Publicação
Complex inclusive categories of positive and negative valence and prototypicality claims inasymmetric intergroup relations
| Resumo: | Based on the premise that groups’ social standing and regard depend on theirprototypicality for superordinate categories, minorities can be understood to sufferfrom the fact that they are considered as less prototypical than majorities. Previousresearch has shown that complex (vs. simple) representations of superordinatecategories can reduce majority members’ tendency to perceive their in-group as moreprototypical than the out-group. The current research tested whether such complexrepresentations also increase minorities’ own perceived relative in-group prototypicality(RIP), leading to more balanced prototypicality judgments from both majorities andminorities. In Study 1 (N = 76), an experiment with two arti?cial groups of unequal status,a complex representation of a superordinate category increased the comparatively lowRIP of the lower status subgroup. Consistently, in Study 2 (N = 192), a correlational studywith natural groups, the relation between perceived complexity of the superordinatecategory and RIP was positive for members of the lower status group but negative formembers of the higher status comparison group. In Study 3 (N = 160), an experimentwith natural groups, a more complex representation of the superordinate category ledlower and higher status groups to perceive greater equality in terms of relativeprototypicality not only for a positive but also for a negatively valued superordinatecategory. These results have important implications for the understanding of socialchange: As superordinate identity complexity implies that included subgroups are moreequally prototypical, it offers a normative alternative that helps minorities to challengeasymmetric status relations vis-?a-vis majorities, but also promotes hope that majoritiesshow bipartisanship in supporting such social change |
|---|---|
| Autores principais: | Alexandre, J. |
| Outros Autores: | Waldzus, S.; Wenzel, M. |
| Assunto: | Complex representations Inclusive categories In-group projection Asymmetric status relations |
| Ano: | 2016 |
| País: | Portugal |
| Tipo de documento: | artigo |
| Tipo de acesso: | acesso aberto |
| Instituição associada: | ISCTE |
| Idioma: | inglês |
| Origem: | Repositório ISCTE |
| Resumo: | Based on the premise that groups’ social standing and regard depend on theirprototypicality for superordinate categories, minorities can be understood to sufferfrom the fact that they are considered as less prototypical than majorities. Previousresearch has shown that complex (vs. simple) representations of superordinatecategories can reduce majority members’ tendency to perceive their in-group as moreprototypical than the out-group. The current research tested whether such complexrepresentations also increase minorities’ own perceived relative in-group prototypicality(RIP), leading to more balanced prototypicality judgments from both majorities andminorities. In Study 1 (N = 76), an experiment with two arti?cial groups of unequal status,a complex representation of a superordinate category increased the comparatively lowRIP of the lower status subgroup. Consistently, in Study 2 (N = 192), a correlational studywith natural groups, the relation between perceived complexity of the superordinatecategory and RIP was positive for members of the lower status group but negative formembers of the higher status comparison group. In Study 3 (N = 160), an experimentwith natural groups, a more complex representation of the superordinate category ledlower and higher status groups to perceive greater equality in terms of relativeprototypicality not only for a positive but also for a negatively valued superordinatecategory. These results have important implications for the understanding of socialchange: As superordinate identity complexity implies that included subgroups are moreequally prototypical, it offers a normative alternative that helps minorities to challengeasymmetric status relations vis-?a-vis majorities, but also promotes hope that majoritiesshow bipartisanship in supporting such social change |
|---|