Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:25:48.235Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - Ingroup Projection as a Challenge of Diversity: Consensus about and Complexity of Superordinate Categories

from Part I - General Theoretical Perspectives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 November 2016

By
Michael Wenzel ,
Sven Waldzus  and
Melanie C. Steffens
Edited by
Chris G. Sibley  and
Fiona Kate Barlow
Michael Wenzel
Affiliation:
Flinders University
Sven Waldzus
Affiliation:
Instituto Universitário de Lisboa
Melanie C. Steffens
Affiliation:
University of Koblenz–Landau
Chris G. Sibley
Affiliation:
University of Auckland
Fiona Kate Barlow
Affiliation:
University of Queensland
Get access

Summary

As is often done, we could begin such a chapter in a volume on intergroup conflict with a dire description of the state of human society and the continuing menace of social discrimination, prejudice, injustice, and ethnic violence. However, a children's book by the Austrian writer Edith Schreiber-Wicke (1990), whose title may be translated as “When the crows were still colorful,” provides a fable that is more fun, yet insightful. It describes the story of the crows when they still came in all sorts of colors and patterns – orange with blue stripes, green with yellow spots, and so on – until one day a snowman asked the fateful (and probably spiteful) question of what a real, true crow looked like. Now the yellow-with-blue-spotted crows declared yellow with blue spots was the true color of crows, but the lilac crows argued the ur-crow was lilac colored, and all the other crows also claimed their colors were the real ones. There was arguing and quarreling; the crows began to fly with like-colored others only. The fighting ended only when one day a black rain turned all animals black. Afterward, only the crows stayed black and no longer had a reason to argue. The moral of the story? Obviously: ingroup projection is a challenge of diversity! And if we do not want to buy social harmony with dull sameness, we had better think of a more creative way to appreciate and enjoy differences.

Ingroup projection is the perception or claim that one's own group is more prototypical for a higher-order superordinate identity, hence more normative and positive, than a relevant comparison outgroup is, or more prototypical at least than the outgroup thinks the ingroup is. In the present chapter, we briefly outline the ingroup projection model (IPM; Mummendey & Wenzel, 1999; Wenzel, Mummendey, & Waldzus, 2007), discuss its key concepts and relevant recent findings, and essentially argue for two ways in which we need to construe our superordinate identities to reduce tension between diverse and divergent groups included in them: We need to advance consensus about the superordinate identity in question, and about the complexity of its representation.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology of Prejudice , pp. 65 - 89
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alexandre, J., Waldzus, S., & Wenzel, M. (2016). Complex inclusive categories of positive and negative valence and prototypicality claims in asymmetric intergroup relations. British Journal of Social Psychology. DOI: 10.1111/bjso.12148CrossRef
Allport, F. H. (1924). Social psychology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Berthold, A., Leicht, C., Methner, N., & Gaum, P. (2013). Seeing the world with the eyes of the outgroup: The impact of perspective taking on the prototypicality of the ingroup relative to the outgroup. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 1034–1041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berthold, A., Mummendey, A., Kessler, T., Luecke, B., & Schubert, T. (2012). When different means bad or merely worse. How minimal and maximal goals affect ingroup projection and outgroup attitudes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 682–690.Google Scholar
Bianchi, M., Machunsky, M., Steffens, M. C., & Mummendey, A. (2009). Like me or like us: Is ingroup projection just social projection? Experimental Psychology, 56, 198–205.Google Scholar
Bianchi, M., Mummendey, A., Steffens, M. C., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2010). What do you mean by “European”? Evidence of spontaneous ingroup projection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 960–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bilewicz, M., & Bilewicz, A. (2012). Who defines humanity? Psychological and cultural obstacles to omniculturalism. Culture & Psychology, 18, 331–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Billig, M. (1995). Banal nationalism. London: Sage.
Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (Eds.). (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford Press.
