Spontaneous Ingroup Projection:
Evidence from Sequential Priming.
Mauro Bianchi
Overview
Theoretical background
Experiment 1: spontaneous ingroup projection
Experiment 2: two different inter-group contexts
conclusion
Theoretical background
•
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.
Ingroup projection
Ingroup Projection Model (Mummendey & Wenzel, 1999)
Inclusive Category
(e.g. Europe)
=
Ingroup
(e.g. Italy)

Outgroup
-
(e.g. Germany)
Ingroup projection
IPM concepts
Inclusion of both the ingroup and the outgroup in a
Superordinate Category
Ingroup prototype projected onto the Superordinate
prototype
Relative prototypicality and consequences on Outgroup
evaluation
Ingroup projection
IPM concepts
Ingroup prototype projected onto the Superordinate
prototype
prototype as
cognitive representation of stereotypes (Stangor, 2000)
Dual-System Models
Dual-System Models (Smith & DeCoster, 2000)
• spontaneous (automatic –
heuristic – impulsive – associative)
mode;
• deliberate (controlled –
systematic – reflexive – rule
based) mode;
• automatic activation of
knowledge or affective reactions
based on cues salient in the
current context;
• based on symbolically
represented rules;
• preconscious, no awareness or
control is needed to instigate the
process.
• conscious, controlled, and
effortful.
Implicit Stereotyping
Automatic and Controlled Stereotyping (Devine, 1989)
spontaneously activated upon perception of a category cue:
• out of the subjects awareness
• unintentional
spontaneous ingroup projection
“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.
+
1000 ms
european
15 ms
XXXXXX
250 ms
warm
time
word/non-word
+
XXXXXXX
warm
spontaneous ingroup projection
Experiment 1
“spountaneous ingroup projection” ???
the prime EUROPEAN facilitates the stereotypic
Italian/German attributes rather than the stereotypic
German/Italian feature
+
1000 ms
prime:
European
Italian
German
XXXXXX
15 ms
XXXXXX
target:
250 ms
time
ingroup traits
outgroup tr.
filler
non-word
word/non-word
spontaneous ingroup projection
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 )
Participants: undergraduate students from Padova
University (N=52) and Jena University (N=43)
spontaneous ingroup projection
PRIMEs x TRAITs INTERACTION
F(2,48) = 21.08, p < .001, η2 = .30
20
15
10
5
ms
PRIME European
0
PRIME Ingroup
PRIME Outgroup
-5
-10
-15
-20
ingroup
outgroup
TRAITS
Figure 1. Italian Participants’ Response Facilitation (in Millisecond)
as a Function of Prime and Trait.
spontaneous ingroup projection
PRIMEs x TRAITs INTERACTION
F(2,38) = 8.70, p < .01, η2 = .19
20
15
10
ms
PRIME European
5
PRIME Ingroup
PRIME Outgroup
0
-5
-10
ingroup
outgroup
TRAITS
Figure 2. German Participants’ Response Facilitation (in Millisecond)
as a Function of Prime and Trait.
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
Experiment 2
“spontaneous ingroup projection”
is context dependent???
inter-group context
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 )
Participants: 60 undergraduate students from Jena
University
inter-group context
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
30
25
20
15
ms
TRAITS counter-British
TRAITS counter-Italian
10
5
0
-5
Germans vs Brits
Germans vs Italians
Type of CONTEXT
Figure 3. Participants’ Response Facilitation (in Millisecond) as a
Function of Type of Context and Type of Trait.
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
complex and detailed
Others, not here, not now, hypothetical
schematic
Current research:
IAT studies
“Psychological distance” (Libermann, 2006)
Me, here, now, for real
Others, not here, not now, hypothetical
abstractness
complex and detailed
schematic
More Inclusive level
More Inclusive level
Inclusive level
Sub-Groups level
ingroup
outgroup