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