View
219
Download
3
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
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
Recommended