we all live in germany but … ingroup projection, group-based emotions and prejudice against...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: We all live in Germany but … Ingroup projection, group-based emotions and prejudice against immigrants](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022082718/575004601a28ab11489e6891/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
European Journal of Social Psychology
Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 985–997 (2010)
Published online 13 October 2009 in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.673
*E
C
Research article
We all live in Germany but . . . Ingroup projection,group-based emotions and prejudice against immigrants
Correspondence to: Thomas Kessler, Universi-mail: [email protected]
opyright # 2009 John Wiley & Son
THOMAS KESSLER1*, AMELIE MUMMENDEY2,FRIEDRICH FUNKE2, RUPERT BROWN3, JENS BINDER4,HANNA ZAGEFKA5, JACQUES-PHILIPPE LEYENS6,STEPHANIE DEMOULIN6 AND ANNEMIE MAQUIL6
1University of Exeter, UK2Friedrich-Schiller-University, Germany3University of Sussex, UK4University of Manchester, UK5Royal Holloway, University of London, UK6University of Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium
Abstract
Immigration, cultural diversity and integration are among the most central challenges for modern societies. Integration is
often impeded by negative emotions and prejudices held by the majority members towards immigrants in a common
society. Based on the ingroup projection model (Mummendey & Wenzel, 1999), we examined the impact of perceived
relative ingroup prototypicality on intergroup emotions and prejudice. Additionally, we examined whether this impact is
causal and explored the issue of causality in more detail contrasting a linear causal model with bi-directional or
reciprocal causality. Hypotheses were tested in a study with a two-wave panel of majority members (N¼1085) in Germany.
We examined the proposed relations between relative ingroup prototypicality, intergroup emotions and prejudice and
determined the causal direction of these relationships. Results support the predictive power of relative ingroup
prototypicality on intergroup emotions and prejudice. Moreover, most causal relations between our measures are
reciprocally causal. We discuss the implications of these findings for the general conception of prejudice and intergroup
emotions. Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Modern societies of developed countries have been receiving an increasing number of immigrants in the past decades. For
instance, three–four million immigrants became official residents in OECD countries in 2004 (OECD, 2006). Germany
started from roughly half a million immigrants in the early 1960s to more than seven million immigrants in 2003 (BAMF,
2006). The integration of culturally diverse groups such as native majority members and immigrants is one of the most
central challenges for modern societies. Integration, however, is often impeded by a lack of acceptance and respect on both
sides, in spite of the fact that both majority members and immigrants also share a common ingroup identity because they
both are citizens of one common society. Although negative emotions and prejudice against each other are usually held by
both majority members and immigrants, in the present paper we only focus on the majority or dominant group. Our aim is
to examine determinants of majority members’ negative attitude towards and rejection of minorities.
ty of Exeter, Washington Singer Laboratories, Perry Road, Exeter EX4 4QG, UK.
s, Ltd.
Received 23 December 2008
Accepted 10 June 2009
![Page 2: We all live in Germany but … Ingroup projection, group-based emotions and prejudice against immigrants](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022082718/575004601a28ab11489e6891/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
986 Thomas Kessler et al.
Group members tend to see their group as prototypical for a common ingroup which serves as a common reference
frame (Wenzel, Mummendey, & Waldzus, 2008). Arguably, majority members may have a particularly strong tendency to
perceive themselves as prototypical for a common society. Some majority members may not even differentiate between
their group and the society as a whole but take their group as ‘pars pro toto’ (Wenzel, Mummendey, Weber, & Waldzus,
2003). Majority members may perceive immigrant groups as different and therefore as less prototypical of the common
society. Moreover, immigrant groups may also be perceived as challenging societal norms and values and thereby
threatening the majority group’s identity (Esses, Dovidio, Jackson, & Armstrong, 2001; Stephan & Stephan, 2000). This
may lead majority members to feel negative emotions like intergroup anxiety when interacting with immigrants; they may
even feel disadvantaged or relative deprived compared to immigrants (e.g. Leach, Iyer, & Pederson, 2007). They may
express their prejudice either in open and blatant hostile rejection or in more subtle ways such as overstating the actual
dissimilarity and stressing social distance between majority and immigrant culture (Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995). Finally,
majority members may tend to compete with immigrants over relative prestige and dominance (e.g. how much influence
immigrants should have in shaping the common society?) and over scarce resources (e.g. jobs).
The present research approaches the context of immigration in Germany from the perspective of the ingroup projection
model (Mummendey & Wenzel, 1999). As indicators of group evaluation we focus on a variety of emotions (e.g. group-
based emotions, intergroup anxiety and relative deprivation) as well as on various prejudice measures (subtle and blatant
prejudice, social and realistic competition). According to the ingroup projection model, we assume that relative ingroup
prototypicality influences group evaluation. Thus, the main question is whether relative ingroup prototypicality
determines intergroup emotions and prejudice. Moreover, we also examine the relations between intergroup emotions and
prejudice because both have been conceptualized as competing approaches to intergroup evaluation (e.g. Cottrell &
Neuberg, 2005; Smith, 1993). However, their relation is not well studied. Also of interest are the causal relations between
relative ingroup prototypicality, intergroup emotions and prejudice: are these causal at all, uni-directional or bi-directional
(e.g. Kessler & Mummendey, 2002).
