Relative Ingroup Research Articles

The New Testament vs. The Quran: Americans’ Beliefs About the Content of Muslim and Christian Holy Texts

The stereotypes and biases that people have about various religions may not be applied to just the individuals who belong to those religions, but to the belief systems themselves. We hypothesized that non-Muslim and Muslim Americans would demonstrate biased estimates about the language content of the Quran and New Testament holding positive views towards their relative ingroup and negative views towards the outgroup text. We used two samples ( N1 = 163, N2 = 204) of Americans and the Linguistic Inquiry Word Count Software (LIWC) to test our hypotheses. We determined the differences between the texts across language categories. Participants then rated the categories in terms of their relative frequency across the texts. We compared these ratings to the actual differences between the texts. As hypothesized, participants perceived the ingroup text as positive and the outgroup text as negative. We discuss whether biased beliefs about religious teachings may be separate from but aligned with biases against believers and further contribute to religious stereotypes.

Unpacking all-inclusive superordinate categories: Comparing correlates and consequences of global citizenship and human identities.

Previous research suggests that all-inclusive superordinate categories, such as “citizens of the world” and “humans,” may represent different socio-psychological realities. Yet it remains unclear whether the use of different categories may account for different psychological processes and attitudinal or behavioral outcomes. Two studies extended previous research by comparing how these categories are cognitively represented, and their impact on intergroup helping from host communities toward migrants. In a correlational study, 168 nationals from 25 countries perceived the group of migrants as more prototypical of the superordinate category “citizens of the world” than their national group (relative outgroup prototypicality), whereas no differences in prototypicality occurred for the category “humans.” Identification with “citizens of the world” was positively associated with a disposition to oppose helping migrants and to offer dependency-oriented help. However, identification with “humans” was positively associated with helping in general, and with offering dependency- and autonomy-oriented help; and negatively associated with opposition to helping. The experimental study manipulated the salience of “citizens of the world” vs. “humans” vs. control category, among 224 nationals from 36 countries. Results showed that the salience of “humans” (vs. “citizens of the world”) triggered higher entitativity and essentialist perceptions, and dual-identity representations. No differences due to salience were found for representations of relative ingroup prototypicality or helping responses. Overall, these findings suggest that the interchangeable use of different labels is problematic, considering these might activate different representations, and thus, are likely to lead, in some circumstances, to different attitudinal or behavioral outcomes.

They (Don't) Need Us: Functional Indispensability Impacts Perceptions of Representativeness and Commitment When Lower-Status Groups Go Through an Intergroup Merger.

Intergroup changes occur often between subgroups who are asymmetric in status (e.g., size, power, prestige), with important consequences for social identification, especially among the members of lower-status groups. Mergers offer an example of such changes, when subgroups (merger partners) merge into a common, superordinate group (post-merger group). Lower-status subgroups frequently perceive they are less represented in the post-merger group, therefore committing less to the changes a merger implies. Five studies offered an intergroup relations’ perspective on mergers (N’s = 479, 150, 266, 113, and 229, respectively), examining how functional indispensability (instrumental contribution of the ingroup) positively influences perceptions of representativeness in the post-merger group (relative ingroup prototypicality), which, in turn, affect post-merger identification and, finally, change commitment. Additionally, the role of cognitive information processing (heuristic vs. systematic) on prototypicality was explored. Results suggest that functional indispensability impacts relative ingroup prototypicality (Studies 1–5), and this may be moderated by information processing (Study 2). Moreover, prototypicality and identification with the superordinate post-merged group mediated the effect of functional indispensability on change commitment (Studies 1–3). These findings provide important theoretical insights into prototypicality perceptions held by lower-status merger partners and minority groups in general, by identifying functional indispensability as a source of prototypicality other than relative status. In addition, by proposing a functional approach to the relations between social groups, these findings suggest better practices for managing structural changes, such as combining sources of strategic/functional and identity fit when announcing an intergroup change.

Anti-immigrant Attitudes in Russia: The Group Position Model Reconsidered

This article analyses the relationship between relative group position in an ethnically stratified social order and anti-immigrant attitudes in Russia. Based on data from the Russia Longitudinal Monitoring Survey of the Higher School of Economics, it studies the role of two objective indicators of group position: relative ingroup size and the group’s dominant political status within a region. The findings show that when a group position is measured in numerical terms, the attitudes of ethnic Russians seem to follow social dominance theory, while titulars tend to conform to the alienation-based extension to the group position model.

Change commitment in low-status merger partners: The role of information processing, relative ingroup prototypicality, and merger patterns.

