Self-stereotyping and social context: The effects of relative in-group size and in-group status.

Abstract

In 2 laboratory experiments, the tendency to stereotype oneself in terms of one's group membership as a function of the social context was examined. Experiment 1 examined the effects of relative in-group size on self-stereotyping. The results confirmed the prediction that minority members are more likely than majority members to stereotype themselves. Experiment 2 examined the interactive impact of relative in-group size and in-group status. As predicted, a high (relative to a low) status of the in-group increased self-stereotyping primarily for minority members, but not for majority members. Moreover, analyses of the differences in perceived in-group and out-group homogeneity suggest that the in-group homogeneity effect should also be interpreted in terms of self-stereotyping processes. Finally, the interplay between cognitive and motivational determinants of self-stereotyping is discussed as well as a possible distinction between self-stereotyping effects on individual level versus group level self-representations.

Assimilation and contrast to group primes: The moderating role of ingroup identification

“…Previous research has demonstrated that when the intergroup comparative context is salient perceivers self-categorize by self-stereotyping (Hogg & Turner, 1987;Simon, Glassenbayer, & Stratenwerth, 1991;Simon & Hamilton, 1994;Simon, Pantaleo, & Mummendey, 1995;Spears, Doosje, & Ellemers, 1997) assigning the same traits to the self and the ingroup (Cadinu & Rothbart, 1996;Study 1;Clement & Krueger, 2000Gramzow, Gaertner, & Sedikides, 2001;Krueger & Zeiger, 1993;Mullen, Dovidio, Johnson, & Copper, 1992;Otten, 2002, Smith, & Henry, 1996; and will tend to perceive both the ingroup and the outgroup to be more homogenous (Ellemers & van Knippenberg, 1997;Haslam, Oakes, Turner, & McGarty, 1995). Self-stereotyping is an expression of differentiation from outgroups, therefore it seems reasonable to draw a parallel here with research on behavioral contrast to outgroups.…”

Motivations underlying attitudes: regulatory focus and majority versus minority support

“…Research has shown that in contrast to members of majority groups, members of minority groups are overall more cohesive, participative, cooperative and extreme, as well as more committed to enhancing their social identity and disseminating their viewpoint (e.g. Gerard, 1985;Mullen, 1991;Simon & Hamilton, 1994;Simon, Hastedt, & Aufderheide, 1997;Verkuyten, 2005; see Levine & Moreland, 1998). Interestingly, minorities seem to be less motivated to promote their claims once these are picked up and endorsed by the majority (Vernet & Butera, 2005).…”

Evolución de la cobertura de la pobreza entre 2005 y 2014: qué ha cambiado y qué no en los noticiarios de televisión abierta en Chile

“…Hogg & Turner, 1987;Simon & Hamilton, 1994). De esta manera, los grupos que viven en la pobreza y que están consistentemente expuestos a ideas negativas sobre ellos podrían caer en una autoestigmatización.…”