INTERGROUP RELATIONS AND THE EVALUATION OF SOCIAL GROUPS
According to self-categorization theory (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Whetherell, 1987), social groups are evaluated
with reference to a group on a higher level of inclusiveness. The evaluation of subgroups is determined by their distance
from the prototype of the superordinate and inclusive group. More prototypical groups represent the inclusive group better
than less prototypical groups. A prototype provides information about how a subgroup is (descriptive norm) and how it
should be (prescriptive norm) in order to be a valuable and acceptable part of the inclusive group. Thus, the closer a
subgroup comes to the prototype, the higher is its prototypicality and the more positive it will be evaluated. For instance,
the more French people are perceived to be typical of Europeans by other non-French Europeans, the more positively they
will be evaluated. However, the evaluation of one group within a superordinate common group also depends on one’s own
group standing. Thus, French people may be evaluated differently by Germans or Portuguese because both groups may
perceive their prototypicality for being European differently. For instance, assuming the perceived prototypicality of the
French to be constant, relative prototypicality would lead to different evaluations of the French because Germans may
perceive themselves as relative more prototypical (thereby entertaining a more positive view of their ingroup and a less
positive evaluation of the French) whereas Portuguese may perceive themselves as relatively less prototypical compared to
the French (thereby entertaining a less positive view of their ingroup and a more positive evaluation of the French). Thus, it
is not a group’s prototypicality per se but the relative prototypicality of one group compared to another that determines
their relative evaluation.
Following the ingroup projection model, group members tend to project ingroup attributes onto the superordinate
group. As group members vary in their tendency to project ingroup attributes, they may also vary in the degree in which the
ingroup is perceived to be more prototypical than an outgroup, which leads to differences regarding how much the ingroup
is evaluated as more positive than the outgroup. As members of subgroups tend to project ingroup attributes, subgroups are
perceived as more prototypical for the inclusive group by ingroup members compared to outgroup members. Thus, a
perspective divergence on the relative prototypicality of subgroups emerges (Mummendey & Wenzel, 1999).
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 985–997 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/ejsp
![Page 3: We all live in Germany but … Ingroup projection, group-based emotions and prejudice against immigrants](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022082718/575004601a28ab11489e6891/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Group-based emotions and prejudice 987
A first additional assumption underlying this line of argument is that the superordinate group (e.g. Europeans) is
evaluated positively. Being prototypical will lead to positive evaluations only for positively evaluated superordinate
groups which seem to be true for most self-categories (Reynolds, Turner, & Haslam, 2000). Moreover, ingroup projection
and enhanced relative ingroup prototypicality will increase when individuals are highly identified with both the subgroup
and the superordinate group (Ullrich, Christ, & Schluter, 2006; Waldzus, Mummendey, & Wenzel, 2003). In an
immigration context, majority groups are expected to identify on both levels of self-categorization, which enhances
tendencies for ingroup projection and the perception of high relative ingroup prototypicality.1 Moreover, perceived higher
relative ingroup prototypicality leads to a less positive evaluation of the outgroup, and more negative behavioural
intentions such as avoidance of contact with the outgroup (e.g. Waldzus, Mummendey, Wenzel, & Weber, 2003; Waldzus,
Mummendey, Boettcher & Wenzel, 2004; Wenzel, Mummendey, Weber, & Waldzus, 2003).
In most previous studies, conditions for ingroup projection have been manipulated and relative ingroup prototypicality
and group evaluations and behavioural intentions have been measured. Although these studies consistently show a
correlation between relative ingroup prototypicality and group evaluation, the issue of causality is not settled yet. Relative
ingroup prototypicality may also function as a justification of one’s prejudice. Moreover, extending the ingroup projection
model, we assume that due to an appraisal of a normative discrepancy, relative ingroup prototypicality might lead to
negative intergroup emotions which add to the effect of outgroup devaluation. We want to broaden the empirical evidence,
which was limited to group evaluation and behavioural intentions in previous research (Wenzel et al., 2008), by focussing
on measures of prejudice. In sum, we propose to examine whether perceived relative ingroup prototypicality of majority
members determines intergroup emotions and prejudice towards immigrants.
PREJUDICE AND INTERGROUP EMOTIONS
According to many definitions, prejudice can be regarded as an antipathetic attitude towards outgroups and their members
(Allport, 1954; Brown, 1995). The functions of prejudice vary from being a value expression to being a justification of a
negative treatment of outgroups by ingroup members (e.g. Turner, 2005). As an alternative to prejudice as attitude, Smith
(1993) defined prejudice as ‘a social emotion experienced with respect to one’s social identity as a group member, with an
outgroup as a target’ (Smith, 1993, p. 304). Integrating concepts of self-categorization theory and appraisal theories of
emotions, Smith (1993, see also Smith, 1999; Mackie & Smith, 2002) conceived of intergroup or group-based emotions as
emotions that are experienced when individuals self-categorize as members of a particular group. Group members can
experience group-based emotions even when they individually have not been directly affected by the events eliciting the
emotions. Two preconditions for intergroup emotions to be experienced are that a particular intergroup context has to be
salient and that group members identify with their ingroup (Dumont, Yzerbyt, Wigboldus, & Gordijn, 2003; Gordijin,
Wigboldus, & Yzerbyt, 2001; Kessler & Hollbach, 2005; Yzerbyt, Dumont, Wigboldus, & Gordijn, 2003).
Another emotion that occurs in intergroup contexts is intergroup anxiety (Stephan & Stephan, 1985). Intergroup
anxiety may be felt in intergroup contact situations when an interacting individual anticipates something negative in an
encounter with outgroup members. According to Stephan and Stephan (1985), anxiety may arise from any or all of
apprehension about appropriate behavioural norms, anticipated negative treatment by the outgroup and generalized
negative affect associated with the outgroup. Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) identify anxiety provoking intergroup contact
situations as conditions that will enhance intergroup tensions and prejudice. Thus, one may expect that intergroup anxiety
may be one mediator connecting intergroup perception to prejudice (Islam & Hewstone, 1993; Paolini, Hewstone, Cairns,
& Voci, 2006; Voci & Hewstone, 2003).
A classical approach to intergroup emotions is relative deprivation (Crosby, 1976; Runciman, 1966). Collective relative
deprivation will be expressed in feelings of resentment and anger depending on the degree of disadvantage, the stability
and legitimacy of the disadvantage and reduced permeability of group boundaries (Mummendey, Kessler, Klink, &
Mielke, 1999). According to Smith and Ho (2002), feelings of disadvantage are a prime example of group-based emotions.
Finally, collective relative deprivation has been shown to lead to prejudice (Vanneman & Pettigrew, 1972; Pettigrew,
Christ, Wagner, Meertens, van Dick, & Zick, 2008).
