Spontaneous Ingroup Projection: Evidence from Sequential Priming.

Mauro Bianchi

Overview

Theoretical background

Experiment 1: spontaneous ingroup projection

conclusion

Experiment 2: two different inter-group contexts

• Ingroup Projection Model (Mummendey & Wenzel, 1999, Wenzel, Mummendey, Weber & Waldzus, 2003):

projection of the ingroup prototype onto a superordinate category.

• Dual-Systems Models (Chaiken & Trope, 1999; Strack & Deutsch, 2004):

automatic vs. controlled information processing.

• Implicit Stereotyping (Devine, 1989; Wittenbrink, Judd, & Park, 1997):

stereotypes can be unintentionally activated, outside the subjective awareness.

Theoretical background

Ingroup Outgroup

Inclusive Category(e.g. Europe)

(e.g. Italy) (e.g. Germany)

=

-

Ingroup projection

Ingroup Projection Model (Mummendey & Wenzel, 1999)

IPM concepts

Relative prototypicality and consequences on Outgroup evaluation

Ingroup prototype projected onto the Superordinate prototype

Ingroup projection

Inclusion of both the ingroup and the outgroup in a Superordinate Category

IPM concepts

Ingroup prototype projected onto the Superordinate prototype

prototype ascognitive representation of stereotypes (Stangor,

2000)

Ingroup projection

Dual-System Models

Dual-System Models (Smith & DeCoster, 2000)

• spontaneous (automatic – heuristic – impulsive – associative) mode;

• automatic activation of knowledge or affective reactions based on cues salient in the current context;

• preconscious, no awareness or control is needed to instigate the process.

• deliberate (controlled – systematic – reflexive – rule based) mode;

• based on symbolically represented rules;

• conscious, controlled, and effortful.

Automatic and Controlled Stereotyping (Devine, 1989)

spontaneously activated upon perception of a category cue:

• out of the subjects awareness

• unintentional

Implicit Stereotyping

“spontaneous ingroup projection”:

• semantic priming technique (strong tests for the existence of an association between two concepts, Bargh & Chartrand, 2000), specifically, Lexical Decision Task (Wittenbrink et al., 1997);

• group members spontaneously activate the ingroup as opposed to the outgroup prototype in response to a superordinate category stimulus;

• valence had no impact on the results.

spontaneous ingroup projection

+

european

XXXXXX

warm

1000 ms

15 ms

250 ms

time

word/non-word

+

XXXXXXX

warm

Experiment 1

“spountaneous ingroup projection” ???

the prime EUROPEAN facilitates the stereotypic Italian/German attributes rather than the stereotypic German/Italian feature

spontaneous ingroup projection

+

prime: European

Italian

German

XXXXXX

XXXXXX

target: ingroup traits

outgroup tr.

filler

non-word

1000 ms

15 ms

250 ms

time

word/non-word

Design study 1

3 PRIMEs (e.g European, Italian, German) X

2 type of TRAIT (Italian, German)

X

2 VALENCE of trait (positive, negative)

DV: RESPONSE FACILITATION INDEX (more positive values indicate greater response facilitation due to a

prime )

spontaneous ingroup projection

Participants: undergraduate students from Padova University (N=52) and Jena University (N=43)

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

ingroup outgroup

TRAITS

ms

PRIME European

PRIME Ingroup

PRIME Outgroup

Figure 1. Italian Participants’ Response Facilitation (in Millisecond) as a Function of Prime and Trait.

PRIMEs x TRAITs INTERACTION

F(2,48) = 21.08, p < .001, η2 = .30

spontaneous ingroup projection

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

ingroup outgroup

TRAITS

ms

PRIME European

PRIME Ingroup

PRIME Outgroup

Figure 2. German Participants’ Response Facilitation (in Millisecond) as a Function of Prime and Trait.

PRIMEs x TRAITs INTERACTION

F(2,38) = 8.70, p < .01, η2 = .19

spontaneous ingroup projection

inter-group context

Stereotyping is malleable (Blair, 2002): contextual factors moderate the automatic evaluation processes (Wittenbrink, Judd, and Park, 2001).

Ingroup stereotypes vary with the frame of reference emerging from the context (Haslam, Turner, Oakes, McGarty, & Hayes, 1992), that is, they vary as a function of who is the “Other” in an inter-group setting (Hopkins, Regan, & Abell, 1997).

inter-group context

“spontaneous ingroup projection” is context dependent???

Experiment 2

Design study 2

2 manipulation of context

(Germany vs England or Germany vs Italy )

X

2 type of trait (Counter Italian, Counter British;

Waldzus et al., 2005)

DV: RESPONSE FACILITATION INDEX (more positive values indicate greater response facilitation due to a

prime )

inter-group context

Participants: 60 undergraduate students from Jena University

Manipulation of context:

our Jena research group is collaborating with University of Sussex

vs

our Jena research group is collaborating with University of Padova

Type of trait

Counter British (e.g. “sociable”): typical German rather than English

and

Counter Italian (e.g. “correct”): typical German rather than Italian

inter-group context

CONTEXT x TRAITs interaction

F(1,49) = 4.3, p < . 05, η2p = . 08

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Germans vs Brits Germans vs Italians

Type of CONTEXT

ms TRAITS counter-British

TRAITS counter-Italian

Figure 3. Participants’ Response Facilitation (in Millisecond) as a Function of Type of Context and Type of Trait.

inter-group context

Summary

• ingroup projection at the implicit level:

superordinate category activates ingroup prototype, no facilitation for outgroup prototype.

• context-dependent: spontaneous association between the superordinate category prime and the prototype of the ingroup that is made relevant in the context, regardless of the particular content of such a prototype.

• “spountaneous ingroup projection” is related to ingroup bias, attitude towards ingroup and identification measures

Current research:

IAT studies “Psychological distance” (Libermann, 2006)

Me, here, now, for real

Others, not here, not now, hypothetical

complex and detailed

schematic

Current research:

IAT studies “Psychological distance” (Libermann, 2006)

Sub-Groups level

Inclusive level

ingroup outgroup

More Inclusive level

More Inclusive level

Me, here, now, for realcomplex and detailed

schematic

ab

stra

ctn

ess

Others, not here, not now, hypothetical