Ingroup Projection Model Research Articles

Exemplar-based ingroup projection: The superordinate national category is associated more strongly with ingroup than outgroup political leaders

We studied mental representations of social categories in the context of political groups nested within national identities. Extending previous works derived from the Ingroup Projection Model, which had investigated category representations based on prototypical attributes, we examined category representations based on prototypical exemplars, focusing on group leaders. We hypothesized that the mental representation of the superordinate, national, category is more strongly associated with the mental representation of ingroup political leaders than outgroup political leaders. We tested our hypothesis in three preregistered experiments, looking at two different national-political contexts and using diverse methods. In Studies 1 (N = 145) and 2 (N = 103), both conducted in Israel, we found that participants explicitly associated the national category with leaders of their own political camp more than with leaders of the rival political camp. In Study 2, we further found that participants were more likely to falsely remember that ingroup relative to outgroup political leaders were paired with the national category (versus their political wing). In Study 3 (N = 381), conducted in the USA, we found using an implicit measure of association (ST-IAT) that Democrats and Republicans sorted stimuli, representing political leaders, faster when the national category (represented by American symbols) was paired with the ingroup rather than the outgroup category. Implications for theoretical accounts of ingroup projection, as well as for the understanding of political polarization and intergroup leadership, are discussed.

European identity's effect on immigration attitudes: Testing the predictions of the common Ingroup identity model versus ingroup projection model

AbstractA superordinate identity unites different subgroups into an overarching, common one. But does superordinate identification then improve or worsen attitudes towards the former outgroup? The common ingroup identity model (CIIM) asserts that recategorization ameliorates outgroup bias by reducing perceptions of intergroup threat. It predicts that superordinate identification will improve intergroup relations by promoting tolerance and acceptance of diversity. In contrast, the ingroup project model (IPM) asserts that identifying superordinately will actually exacerbate outgroup bias because ingroup members naturally project their own characteristics onto the superordinate category and will more strongly dislike the former outgroup for not fitting the “correct” superordinate prototype. Existing evidence—largely drawn from psychology lab experiments, not real‐world situations—suggests both models can be correct insofar as ingroup projection only occurs under certain conditions. In that case, which model is correct for European identity? Results from original survey data collected in three European countries (Germany, Poland, and the United Kingdom) show that increased identification with Europe is almost always associated with more favorable attitudes towards outgroup immigrants, even among those most likely to engage in ingroup projection. Future research should continue to investigate when and why this inclusivity does—and does not—hold.

The integration of subgroups at the supranational level: The relation between social identity, national threat, and perceived legitimacy of the EU

Previous research suggests that social identity influences public attitudes about the European Union, but little is known about the role of social identity for perceived legitimacy of the EU. This article explores the relation between different forms of identification (national, EU, dual) and EU legitimacy perceptions, and the moderation of this relationship by experienced threat to national power and sociocultural identity. A survey was conducted in six countries (N = 1136). A factor analysis of legitimacy items resulted in two subscales (institutional trust and duty to obey). Separate regression analyses were therefore run on these subscales. All forms of identification were positively related to perceived EU legitimacy, while threat was a strong and universal negative predictor. However, the results suggest that national identification only positively predicted legitimacy when participants experienced no threat to their nation by the EU, while dual identification positively predicted legitimacy even when participants experienced threat. Overall, respect for national identities and their values may offer opportunities to safeguard and improve the perceived legitimacy of the EU. Findings are discussed in terms of the literature on the ingroup projection model and the common ingroup model.

Cognitive diversity and team creativity: Effects of demographic faultlines, subgroup imbalance and information elaboration

Confusion in previous studies over how and when cognitive diversity results in higher or lower performance has led to an examination of the influence of a range of moderator variables. Our study provides new theoretical insights into this field of research by extending the categorization–elaboration model (CEM) through an examination of the interaction effects of multiple convergent demographic diversities on information elaboration, team processes and creativity. Based on comparative fit and an in-group projection model of social categorization theory, the moderating influence of demographic faultlines and subgroup imbalance are also investigated. Using hierarchical regression analysis (HRA), empirical support from 453 team members nested within 91 teams across five organizations was found for the mediating role of team information elaboration on the relationship between cognitive diversity and team creativity. Furthermore, both demographic faultlines and subgroup balance were found to moderate the relationship between cognitive diversity and team information elaboration. Our study provides additional clarity concerning processes underlying the positive effects of cognitive diversity on team performance.

