When does activating diversity alleviate, when does it increase intergroup bias? An ingroup projection perspective

Abstract

The question how intergroup bias can be alleviated is of much theoretical and practical interest. Whereas diversity training and the multiculturalism ideology are two approaches prominent in practice, most theoretical models on reducing intergroup bias are based on social-identity theory and self-categorization theory. This social-identity perspective assumes that similar processes lead to intergroup bias in very different intergroup contexts if people identify with the respective social groups. A recent prominent model based on these theories is the ingroup-projection model. As this model assumes, an ingroup’s norms and standards are applied to outgroups included in a common superordinate category (this is called ingroup projection). Intergroup bias results because the outgroup fulfils these norms and standards less than the ingroup. Importantly, if the diversity of the superordinate category is induced as the norm, ingroup projection and thus intergroup bias should be reduced. The present research delineates and tests how general this process is. We propose that ingroup prototypicality is not only an outcome variable, as the ingroup-projection model originally assumes, but can also be an important moderator. We hypothesize that for members considering their ingroup highly prototypical (“pars pro toto”, large majorities), the superordinate group’s diversity may question their ingroup’s position and thus elicit threat and intergroup bias. In contrast, for members who consider their group as less prototypical (one among several, or “una inter pares” groups), activating diversity should, as originally assumed in the ingroup-projection model, reduce intergroup bias. Three experiments (total N = 345) supported these predictions in the contexts of groups defined by gender or nationality. Taken together, the ingroup-projection model can explain under which conditions activating superordinate-category diversity induces tolerance, and when it may backfire. We discuss in how far the ingroup-projection model can integrate conflicting findings on the multiculturalism ideology.

Endorsing a Civic (vs. an Ethnic) Definition of Citizenship Predicts Higher Pro-minority and Lower Pro-majority Collective Action Intentions

“…In order to compare attitudes toward the two groups, we used the feeling thermometer in both subsamples in connection with the two outgroups, using a 10-point scale (from 1 = very unlikable to 10 = very likeable). We also measured intergroup distance using two items, one about perceiving Hungarians and the Roma/Muslim immigrants as one group in Hungary, and a second item about perceiving Hungarians and the Roma/Muslim immigrants as one group in the world (based on Riek et al, 2010 , the correlations of the two items for the combined samples were Roma: r = 0.78, p < 0.001, immigrant: r = 0.74, p < 0.001).…”

Workplace Bullying and Medically Certified Sickness Absence: Direction of Associations and the Moderating Role of Leader Behavior

“…Furthermore, long-term absence may lead to a form of social marginalization at the workplace where the employee becomes a prototypical member of the work group due to violations of expectations about the presence at the workplace. As prototypical group members per definition deviates from the in-group, such members may elicit a perceived threat and their position in the group is likely to be questioned (Steffens et al., 2017). Hence, as they fail to maintain the distinctiveness of the group, prototypical members are evaluated more negatively by the group than non-prototypical members and are more prone to be targets of harassment and exclusion (Pickett and Brewer, 2005).…”

Ingroup Projection as a Challenge of Diversity: Consensus about and Complexity of Superordinate Categories

“…However, as we have seen, this is in fact not quite true, as members of dominant groups tend to resist such notions of complexity (e.g., Steffens et al, 2015). The reason is, there is more at stake than mere agreement and harmony; namely equality and respect (see Simon, Mommert, & Renger, 2015).…”

“…Indeed, majority group members and participants who consider their ingroup prototypical of the superordinate group have been shown to report more uneasiness or threat after thinking about the diversity rather than unity of the superordinate group (Ehrke & Steffens, in press;Steffens, Reese, Ehrke & Jonas, 2015). In one study, U.S. Americans were asked to think about the role of the U.S. in North America or in the world (Steffens et al, Experiment 3).…”