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.

Back to the roots: When diversity evokes increased group-based conventionalism

Previous research has demonstrated that emphasizing diversity within superordinate groups can either improve or impair subgroup relations. The present research investigated whether this can depend on the way in which diversity is activated. We activated diversity by presenting central or peripheral subgroups. We tested the effects on group-based conventionalism and subgroup attitudes within the superordinate group of “metal music fans”. Participants were members of the (majority) subgroup of death metal fans. When the superordinate group’s diversity was activated with peripheral subgroups, death metal fans showed higher group-based conventionalism than in the condition in which central subgroups were presented. Group-based conventionalism mediated the relation between diversity activation and subgroup attitudes. Higher group-based conventionalism led to less positive subgroup attitudes (Experiments 1 and 2). However, this detrimental “back to the roots”-process did only occur for majority members who perceived a high overlap of their subgroup and the superordinate group (Experiment 2). Underlying factors of this process and practical implications for multicultural contexts are discussed.

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.

Facing Europe

Individuals perceive their own group to be more typical of a shared superordinate identity than other groups are. This in-group projection process has been demonstrated with both self-report and indirect measures. The two studies reported here extend this research to the visual level, specifically, within the domain of faces. Using an innovative reverse-correlation approach, we found that German and Portuguese participants’ visual representations of European faces resembled the appearance typical for their own national identity. This effect was found even among participants who explicitly denied that one nation was more typical of Europe than the other (Study 1). Moreover, Study 2 provides experimental evidence that in-group projection is restricted to inclusive superordinate groups, as the effect was not observed for visual representations of a category (“Australian”) that did not include participants’ in-group. Implications for the in-group projection model, as well as for the applicability of reverse-correlation paradigms, are discussed.

What do you mean by "European"? Evidence of spontaneous ingroup projection

The ingroup projection model posits that group members project ingroup features onto a superordinate category. The present research aimed at isolating the cognitive underpinnings of this process. If ingroup projection is a spontaneous cognitive process, a superordinate category prime should facilitate the processing of the ingroup prototype rather than the outgroup prototype. Three studies support this hypothesis by comparing subliminal semantic priming in two different populations, an intra- versus intergroup situation, and with an ingroup prototype manipulated by changing the intergroup context. Results indicated that the superordinate category prime facilitated the processing of ingroup rather than outgroup traits (Experiment 1) and that these traits depended on the particular content of the ingroup prototype made salient by different contexts (Experiments 2 and 3). The findings indicate that the cognitive representation of the superordinate category is based on ingroup traits and that this representation is context dependent.