Efficiency and defense motivated ingroup projection: Sources of protoypicality in intergroup relations

Rosa, Miriam; Waldzus, Sven

doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.12.004

Cited by 21 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 88 publications

(125 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although prototypicality claims are not always directly motivated by the intergroup relation (Machunsky, Meiser, & Mummendey, 2009;Rosa & Waldzus, 2012), lower-status groups may use complexity strategically to cope with a negative social identity (Kessler & Mummendey, 2002;Kessler et al, 2010): Compared to a simple (or well-defined) inclusive category, a complex representation provides them with a chance to distance themselves from such a negative category (e.g., Branscombe, Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje,1999) and consequently shun a negative group image that confirms negative stereotypes. Moreover, in line with Sindic and Reicher (2008) one might argue that projection varies according to group interests: Claiming non-prototypicality of negative inclusive categories may provide group members with a better strategic position in the relevant social context (e.g., the job market).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complex inclusive categories of positive and negative valence and prototypicality claims in asymmetric intergroup relations

Alexandre

Waldzus

Wenzel

2016

British J Social Psychol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on the premise that groups' social standing and regard depend on their prototypicality for superordinate categories, minorities can be understood to suffer from the fact that they are considered as less prototypical than majorities. Previous research has shown that complex (vs simple) representations of superordinate categories can reduce majority members' tendency to perceive their ingroup as more prototypical than the outgroup. The current research tested whether such complex representations also increase minorities' own perceived relative ingroup prototypicality (RIP), leading to more balanced prototypicality judgments from both majorities and minorities. In Study 1 (N = 76), an experiment with two artificial groups of unequal status, a complex representation of a superordinate category increased the comparatively low RIP of the lower-status subgroup. Consistently, in Study 2 (N = 192), a correlational study with natural groups, the relation between perceived complexity of the superordinate category and RIP was positive for members of the lower-status group but negative for members of the higher-status comparison group. In Study 3 (N = 160), an experiment with natural groups, a more complex representation of the superordinate category led lower and higher-status groups to perceive greater equality in terms of relative prototypicality not only for a positive but also for a negatively valued superordinate category.These results have important implications for the understanding of social change: As superordinate identity complexity implies that included subgroups are more equally prototypical, it offers a normative alternative that helps minorities to challenge asymmetric status relations vis-à-vis majorities, but also promotes hope that majorities show bipartisanship in supporting such social change.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complex inclusive categories of positive and negative valence and prototypicality claims in asymmetric intergroup relations

Alexandre

Waldzus

Wenzel

2016

British J Social Psychol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Morality is manipulated by describing irregularities that occurred in the scenario within one of the merging organisations (see Appendix 1). Information processing is manipulated via time pressure: instructions to answer as fast as possible, accompanied by a chronometer; or instructions to take time while answering (Rosa & Waldzus, 2012).…”

Section: Series 1: Moralitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two instruments from Rosa and Waldzus (2012) Manipulation check of status (pictorial measure: vertical scale) Rosa and Waldzus (2012) Identification with the ingroup and SC I identify with the merged organization. Three items from Leach et al (2008) Perceived indispensability Economically, the merged organization needs BOLT.…”

Section: Sample Item Originmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

“Small but Mighty”: Conditions for Prototypicality Claims Within Low-Status Merger Partners

Gorski

Jarosz

Kavanagh

et al. 2015

Journal of European Psychology Students

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…These two predictors will be discussed in more detail in the following pages. Before that, it should also be mentioned that recently, more general conditions of information processing (Machunsky & Meiser, 2009, Rosa & Waldzus, 2009), more specific strategic group goals (Sindic & Reicher, 2008), and intergroup threat (Finley, 2006;Ullrich et al, 2006) have been studied as predictors for ingroup projection as well, but they will not be discussed further in this chapter.…”

Section: Reducing Ingroup Projectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complexity of Superordinate Self‐Categories and Ingroup Projection

Waldzus

2010

The Psychology of Social and Cultural Diversity

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter is about how diversity can beat provincial ethnocentric prejudice. More precisely, it is about how establishing a more complex system of standards leads people to be more tolerant in their judgment of other people, and of themselves. It focuses on one particular process, ingroup projection, that makes people intolerant toward deviant outgroups, and on how this process can be interrupted by inducing complexity.

show abstract

Efficiency and defense motivated ingroup projection: Sources of protoypicality in intergroup relations

Cited by 21 publications

References 88 publications

Complex inclusive categories of positive and negative valence and prototypicality claims in asymmetric intergroup relations

Complex inclusive categories of positive and negative valence and prototypicality claims in asymmetric intergroup relations

“Small but Mighty”: Conditions for Prototypicality Claims Within Low-Status Merger Partners

Complexity of Superordinate Self‐Categories and Ingroup Projection

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About