1. Spontaneous Ingroup Projection: Evidence from Sequential Priming. Mauro Bianchi

2. Overview Theoretical background Experiment 1: spontaneous ingroup projection conclusion Experiment 2: two different inter-group contexts

3. 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

4. IngroupOutgroup Inclusive Category (e.g. Europe) (e.g. Italy) (e.g. Germany) =  - Ingroup projection Ingroup Projection Model (Mummendey & Wenzel, 1999)

5. 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

6. IPM concepts Ingroup prototype projected onto the Superordinate prototype prototype as cognitive representation of stereotypes (Stangor, 2000) Ingroup projection

7. 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.

8. Automatic and Controlled Stereotyping (Devine, 1989) spontaneously activated upon perception of a category cue: out of the subjects awareness unintentional Implicit Stereotyping

9. “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

10. + european XXXXXX warm 1000 ms 15 ms 250 ms time word/non-word

11. +

12. XXXXXXX

13. warm

14. Experiment 1 “spountaneous ingroup projection” ??? the prime EUROPEAN facilitates the stereotypic Italian/German attributes rather than the stereotypic German/Italian feature spontaneous ingroup projection

15. + prime: European Italian German XXXXXX target: ingroup traits outgroup tr. filler non-word 1000 ms 15 ms 250 ms time word/non-word

16. 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)

17. 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, η 2 =.30 spontaneous ingroup projection

18. 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, η 2 =.19 spontaneous ingroup projection

19. 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).

20. inter-group context “spontaneous ingroup projection” is context dependent??? Experiment 2

21. 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

22. 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

23. CONTEXT x TRAITs interaction F(1,49) = 4.3, p <. 05, η 2 p =. 08 Figure 3. Participants’ Response Facilitation (in Millisecond) as a Function of Type of Context and Type of Trait. inter-group context

24. 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

25. Current research: IAT studies “Psychological distance” (Libermann, 2006) Me, here, now, for realOthers, not here, not now, hypothetical complex and detailedschematic

26. Current research: IAT studies “Psychological distance” (Libermann, 2006) Sub-Groups level Inclusive level ingroupoutgroup More Inclusive level Me, here, now, for real complex and detailedschematic abstractness Others, not here, not now, hypothetical