How we perceive us determines how we like you [Elektronische Ressource] : mental representation of the ingroup as predictor of intergroup evaluation / von Maya Machunsky

Machunsky

Sujets

• Psychologie
• Soziologie

Informations

• Publié par: friedrich-schiller-universitat_jena
• Publié le: 01 janvier 2005
• Nombre de lectures: 18
• Langue: English

Extrait

How we perceive us determines how we like you: Mental
representation of the ingroup as predictor of intergroup
evaluation

Dissertation
zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades
doctor philosophiae (Dr. phil.)






vorgelegt dem Rat der Fakultät
für Sozial- und Verhaltenswissenschaften
der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena

von Dipl.-Psych. Maya Machunsky
geboren am 02.02.1976 in Stuttgart





















Gutachter:
1. PD Dr. Thorsten Meiser
2. Prof. Dr. Amélie Mummendey

Tag des Kolloquiums: 15.12.2005


Acknowledgements
A lot of people supported me and made this project possible. I would like to thank all
these people for their particular encouragement. I hope that each individual person I am
thinking of feels addressed by this general acknowledgment. However, I would like to thank
some people in particular. First of all I am very indebted to my supervisor Thorsten Meiser for
so many reasons of which the following list is only a small subset: I am grateful for the
patience in theoretical discussions, for the support in methodological questions, for advice
concerning practical aspects, for structuring theoretical problems etc. In short, during the time
working with Thorsten Meiser I acquired many scientific skills which made this dissertation
possible. I am also grateful to Amélie Mummendey for her interest and trust in my work and
for the many theoretical discussions that shaped my arguments. Furthermore, I am very much
obliged to Bernadette Park whom I visited at the University of Colorado in Boulder, USA,
while working on this project. Our numerous meetings enriched the theoretical framework
and opened new perspectives.
Special thanks goes to my Jena friends Ilga Vossen, Johann Jacoby and Thomas Schubert
for the fruitful discussions, their encouragement and patience in these years. I am also grateful
to Katharina Fuchs-Bodde, Kerstin Schütte, Christine Sattler, Mirjam Dolderer, and Nicole
Harth for helpful comments on chapters of this thesis. Additionally, thanks go to all the
people in Jena with whom I lived through this period with all its ups and downs: Yvonne
Kreutziger, Muriel Helbig, Stephanie Demoulin, and Nina Hansen. Last but not least, I wish
to thank all the people from the International Graduate College in Jena.
Most thankful I am to Frank Riedmann for providing empirical evidence that there is a
beautiful life beyond a doctoral thesis. I am also thankful to my father who spawned my
curiosity and to my mother who taught me to never give up. Thank you also for your warmth
and confidence. Thanks also goes to my brother - for endless discussions giving me the
opportunity to test social psychological ideas in political context.


Contents
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 7
2 Models of ingroup projection .......................................................................................... 13
2.1 The original Ingroup Projection Model.............................................................................................. 13
2.2 Mental representation as cognitive basis of ingroup projection ....................................................... 16
2.3 The Cognitive Model of Ingroup Projection....................................................................................... 18
3 Complexity and variability of mental representation................................................... 22
3.1 Variability of ingroup and outgroup representations........................................................................ 23
3.2 Complexity of ingroup and outgroup representations ...................................................................... 25
3.3 The effects of ingroup variability and complexity on superordinate category representation ...... 29
3.4 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 30
4 The role of complexity and variability of the ingroup representation for projection
and evaluation................................................................................................................... 32
4.1 Main Hypotheses................................................................................................................................... 34
4.1.1 Hypothesis concerning the level of projection............................................................................. 34
4.1.2 Hypothesis concerning the usability of the superordinate category as a comparison standard.... 34
4.2 Overview of the experiments ............................................................................................................... 34
5 Part I: The role of complexity of mental ingroup representation in ingroup
projection .......................................................................................................................... 36
5.1 Experiment 1 ......................................................................................................................................... 36
5.1.1 Introduction... 36
5.1.2 Method.......... 36
5.1.3 Results and discussion ................................................................................................................. 40
5.1.4 Summary...................................................................................................................................... 44

5.2 Experiment 2 ......................................................................................................................................... 45
5.2.1 Introduction... 45
5.2.2 Interindividual differences ........................................................................................................... 45
5.2.3 Method.......... 48
5.2.4 Results and discussion ................................................................................................................. 50
5.2.5 Summary...................................................................................................................................... 59
5.3 Discussion of Part I 61
6 Part II: The role of variability of mental ingroup representation in ingroup
projection .......................................................................................................................... 64
6.1 Experiment 3.......... 66
6.1.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................. 66
6.1.2 Method.......... 67
6.1.3 Results and discussion ................................................................................................................. 69
6.1.4 Summary....... 75
6.2 Experiment 4.......... 78
6.2.1 Introduction... 78
6.2.2 Method.......... 83
6.2.3 Results and discussion ................................................................................................................. 85
6.2.4 Summary...................................................................................................................................... 97
6.3 Discussion of Part II ........................................................................................................................... 100
7 General discussion.......................................................................................................... 102
7.1 Overview............... 102
7.2 Strengths and limitations of the presented experiments.................................................................. 108
7.3 Theoretical links to intergroup research .......................................................................................... 111
7.4 Future research................................................................................................................................... 116
7.5 Conclusion............ 120

References ........................................................................................................................... 121
Summary ............................................................................................................................. 135
Zusammenfassung .............................................................................................................. 137
Appendix 140
Curriculum Vitae ............................................................................................................... 146
Ehrenwörtliche Erklärung ................................................................................................ 147
Introduction 7
1 Introduction
It seems to be general knowledge that people tend to favor social groups they belong to
(ingroups) over groups they do not belong to (outgroups). There have been many attempts to
explain this ubiquitous phenomenon. Interestingly, most of the time the general image (i.e.,
the mental representation) of the outgroup has been considered in order to explain the better
evaluation of ingroups relative to outgroups (i.e., ingroup bias) (e.g., Richards & Hewstone,
20