypicality judgments: A study in Mauritius. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13, 621–638. doi:10.1177/1368430210369345
19.
PekerM.CrispR. J.HoggM. A. (2010). Predictors of ingroup projection: The roles of superordinate category coherence and complexity. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13, 525–542. doi:10.1177/1368430209360205
20.
PutnamR. D. (2007). E pluribus unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century. The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30, 137–174. doi:10.1111/j.1467–9477.2007.00176.x
21.
QiuZ. H. (2013). Data processing and data check. In QiuZ. H. (Ed.), Quantitative research and statistical analysis—A case study of SPSS data analysis (pp. 87–88). Chongqing, China: Chongqing University Press.
22.
ReicherS. (2004). The context of social identity: Domination, resistance, and change. Political Psychology, 25, 921–945. doi:10.1111/j.1467–9221.2004.00403.x
23.
ReynoldsW. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe–Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 119–125. doi:10.1002/1097–4679(198201)38:1<119::AID-JCLP2270380118>3.0.CO;2-I
24.
RyanC. S.CasasJ. F.ThompsonB. K. (2010). Interethnic ideology, intergroup perceptions, and cultural orientation. Journal of Social Issues, 66, 29–44. doi:10.1111/j.1540–4560.2009.01631.x
25.
RyanC. S.HuntJ. S.WeibleJ. A.PetersonC. R.CasasJ. F. (2007). Multicultural and colorblind ideology, stereotypes, and ethnocentrism among Black and White Americans. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10, 617–637. doi:10.1177/1368430207084105
26.
SchubertT. W.OttenS. (2002). Overlap of self, ingroup, and outgroup: Pictorial measures of self categorization. Self and Identity, 1, 353–376. doi:10.1080/152988602760328012
27.
SchuesslerK.HittleD.CardasciaJ. (1978). Measuring responding desirably with attitude–opinion items. Social Psychology, 41, 224–235. doi:10.2307/3033559
28.
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
29.
SindicD.ReicherS. D. (2009). “Our way of life is worth defending”: Testing a model of attitudes towards superordinate group membership through a study of Scots’ attitudes towards Britain. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 114–129. doi:10.1002/ejsp.503
30.
SpoorJ. R.JettenJ.HornseyM. J. (2014). Overplaying the diversity card: When a superordinate group overrepresents the prevalence of a minority group. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17, 161–177. doi:10.1177/1368430213497063
31.
StaerkléC.SidaniusJ.GreenE. G. T.MolinaL. E. (2010). Ethnic minority–majority asymmetry in national attitudes around the world: A multilevel analysis. Political Psychology, 31, 491–519. doi:10.1111/j.1467–9221.2010.00766.x
32.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In AustinW. G.WorchelS. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–48). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
33.
TurnerJ. C. (1987). A self-categorisation theory. In TurnerJ. C.HoggM. A.OakesP. J.ReicherS. D.WetherellM. S. (Eds.), Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorisation theory (pp. 42–67). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
34.
UfkesE. G.OttenS.van Der ZeeK. I.GiebelsE.DovidioJ. F. (2012). Urban district identity as a common ingroup identity: The different role of ingroup prototypicality for minority and majority groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 706–716. doi:10.1002/ejsp.1888
35.
UllrichJ. (2009). Reconsidering the “relative” in relative ingroup prototypicality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 299–310. doi:10.1002/ejsp.540
36.
UllrichJ.ChristO.SchlüterE. (2006). Merging on Mayday: Subgroup and superordinate identification as joint moderators of threat effects in the context of European Union’s expansion. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 857–875. doi:10.1002/ejsp.319
37.
Van KnippenbergA.van OersH. (1984). Social identity and equity concerns in intergroup perceptions. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 351–361. doi:10.1111/j.2044–8309.1984.tb00651.x
38.
Van OudenhovenJ. P.PrinsK. S.BuunkB. P. (1998). Attitudes of minority and majority members towards adaptation of immigrants. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 995–1013. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099–0992(1998110)28:6<995::AID-EJSP908>3.0.CO;2–8
39.
WaldzusS.MummendeyA. (2002, June). Advanced findings on ingroup projection: Causal effects and side effects. Paper presented at the 4th Jena Workshop on Intergroup Processes, Jena, Germany.
40.
WaldzusS.MummendeyA. (2004). Inclusion in a superordinate category, in-group prototypicality, and attitudes towards out-groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 466–477. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2003.09.003
41.
WaldzusS.MummendeyA.WenzelM. (2005). When “different” means “worse”: In-group prototypicality in changing intergroup contexts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 76–83. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2004.05.006
42.
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
43.
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
44.
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
45.
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
46.
WenzelM.MummendeyA.WeberU.WaldzusS. (2003). The ingroup as pars pro toto: Projection from the ingroup onto the inclusive category as precursor to social discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 461–473. doi:10.1177/0146167202250913
47.
WohlM. J. A.GiguèreB.BranscombeN. R.McvicarD. N. (2011). One day we might be no more: Collective angst and protective action from potential distinctiveness loss. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 289–300. doi:10.1002/ejsp.773
