On the Crucial Role of Mental Ingroup Representation for Ingroup Bias and the Ingroup Prototypicality-Ingroup Bias Link
Abstract
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.
References
(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
(2008). What do you mean by Europeans? Evidence of spontaneous ingroup projection. Manuscript submitted for publication.
(1999). On the parameters of associative strength: Central tendency and variability as determinants of stereotype accessibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 529–536.
(1992). The role of diagnosticity in stereotype formation: Perceiving group means and variance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 356–367.
(1996). Cognitive organization of different tenses of the self mediates affect and decision making. In , Striving and feeling. Interactions among goals, affect and self-regulation (pp. 123–150). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
(1981). Discrimination and classification. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
(2000). Pattern of disconfirming information and the processing instruction as determinants of stereotype change. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 399–411.
(1992). Cognitive models of stereotype change: III. Subtyping and the perceived typicality of disconfirming group members. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 360–386.
(2005). On the predictive validity of implicit attitude measures: The moderating effect of perceived group variability. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 114–128.
(1995). Subtyping versus subgrouping processes in stereotype representation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 812–824.
(1999). Social discrimination and tolerance in intergroup relations: Reactions to intergroup difference. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 158–174.
(2002). The self as determinant of ingroup favoritism. In , The social self: Cognitive, interpersonal and intergroup perspectives (pp. 273–291). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
(1990). Measures and models of perceived group variability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 173–191.
(2001). Subtyping and subgrouping: Processes for the prevention and promotion of stereotype change. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 52–73.
(1985). Social categorization and behavioral episodes: A cognitive analysis of the effects of intergroup contact. Journal of Social Issues, 41, 81–104.
(1987). A self-categorization theory. In , Rediscovering the social group (pp. 42–67). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
(2004). Inclusion in a superordinate category, in-group prototypicality, and attitudes towards out-groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 466–477.
(2003). Towards tolerance: Representations of superordinate categories and perceived ingroup prototypicality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 31–47.
(2004). Of bikers, teachers and Germans: Groups’ diverging views about their prototypicality. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 385–400.
(2005). When “different” means “worse”: In-group prototypicality in changing intergroup contexts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 76–83.
(1983). Cognitive processes in the revision of stereotypic beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 961–977.
(2002). Perceived legitimacy of the intergroup status differences: Its predictions by relative ingroup prototypicality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 449–470.
(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.
(1994). Social judgeability: The impact of meta-informational cues on the use of stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 48–55.
