The Experts below are selected from a list of 300 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Sven Waldzus - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Complex inclusive categories of positive and negative valence and prototypicality claims in asymmetric intergroup relations.
The British journal of social psychology, 2016Co-Authors: Joana Alexandre, Sven Waldzus, Michael WenzelAbstract:Based on the premise that groups' social standing and regard depend on their prototypicality for Superordinate categories, minorities can be understood to suffer from the fact that they are considered as less prototypical than majorities. Previous research has shown that complex (vs. simple) representations of Superordinate categories can reduce majority members' tendency to perceive their in-group as more prototypical than the out-group. The current research tested whether such complex representations also increase minorities' own perceived relative in-group prototypicality (RIP), leading to more balanced prototypicality judgments from both majorities and minorities. In Study 1 (N = 76), an experiment with two artificial groups of unequal status, a complex representation of a Superordinate Category increased the comparatively low RIP of the lower status subgroup. Consistently, in Study 2 (N = 192), a correlational study with natural groups, the relation between perceived complexity of the Superordinate Category and RIP was positive for members of the lower status group but negative for members of the higher status comparison group. In Study 3 (N = 160), an experiment with natural groups, a more complex representation of the Superordinate Category led lower and higher status groups to perceive greater equality in terms of relative prototypicality not only for a positive but also for a negatively valued Superordinate Category. These results have important implications for the understanding of social change: As Superordinate identity complexity implies that included subgroups are more equally prototypical, it offers a normative alternative that helps minorities to challenge asymmetric status relations vis-a-vis majorities, but also promotes hope that majorities show bipartisanship in supporting such social change.
-
Efficiency and defense motivated ingroup projection: Sources of protoypicality in intergroup relations
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2012Co-Authors: Miriam Rosa, Sven WaldzusAbstract:Abstract Members of higher status groups generalize characteristics of their ingroup to Superordinate categories that serve as a frame of reference for comparisons with outgroups (ingroup projection). We propose that the causal process depends on the security of the intergroup context: When intergroup relations are secure, projection derives from a motivation to represent the Superordinate Category efficiently; when they are insecure, projection is a defense motivated process. Accordingly, we hypothesized that inducing participants to use heuristic vs. systematic information processing (via time pressure, cognitive load, or thoughtfulness instructions) would have differential effects on ingroup projection in secure as compared to insecure intergroup relations. Three experiments manipulated security of the intergroup context and information processing mode in artificial (Studies 1 and 2) or natural (Study 3) groups. We found that time pressure increased ingroup projection in the secure-group condition but decreased it in the insecure-group condition (Study 1), cognitive load increased projection in the secure but not in the insecure condition (Study 2) and thoughtfulness instructions increased projection for high identifiers in the insecure but not in the secure condition (Study 3). Results support the hypothesis that ingroup projection occurs as a cognitive bias in secure intergroup relations but that it is socially motivated by the specific intergroup relation when this relation is insecure.
-
When 'different' means 'worse': in-group prototypicality in changing intergroup contexts
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2005Co-Authors: Sven Waldzus, Amélie Mummendey, Michael WenzelAbstract:Abstract An experiment with 213 participants provided evidence for in-group projection—the generalization of distinctive in-group attributes to a Superordinate Category. The frame of reference for in-group (German) judgments was manipulated by presenting either Italians or the British as an out-group. Results showed that attributes on which Germans differed from each out-group were accentuated not only in in-group judgments but also when judging Europeans. By adapting features of the Superordinate Category to those of the in-group, the in-group's similarity to, and the out-group's deviation from, the prototype of the Superordinate Category were maintained, if not emphasized. Further, higher in-group prototypicality—compared to out-group prototypicality—for the Superordinate Category was related to negative out-group attitudes. In-group projection was reduced when a complex representation of the Superordinate Category was primed.
-
Inclusion in a Superordinate Category, in-group prototypicality, and attitudes towards out-groups
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2004Co-Authors: Sven Waldzus, Amélie MummendeyAbstract:We hypothesized that group members’ attitudes towards an out-group are negatively related to the in-group’s perceived relative prototypicality for a Superordinate Category, but only if both the in-group and out-group are included in this Superordinate Category. In Experiment 1 (N=40), Germans’ attitudes towards Poles were negatively correlated with the relative prototypicality of Germans when “Europe” (including Poles), but not when “West-Europe” (excluding Poles), was the Superordinate Category. In Experiment 2 (N=63), female single parents’ attitudes about the competence of single parents to raise children depended on the in-group’s relative prototypicality for “single parents” (including fathers), but not on their relative similarity to “mothers” (excluding fathers). Both experiments showed that inclusion in a Superordinate Category had a more negative influence on attitudes towards the out-group when relative in-group prototypicality is high rather than low.
