One potential obstacle to cooperation between political parties is ingroup projection, the tendency for members of subgroups to define superordinate groups based on characteristics of their own ingroups. In five studies spanning 11 years and three presidential administrations, we demonstrated that ingroup projection can be an obstacle that prevents bipartisanship between Republicans and Democrats. Study 1 showed that Americans perceived political ingroups as more prototypical of Americans than outgroups and that the degree of mismatch between the outgroup and the superordinate group was associated with ingroup bias. Studies 2–5 demonstrated that perceiving the outgroup as poorly fitting the prototype of the superordinate group predicted opposition to bipartisan cooperation and a lower likelihood of having engaged in bipartisan behavior (Studies 4 and 5). These studies provide evidence for ingroup projection among American political parties and suggest that it contributes to political polarization.
AbramowitzA. I.SaundersK. L. (2008). Is polarization a myth?The Journal of Politics, 70(2), 542–555.
2.
BianchiM.MummendeyA.SteffensM. C.YzerbytV. (2010). What do you mean by European? Evidence of spontaneous ingroup projection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 960–974. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210367488
3.
CitrinJ.ReingoldB.GreenD. (1990). American identity and the politics of ethnic change. Journal of Politics, 52, 1124–1154. https://doi.org/10.2307/2131685
4.
DoucerainM. M.AmiotC. E.ThomasE. F.LouisW. R. (2018). What it means to be American: Identity inclusiveness/exclusiveness and support for policies about Muslims among US-born Whites. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 18(1), 224–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12167
5.
DuckJ.HoggM.TerryD. (1995). Me, us and them: Political identification and the third-person effect in the 1993 Australian Federal Election. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 195–215. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420250206
6.
EhretP. J.Van BovenL.ShermanD. K. (2018). Partisan barriers to bipartisanship: Understanding climate policy polarization. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(3), 308–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550618758709
7.
EhrkeF.BertholdA.SteffensM. C. (2014). How diversity training can change attitudes: Increasing perceived complexity of superordinate groups to improve intergroup relations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 53, 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.03.013
8.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.
9.
FedericoC. M. (2021). When do psychological differences predict political differences? Engagement and the psychological bases of political polarization. In The psychology of political polarization (pp. 17–37). Routledge.
10.
HanJ.FedericoC. M. (2017). Conflict-framed news, self-categorization, and partisan polarization. Mass Communication and Society, 20(4), 455–480. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2017.1292530
11.
HornseyM.HoggM. A. (2000). Intergroup similarity and subgroup relations: Some implications for assimilation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 948–958. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672002610005
12.
JostJ. T.GlaserJ.KruglanskiA. W.SullowayF. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339.
13.
JungJ.HoggM. A.ChoiH. (2018). Recategorization and ingroup projection: Two processes of identity uncertainty reduction. Journal of Theoretical Social Psychology, 3(2), 97–114. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts5.37
14.
KesslerT.MummendeyA.FunkeF.BrownŔ.BinderJ.ZagefkaH.LeyensJ.-P.DemoulinS.MaquilA. (2010). We all live in Germany but…ingroup projection, group-based emotions and prejudice against immigrants. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(6), 985–997. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.673
15.
KnabN.SteffensM. C. (2018). One world in diversity—A social-psychological intervention to foster international collective action intention. Journal of Social and Political Psychology. 6(1), 8–26. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v6i1.601
16.
LevenduskyM.MalhotraN. (2016). Does media coverage of partisan polarization affect political attitudes?Political Communication, 33(2), 283–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2015.1038455
17.
LieJ. L. Y.VerkuytenM. (2012). Identity practices, ingroup projection, and the evaluation of subgroups: A study among Turkish-Dutch Sunnis. The Journal of Social Psychology, 152(4), 510–523. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2011.643325
18.
LoweR. D.MuldoonO. T. (2014). Shared national identification in Northern Ireland: An application of psychological models of group inclusion post conflict. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17(5), 602–616. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430214525808
19.
MachunskyM.MeiserT. (2014). Cognitive components of ingroup projection: Prototype projection contributes to biased protypicality judgments in group perception. Social Psychology, 45(1), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000156
20.
MasonL. (2018). Uncivil agreement: How politics became our identity. University of Chicago Press.
21.
MummendeyA.WenzelM. (1999). Social discrimination and tolerance in intergroup relations: Reactions to intergroup difference. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 158–174. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0302_4
22.
ParkerM. T.Janoff-BulmanR. (2013). Lessons from morality-based social identity: The power of outgroup “hate,” not just ingroup love. Social Justice Research, 26(1), 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-012-0175-6
23.
RutchickA. M.EcclestonC. P. (2010). Ironic effects of invoking common ingroup identity. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 32, 109–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973531003738353
24.
RutchickA. M.SmythJ. M.KonrathS. (2009). Seeing red (and blue): Effects of electoral college depictions on political group perception. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 9, 269–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-2415.2009.01183.x
SherifM. (1958). Superordinate goals in the reduction of intergroup conflict. American Journal of Sociology, 63, 349–356.
28.
StangorC.LynchL.DuanC.GlassB. (1992). Categorization of individuals on the basis of multiple social features. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 207–218. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.2.207
29.
SteffensM. C.ReeseG.EhrkeF.JonasK. J. (2017). When does activating diversity alleviate, when does it increase intergroup bias? An ingroup projection perspective. PLoS One, 12(6), e0178738. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178738
30.
Van BovenL.EhretP. J.ShermanD. K. (2018). Psychological barriers to bipartisan public support for climate policy. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(4), 492–507. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617748966
31.
VerkuytenM.MartinovicB. (2016). Dual identity, in-group projection, and out-group feelings among ethnic minority groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 46(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2131
32.
WaldzusS.MummendeyA.WenzelM.BoettcherF. (2004). Of bikers, teachers and Germans: Groups’ diverging views about their prototypicality. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 385–400. https://doi.org/10.1348/0144666042037944
33.
WaldzusS.MummendeyA.WenzelM.WeberU. (2003). Towards tolerance: Representations of superordinate categories and perceived ingroup prototypicality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 31–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00507-3
34.
WangJ.WangL.KouY. (2018). The different roles of relative ingroup prototypicality in the outgroup attitudes of majority and minority groups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21(2), 319–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430216663020
35.
WenzelM.MummendeyA.WaldzusS. (2007). Superordinate identities and intergroup conflict: The ingroup projection model. European Review of Social Psychology, 18, 331–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280701728302
36.
WenzelM.MummendeyA.WeberU.WaldzusS. (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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202250913
37.
WenzelM.WaldzusS.SteffensM. C. (2016). Ingroup projection as a challenge of diversity: Consensus about and complexity of superordinate categories. In SibleyC. G.BarlowF. K. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of the psychology of prejudice (pp. 65–89). Cambridge University Press.
38.
WestfallJ.Van BovenL.ChambersJ. R.JuddC. M. (2015). Perceiving political polarization in the United States: Party identity strength and attitude extremity exacerbate the perceived partisan divide. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(2), 145–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615569849
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
