On the crucial role of mental ingroup representation for ingroup bias and the ingroup prototypicality-ingroup bias link

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.

An Integrative Model of Social Identification: Self-Stereotyping and Self-Anchoring as Two Cognitive Pathways

Social identification denotes individuals' psychological bond with their ingroup. It is an indispensable construct in research on intragroup and intergroup dynamics. Today's understanding of social identification is firmly grounded in self-stereotyping principles (i.e., assimilation to the ingroup prototype). However, we argue for a more integrative approach to understand social identification, including a more prominent role for the personal self. We present the Integrative Model of Social Identification (IMSI) and postulate that there are two cognitive pathways to self-group overlap that can simultaneously yet distinctly explain social identification: self-stereotyping and self-anchoring (i.e., projection of personal self onto ingroup). We review different theoretical and methodological approaches to both processes and integrate them into one model. Subsequently, we empirically demonstrate the positive relationship between self-stereotyping, self-anchoring, and identification in various group contexts and individuals. In sum, our model highlights the dynamic interplay of personal and social self as cornerstones of social identification.

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.

Enhancing majority members' pro-diversity beliefs in small teams: the facilitating effect of self-anchoring

Majority members often react negatively to efforts to stimulate diversity. An important reason for this is that in diverse groups, majority members' own group bond is typically based on perceived prototypicality, which serves to disregard those who are different. In the present research we investigate how majority members' pro-diversity beliefs may be enhanced, by experimentally manipulating how the self is cognitively defined in relation to a diverse group. Specifically, we hypothesize that majority members' focus on the personal self (i.e., self-anchoring) rather than the social self (i.e., self-stereotyping) when creating a group bond may facilitate their pro-diversity beliefs and positive attitudes toward minority members. In two experiments we manipulated self-anchoring and self-stereotyping via mindset priming among ethnic majority members in diverse teams. As expected, results showed that relative to self-stereotyping, majority members' self-anchoring enhanced pro-diversity beliefs and positive attitudes toward minority members.

Social identification when an in-group identity is unclear: the role of self-anchoring and self-stereotyping

The present paper investigates how people identify with groups depending on the clarity of a group's identity content. According to self-categorization theory, self-stereotyping (i.e., projection of group prototypes onto self) should be the cognitive process underlying social identification. We argue, however, that this is only plausible in clearly defined groups. If a group is unclear in terms of its identity content, we argue that self-anchoring (i.e., projection of personal self onto group) accounts for social identification. In line with these hypotheses, two studies (with minimal and real groups) reveal that self-anchoring positively predicts the level of social identification and entitativity in unclearly, but not clearly defined groups. Conversely, self-stereotyping positively predicts the level of social identification in clearly, but not unclearly defined groups. Together, these findings are the first to demonstrate the differential impact of cognitive projection processes on social identification depending on group clarity.

Cultural discordance and the polarization of identities

This study focuses on the role of two identity threats, perceived cultural discordance and perceived discrimination in the relationship between ethnic identification and national identification. Data on the identification patterns of Russian-speaking minority youth ( N = 132) living in Finland indicated that their ethnic and national identities were negatively associated and appeared as oppositional when there was a perceived discordance between an individual’s wish to maintain the heritage culture and the majority group’s attitude towards immigrants’ maintenance of their ethnic heritage. When cultural discordance was not experienced, ethnic and national identification were independent of each other. In contrast, perceived discrimination had only a direct negative effect on minority youth’s national identification and did not moderate the association between ethnic and national identification. The effects of age and age at arrival to Finland were controlled for in the analysis. The results are discussed in relation to the notion of reciprocity in intergroup relations.