Superordinate identities and intergroup conflict: The ingroup projection model

Sven Waldzus,Amélie Mummendey,Michael Wenzel

doi:10.1080/10463280701728302

Abstract

This chapter summarises results from a research programme on the psychological basis of tolerance and discrimination in intergroup relations, with particular consideration of the role of superordinate identities. According to the ingroup projection model, a relevant superordinate group provides dimensions and norms for comparisons between ingroup and outgroup. Groups gain positive value or status when they are considered prototypical for the (positively valued) superordinate group. Group members tend to generalise (project) distinct ingroup characteristics onto the superordinate category, implying the relative prototypicality of their ingroup. To the extent that outgroup difference is regarded as a deviation from the ethnocentrically construed prototype it is evaluated negatively. Our research studied consequences and determinants of ingroup projection, as well as moderators of its implications. The findings contribute to a deeper understanding of the processes involved in intergroup discrimination and indicate new pathways for the reduction of prejudice, towards mutual intergroup appreciation and tolerance.

Highlights

Le and will have only limited effect (Brown & Hewstone, 2005)
Does a superordinate identity mean the inclusion of the sub-level outgroup in one’s extended self, implying that positive sentiments, cooperation, empathy, altruism, and so on, will likely be extended to those outgroup members, but a superordinate category provides the comparative frame for the differentiation between sub-level groups
Either group will want to see and portray itself as prototypical for the superordinate group in order to claim relatively greater value, status and entitlements for their own group. It is a conflict about which group embodies better the value ideals attributed to the superordinate group; it is a conflict about superordinate values that give value to subordinate groups

Summary

Introduction

Le and will have only limited effect (Brown & Hewstone, 2005) For these reasons, Hewstone and Brown (1986) argued that contact should not be designed to reduce the salience of the ingroup/outgroup categorization; on the contrary, the contact partners should interact with each other explicitly as members of their respective groups. Rather than playing down differences between the groups, the contact should enable the members to acknowledge mutual superiorities and inferiorities. They may favour the ingroup on dimensions of importance to the ingroup and favour the outgroup on dimensions of importance to the outgroup ( claims for what exactly is important to whom may still allow for subtle forms of ingroup-favouritism; Mummendey & Schreiber, 1983, 1984; Mummendey & Simon, 1989). Members can gain a positive social identity from their ingroup’s positive attributes, while at the same time appreciating positive features of the outgrou

Objectives

Findings

Conclusion