Clement, R. W., & Krueger, J. (2002). Social categorization moderates social projection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 219–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, M. A., & Richeson, J. A. (2014). More diverse yet less tolerant? How the increasingly diverse racial landscape affects White Americans’ racial attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 750–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danbold, F. & Huo, Y. J. (2015) No longer “All-American”? Whites’ defensive reactions to their numerical decline. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6, 210–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demoulin, S., Torres, R. R., Perez, A. R., Vaes, J., Paladino, M. P., Gaunt, R., … Leyens, J.-P. (2004). Emotional prejudice can lead to infra-humanisation. European Review of Social Psychology, 15, 259–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devos, T., & Banaji, M. R. (2005). American = White? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 447–466.Google Scholar
Devos, T., Gavin, K., & Quintana, F. J. (2010). Say “adios” to the American dream? The interplay between ethnic and national identity among Latino and Caucasian Americans. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16, 37–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dieckmann, J., Steffens, M. C., & Methner, N. (2015). Back to the roots: When diversity evokes increased group-based conventionalism. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Dixon, J., Levine, M., Reicher, S., & Durrheim, K. (2012). Beyond prejudice: Are negative evaluations the problem and is getting us to like one another more the solution? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35, 411–425.Google Scholar
Ehrke, F., Berthold, A., & Steffens, M. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrke, F., & Steffens, M. C. (2015). After all, are you that typical? Altering self-typicality to reduce backlash against perceived superordinate-group diversity. Manuscript in preparation.
Ehrke, F., & Steffens, M. C. (2015). Diversity-Training: Theoretische Grundlagen und empirische Befunde (Diversity training: Theoretical foundations and empirical findings). In Hanappi-Egger, E. & Bendl, R. (Eds.), Diversität, Diversifizierung und (Ent)Solidarisierung in der Organisationsforschung (pp. 205–221). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Finley, S., & Wenzel, M. (2003, April). Ingroup projection as a response to social identity threat. Paper presented at the 32nd annual meeting of the Society of Australasian Social Psychologists, Sydney, Australia.
Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Gómez, A., Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Fernandez, S., & Vazquez, A. (2013). Responses to endorsement of commonality by ingroup and outgroup members: The roles of group representation and threat. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 419–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gómez, A., Dovidio, J. F., Huici, C., Gaertner, S. L., & Cuadrado, I. (2008). The other side of we: When outgroup members express common identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1613–1626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gumplowicz, L. (1879). Das Recht der Nationalität und Sprachen in Oesterreich-Ungarn [The right of nationality and languages in Austria-Hungary]. Innsbruck, Austria: Wagner'sche Universitäts-Buchhandlung.
Hegarty, P., & Chryssochoou, X. (2005). Why “our” policies set the standard more than “theirs”: Category norms and generalization between European Union countries. Social Cognition, 23, 491–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huynh, Q.-L., Devos, T., & Altman, H. R. (2015). Boundaries of American identity: Relations between ethnic group prototypicality and policy attitudes. Political Psychology, 36, 449–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imhoff, R., & Dotsch, R. (2013). Do we look like me or like us? Visual projection as self- or ingroup-projection. Social Cognition, 31, 806–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imhoff, R., Dotsch, R., Bianchi, M., Banse, R., & Wigboldus, D. H. (2011). Facing Europe: Visualizing spontaneous in-group projection. Psychological Science, 22, 1583–1590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jost, J. T., Gaucher, D., & Stern, C. (2015). “The world isn't fair”: A system justification perspective on social stratification and inequality. In Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Dovidio, J. F., & Simpson, J. A. (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology, Volume 2: Group processes (pp. 317–340). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Joyce, C., Stevenson, C., & Muldoon, O. (2013). Claiming and displaying national identity: Irish Travellers’ and students’ strategic use of “banal” and “hot” national identity in talk. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52, 450–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kessler, T., & Mummendey, A. (2009). Why do they not perceive us as we are? Ingroup projection as a source of intergroup misunderstanding. In Demoulin, S., Leyens, J.-P., & Dovidio, J. F. (Eds.), Intergroup misunderstandings: Impact of divergent social realities (pp. 135–152). New York: Psychology Press.
Kessler, T., Neumann, J., Mummendey, A., Berthold, A., Schubert, T., & Waldzus, S. (2010). How do we assign punishment? The impact of minimal and maximal standards on the evaluation of deviants. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1213–1224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knab, N. (2015). One world in diversity: Fostering international relations and collective action from a socio-psychological perspective. Unpublished Masters thesis, University of Koblenz-Landau, Landau, Germany.
