In-group-out-group differences in social projection

Anticipated cooperation vs. competition moderates interpersonal projection

“…As a matter of fact, some level of social projection was observed under condition of competition in Experiment 2, at least when considering the self2 measure. This is consistent with intergroup studies showing contrastive judgments only for familiar outgroups of strong personal relevance (Mullen, Dovidio, Johnson, & Copper, 1992;Riketta & Sacramento, 2005). For example, in a paradigm similar to the one used here, Riketta and Sacrameto (2005) found negative correlation between self and outgroup ratings in competition when using real groups but positive correlations when using abstract (i.e., team A) groups.…”

Differential Construal as an Explanation for False Consensus and False Uniqueness Effects.

“…Thus, although Study 2 generally replicated the findings of Study 1, the predicted effect on estimates for yuppies was less pronounced than in Study 1. A possible explanation for this lack of significance may be that, although subjects' estimates were in the direction of a FCE on the basis of construal processes, social identity or categorization factors (Spears & Manstead, 1990;Mullen et al, 1992) may have also affected their estimates. Since yuppies are generally preceived as less positive these estimates may reflect a more general tendency to perceive less consensus for this group than for the own group.…”

“…This also explains why the FUE may be expected predominantly in estimates for an outgroup, since for an outgroup expectations do not necessarily mirror the preferences and construais of the own group. Interestingly, the most clear-cut example of a FUE on the basis of subjects' own choice or preference reported so far (Mullen et al, 1992) was found in estimates for an outgroup. Taken together, the present analysis may point to some of the processes underlying the FUE and suggests that this finding is most pronounced in estimates for an outgroup for which issuerelated expectations differ from those held for the ingroup.…”

“…Since the second reference group is actually an outgroup, subjects may exhibit a FUE in estimates for this group as the result of identity management strategies (Spears & Manstead, 1990) or social categorization factors (Mullen et al, 1992). As Mullen et al, (1992) showed, especially if the ingroup-outgroup categorization is strong, subjects may exhibit a FUE in estimates for an outgroup, possibly not on the basis of expectations, but merely because they do not want their own preferences to be shared by these outgroup members.…”

“…Since the second reference group is actually an outgroup, subjects may exhibit a FUE in estimates for this group as the result of identity management strategies (Spears & Manstead, 1990) or social categorization factors (Mullen et al, 1992). As Mullen et al, (1992) showed, especially if the ingroup-outgroup categorization is strong, subjects may exhibit a FUE in estimates for an outgroup, possibly not on the basis of expectations, but merely because they do not want their own preferences to be shared by these outgroup members. In order to control for this competing explanation, subjects were also asked, as noted before, to estimate the preferences of a third group (yuppies), for which the affective evaluation would be similar to (or less positive) than the outgroup of elderly, but for which the relevant expectations were found to be comparable to the expectations associated with the own group.…”