1Compared to majority members, minority group members may identify less with the common superordinate category (e.g., our common society) whichmay reduce their tendency to perceive this superordinate category as a reference frame (Mummendey & Kessler, 2008).
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 985–997 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/ejsp
![Page 4: We all live in Germany but … Ingroup projection, group-based emotions and prejudice against immigrants](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022082718/575004601a28ab11489e6891/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
988 Thomas Kessler et al.
RELATION BETWEEN PREJUDICE AND INTERGROUP EMOTIONS
Although the distinction between prejudice as attitude and prejudice as intergroup emotion has led to vibrant research
endeavours (particularly in the field of intergroup emotions, e.g. Mackie & Smith, 2002), the relations between both constructs
have been less well studied. As one advantage, prejudice as an intergroup emotion is more context specific than prejudice as
attitude (Cottrell and Neuberg, 2005; Smith, 1993). For instance, old fashioned racists may perceive ethnic minorities as
generally threatening and therefore disparage them in many situations. However, they may accept and value ethnic minority
members in certain menial roles such as servants and nannies because in such roles they may not be seen as threatening (e.g.
Smith, 1993). In contrast, prejudice as attitude simply predicts a generalized antipathy towards an outgroup, irrespective of
situation. The only qualification to this would be distinctions between ‘old fashioned’ and ‘modern’ forms of prejudice, which
are thought to predict different forms of exclusionary or discriminatory behaviour (McConahay, 1986; Pettigrew & Meertens,
1995). Up to now, prejudice as intergroup emotion and prejudice as social attitude have been discussed as alternative
conceptualizations of prejudice. The present work aimed to explore and test various possible relations between prejudice as an
intergroup emotion and prejudice as an attitude with a view to provide some theoretical integration. We assume that group-
based emotions as context specific experiences may mediate the relation between intergroup perceptions and prejudice.
Alternatively, it is also reasonable to assume that prejudice will shape emotional experiences in particular situations because
people will sometimes have prejudiced attitudes before they get first hand experiences with outgroups or their members.
Hypotheses
Our hypotheses can be summarized as follows:
1. R
2ThMuwe
Cop
elative ingroup prototypicality predicts intergroup emotions and prejudice: relative ingroup prototypicality deter-
mines intergroup emotions and prejudice over and above single ingroup and outgroup prototypicality. Thus, when
controlling for the single prototypicality measures the coefficient for relative ingroup prototypicality will have an
additional impact on group evaluations.
2. C
ausal relations between relative ingroup prototypicality, intergroup emotions and prejudice: we expect that relativeingroup prototypicality causally determines intergroup emotions and prejudice. As an alternative hypothesis, one may
expect that intergroup emotions and prejudice may causally determine relative ingroup prototypicality.
METHOD
Field Situation
In Germany, as in many other societies, native Germans and various immigrant groups live together. This intergroup situation
provides a prime case for applying and testing the ingroup projection model: The different groups are aware of each other’s
presence, and they may have group- and culture-specific views and beliefs about what the society as a whole should be like. It
seems reasonable to assume that majority members will perceive themselves as more prototypical compared to immigrant
groups for the society as a whole. This is because most majority members are likely to (erroneously) equate the groups of ‘all
people living in the country’ and ‘people who adhere to the mainstream culture’. In other words, German majority members
can be expected to equate ‘Germans’ and ‘people living in Germany’. This means that they will take the native majority group
as pars pro toto for the whole society, neglecting the social fact of cultural or ethnic diversity.
Participants and Procedure
In the present study,2 1082 pupils (596 female and 485 male) from 25 German schools took part in a longitudinal study
with two measurement points the first in autumn 2004 and the second in spring 2005 which leads to a time lag of about half
is sample is part of a larger research project on ‘‘Immigration, racism, and acculturation: A three nation study’’ awarded to R. Brown, J.-P. Leyens, A.mmendey and T. Kessler. Altogether, about 7000 school children from Belgium, the UK, and Germany were surveyed on various themes. In this studyfocus on a German majority sample that is not involved in the comparison of the three nations or minority and majority relations.
yright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 985–997 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/ejsp
![Page 5: We all live in Germany but … Ingroup projection, group-based emotions and prejudice against immigrants](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022082718/575004601a28ab11489e6891/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Group-based emotions and prejudice 989
a year between the measures. We assessed the same variables at both measurement points. All participants were ‘native
Germans’ (i.e. without migration background). In the first wave, the mean age was on average 15 year (ranging from 13–
18 years). The convenience sample covered school students from six Federal Counties, cities of different size and all types
of secondary schools. However, it does not meet the high standards of probability sampling; generalizability is slightly
limited because of a certain amount of inevitable self-selective participation (voluntariness is stipulated by legal
requirements). Still, the use of school students ensures greater representativeness and heterogeneity than would be
possible using the university students.
Assessment of Variables
First, participants indicated whether their status was ‘native Germans’. Participants also indicated whether their parents’
place of birth was in Germany, and they were only included in the sample of ‘native Germans’ if this was the case.
Participants who did not fulfil both criteria were not included in the present majority sample. For the following items, if not
stated otherwise, all items were rated on a 5 point rating scale ranging from 1¼ not at all–5¼ very much.
Self-Categorization and Group Membership
Then, participants indicated their identification with two groups on two items (‘I perceive myself as German [‘someone
from Germany’]’ and ‘I like to be a German [‘someone from Germany’])’. Identification had an internal consistency of
at1¼ .76 for the measurement at time 1 (at2¼ .80 for the measurement time 2) for Germans and a t1¼ .64 (at2¼ .62) for
‘someone from Germany’.
