Superordinate identities and intergroup conflict: The ingroup projection model

Wenzel, Michael; Mummendey, Amélie; Waldzus, Sven

doi:10.1080/10463280701728302

Cited by 357 publications

(488 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

448

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…of the next more inclusive (positively valued) self-category (in terms of which they are being compared)" (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987, p. 57). Consistent with SCT, previous research has found that relative in-group prototypicality is positively related to in-group favouritism (for a review, see Wenzel, Mummendey, & Waldzus, 2007). This relation can be explained in terms of the motive to maintain a positive social identity: Perceiving one's in-group to be more prototypical than a relevant out-group is a form of in-group favouritism because it increases the association between the in-group and the positivity of the superordinate self-category.…”

Section: Group Status Is Related To Group Prototypicality In the Absesupporting

confidence: 56%

Group Status Is Related to Group Prototypicality in the Absence of Social Identity Concerns

Rubin

2012

The Journal of Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Group Status Is Related To Group Prototypicality In the Absesupporting

confidence: 56%

Group Status Is Related to Group Prototypicality in the Absence of Social Identity Concerns

Rubin

2012

The Journal of Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For example, majority groups tend to prefer assimilation as a strategy of acculturation (Verkuyten, 2006), and to represent the superordinate identity shared with the minority as "one group" that supersedes intergroup differentiation, whereas minorities prefer a "dual identity" (Dovidio, Gaertner, & Saguy, 2007). In other words, majority groups expect minorities to share the same values and fit into a superordinate group as defined by the majority (see Wenzel et al, 2007). In contact situations, Saguy et al (2008) found that majority members were more motivated to talk about commonalities with the minority outgroup.…”

Section: Forgiveness Symbolic Concerns and Justicementioning

confidence: 99%

“We forgive”: A group’s act of forgiveness and its restorative effects on members’ feelings of justice and sentiments towards the offender group

Wenzel

Okimoto

2015

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although typically conceptualized as a reconciliation outcome, we propose that intergroup forgiveness can also be construed as a decision or course of action that advances justice and positive intergroup sentiments among members of the victimized group. However, the process through which this occurs depends on the perceived differentiation between the groups. Following intergroup transgressions staged in the laboratory (Study 1) or reported in news article scenarios (Study 2), participants whose victimized ingroup expressed forgiveness perceived less injustice than those whose group did not forgive, which indirectly improved intergroup sentiments. Among high ingroup identifiers and in victim groups with low relative status (i.e., more salient intergroup boundaries), forgiveness diminished feelings of injustice by reducing the perceived threat to the ingroup’s status/power. In contrast, among low ingroup identifiers and in groups with high relative status, forgiveness diminished feelings of injustice by reducing the perceived threat to collectively shared values.

show abstract

“…Superordinate groups, like the United Nations or a Nation State, also have the power to foster support among subordinate groups like countries or regions within a country (Wenzel, Mummendey and Waldzus 2010), as long as one's distinctiveness is not lost (Brewer 1991). In a study of a stratified sample from South Africa linking one's self-esteem with the national identity -not strongly identifying with it -decreased interracial tolerance (Gibson 2006).…”

Section: The Bright Side Of Identitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Strong identities and endorsement of human rights: Conflictive or complementary?

Ziemes

Abs

2017

SAJHE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In higher education, students are exposed to people with diverse backgrounds and opinions and frequently are challenged to participate in scientific discussions on controversial issues. The article discusses the implications of two theoretical approaches within psychology for the meaning of identity in dealing with diversity. Social and developmental psychologists have opposing views on identity: While the former claim that a strong sense of identity leads to competition for resources, to intolerance, to the devaluation of outgroups and, finally, to conflict, the latter argue that a weak sense of identity leads to totalitarian ideologies and intolerance towards deviating beliefs. We review literature on the implications and effects deriving from social and developmental psychology and integrate them in a model which explains how building a strong sense of identity can promote tolerance and the endorsement of human rights. In particular, we explore the importance of tolerance defined as acting towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood because the devaluation of the 'other' often is seen as the first step towards violence.

show abstract

Superordinate identities and intergroup conflict: The ingroup projection model

Cited by 357 publications

References 67 publications

Group Status Is Related to Group Prototypicality in the Absence of Social Identity Concerns

Group Status Is Related to Group Prototypicality in the Absence of Social Identity Concerns

“We forgive”: A group’s act of forgiveness and its restorative effects on members’ feelings of justice and sentiments towards the offender group

Strong identities and endorsement of human rights: Conflictive or complementary?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About