What it Means to be American: Identity Inclusiveness/Exclusiveness and Support for Policies About Muslims among U.S.‐born Whites

AbstractAmericans’ support for policies targeting Muslims was hotly debated during the 2016 presidential campaign. This study of U.S.‐born White Americans seeks to move beyond explanations of this political polarization as a matter of liberal versus conservative, Democrat versus Republicans by focusing on the content of the superordinate American identity, in terms of how inclusive versus exclusive it is. In line with the ingroup projection model, we expected that a more inclusive representation of the American identity would be related to support for more welcoming (rather than hostile) policies about Muslim people. White Americans (N = 237) were recruited online during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign (June 2016). Results supported our hypothesis and showed the independent associations of identity inclusiveness and exclusiveness with policy support. This study makes three important contributions to a growing literature on the relation between national identity representations and hostility toward immigrants and minorities: (1) directly and independently measuring inclusive and exclusive representations of the superordinate identity, alongside national identity, party affiliation, and political ideology; (2) focusing on Muslims, an understudied group targeted by a great deal of divisive political rhetoric in the 2016 campaign; and (3) considering policy support rather than general attitudes.

One world in diversity – A social-psychological intervention to foster international collective action intention

Although effective interventions to increase international collective action for human rights are highly desirable, the validation of theory-based interventions and their transfer to this practical field is still scarce. We investigated whether collective action intention can be improved by using a diversity intervention technique rooted in social psychology. The intervention builds on the ingroup projection model, postulating that negative intergroup relations are based on the perception of ingroups as more typical of a common superordinate group than outgroups (i.e., relative prototypicality). Thereby, the (quasi-)experimental study tested the ingroup projection model’s theoretical assumptions in the context of Model United Nations (MUN) conferences. We hypothesized that the diversity intervention leads to a higher perceived diversity within the superordinate group (the United Nations, UN) as well as identification with the superordinate group (UN). Furthermore, we hypothesized an indirect effect of the intervention on collective action intention mediated by perception of diversity of, and identification with, the superordinate group. In comparison to the control group (n = 45), those participants who received the diversity workshop intervention (n = 55) perceived less relative prototypicality and more diversity of the UN. In addition, we provide evidence of a serial mediation: Compared to the control group, the diversity workshop group perceived the UN as relatively more diverse, facilitating identification with the UN. In turn, this was associated with a stronger intention to act collectively. This study shows the importance of including psychological theories in the field of international relations.

When does activating diversity alleviate, when does it increase intergroup bias? An ingroup projection perspective.

The question how intergroup bias can be alleviated is of much theoretical and practical interest. Whereas diversity training and the multiculturalism ideology are two approaches prominent in practice, most theoretical models on reducing intergroup bias are based on social-identity theory and self-categorization theory. This social-identity perspective assumes that similar processes lead to intergroup bias in very different intergroup contexts if people identify with the respective social groups. A recent prominent model based on these theories is the ingroup-projection model. As this model assumes, an ingroup’s norms and standards are applied to outgroups included in a common superordinate category (this is called ingroup projection). Intergroup bias results because the outgroup fulfils these norms and standards less than the ingroup. Importantly, if the diversity of the superordinate category is induced as the norm, ingroup projection and thus intergroup bias should be reduced. The present research delineates and tests how general this process is. We propose that ingroup prototypicality is not only an outcome variable, as the ingroup-projection model originally assumes, but can also be an important moderator. We hypothesize that for members considering their ingroup highly prototypical (“pars pro toto”, large majorities), the superordinate group’s diversity may question their ingroup’s position and thus elicit threat and intergroup bias. In contrast, for members who consider their group as less prototypical (one among several, or “una inter pares” groups), activating diversity should, as originally assumed in the ingroup-projection model, reduce intergroup bias. Three experiments (total N = 345) supported these predictions in the contexts of groups defined by gender or nationality. Taken together, the ingroup-projection model can explain under which conditions activating superordinate-category diversity induces tolerance, and when it may backfire. We discuss in how far the ingroup-projection model can integrate conflicting findings on the multiculturalism ideology.

Political constructions of a cross-community identity in a divided society: how politicians articulate Northern Irishness

ABSTRACTA shared identity has been shown to reduce prejudice between conflicting social groups. One such common national category is the ‘Northern Irish’ identity which can be inclusive of both Catholics and Protestants. This study analyses the plenary sessions of the Northern Ireland Assembly to show how the national category ‘Northern Irish’ is framed by politicians. Content analysis shows that it is used more often by centrist parties who tend to frame it positively and as part of their political viewpoint. There is also evidence of the instrumental use of this identity by unionists in line with the ingroup projection model.

The different roles of relative ingroup prototypicality in the outgroup attitudes of majority and minority groups

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.

