Of bikers, teachers and Germans: Groups' diverging views about their prototypicality

Abstract

The in-group projection model hypothesizes that members of social groups generalize attributes of their in-group to a superordinate category that provides dimensions for comparisons between in-group and out-group (in-group projection). As a result, both groups in an intergroup situation should disagree about their relative prototypicality for the superordinate category. Three studies confirmed this prediction. In Study 1 (N = 54), it was found that different groups of motor bikers (chopper-bikers vs. sport-bikers) perceived their own subgroup to be the more typical biker group than the respective out-group. Study 2 (N = 60) showed the same divergence of perspectives in the context of more formal subgroups of teachers (primary-school teachers vs. high-school teachers). In a third study (N = 157), the relative character of in-group projection was demonstrated in an intergroup context with strong reality constraints due to differences in group size, status and power. Although there was consensus between both groups that the majority (West Germans) was more prototypical of the superordinate group (Germans) than the minority (East Germans), majority members perceived the groups' difference in prototypicality to be greater than minority members did.

The instrumental use of group prototypicality judgments

“…It is this third suggestion which we address in this paper, although it is important to stress strongly and from the outset that we (like Waldzus et al, 2004) see the various explanations as complementary rather than competing. Our perspective fits with a growing body of work on group action which suggests that we need to consider not only the cognitive and motivational processes which create the instigation to behave in particular ways but also the instrumental considerations which shape the public expression of behavior -the so called SIDE perspective (Social Identity model of Deindividuation Effects) named after its origins in the analysis of anonymity and visibility on group action (for reviews, see Klein, Spears & Reicher, 2007;Postmes, Spears, Lea, & Reicher, 2000;Reicher, Spears, & Postmes, 1995).…”

“…However, in addition to the motivational account, Waldzus et al (2004) mention that there are two other ways of explaining ingroup projection. One is cognitive.…”

“…The dependent measure was directly borrowed from Waldzus et al's (2004) ingroup projection studies. People were first asked to generate traits which they thought were characteristics of each subgroup as compared with the…”

“…More recently, Mummendey and her colleagues have argued that people tend to be biased towards perceiving ingroups as more prototypical of the superordinate category than other subgroups -i.e. to yield high scores of relative ingroup prototypicality (Mummendey & Wenzel, 1999;Waldzus, Mummendey, Wenzel, & Boettcher, 2004;Wenzel, Mummendey, Weber, & Waldzus, 2003).…”

We are human, they are not: Driving forces behind outgroup dehumanisation and the humanisation of the ingroup

“…Mummendey and Wenzel (1999;Wenzel, Mummendey, Weber, & Waldzus, 2003), for example, state that people tend to project, and consequentially perceive the ingroup and its characteristics as more prototypical of the superordinate category than the outgroup and its characteristics. Waldzus, Mummendey, Wenzel, and Boettcher (2004) have shown that when primary school and high school teachers are confronted, both sets of teachers rate the traits of their own group (vs. those of the outgroup) as being more typical of the superordinate category teachers. Similar findings have been found for other groups (e.g., bikers, university students, etc.).…”