Group Prototypicality
In the second part of the questionnaire, participants rated how typical they perceive their ingroup (Germans) and the
outgroup (Immigrants) to be of the superordinate category (‘all people living in Germany’).3
Prejudice as Intergroup Emotions
We conceived of intergroup emotions very broadly to tap general emotional tendencies towards immigrants. Following
Dijker (1987), we assessed positive emotions (admire, trust, like) and negative emotions (feeling angry, irritated, annoyed)
towards immigrants. We asked ‘in general, what are your feelings towards immigrants’? Then, the emotion words were
presented, followed by a 5 point scale ranging from 1¼ never–5¼ very often. In a factor analysis the emotion items turned
out to be highly correlated and only one factor with an Eigenvalue above 1 emerged. In line with other studies on emotions
in intergroup contexts, various emotions are highly correlated (Smith, Cronin, & Kessler, 2008). Accordingly, we
aggregated all emotion items to measure one single construct, a t1¼ .76 (at2¼ .88) with higher values indicating more
positive emotions.
Intergroup anxiety was assessed as a specific emotional measure towards immigrants in contact situations. Following
Stephan and colleagues (e.g. Stephan & Stephan, 2000; Stephan, Stephan, & Gudykust, 2000), we asked respondents to
imagine themselves in situations in which they were interacting with several outgroup members (e.g. ‘If you were the only
German and you were working with some immigrants, how would you feel’?). Participants rated whether they would feel
nervous, comfortable (recoded), anxious, at ease (recoded), awkward and accepted (recoded) in such situations, a t1¼ .76
(at2¼ .80).
3The original wording of the self-categorization items are ‘‘Ich sehe mich selbst als Jemand aus Deutschland [als Deutscher/Deutsche]’’ and of theprototypicality measures are ‘‘Wie typisch sind die Deutschen [die Zuwanderer] mit Blick auf alle Menschen in Deutschland?’’.
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 985–997 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/ejsp
![Page 6: We all live in Germany but … Ingroup projection, group-based emotions and prejudice against immigrants](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022082718/575004601a28ab11489e6891/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Table 1. Mean, standard deviation and correlations of all variables
M (SD) RIPPositiveemotions
Intergroupanxiety Resentment
Blatantprejudice
Socialdistance
Culturaldistance
Socialcompetition
Relative ingroupprototypicality (RIP)
1.27 (.66)
Positive emotions 3.16 (.86) �.125��
Intergroup anxiety 2.71 (.81) .070� �.440��
Resentment 3.08 (1.17) .100�� �.400�� 0.246��
Blatant prejudice 2.76 (.93) .127�� �.662�� 0.374�� 0.466��
Social distance 3.00 (1.04) .173�� �.682�� 0.447�� 0.399�� 0.712��
Cultural distance 3.51 (.80) .181�� �.418�� 0.254�� 0.228�� 0.397�� 0.373��
Social competition 3.00 (.97) .163�� �.608�� 0.358�� 0.381�� 0.585�� 0.643�� 0.361��
Realistic competition 3.12 (1.09) .143�� �.589�� 0.306�� 0.455�� 0.728�� 0.628�� 0.333�� 0.581��
Note: M¼mean, SD¼ standard deviation, RIP¼ relative ingroup prototypicality.�p<.05, ��<.001.
990 Thomas Kessler et al.
Finally, we included a single item measure of relative deprivation. This item assessed the feeling of anger about the
relative standing of the ingroup compared to its perceived entitlements (‘Thinking about what Germans deserve and what
we have makes me very angry’; 1¼ not at all to 5¼ very much).
Prejudice as Attitude
We included items assessing blatant as well as subtle forms of prejudice (Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995). In addition, we also
assessed two types of competition tendencies to examine whether the conflict between native Germans and immigrants
was seen to be more about the relative standing or more about material resources.
Subtle prejudice towards the outgroup (intimacy factor) was assessed with five items (e.g. ‘I would generally prefer to
have German teachers’; 1¼ disagree strongly to 5¼ agree strongly), a t1¼ .84 (at2¼ .86).
Blatant prejudice (threat and rejection factor) was assessed with five items derived from Pettigrew and Meertens (e.g.
‘Germans and immigrants will never be really comfortable with each other even if they are close friends’). The internal
consistency of this scale was satisfactory, a t1¼ .78 (at2¼ .82).
Moreover, we measured cultural distance (subtle scale) with four items tapping perceived difference in fundamental
values, work ethic, and the attitudes towards women, a t1¼ .71 (at2¼ .72).
To assess potential behavioural outcomes of prejudice, we included social competition (competition about the relative
standing of the ingroup) and realistic competition (competition about real resources such as jobs or subsidiaries, see for
instance Mummendey, Kessler, Klink, & Mielke, 1999). We measured social competition with three items (e.g. ‘I would
never make any effort to ensure that my group has a better reputation than immigrants’ (reverse coded), a t1¼ .61
(at1¼ .68). Three items tapped realistic competition (e.g. ‘In the next 5 years, we Germans will do everything to ensure
that more money will be invested for Germans’), a t1¼ .83 (at1¼ .85).
The different prejudice and competition measures are derived from different theoretical backgrounds and are intended
to tap various aspects of negative intergroup relations. They are empirically closely related (see Table 1).
RESULTS
In the first step, we examined whether the preconditions of the projection model are given. Then, we analysed the impact of
relative prototypicality on the various emotion and prejudice measures in first wave of our longitudinal study. Moreover,
we also assessed the potential impact of emotions on the prejudice measure and subsequently analysed whether emotions
mediate the influence of relative prototypicality on the prejudice measures. In the final section, we examined the causal
relations between relative prototypicality, emotions and prejudice with a cross lagged panel analysis using our longitudinal
sample.
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 985–997 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/ejsp
![Page 7: We all live in Germany but … Ingroup projection, group-based emotions and prejudice against immigrants](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022082718/575004601a28ab11489e6891/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Group-based emotions and prejudice 991
Check of Preconditions for the Ingroup Projection Model
First, we examined whether preconditions for the application of the ingroup projection model are satisfied in the present
situation. We focus in this analysis on data of the first measurement only.4 For processes of ingroup projection to work,
participants should identify with the ingroup (i.e. Germans) and the superordinate group (i.e. people in Germany). Ingroup
identification shows a mean well above the scale midpoint of 3, M¼ 4.20, t(1054)¼ 42.22, p< .001. Moreover,
identification with the superordinate group is equally strong compared to ingroup identification, M¼ 4.17, t< 1, and also
well above the scale mid point, t(1007)¼ 43.68, p< .001.