Ingroup Bias and Ingroup Projection in the Furry Fandom

<p>In two studies, we examine ingroup favoritism within the furry community. Furry fans construct personas (“fursonas”) that are often related to a species of animal (e.g., fox, wolf). In Study 1, furries were found to rate their fursona species more favorably than other species. In Study 2, we examined whether the ingroup projection model may aid in understanding this ingroup species bias. Participants’ ratings of prototypicality of their species within the fandom was associated with greater favoritism of one’s species. A serial mediation model showed that identification with the fursona and perceived benefits of one’s fursona mediated the association between ingroup projection and ingroup species bias.</p>

Cognitive Components of Ingroup Projection

This research investigated whether relative ingroup prototypicality (i.e., the tendency to perceive one’s own ingroup as more prototypical of a superordinate category than the outgroup) can result from a prototype-based versus exemplar-based mental representation of social categories, rather than from ingroup membership per se as previously suggested by the ingroup projection model. Experiments 1 and 2 showed that a prototype-based group was perceived as more prototypical of a superordinate category than an exemplar-based group supporting the hypothesis that an intergroup context is not necessary for biased prototypicality judgments. Experiment 3 introduced an intergroup context in a minimal-group-like paradigm. The findings demonstrated that both the kind of cognitive representation and motivational processes contribute to biased prototypicality judgments in intergroup settings.

How diversity training can change attitudes: Increasing perceived complexity of superordinate groups to improve intergroup relations

When conceiving diversity training—a popular strategy to manage prejudice within organizations and educational settings—there is little reliance on social–psychological theorizing and a lack of research on training effectiveness. In line with the ingroup projection model (Mummendey & Wenzel, 1999), we postulate diversity training to improve intergroup attitudes by increasing perceived superordinate-group diversity. We tested this in two experiments with control-group designs and repeated measurement. In Experiment 1 (N=62), a 2-hour diversity intervention (covered as get-to-know activities) increased perceived diversity of the superordinate group students and improved feelings towards the gender-outgroup. In Experiment 2 (N=51), a 1-day diversity training increased perceived diversity of the superordinate groups adults and Germans and improved subgroup attitudes regarding gender, age, and nationality. Moreover, the training had positive long-term effects and reductions of ambivalent sexism were mediated by increased perceived diversity of the respective superordinate group adults. Our findings demonstrate that the ingroup-projection model provides a suitable theoretical foundation for real-world anti-prejudice interventions such as diversity training.

Shared national identification in Northern Ireland: An application of psychological models of group inclusion post conflict

The common ingroup identity model (CIIM) holds that viewing former outgroup members as part of a larger shared ingroup can allow social categorisation to be harnessed for social cohesion. The ingroup projection model (IPM) suggests that even where shared identification occurs, social divisions can be transposed into superordinate groups. Here we explore the potentially inclusive national identity in a region (Northern Ireland) which has historically seen a high polarisation of identities. Using three data sets ( N = 2000; N = 359; N = 1179), we examine the extent to which a superordinate inclusive national identity, Northern Irish, is related to conciliatory attitudes. We find a common ingroup identity is linked to more positive social attitudes but not to more positive political attitudes. We conclude by considering the complexities of applying psychological models in the real world where structural and historical social divisions and vexing oppositional political questions can be transposed into new social and political orders.

Seeing the world with the eyes of the outgroup — The impact of perspective taking on the prototypicality of the ingroup relative to the outgroup

The positive effect of perspective taking on favorable attitudes towards stigmatized individuals and outgroups is well established (Batson et al., 1997). We draw on the ingroup projection model (Mummendey & Wenzel, 1999) to better understand the processes underlying this effect. Based on their egocentric perspective, ingroup and outgroup members have different representations of the superordinate group (perspective divergence) so that the ingroup is perceived as more relatively prototypical of the superordinate group, leading to negative outgroup evaluation. We hypothesize that the positive effect of perspective taking on outgroup attitudes is due to a reduction of relative ingroup prototypicality. Across three studies with different manipulations of perspective taking, we found that participants who were taking the perspective of an outgroup member evaluated the outgroup more positively and were less inclined to perceive their ingroup as more relatively prototypical. The effect of perspective taking on outgroup attitudes was mediated by relative ingroup prototypicality.

Identity Practices, Ingroup Projection, and the Evaluation of Subgroups: A Study Among Turkish-Dutch Sunnis

ABSTRACT This research focuses on religious subgroup evaluations by examining the attitude of Turkish-Dutch Sunni Muslims towards Alevi and Shiite Muslims. Following the Ingroup Projection Model, it was expected that Sunni participants who practice Islam will project their self-defining subgroup practices on the superordinate Muslim category, which will be related to more ingroup bias towards Alevis, a Muslim subgroup that performs different religious practices. Two studies yielded consistent evidence that practicing Islam increased ingroup bias towards Alevis. Furthermore, in Study 2, we found evidence that the effect of practicing Islam on ingroup bias was mediated by relative ingroup prototypicality (RIP). Moreover, practicing Islam did not affect RIP in relation to Shiites who perform the same religious practices that we examined. These findings support the Ingroup Projection Model.