Merger announcements cause stress among employees, often leading to low change commitment, especially among employees from the lower-status merger partner. Such stress influences how deeply employees process merger-relevant information. Previous research examined how merger patterns that preserve versus change status differences impact merger support, but did not address how employees' information processing may influence this relationship. The current research addresses this gap through a scenario experiment, focusing on the low-status merger partner. The interplay between merger patterns and information processing was examined regarding employees' prototypicality claims in relation to merger support. Results suggest that an integration-equality merger pattern increases change commitment via prototypicality claims in the new organization, conditional to employees' systematic information processing.

The role of dual categorization and relative ingroup prototypicality in reparations to a minority group: An examination of empathy and collective guilt as mediators

In the current study, we investigate factors that facilitate or otherwise obstruct reparations of a perpetrating group (i.e. Muslims) to a victim group (i.e. Christians). The study (N = 200) reveals that among Muslim participants, the role of dual Abrahamic categorization in positively predicting reparation attitude towards Christians was mediated by the first group's prosocial emotions of empathy and collective guilt towards the latter group. In addition, relative Muslim prototypicality negatively predicted dual Abrahamic categorization and each of the two prosocial emotions. Empathy and collective guilt in turn mediated the role of relative ingroup prototypicality in negatively predicting reparation attitude. Moreover, as hypothesized, we found that the roles of empathy and collective guilt in predicting reparation intention, as manifested in participants' willingness to engage in collective action on behalf of the victim group, were not significant on their own, but were mediated by reparation attitude. These findings shed light on the importance of the relationship between the perpetrating group's shared identity with the victim group, reduced ingroup focus and its support for making reparations to the victim group. Theoretical implications, study limitations and practical strategies highlighting how to decrease relative Muslim prototypicality are discussed.

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.

“Small but Mighty”: Conditions for Prototypicality Claims Within Low-Status Merger Partners

Mergers and acquisitions often exhibit asymmetric group structure and dynamics. Minority (low-status) merger partners frequently perceive themselves as less prototypical of the new organisation, potentially hindering corporate development. This research examines three variables – morality, indispensability, and merger patterns, which may influence prototypicality perceptions in minority merger partners. In respective online-based surveys, each of the variables is experimentally manipulated via scenarios and perceptions of relative ingroup prototypicality and indicators of merger support are measured as dependent variables. Ultimately, the aim of the studies is to give an insight into minority perceptions and suggest better practices for human resource management.

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.

Boundaries of American Identity: Relations between Ethnic Group Prototypicality and Policy Attitudes.

We sought to document that the extent to which different ethnic groups are perceived as embodying the American identity is more strongly linked to anti-minority policy attitudes and acculturation ideologies among majority group members (European Americans) than among minority group members (Asian Americans or Latino/as). Participants rated 13 attributes of the American identity as they pertain to different ethnic groups, and reported their endorsement of policy attitudes and acculturation ideologies. We found a relative consensus across ethnic groups regarding defining components of the American identity. However, European Americans were perceived as more prototypical of this American identity than ethnic minorities, especially by European American raters. Moreover, for European Americans but not for ethnic minorities, relative ingroup prototypicality was related to anti-minority policy attitudes and acculturation ideologies. These findings suggest that for European Americans, perceptions of ethnic group prototypicality fulfill an instrumental function linked to preserving their group interests and limiting the rights afforded to ethnic minorities.

Us and them: Mood effects on ingroup projection

AbstractMood states affect judgments in general and intergroup judgments in particular. The aim of the present research was to show that ingroup projection is influenced by affective states in a similar way as ingroup bias. Varying mood states and relevance of the intergroup situation orthogonally, the results supported the hypotheses that positive mood in conjunction with low relevance and negative mood in conjunction with high relevance elicit higher levels of biased prototypicality perceptions compared to the other conditions of the design. Given substantial evidence from previous research that mood in conjunction with perceived relevance moderates motivated versus heuristic processing, we propose that the present results correspond with motivation‐ versus cognition‐based ingroup projection and suggest different processes underlying the phenomenon of relative ingroup prototypicality. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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.

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.

Intergroup evaluations, group indispensability and prototypicality judgments: A study in Mauritius

This paper focuses on the superordinate (national)-subgroup (ethnic) association in relation to group identifications, relative ingroup indispensability, relative ingroup prototypicality and their effects on outgroup and ingroup evaluations. Survey data were collected from a large sample of Mauritian adolescents ( N = 1,784) from three ethnic groups (Hindus, Muslims, Creoles). National and dual identifiers were more positive towards the outgroups than ethnic identifiers. Furthermore, relative ingroup prototypicality and relative ingroup indispensability were empirically distinguishable constructs. The Creoles, who are of lower status, had higher scores on both these measures. Also it turned out that relative ingroup indispensability and relative ingroup prototypicality were independently associated to respectively more negative outgroup evaluation and more positive ingroup evaluation. The findings give a differentiated view of the idea that a complex representation of the superordinate category fosters outgroup acceptance.