The participants evaluated the superordinate category as generally positive, M¼ 3.40, which is significantly above the
scale midpoint, t(1069)¼ 15.80, p< .001. Hence, a higher prototypicality fosters a positive view of an included group.
Effects of Relative Prototypicality
We computed a relative prototypicality score by dividing ingroup prototypicality by outgroup prototypicality. We
computed relative prototypicality as a quotient for two reasons: (1) relative prototypicality denotes the fit of the ingroup
relative to the fit of an outgroup for a common superordinate category which is best represented as a quotient. (2) the
representation of relative prototypicality as a quotient enables us to control for the single prototypicality scores which
would not be possible if we would have computed a difference score (note, a difference score and its constituents are
redundant, one number always drops out in a regression analysis, see Ullrich, 2009 for an extended discussion of relative
prototypicality as a difference score). In several regression analyses we examined whether this relative prototypicality
score predicts emotions and prejudice over and above the single ingroup and outgroup prototypicality (see Table 2). In line
with our predictions, relative ingroup prototypicality predicts significantly the different emotion measures. Relative
prototypicality is positively associated with intergroup anxiety and with feelings of being disadvantaged, and negatively
with positive emotions.5 Moreover, relative ingroup prototypicality relates significantly to the different prejudice and
competition measures. Relative ingroup prototypicality relates positively to blatant prejudice, social distance, cultural
distance, social competition and to realistic competition.
Intergroup Emotions and Prejudice
Finally, the different intergroup emotions predict aspects of intergroup conflict. In a series of regression analyses we
examined the unique contribution of the three emotion measures in predicting prejudice and competition measures (see
Table 2). Positive intergroup emotions relate negatively with social distance, blatant prejudice, cultural distance, social
competition and realistic competition. Intergroup anxiety relates positively to social distance, blatant prejudice, cultural
distance, social competition, and not to realistic competition. The feeling of relative deprivation associates positively with
social distance, blatant prejudice, marginally with cultural distance, social competition, and realistic competition.
Intergroup Emotions as Mediators of the Effects of Prototypicality
The above results demonstrate that relative ingroup prototypicality effectively predicts intergroup emotions as well as
prejudice. Moreover, intergroup emotions also predict diverse measures of prejudice. This pattern of results is consistent
with the assumption that intergroup emotions may mediate the impact of relative ingroup prototypicality on diverse
prejudice indicators. With structural equation modelling (LISREL 8.30) we set up a saturated model in which relative
4The data of the second measurement will be used basically to assess causal effects with cross lagged panel analyses which is the most appropriateanalysis to assess causality in longitudinal studies. However, the data pattern for the second measurement is basically the same as in the first measurement.5For the sake of simplicity, we only report the coefficients for relative prototypicality. Outgroup prototypicality typically shows a regression coefficientthat is smaller and of the same sign as relative prototypicality and ingroup typicality also shows smaller coefficients but of the opposite sign. Moreover, astepwise inclusion of relative prototypicality leads to significant improvement of the regressions: F-changes range between F(1,1029)¼ 10.45 to 60.95,all ps< .001. Finally, we also checked carefully potential problems of multicollinearity. Although multicollinearity is high, the stress indicators show thatthe results are in an acceptable area.
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 985–997 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/ejsp
![Page 8: We all live in Germany but … Ingroup projection, group-based emotions and prejudice against immigrants](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022082718/575004601a28ab11489e6891/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Table 2. Prediction of prejudice, and intergroup emotions by relative ingroup prototypicality
Standardized b t, df¼ 991–1030 p
Relative ingroup prototypicalitya predictsSocial distance .42 6.85 .001Blatant prejudice .48 7.81 .001Cultural distance .45 7.34 .001Social competition .35 5.62 .001Realistic competition .38 6.10 .001Intergroup anxiety .20 3.23 .001Relative deprivation .21 3.40 .001Positive Emotions �.44 7.25 .001
Positive emotionsb predictSocial distance �.55 21.57 .001Blatant prejudice �.54 20.44 .001Cultural distance �.36 10.77 .001Social competition �.50 17.59 .001Realistic competition �.47 16.46 .001
Intergroup anxietyb predictsSocial distance .17 7.13 .001Blatant prejudice .08 3.17 .001Cultural distance .09 2.85 .005Social competition .10 3.78 .001Realistic competition .03 1.17 .242
Relative deprivationb predictsSocial distance .14 5.69 .001
Blatant prejudice .23 9.57 .001Cultural distance .06 1.86 .060Social competition .15 5.84 .001Realistic competition .26 9.78 .001
aControlled for ingroup and outgroup typicality.bControlled for the other emotion measures.
992 Thomas Kessler et al.
ingroup prototypicality determines (over and above the single prototypicality measure for ingroup and outgroup)
intergroup emotions and prejudice. Intergroup emotions were also assumed to predict prejudice. With this model we
examined the strength of the indirect effects that relative ingroup prototypicality may have on diverse prejudice measures.
The results show that relative ingroup prototypicality has highly significant indirect effects on all prejudice measures:
blatant prejudice, bindirect¼ .22, p< .001, subtle prejudice, bindirect¼ .12, p< .001, cultural distance, bindirect¼ .06,
p< .001, social competition, bindirect¼ .15, p< .001 and realistic competition, bindirect¼ .25, p< .001. However, for all
prejudice measures the direct effect of relative ingroup prototypicality remains significant (except for social competition)
indicating that the mediation is substantial but not complete.
