Overlap of Self, Ingroup, and Outgroup: Pictorial Measures of Self-Categorization

Abstract

For describing our relation to a group, we often use the language of spatial metaphors: We enter or leave a group; we distance ourselves from a group or are in the inner circle. Finally, we can be simply in a group, which then becomes an ingroup: The interrelational constructs (Higgins & Chaires, 1980) in and out denoting ingroup and outgroup are spatial metaphors. In many cases, this language ®ts the actual behavior in the social environment, where attitudes between social groups are expressed in spatial arrangements (Campbell, Kruskal, & Wallace, 1966). However, social psychological concepts for one's relation to a group, such as identi®cation and self-categorization, in general ignore the spatial dimension. The present research shows that one's relation to a group and the perception of the intergroup context can be assessed with graphical measures that depict spatial relations. We will ®rst review previous approaches in this direction, and then propose a new scale. Convergent and discriminant validity of the scale is demonstrated in four validation studies and one experimental study.

Conceptualizing psychological processes in response to globalization: Components, antecedents, and consequences of global orientations.

“…To measure participants' closeness with outgroups, we adopted the Self-Group Overlap measure from Schubert and Otten (2002). Participants were asked to choose from seven sets of circles to represent their closeness to a particular outgroup.…”

Group-level self-definition and self-investment: A hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group identification.

“…We used a close adaptation of Schubert and Otten's (2002) circle overlap measure to assess individuals' inclusion of the self in their in-group. Participants were presented with pictures showing two circles-one representing themselves and one representing their [Dutch or European] in-group.…”

The experience of collective participation: shared identity, relatedness and emotionality

“…(Very Much So/Not At All). The second item presented participants with a series of two overlapping circles (adapted from Schubert & Otten, 2002) within which "self" and "others" were written, ranging from not overlapping at all (1) to entirely overlapping (9). Participants were then asked "Which circles best represent the extent to which you share this identity with others in the Rock Ness crowd?…”