What Does It Mean to be a “Citizen of the World”: A Prototype Approach

The superordinate social category “ citizen of the world” is used by laypeople and scholars to embody several constructs (e.g., cosmopolitanism; global identity and citizenship), and prior research suggests that the concept is better represented as a prototype rather than having a clear-cut definition. This research aims to systematically examine the prototypical meaning of this social category, and how it is cognitively processed. Relying on a prototype approach, six studies ( n = 448) showed that certain attributes of this category were communicated more frequently and were regarded as more central (e.g., multiculturalism), and that central (vs. peripheral) attributes were more quickly identified, more often remembered, and more appropriate to identify a group member, as well as the self, as a “ citizen of the world.” These results systematically demonstrated that this category has a prototypical structure and there is a differentiated cognitive automatic processing for central and peripheral attributes. We propose that the specific content activated by the attributes regarded as central to the prototype of “citizens of the world” (e.g., intercultural contact; diversity), and the fact that these are more accessible in memory to form a mental representation, are important aspects to understand identity processes and their impact on intergroup outcomes.

Ingroup Projection in American Politics: An Obstacle to Bipartisanship

One potential obstacle to cooperation between political parties is ingroup projection, the tendency for members of subgroups to define superordinate groups based on characteristics of their own ingroups. In five studies spanning 11 years and three presidential administrations, we demonstrated that ingroup projection can be an obstacle that prevents bipartisanship between Republicans and Democrats. Study 1 showed that Americans perceived political ingroups as more prototypical of Americans than outgroups and that the degree of mismatch between the outgroup and the superordinate group was associated with ingroup bias. Studies 2–5 demonstrated that perceiving the outgroup as poorly fitting the prototype of the superordinate group predicted opposition to bipartisan cooperation and a lower likelihood of having engaged in bipartisan behavior (Studies 4 and 5). These studies provide evidence for ingroup projection among American political parties and suggest that it contributes to political polarization.