Evaluation of Causality
Although the results of the regression analyses clearly support our assumption that relative prototypicality predicts
intergroup emotions and prejudice, we have to analyse whether this relation is causal. To assess causality in survey
research one has to have longitudinal data with repeated measures of the same variables at two (or more) time points (Cook
& Campbell, 1979; Rogosa, 1980). In a cross-lagged regression approach, one variable measured at a second time point
will be regressed on the same variable measured at a first time point (i.e. the stability of this variable over time) and a
second variable that is assumed to be a causal variable also measured at a first time point (i.e. cross-lagged influence). If
this second variable has a significant regression weight (while simultaneously controlling for the stability of the predicted
variable), one can conclude that it has a causal influence on the predicted variable. With such an approach we can decide
whether the relation between two variables is either negligible (no cross-lagged regression is significant), uni-directional
(only one cross-lagged regression is significant), or bi-directional causal (both cross-lagged regressions are significant).
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 985–997 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/ejsp
![Page 9: We all live in Germany but … Ingroup projection, group-based emotions and prejudice against immigrants](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022082718/575004601a28ab11489e6891/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Table 3. Results of the cross-lagged regression analyses
Variable A Variable B Variable B regressed on Aa Variable A regressed on Bb
Effects of relative prototypicalityRelative prototypicality Positive emotion �.06, p¼ .012 .16, p< .001
Intergroup anxiety �.036, n.s. .04, n.s.Resentment .07, p¼ .016 .12, p< .001Blatant prejudice .05, p¼ .065 .19, p< .001Subtle prejudice .00, n.s. .20, p< .001Cultural distance .03, n.s. .12, p< .001Social competition .05, p¼ .052 .13, p< .001Realistic competition .08, p¼ .002 .15, p< .001
Effects of emotions on prejudicePositive emotions Blatant prejudice �.22, p< .001 �.30, p< .001
Subtle prejudice �.15, p< .001 �.32, p< .001Cultural distance �.24, p< .001 �.12, p< .001Social competition �.27, p< .001 �.20, p< .001Realistic competition �.20, p< .001 �.21, p< .001
Intergroup anxiety Blatant prejudice .06, p¼ .021 .19, p< .001Subtle prejudice .02, n.s. .23, p< .001Cultural distance .07, p¼ .009 .16, p< .001Social competition .08, p¼ .004 .15, p< .001Realistic competition .08, p¼ .002 .16, p< .001
Resentment Blatant prejudice .12, p< .001 .35, p< .001Subtle prejudice .07, p¼ .002 .32, p< .001Cultural distance .11, p< .001 .15, p< .001Social competition .13, p< .001 .28, p< .001Realistic competition .11, p< .001 .36, p< .001
Effects of emotions on emotionsPositive emotions Intergroup anxiety �.20, p< .001 �.09, p¼ .001
Resentment �.26, p< .001 �.13, p< .001Intergroup anxiety resentment .16, p< .001 .08, p¼ .006
Effects of prejudice on prejudiceBlatant prejudice Subtle prejudice .14, p< .001 .32, p< .001
Cultural distance .22, p< .001 .04, n.s.Social competition .31, p< .001 .16, p< .001Realistic competition .27, p< .001 .19, p< .001
Subtle prejudice Cultural distance .20, p< .001 .04, p¼ .088Social competition .32, p< .001 .09, p¼ .001Realistic competition .28, p< .001 .13, p< .001
Cultural distance Social competition .15, p< .001 .11, p< .001Realistic competition .10, p< .001 .18, p< .001
Social competition Realistic competition .16, p< .001 .29, p< .001
Note: aVariable B (time 2) regressed on A (time 1 controlling B time 1).bVariable A (time 2) regressed on B (time 1 controlling A time 1)
Group-based emotions and prejudice 993
We computed cross-lagged regressions for each pair of variables. The results of these cross-lagged regression analyses (see
Table 3) show that most of the relationships between relative prototypicality, intergroup emotions and the various forms of
prejudice and competition are bi-directional. Only seven out of 36 possible relations are not bi-directional, and only one shows
no causal relation at all (relative prototypicality and intergroup anxiety). Moreover, relative ingroup prototypicality does not
seem to be a very strong causal factor because it fails to show significant cross-lagged relationships for five outcome variables.
DISCUSSION
The immigration context is a prime context in which assumptions of the ingroup projection model (Mummendey &
Wenzel, 1999) can be examined. The indigenous majority and immigrant groups are integrated within a common society
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 985–997 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/ejsp
![Page 10: We all live in Germany but … Ingroup projection, group-based emotions and prejudice against immigrants](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022082718/575004601a28ab11489e6891/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
994 Thomas Kessler et al.
that provides the frame of reference for the evaluation of the included groups. The results of our study demonstrate that our
participants identify as majority members as well as with the society at whole. Thus, the society as the inclusive group provides
the reference frame for the evaluation of majority group and immigrants groups. Moreover, the inclusive category is basically
evaluated positively, revealing that it is a positive frame of reference in which higher relative prototypicality leads to a more
positive evaluation. Taken together, the preconditions for ingroup projection were clearly satisfied in the present context.
The results of the cross sectional analyses reveal that relative ingroup (i.e. majority group) prototypicality predicts
intergroup emotions, intergroup anxiety and resentment as well as various measures of prejudice (blatant and subtle
prejudice, cultural distance) and competitive behaviour over and above the single prototypicality of ingroup and outgroup
for the whole society. This extends the range of possible effects of relative ingroup prototypicality from group evaluation
and behavioural intentions (e.g. contact intentions) to group-based emotions, prejudice and competitive behaviour.
Moreover, the effectiveness of relative prototypicality as a determinant of intergroup emotions (positive emotions and
resentment) indicates that these emotions are truly intergroup or group-based emotions (Smith, Seger, & Mackie, 2007), in
contrast to individual emotions. This is because relative prototypicality is a genuine intergroup appraisal in which
individual concerns are absent.