-
Of bikers, teachers and Germans: groups' diverging views about their prototypicality.
The British journal of social psychology, 2004Co-Authors: Sven Waldzus, Amélie Mummendey, Michael Wenzel, Franziska BoettcherAbstract:The in-group projection model hypothesizes that members of social groups generalize attributes of their in-group to a Superordinate Category that provides dimensions for comparisons between in-group and out-group (in-group projection). As a result, both groups in an intergroup situation should disagree about their relative prototypicality for the Superordinate Category. Three studies confirmed this prediction. In Study 1 (N = 54), it was found that different groups of motor bikers (chopper-bikers vs. sport-bikers) perceived their own subgroup to be the more typical biker group than the respective out-group. Study 2 (N = 60) showed the same divergence of perspectives in the context of more formal subgroups of teachers (primary-school teachers vs. high-school teachers). In a third study (N = 157), the relative character of in-group projection was demonstrated in an intergroup context with strong reality constraints due to differences in group size, status and power. Although there was consensus between both groups that the majority (West Germans) was more prototypical of the Superordinate group (Germans) than the minority (East Germans), majority members perceived the groups' difference in prototypicality to be greater than minority members did.
Amélie Mummendey - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
What Do You Mean by “European”? Evidence of Spontaneous Ingroup Projection
Personality & social psychology bulletin, 2010Co-Authors: Mauro Bianchi, Amélie Mummendey, Melanie C. Steffens, Vincent YzerbytAbstract:The ingroup projection model posits that group members project ingroup features onto a Superordinate Category. The present research aimed at isolating the cognitive underpinnings of this process. If ingroup projection is a spontaneous cognitive process, a Superordinate Category prime should facilitate the processing of the ingroup prototype rather than the outgroup prototype. Three studies support this hypothesis by comparing subliminal semantic priming in two different populations, an intra- versus intergroup situation, and with an ingroup prototype manipulated by changing the intergroup context. Results indicated that the Superordinate Category prime facilitated the processing of ingroup rather than outgroup traits (Experiment 1) and that these traits depended on the particular content of the ingroup prototype made salient by different contexts (Experiments 2 and 3). The findings indicate that the cognitive representation of the Superordinate Category is based on ingroup traits and that this representation is context dependent.
-
When 'different' means 'worse': in-group prototypicality in changing intergroup contexts
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2005Co-Authors: Sven Waldzus, Amélie Mummendey, Michael WenzelAbstract:Abstract An experiment with 213 participants provided evidence for in-group projection—the generalization of distinctive in-group attributes to a Superordinate Category. The frame of reference for in-group (German) judgments was manipulated by presenting either Italians or the British as an out-group. Results showed that attributes on which Germans differed from each out-group were accentuated not only in in-group judgments but also when judging Europeans. By adapting features of the Superordinate Category to those of the in-group, the in-group's similarity to, and the out-group's deviation from, the prototype of the Superordinate Category were maintained, if not emphasized. Further, higher in-group prototypicality—compared to out-group prototypicality—for the Superordinate Category was related to negative out-group attitudes. In-group projection was reduced when a complex representation of the Superordinate Category was primed.
-
Inclusion in a Superordinate Category, in-group prototypicality, and attitudes towards out-groups
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2004Co-Authors: Sven Waldzus, Amélie MummendeyAbstract:We hypothesized that group members’ attitudes towards an out-group are negatively related to the in-group’s perceived relative prototypicality for a Superordinate Category, but only if both the in-group and out-group are included in this Superordinate Category. In Experiment 1 (N=40), Germans’ attitudes towards Poles were negatively correlated with the relative prototypicality of Germans when “Europe” (including Poles), but not when “West-Europe” (excluding Poles), was the Superordinate Category. In Experiment 2 (N=63), female single parents’ attitudes about the competence of single parents to raise children depended on the in-group’s relative prototypicality for “single parents” (including fathers), but not on their relative similarity to “mothers” (excluding fathers). Both experiments showed that inclusion in a Superordinate Category had a more negative influence on attitudes towards the out-group when relative in-group prototypicality is high rather than low.