Koval, P., Laham, S. M., Haslam, N., Bastian, B., & Whelan, J. A. (2012). Our flaws are more human than yours: Ingroup bias in humanizing negative characteristics. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 283–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krueger, J. I. (2007). From social projection to social behaviour. European Review of Social Psychology, 18, 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leyens, J.-P., Paladino, P. M., Rodriguez-Torres, R., Vaes, J., Demoulin, S., Rodriguez-Perez, A., & Gaunt, R. (2000). The emotional side of prejudice: The attribution of secondary emotions to ingroups and outgroups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 186–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lie, J. L. Y., & Verkuyten, M. (2012). Identity practices, ingroup projection, and the evaluation of subgroups: A study among Turkish-Dutch Sunnis. The Journal of Social Psychology, 152, 510–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machunsky, M., & Meiser, T. (2009). Ingroup projection as a means to define the superordinate category efficiently: Response time evidence. Social Cognition, 27, 57–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machunsky, M., & Meiser, T. (2014a). Cognitive components of ingroup projection: Prototype projection contributes to biased prototypicality judgments in group perception. Social Psychology, 45, 15–30.Google Scholar
Machunsky, M., & Meiser, T. (2014b). Us and them: Mood effects on ingroup projection. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 7–14.Google Scholar
McFarland, S., Brown, D., & Webb, M. (2013). Identification with all humanity as a moral concept and psychological construct. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 194–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moghaddam, F. M. (2012). The omnicultural imperative. Culture & Psychology, 18, 304–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mummendey, A., & Wenzel, M. (1999). Social discrimination and tolerance in intergroup relations: Reactions to intergroup difference. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 158–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noor, M., Brown, R., Taggart, L., Fernandez, A., & Coen, S. (2010). Intergroup identity perceptions and their implications for intergroup forgiveness: The Common Ingroup Identity Model and its efficacy in the field. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 31, 151–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & Turner, J. C. (1998). The role of prototypicality in group influence and cohesion: Contextual variation in the graded structure of social categories. In Worchel, S., Morales, J. F., Paez, D., & Deschamps, J.-C. (Eds.), Social identity: International perspectives (pp. 75–92). London: Sage.
Otten, S., & Wentura, D. (2001). Self-anchoring and in-group favoritism: An individual profiles analysis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 525–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Outten, H., Schmitt, M. T., Miller, D. A., & Garcia, A. L. (2012). Feeling threatened about the future: Whites’ emotional reactions to anticipated ethnic demographic changes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 14–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paladino, M.-P., & Vaes, J. (2009). Ours is human: On the pervasiveness of infra-humanization in intergroup relations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48, 237–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, B., & Judd, C. M. (2005). Rethinking the link between categorization and prejudice within the social cognition perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 108–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peker, M. (2009). Cognitive, motivational and ideological determinants of ingroup projection. Unpublished Doctoral thesis, University of Kent, UK.
Peker, M., Crisp, R. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2010). Predictors of ingroup projection: The roles of superordinate category coherence and complexity. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13, 525–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postmes, T., Spears, R., Lee, A. T., & Novak, R. J. (2005). Individuality and social influence in groups: Inductive and deductive routes to group identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 747–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prislin, R., & Filson, J. (2009). Seeking conversion vs. advocating tolerance in pursuit of social change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 811–822.Google Scholar
Reese, G., Berthold, A., & Steffens, M. C. (2012). We are the world – and they are not: Prototypicality for the world community, legitimacy, and responses to global inequality. Political Psychology, 33, 683–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reese, G., Berthold, A., & Steffens, M. C. (2015). As high as it gets: Ingroup projection processes in the superordinate group humans. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Reese, G., Proch, J., & Finn, C. (2015). Identification with all humanity: The role of self-definition and self-investment. European Journal of Social Psychology, advance online publication.CrossRef
Reicher, S., & Hopkins, N. (2001). Self and nation. London: Sage.
Rosa, M., & Waldzus, S. (2012). Efficiency and defense motivated ingroup projection: Sources of prototypicality in intergroup relations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 669–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saguy, T., & Kteily, N. (2014). Power, negotiations, and the anticipation of intergroup encounters. European Review of Social Psychology, 25, 107–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schreiber-Wicke, E. (1990). Als die Raben noch bunt waren [When the crows were still colorful]. Stuttgart/Wien: Thienemann.
Sibley, C. G. (2013). Social dominance and representations of the national prototype: The exclusionary emphasis hypothesis of national character. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 37, 212–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sibley, C. G., & Barlow, F. K. (2009). Ubiquity of whiteness in majority group national imagination: Australian=White, but New Zealander does not. Australian Journal of Psychology, 61, 119–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, B., Mommert, A., & Renger, D. (2015). Reaching across group boundaries: Respect from outgroup members facilitates recategorization as a common group. British Journal of Social Psychology, advance online publication.CrossRef
Sindic, D., & Reicher, S. D. (2008). The instrumental use of group prototypicality judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1425–1435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spears, R., Jetten, J., & Doosje, B. (2001). The (il)legitimacy of ingroup bias: From social reality to social resistance. In Jost, J. T. & Major, B. (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 332–362). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Steffens, M. C., Reese, G., Ehrke, F., & Jonas, K. J. (2015). When does activating diversity alleviate, when does it increase intergroup bias? An ingroup projection perspective. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Strotmann, B. (2007). Regional and national identity in Spain – the role of relative prototypicality. Unpublished Masters thesis, University of Marburg, Germany.