The present study examined for the first time whether relative ingroup prototypicality causally influences several
outcome measures. The cross lagged panel analyses indicate that relative ingroup prototypicality has some significant
cross lagged effects on emotions, prejudice and competitive behaviour confirming that relative ingroup prototypicality has
causal precedence on these variables. However, our cross lagged panel analyses also show that the reverse causality also
holds, and usually more strongly. This means that relative ingroup prototypicality not only influences emotions, prejudice
and competitive behaviour but is also influenced by them. However, the influence of relative prototypicality on emotion
and prejudice is smaller than the reverse causal impact. This is consistent with the assumption that people may justify their
prejudice by referring to the relatively lower typicality of their targets of prejudice (e.g. Turner, 2005). Moreover, group-
based emotions, prejudice and competitive behaviour also are linked in a bi-directional way, and here the relationships
were equally strong in each direction, taken as a whole. This indicates that changes in one of these variables will also lead
to changes in these other variables.
Given these results, we like to suggest that the assumption of a clear linear causal sequence of relative prototypicality,
emotions and prejudice may be too simple. We speculate that relative prototypicality, intergroup emotions and prejudice
form a ‘belief system’ in which the components are reciprocally related (Kessler & Mummendey, 2002). The results
clearly indicate that most relations between relative ingroup prototypicality, different intergroup emotions and different
prejudice measures are reciprocally causal. Thus, the more relative prototypical the majority members perceive their group
to be, the less positive emotions they feel and the more relative deprivation, blatant prejudice and tendencies to compete
against immigrants they acknowledge. However, the reverse holds, too: the more majority members endorse blatant
prejudice, the more they entertain subtle prejudice, competitive tendencies, negative intergroup emotions and the more
they perceive their group as relatively prototypical.
Our findings suggest a bi-directional causal link between our measures. However, the measures were explicit and some
are also very direct measures. This may raise the issue of social desirability. Thus, our participants might have the tendency
to express their prejudice balanced with whatever they think is normative. To put more directly, prejudice and societal
norms correlate very highly (Crandall, Eshleman, & O’Brian, 2002). However, this close relation between societal norms
and prejudice is not necessarily a measurement problem but part of a conception of prejudice because prejudice can be
seen as socially shared (e.g. Allport, 1954). Moreover, participants may feel the urge to justify their evaluations (of
outgroups) which may explain the strong reverse causal influence from prejudice to relative ingroup prototypicality. This
tendency to express consistent attitudes may apply only to explicit beliefs and thoughts but it may also extend to more
implicit beliefs as well (Gawronski & Bodenhausen, 2006).
One critical issue is whether our various measures represent different underlying constructs or whether they represent
only one underlying dimension. Here we would like to argue that the strong effects in the cross-lagged regression analyses
indicate that we in fact measured different underlying constructs. If two variables were the same, they would be redundant
and, hence, the change in one variable could not depend on the other variable. In contrast, as most of the variables are
reliable causes for change in the other variables, this indicates that, although they overlap, the variables represent different
constructs (or at least, different facets of one more global construct).
The results of this study clearly favour a ‘belief systems’ approach with bi-directional causal relations between the
components. Such belief systems approaches are also found in political psychology as image theory. Image theory
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 985–997 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/ejsp
![Page 11: We all live in Germany but … Ingroup projection, group-based emotions and prejudice against immigrants](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022082718/575004601a28ab11489e6891/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Group-based emotions and prejudice 995
proposes that individuals entertain general belief systems about the relations between ingroup and outgroup (Alexander,
Brewer, & Hermann, 1999). The perception of the intergroup relations, assumptions about the relative strengths of the
groups, cultural values and behavioural tendencies are proposed to form a consistent representation. If one component of
the belief system is triggered, the rest of the belief system will become activated. However, the tacit assumption that the
relations between components of such belief systems are bi-directionally causal has, to our knowledge, not been tested yet.
Our study fills in this gap, by revealing the bi-directional causal relations between ingroup prototypicality, intergroup
emotions and prejudice.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The present work demonstrates that perceived relative ingroup prototypicality not only predicts but also causally
influences intergroup emotions, prejudice and competitive behaviour. Majority members perceive that immigrants are part
of the whole society. However, this inclusion means that immigrants are evaluated according to the standards of the
society, at least as they are perceived by the majority. Hence, our participants might have had in mind that ‘we all live in
Germany, but we are more typical Germans than you (the immigrants); therefore we feel negatively towards you and
evaluate you negatively’. An important question for future research is how people have to perceive the common society in
order to feel less negative about immigrants and—possibly—evaluate the difference between majority members and
immigrants more favourably.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The studies reported here were conducted within a research project supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
(DFG; MU 551/25-1 u. MU 551/25-3), Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and the Belgium Science
Foundation (Fonds National de la Recherche Scientifique). We are grateful to Immo Fritsche for his helpful comments and
suggestions on an earlier draft.
REFERENCES
Alexander, M. G., Brewer, M. B., & Herrmann, R. K. (1999). Images and affect: A functional analysis of out-group stereotypes. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 78–93.
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.BAMF (Bundesamt fur Migration und Fluchtlinge). (2006). Teilstatistik Auslanderzahlen. Retrieved 29.11.2006 http://www.bamf.de/
cln_043/nn_564242/SharedDocs/Anlagen/DE/DasBAMF/Downloads/Statistik/statistik-auflage14-2-auslaendezahlen.htmlBrown, R. (1995). Prejudice. Its social psychology. Oxford: Blackwell.Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Cottrell, C. A., & Neuberg, S. L. (2005). Different emotional reactions to different groups: A sociofunctional threat-based approach to
‘‘Prejudice’’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 770–789.Crandall, C. S., Eshleman, A., & O’Brien, L. (2002). Social norms and the expression and suppression of prejudice: The struggle for
internalization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 359–378.Crosby, F. (1976). A model of egoistical relative deprivation. Psychological Review, 83, 85–113.Dijker, A. J. (1987). Emotional reactions to ethnic minorities. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 305–325.Dumont, M., Yzerbyt, V., Wigboldus, D., & Gordijn, E. H. (2003). Social categorization and fear reactions to the September 11th
terrorist attacks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1509–1520.Esses, V. M., Dovidio, J. F., Jackson, L. M., & Armstrong, T. L. (2001). The immigration dilemma: The role of perceived group
competition, ethnic prejudice, and national identity. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 389–412.Gawronski, B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2006). Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: An integrative review of implicit
and explicit attitude change. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 692–731.
