Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Free Access - Register Here

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wenzel, M.
Right arrow Articles by Waldzus, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wenzel, M.
Right arrow Articles by Waldzus, S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 29, No. 4, 461-473 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/0146167202250913

The Ingroup as Pars Pro Toto: Projection From the Ingroup Onto the Inclusive Category as a Precursor to Social Discrimination

Michael Wenzel

Australian National University

Amélie Mummendey

Ulrike Weber

Sven Waldzus

University of Jena, Germany

In an approach to intergroup discrimination and tolerance, it is assumed that the outgroup’s difference from the ingroup is evaluated with reference to the prototype of the higher-order category that includes both groups. Two correlational studies yielded evidence that (a) group members tend to perceive their ingroup as relatively prototypical for the inclusive category (projection), (b) members highly identified with both ingroup and inclusive category (dual identity) tend to project most, and (c) relative prototypicality is related to negative attitudes toward the outgroup. The latter relation was further specified in Study 3, manipulating the valence of the inclusive category. Projection was related to more negative attitudes toward the outgroup when the inclusive category was primed positively but to more positive attitudes when it was primed negatively. The meaning of dual identities for intergroup relations is discussed.

Key Words: intergroup relations • social discrimination • self-categorization • prototypicality • dual identity


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 European Journal of International RelationsHome page
B. Greenhill
Recognition and Collective Identity Formation in International Politics
European Journal of International Relations, June 1, 2008; 14(2): 343 - 368.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Pers Soc Psychol RevHome page
C. E. Amiot, R. de la Sablonniere, D. J. Terry, and J. R. Smith
Integration of Social Identities in the Self: Toward a Cognitive-Developmental Model
Personality and Social Psychology Review, November 1, 2007; 11(4): 364 - 388.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Pers Soc Psychol BullHome page
R. J. Crisp, J. Walsh, and M. Hewstone
Crossed categorization in common ingroup contexts.
Pers Soc Psychol Bull, September 1, 2006; 32(9): 1204 - 1218.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Pers Soc Psychol BullHome page
N. R. Hall and R. J. Crisp
Considering Multiple Criteria for Social Categorization Can Reduce Intergroup Bias
Pers Soc Psychol Bull, October 1, 2005; 31(10): 1435 - 1444.
[Abstract] [PDF]