We all live in Germany but … Ingroup projection, group‐based emotions and prejudice against immigrants

AbstractImmigration, cultural diversity and integration are among the most central challenges for modern societies. Integration is often impeded by negative emotions and prejudices held by the majority members towards immigrants in a common society. Based on the ingroup projection model (Mummendey & Wenzel, 1999), we examined the impact of perceived relative ingroup prototypicality on intergroup emotions and prejudice. Additionally, we examined whether this impact is causal and explored the issue of causality in more detail contrasting a linear causal model with bi‐directional or reciprocal causality. Hypotheses were tested in a study with a two‐wave panel of majority members (N=1085) in Germany. We examined the proposed relations between relative ingroup prototypicality, intergroup emotions and prejudice and determined the causal direction of these relationships. Results support the predictive power of relative ingroup prototypicality on intergroup emotions and prejudice. Moreover, most causal relations between our measures are reciprocally causal. We discuss the implications of these findings for the general conception of prejudice and intergroup emotions. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

On the Crucial Role of Mental Ingroup Representation for Ingroup Bias and the Ingroup Prototypicality-Ingroup Bias Link

Previous research suggested that relative ingroup prototypicality is a basis for ingroup bias. To test the boundary conditions of this phenomenon, we hypothesized that people particularly rely on relative ingroup prototypicality as a basis for ingroup bias if the prototypicality information is derived from a homogeneous and simple ingroup representation. We, therefore, predicted increased ingroup bias together with a stronger relation between prototypicality and ingroup bias if the ingroup is formed of consistent group members only. In two experiments, we used different subtyping manipulations and showed that the exclusion of inconsistent parts of the ingroup leads to a strong relation between relative ingroup prototypicality and ingroup bias, whereas this relation was nonsignificant without subtyping. Furthermore, ingroup bias was more pronounced after subtyping. These results confirm that the homogeneity and the simplicity of the ingroup representation is an important moderator for the relation between ingroup projection and intergroup judgments.

Reconsidering the “relative” in relative ingroup prototypicality

AbstractRelative ingroup prototypicality (RIP) is an important concept in the ingroup projection model (IPM) of social discrimination and tolerance. This paper reviews measures of RIP currently in use and critically examines how the notion of RIP is captured by statistical tests treating RIP as a single variable. It is concluded that composite measures of RIP imply multiple statistical hypotheses that have previously been confounded. The value of an alternative multiple regression approach is illustrated in a study testing the hypothesis of a negative relationship between RIP and outgroup attitudes. Results based on the conventional univariate analyses would have confirmed or disconfirmed the hypothesis depending on the scoring method. In contrast, the multiple regression approach described in this paper resolves this ambiguity by suggesting that only outgroup prototypicality may be necessary to predict outgroup attitudes. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The Effect of Exemplar Activation on Mental Representations of the Ingroup: The Moderating Role of Relative Ingroup Size

The current research explores the effects of exemplars on the stereotype representation of one's ingroup. Previous research demonstrated that exposure to an ingroup exemplar affects the stereotype one holds of one's ingroup (Coats & Smith, 1999). The primary purpose of the present study was to examine whether this effect is moderated by relative ingroup size. Participants were placed into either a minority or majority group situation and exposed to 1 of 2 dissimilar exemplars of their ingroup. Later, they rated their ingroup. Ratings of the ingroup differed between exemplar conditions in unexpected ways, indicating that the exemplar affected participants' stereotype of their ingroup. Furthermore, exemplars had a stronger effect on participants in the minority group than those in the majority group. Finally, relative ingroup size and, to a marginal extent, exemplars were found to affect ratings of ingroup variability.

Cross‐Community Contact, Perceived Status Differences, and Intergroup Attitudes in Northern Ireland: The Mediating Roles of Individual‐level versus Group‐level Threats and the Moderating Role of Social Identification

We tested a model which examined the relationship between contact quantity and quality, relative ingroup status, and intergroup attitudes in Northern Ireland. Intergroup anxiety was considered an individual‐level mediator and realistic and symbolic threat as group‐level mediators in the model. We examined the idea that the strength of ingroup identification moderates the predictive power of individual‐ versus group‐level variables. Both contact and relative ingroup status predicted anxiety and perceived threats to the ingroup, which were significant mediators in the model. Our results also suggest that while anxiety predicts attitudes for low but not high identifiers, symbolic threats to the ingroup are more important for high than for low identifiers. There was also some evidence indicating that status perceptions moderate contact effects. We discuss these results in terms of their implications for intergroup relations in Northern Ireland.