When “different” means “worse”: In-group prototypicality in changing intergroup contexts

Abstract

An experiment with 213 participants provided evidence for in-group projection-the generalization of distinctive in-group attributes to a superordinate category. The frame of reference for in-group (German) judgments was manipulated by presenting either Italians or the British as an out-group. Results showed that attributes on which Germans differed from each out-group were accentuated not only in in-group judgments but also when judging Europeans. By adapting features of the superordinate category to those of the in-group, the in-group's similarity to, and the out-group's deviation from, the prototype of the superordinate category were maintained, if not emphasized. Further, higher in-group prototypicality-compared to out-group prototypicality-for the superordinate category was related to negative out-group attitudes. In-group projection was reduced when a complex representation of the superordinate category was primed.

How Do We Assign Punishment? The Impact of Minimal and Maximal Standards on the Evaluation of Deviants

“…In line with this speculation, Trafimow and Trafimow (1999) showed that violations of perfect duties (deontological duties) lead to a stronger tendency for person attributions compared to violations of imperfect duties. In intergroup relations, whenever an ingroup and an outgroup are evaluated according to a common standard (e.g., Mummendey & Wenzel, 1999) these standards are conceived of according to ingroup attributes which leads to the perception of outgroups as deviating from this common standard (e.g., Waldzus, Mummendey, & Wenzel, 2005). Here, it is of major importance whether such a common standard is conceived of as a minimal or a maximal standard (Berthold, Mummendey, Kessler, Lücke, & Schubert, 2008).…”

Ingroup Bias and Ingroup Projection in the Furry Fandom

“…Thus, identification in ingroup projection research is typically measured to check that both groups relevant to participants (e.g., Waldzus, Mummendey, & Wenzel, 2005). Identification with the subgroup may also be an outcome of ingroup projection (Adelman, 2010).…”

“…The ingroup projection model notes that both the subgroup and superordinate group should be relevant to participants (Waldzus et al, 2003). One way to check the relevance and importance of the groups under investigation is to ensure that the mean rating of identification with both the subgroup and the superordinate group is above the midpoint of the scale (Kessler et al, 2010;Waldzus et al, 2005). Testing this, we found that identification with one's fursona species, t(213) = 13.49, p < .001, d = 1.85, and identification with the furry community, t(213) = 19.71, p < .001, d = 2.70, were both significantly above the midpoint of the scale.…”

Dynamics and dilemmas in social psychology: Social relations, identities and cognition

“…The third and fourth most cited topics refer to intergroup relations, either focusing on prejudice, racism (e.g. Cabecinhas 2008;Monteiro, França and Rodrigues 2009;Vala, Brito and Lopes 1999;Waldzus, Mummendey and Wenzel 2005) or gender issues (e.g. Amâncio 1994).…”