Sumner, W. G. (1906). Folkways: A study of the sociological importance of usages, manners, customs, mores, and morals. Boston: Ginn and Company.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Worchel, S. & Austin, G. (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Ng Tseung-Wong, C., & Verkuyten, M. (2010). Intergroup evaluations, group indispensability and prototypicality judgments: A study in Mauritius. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13, 621–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
Ullrich, J., Christ, O., & Schlüter, E. (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, 857–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Dick, R., van Knippenberg, D., Hägele, S., Guillaume, Y. R., & Brodbeck, F. C. (2008). Group diversity and group identification: The moderating role of diversity beliefs. Human Relations, 61, 1463–1492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Knippenberg, A., & Van Oers, H. (1984). Social identity and equity concerns in intergroup perceptions. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 351–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verkuyten, M., & Khan, A. (2012). Interethnic relations in Malaysia: Group identifications, indispensability and inclusive nationhood. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 15, 132–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verkuyten, M., Martinovic, B., & Smeekes, A. (2014). The multicultural jigsaw puzzle: Category indispensability and acceptance of immigrants’ cultural rights. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 1480–1493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Von Oettingen, M. (2012). What they think matters! The role of (meta-)representations of the superordinate group among minority and majority members. Unpublished Doctoral thesis, University of Jena, Germany.
Von Oettingen, M., Mummendey, A., & Steffens, M. C. (2015). It depends on your perspective! The role of own and attributed superordinate group representations among majority and minority members. Manuscript in preparation.
Waldzus, S. (2010). Complexity of superordinate self-categories and ingroup projection. In Crisp, R. J. (Ed.), The psychology of social and cultural diversity (pp. 224–254). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Waldzus, S., & Mummendey, A. (2004). Inclusion in a superordinate category, in-group prototypicality, and attitudes towards out-groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 466–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldzus, S., Mummendey, A., & Wenzel, M. (2005). When “different” means “worse”: In-group prototypicality in changing intergroup contexts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 76–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldzus, S., Mummendey, A., Wenzel, M., & Boettcher, F. (2004). Of bikers, teachers and Germans: Groups’ diverging views about their prototypicality. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 385–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldzus, S., Mummendey, A., Wenzel, M., & Weber, U. (2003). Towards tolerance: Representations of superordinate categories and perceived in-group prototypicality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, U., Mummendey, A., & Waldzus, S. (2002). Perceived legitimacy of intergroup status differences: Its prediction by relative ingroup prototypicality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 449–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wenzel, M. (2001). A social categorization approach to distributive justice: Social identity as the link between relevance of inputs and need for justice. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 315–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wenzel, M. (2002). What is social about justice? Inclusive identity and group values as the basis of the justice motive. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 205–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wenzel, M. (2004). A social categorisation approach to distributive justice. European Review of Social Psychology, 15, 219–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wenzel, M. (2013, April). Intergroup contact: Perceived consensus about versus complexity of common identity. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Society of Australasian Social Psychologists (SASP), Cairns, Australia.
Wenzel, M., Mummendey, A., & Waldzus, S. (2007). Superordinate identities and intergroup conflict: The ingroup projection model. European Review of Social Psychology, 18, 331–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wenzel, M., Mummendey, A., Weber, U., & Waldzus, S. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wohl, M. J. A., & Branscombe, N. R. (2005). Forgiveness and collective guilt assignment to historical perpetrator groups depend on level of social category inclusiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(2), 288–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, S. C., & Lubensky, M. E. (2009). The struggle for social equality: Collective action versus prejudice reduction. In Demoulin, S., Leyens, J.-P., & Dovidio, J. F. (Eds.), Intergroup misunderstandings: Impact of divergent social realities (pp. 291–310). New York: Psychology Press.
Yogeeswaran, K. & Dasgupta, N. (2014). The devil is in the details: Abstract versus concrete construals of multiculturalism differentially impact intergroup relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 772–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×