-
Of bikers, teachers and Germans: groups' diverging views about their prototypicality.
The British journal of social psychology, 2004Co-Authors: Sven Waldzus, Amélie Mummendey, Michael Wenzel, Franziska BoettcherAbstract:The in-group projection model hypothesizes that members of social groups generalize attributes of their in-group to a Superordinate Category that provides dimensions for comparisons between in-group and out-group (in-group projection). As a result, both groups in an intergroup situation should disagree about their relative prototypicality for the Superordinate Category. Three studies confirmed this prediction. In Study 1 (N = 54), it was found that different groups of motor bikers (chopper-bikers vs. sport-bikers) perceived their own subgroup to be the more typical biker group than the respective out-group. Study 2 (N = 60) showed the same divergence of perspectives in the context of more formal subgroups of teachers (primary-school teachers vs. high-school teachers). In a third study (N = 157), the relative character of in-group projection was demonstrated in an intergroup context with strong reality constraints due to differences in group size, status and power. Although there was consensus between both groups that the majority (West Germans) was more prototypical of the Superordinate group (Germans) than the minority (East Germans), majority members perceived the groups' difference in prototypicality to be greater than minority members did.
-
Towards tolerance: Representations of Superordinate categories and perceived ingroup prototypicality
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2003Co-Authors: Sven Waldzus, Amélie Mummendey, Michael Wenzel, Ulrike WeberAbstract:According to Mummendey and Wenzel (1999), group members tend to perceive their ingroup, relative to an outgroup, as more prototypical of the Superordinate Category encompassing both groups. Hence, they tend to regard the outgroup as deviating from the norms of the Superordinate Category. Factors that inhibit perception of relative ingroup prototypicality should thus promote intergroup tolerance. In two experiments, the representation of the Superordinate Category was manipulated. Both an undefinable prototype (Experiment 1; N=63) and a complex representation (Experiment 2; N=88) led to a decrease in relative ingroup prototypicality. Dual identification with the ingroup and the Superordinate Category increased relative ingroup prototypicality, which was negatively correlated with positive attitudes towards the outgroup. The findings supported Mummendey and Wenzel’s assumptions about the conditions that lead to intergroup tolerance.
Michèle Fabre-thorpe - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Humans and monkeys share visual representations.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2011Co-Authors: Denis Fize, Maxime Cauchoix, Michèle Fabre-thorpeAbstract:Conceptual abilities in animals have been shown at several levels of abstraction, but it is unclear whether the analogy with humans results from convergent evolution or from shared brain mechanisms inherited from a common origin. Macaque monkeys can access "non-similarity-based concepts," such as when sorting pictures containing a Superordinate target Category (animal, tree, etc.) among other scenes. However, such performances could result from low-level visual processing based on learned regularities of the photographs, such as for scene categorization by artificial systems. By using pictures of man-made objects or animals embedded in man-made or natural contexts, the present study clearly establishes that macaque monkeys based their categorical decision on the presence of the animal targets regardless of the scene backgrounds. However, as is found with humans, monkeys performed better with categorically congruent object/context associations, especially when small object sizes favored background information. The accuracy improvements and the response-speed gains attributable to Superordinate Category congruency in monkeys were strikingly similar to those of human subjects tested with the same task and stimuli. These results suggest analogous processing of visual information during the activation of abstract representations in both humans and monkeys; they imply a large overlap between Superordinate visual representations in humans and macaques as well as the implicit use of experienced associations between object and context.
-
The time-course of visual categorizations: you spot the animal faster than the bird.
PloS one, 2009Co-Authors: Marc J.-m. Macé, Olivier R. Joubert, Jean-luc Nespoulous, Michèle Fabre-thorpeAbstract:Background: Since the pioneering study by Rosch and colleagues in the 70s, it is commonly agreed that basic level perceptual categories (dog, chair…) are accessed faster than Superordinate ones (animal, furniture…). Nevertheless, the speed at which objects presented in natural images can be processed in a rapid go/no-go visual Superordinate categorization task has challenged this ‘‘basic level advantage’’. Principal Findings: Using the same task, we compared human processing speed when categorizing natural scenes as containing either an animal (Superordinate level), or a specific animal (bird or dog, basic level). Human subjects require an additional 40–65 ms to decide whether an animal is a bird or a dog and most errors are induced by non-target animals. Indeed, processing time is tightly linked with the type of non-targets objects. Without any exemplar of the same Superordinate Category to ignore, the basic level Category is accessed as fast as the Superordinate Category, whereas the presence of animal non-targets induces both an increase in reaction time and a decrease in accuracy. Conclusions and Significance: These results support the parallel distributed processing theory (PDP) and might reconciliate controversial studies recently published. The visual system can quickly access a coarse/abstract visual representation that allows fast decision for Superordinate categorization of objects but additional time-consuming visual analysis would be necessary for a decision at the basic level based on more detailed representations.