We Are the World—and They Are Not: Prototypicality for the World Community, Legitimacy, and Responses to Global Inequality

The relation between developed and developing countries is characterized by inequalities that sometimes hinder actions against worldwide problems. The current research presents an intergroup approach, based on the ingroup projection model, towards an analysis of psychological processes that perpetuate global inequality on a social group level. Precisely, we argue that people from developed countries perceive their group as more prototypical for the world population than they perceive people from developing countries. These perceptions of ingroup prototypicality should in turn relate to legitimacy beliefs and predict unfavorable behavioral intentions towards developing countries. We present two studies that corroborate our hypotheses: In Study 1, participants from a developed country perceived their ingroup as more prototypical for the superordinate group (i.e., world population) than the outgroup (i.e., developing countries), which in turn was related to beliefs that global inequality is legitimate. This finding was replicated in Study 2, and the predicted effect of ingroup prototypicality on behavioral intentions was mediated by legitimacy beliefs. These findings demonstrate that intergroup processes can contribute to perpetuating global inequality.

When different means bad or merely worse. How minimal and maximal goals affect ingroup projection and outgroup attitudes

AbstractGroup members tend to perceive their ingroup relative to an outgroup as more prototypical for a common superordinate group because they project features of their ingroup onto the superordinate group. As a consequence, the ingroup is perceived as more positive than the outgroup (Mummendey & Wenzel, 1999). We extend the ingroup projection model by examining different types of ingroup goals: minimal and maximal goals as well as actual and ideal goals. Minimal goals should engender either‐or thinking and lead to more ingroup projection compared with maximal goals that should involve more nuanced thinking. Ingroup prototypicality in terms of ideal goals (e.g., what we ideally should strive for) was expected to show a stronger relation to outgroup attitudes than ingroup prototypicality in terms of actual goals (e.g., what we are actually striving for). We manipulated minimal and maximal goal orientation and assessed actual and ideal goals. Across two studies, relative ingroup prototypicality was higher in the minimal compared with the maximal goal condition. Moreover, ingroup prototypicality referring to ideal goals showed a stronger relation to outgroup evaluation than ingroup prototypicality referring to actual goals. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Facing Europe

Individuals perceive their own group to be more typical of a shared superordinate identity than other groups are. This in-group projection process has been demonstrated with both self-report and indirect measures. The two studies reported here extend this research to the visual level, specifically, within the domain of faces. Using an innovative reverse-correlation approach, we found that German and Portuguese participants’ visual representations of European faces resembled the appearance typical for their own national identity. This effect was found even among participants who explicitly denied that one nation was more typical of Europe than the other (Study 1). Moreover, Study 2 provides experimental evidence that in-group projection is restricted to inclusive superordinate groups, as the effect was not observed for visual representations of a category (“Australian”) that did not include participants’ in-group. Implications for the in-group projection model, as well as for the applicability of reverse-correlation paradigms, are discussed.

What Do You Mean by “European”? Evidence of Spontaneous Ingroup Projection

The ingroup projection model posits that group members project ingroup features onto a superordinate category. The present research aimed at isolating the cognitive underpinnings of this process. If ingroup projection is a spontaneous cognitive process, a superordinate category prime should facilitate the processing of the ingroup prototype rather than the outgroup prototype. Three studies support this hypothesis by comparing subliminal semantic priming in two different populations, an intra- versus intergroup situation, and with an ingroup prototype manipulated by changing the intergroup context. Results indicated that the superordinate category prime facilitated the processing of ingroup rather than outgroup traits (Experiment 1) and that these traits depended on the particular content of the ingroup prototype made salient by different contexts (Experiments 2 and 3). The findings indicate that the cognitive representation of the superordinate category is based on ingroup traits and that this representation is context dependent.

When the best become the rest: The interactive effect of premerger status and relative representation on postmerger identification and ingroup bias

This experiment tested the combined impact of premerger status (low, high) and relative representation (low, high) on identification with a merged group and on bias expressed towards members of the merger partner. In phase 1, 111 university students were assigned to a premerger team of “inductive” thinkers. Premerger status was manipulated by informing participants that their team had performed worse or better than a deductionist team on a decision-making task. In phase 2, the participants’ premerger team was supposedly merged with this deductionist team to form a new merger team of analyst thinkers. Relative representation was manipulated by preserving either most or none of the characteristics of the premerger team in the new merger team. The results revealed a significant interaction between premerger status and relative representation on both postmerger identification and ingroup bias. Participants belonging to a high premerger status group confronted with a low relative representation reported less postmerger identification and more bias than participants in the other three conditions. Moreover, relative representation, but not premerger status, moderated the relation between postmerger identification and ingroup bias. More specifically, when relative representation was high, postmerger identification and ingroup bias were positively related. By contrast, when relative representation was low, postmerger identification and ingroup bias were negatively related. These results confirm the predictions based on the Ingroup Projection Model.