Michael A. Hogg - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Predictors of ingroup projection: The roles of Superordinate Category coherence and complexity
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 2010Co-Authors: Mujde Peker, Richard J. Crisp, Michael A. HoggAbstract:Based on an integration of research on ingroup projection, self-anchoring and social identification, three experiments investigated whether projection of ingroup characteristics to a Superordinate Category would be moderated by both the perceived complexity (number of defining prototypes) and coherence (structural clarity, organization) of the Superordinate Category. We predicted that ingroup projection would be prevented by the presence of either a complex or coherent Superordinate representation. However, we also predicted that complexity would reduce ingroup projection at the expense of Superordinate Category identification, while coherence would not. We observed the predicted interaction between Superordinate Category complexity and coherence in three studies: a complex or coherent Superordinate Category led to lower levels of projection. However, only complexity of the Superordinate Category reduced Superordinate group identification. These findings clarify and refine our understanding of the conditi...
-
Subgroup Relations: A Comparison of Mutual Intergroup Differentiation and Common Ingroup Identity Models of Prejudice Reduction
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2000Co-Authors: Matthew J. Hornsey, Michael A. HoggAbstract:Two studies examined relations between groups (humanities and math-science students) that implicitly or explicitly share a common Superordinate Category (university student). In Experiment 1, 178 participants performed a noninteractive decision-making task during which Category salience was manipulated in a 2 (Superordinate Category salience)×2 (subordinate Category salience) between-groups design. Consistent with the mutual intergroup differentiation model, participants for whom both categories were salient exhibited the lowest levels of bias, whereas bias was strongest when the Superordinate Category alone was made salient. This pattern of results was replicated in Experiment 2 (N = 135). In addition, Experiment 2 demonstrated that members of subgroups that are nested within a Superordinate Category are more sensitive to how the Superordinate Category is represented than are members of subgroups that extend beyond the boundaries of the Superordinate Category.
-
Intergroup Similarity and Subgroup Relations: Some Implications for Assimilation
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2000Co-Authors: Matthew J. Hornsey, Michael A. HoggAbstract:Two studies examined the effects of perceptions of similarity on relations between subgroups (humanities and math-science students) that share an active Superordinate Category (University of Queensland student). Participants (N = 82) performed a non-interactive task during which perceptions of intersubgroup similarity (high or low) and level of categorization (at the Superordinate level or at the Superordinate and subgroup levels simultaneously) were manipulated ina2X2 between-groups design. Consistent with social identity theory, participants who had been categorized exclusively at the Superordinate level discriminated more against a similar subgroup than a dissimilar one. However, when the subgroup and Superordinate categories were activated simultaneously, a trend emerged that was consistent with the similarity-attraction hypothesis. A similar interaction emerged in Study 2 (N = 265), in which perceptions of similarity were measured rather than manipulated. The results were interpreted in terms of the ...
-
Subgroup differentiation as a response to an overly‐inclusive group: a test of optimal distinctiveness theory
European Journal of Social Psychology, 1999Co-Authors: Matthew J. Hornsey, Michael A. HoggAbstract:Optimal distinctiveness theory (ODT; Brewer, 1991, 1993a,b) argues that people can respond to membership of an over ly inclusive group by engaging in a drive for subgroup distinctiveness. To test this, 280 subgroup members (humanities and maths-science students) rated the extent to which they perceived their Superordinate group university of Queensland to be inclusive. After performing a task designed to activate their Superordinate Category membership, participants completed a questionnaire assessing inter-subgroup attitudes. Consistent with ODT, ratings of Superordinate inclusiveness explained a moderate amount of variance in subgroup bias (5-8 per cent), such that the more inclusive the Superordinate Category was seen to be, the more bias was demonstrated. The results are discussed in terms of their relevance for ODT and their implications for promoting subgroup harmony. Copyright (C) 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Michael Wenzel - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Complex inclusive categories of positive and negative valence and prototypicality claims in asymmetric intergroup relations.
The British journal of social psychology, 2016Co-Authors: Joana Alexandre, Sven Waldzus, Michael WenzelAbstract:Based on the premise that groups' social standing and regard depend on their prototypicality for Superordinate categories, minorities can be understood to suffer from the fact that they are considered as less prototypical than majorities. Previous research has shown that complex (vs. simple) representations of Superordinate categories can reduce majority members' tendency to perceive their in-group as more prototypical than the out-group. The current research tested whether such complex representations also increase minorities' own perceived relative in-group prototypicality (RIP), leading to more balanced prototypicality judgments from both majorities and minorities. In Study 1 (N = 76), an experiment with two artificial groups of unequal status, a complex representation of a Superordinate Category increased the comparatively low RIP of the lower status subgroup. Consistently, in Study 2 (N = 192), a correlational study with natural groups, the relation between perceived complexity of the Superordinate Category and RIP was positive for members of the lower status group but negative for members of the higher status comparison group. In Study 3 (N = 160), an experiment with natural groups, a more complex representation of the Superordinate Category led lower and higher status groups to perceive greater equality in terms of relative prototypicality not only for a positive but also for a negatively valued Superordinate Category. These results have important implications for the understanding of social change: As Superordinate identity complexity implies that included subgroups are more equally prototypical, it offers a normative alternative that helps minorities to challenge asymmetric status relations vis-a-vis majorities, but also promotes hope that majorities show bipartisanship in supporting such social change.
-
When 'different' means 'worse': in-group prototypicality in changing intergroup contexts
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2005Co-Authors: Sven Waldzus, Amélie Mummendey, Michael WenzelAbstract:Abstract An experiment with 213 participants provided evidence for in-group projection—the generalization of distinctive in-group attributes to a Superordinate Category. The frame of reference for in-group (German) judgments was manipulated by presenting either Italians or the British as an out-group. Results showed that attributes on which Germans differed from each out-group were accentuated not only in in-group judgments but also when judging Europeans. By adapting features of the Superordinate Category to those of the in-group, the in-group's similarity to, and the out-group's deviation from, the prototype of the Superordinate Category were maintained, if not emphasized. Further, higher in-group prototypicality—compared to out-group prototypicality—for the Superordinate Category was related to negative out-group attitudes. In-group projection was reduced when a complex representation of the Superordinate Category was primed.
-
Of bikers, teachers and Germans: groups' diverging views about their prototypicality.
The British journal of social psychology, 2004Co-Authors: Sven Waldzus, Amélie Mummendey, Michael Wenzel, Franziska BoettcherAbstract:The in-group projection model hypothesizes that members of social groups generalize attributes of their in-group to a Superordinate Category that provides dimensions for comparisons between in-group and out-group (in-group projection). As a result, both groups in an intergroup situation should disagree about their relative prototypicality for the Superordinate Category. Three studies confirmed this prediction. In Study 1 (N = 54), it was found that different groups of motor bikers (chopper-bikers vs. sport-bikers) perceived their own subgroup to be the more typical biker group than the respective out-group. Study 2 (N = 60) showed the same divergence of perspectives in the context of more formal subgroups of teachers (primary-school teachers vs. high-school teachers). In a third study (N = 157), the relative character of in-group projection was demonstrated in an intergroup context with strong reality constraints due to differences in group size, status and power. Although there was consensus between both groups that the majority (West Germans) was more prototypical of the Superordinate group (Germans) than the minority (East Germans), majority members perceived the groups' difference in prototypicality to be greater than minority members did.
-
Towards tolerance: Representations of Superordinate categories and perceived ingroup prototypicality
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2003Co-Authors: Sven Waldzus, Amélie Mummendey, Michael Wenzel, Ulrike WeberAbstract:According to Mummendey and Wenzel (1999), group members tend to perceive their ingroup, relative to an outgroup, as more prototypical of the Superordinate Category encompassing both groups. Hence, they tend to regard the outgroup as deviating from the norms of the Superordinate Category. Factors that inhibit perception of relative ingroup prototypicality should thus promote intergroup tolerance. In two experiments, the representation of the Superordinate Category was manipulated. Both an undefinable prototype (Experiment 1; N=63) and a complex representation (Experiment 2; N=88) led to a decrease in relative ingroup prototypicality. Dual identification with the ingroup and the Superordinate Category increased relative ingroup prototypicality, which was negatively correlated with positive attitudes towards the outgroup. The findings supported Mummendey and Wenzel’s assumptions about the conditions that lead to intergroup tolerance.