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 985–997 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/ejsp
![Page 12: We all live in Germany but … Ingroup projection, group-based emotions and prejudice against immigrants](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022082718/575004601a28ab11489e6891/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
996 Thomas Kessler et al.
Gordijn, E. H., Wigboldus, D., & Yzerbyt, V. (2001). Emotional consequences of categorizing victims of negative outgroup behavior asingroup or outgroup. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 4, 317–326.
Islam, M. R., & Hewstone, M. (1993). Dimensions of contact as predictors of intergroup anxiety, perceived outgroup variability, andoutgroup attitude: An integrative model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 700–710.
Kessler, T., & Hollbach, S. (2005). Group based emotion as determinants of ingroup identification. Journal of Experimental SocialPsychology, 41, 677–685.
Kessler, T., & Mummendey, A. (2002). Sequential or parallel processes? A longitudinal field study concerning determinants of identitymanagement strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 75–88.
Leach, C. W., Ayer, A., & Pederson, A. (2007). Angry opposition to government redress: When the structurally advantaged perceivethemselves as relatively deprived. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 191–204.
Mackie, D. M., & Smith, E. R. (2002). From prejudice to intergroup relations: Differentiated reactions to social groups. New York:Psychology Press.
McConahay, J. B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the modern racism scale. In J. F. Dovidio, & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.),Prejudice, discrimination and racism (pp. 91–125). New York: Academic Press.
Mummendey, A., & Wenzel, M. (1999). Social discrimination and tolerance in intergroup relations: Reactions to intergroup difference.Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 158–174.
Mummendey, A., & Kessler, T. (2008). Akzeptanz oder Ablehnung von Andersartigkeit. Die Beziehung zwischen Zuwanderern undEinheimischen aus einer sozialpsychologischen Perspektive. [Acceptance and rejection of differentness. Exploring the relationbetween immigrants and native population from a social psychological perspective]. Kolner Zeitschrift fur Soziologie undSozialpsychologie, 48, 513–528.
Mummendey, A., Kessler, T., Klink, A., & Mielke, R. (1999). Strategies to cope with negative social identity: Predictions by socialidentity theory and relative deprivation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 229–245.
OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2006). Trends in international migration and migration politics.Retrived 29.11.2006 http://www.oecd.org/document/8/0,2340,en_2649_33931_36855048_1_1_1_1,00.html
Paolini, S., Hewstone, M., Cairns, E., & Voci, A. (2006). Effects of direct and indirect cross-group friendships on judgments of catholicsand protestants in northern Ireland: The mediating role of an anxiety-reduction mechanism. Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 30, 770–786.
Pettigrew, T. F., Christ, O., Wagner, U., Meertens, R. W., van Dick, R., & Zick, A. (2008). Relative deprivation and intergroup prejudice.Journal of Social Issues, 64, 385–401.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Meertens, R. W. (1995). Subtle and blatant prejudice in Western Europe. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25,57–75.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,90, 751–783.
Reynolds, K. J., Turner, J. C., & Haslam, S. A. (2000). When are we better than them and they worse than us? A closer look at socialdiscrimination in positive and negative domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 64–80.
Rogosa, D. (1980). A critique of cross-lagged correlation. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 245–258.Runciman, W. G. (1966). Relative deprivation and social justice: A study of attitudes to social inequality in twentieth-century England.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Smith, E. R. (1993). Social identity and social emotions: Toward new conceptualizations of prejudice. In D. M. Mackie, & D. L.
Hamilton (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and stereotyping: Interactive processes in group perception (pp. 297–315). San Diego, CA, USA:Academic Press.
Smith, E. R. (1999). Affective and cognitive implications of a group becoming part of the self: New models of prejudice and of the self-concept. In D. Abrams, & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity and social cognition (pp. 193–196). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Smith, E. R., & Ho, C. (2002). Prejudice as intergroup emotion. Integrating relative deprivation and social comparison explanations ofprejudice. In I. Walker, & H. J. Smith (Eds.), Relative deprivation. Specification, development and integration (p. 332–348).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, E. R., Seger, C. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2007). Can emotions be truly group level? Evidence regarding four conceptual criteria.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 431–446.
Smith, H. J., Cronin, T., & Kessler, T. (2008). Anger, fear, or sadness: Faculty members’ emotional reactions to collective paydisadvantage. Political Psychology, 29, 221–246.
Stephan, W. S., & Stephan, C. W. (1985). Intergroup anxiety. Journal of Social Issues, 41, 157–175.Stephan, W. S., & Stephan, C. W. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice anddiscrimination (pp. 23–46). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Stephan, W. S., Stephan, C. W., & Gudykust, W. B. (2000). Anxiety in intergroup relations: A comparison of anxiety/uncertaintymanagement theory and integrated threat theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23, 613–628.
Turner, J. (2005). Explaining the nature of power. A three-process theory. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 1–22.Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (Eds.). (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. New York: Blackwell.
Ullrich, J. (2009). Reconsidering the ’relative’ in relative ingroup prototypicality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 299–310.Ullrich, J., Christ, O., & Schluter, E. (2006). Merging on mayday: Subgroup and superordinate identification as joint moderators of
threat effects in the context of European Union’s expansion. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 857–876.
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 985–997 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/ejsp
![Page 13: We all live in Germany but … Ingroup projection, group-based emotions and prejudice against immigrants](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022082718/575004601a28ab11489e6891/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Group-based emotions and prejudice 997
Vanneman, R. D., & Pettigrew, T. F. (1972). Race and relative deprivation in the urban United States. Race, 13, 461–486.Voci, A., & Hewstone, M. (2003). Intergroup contact and prejudice toward immigrants in Italy: The mediational role of anxiety and the
moderational role of group salience. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6, 37–52.Waldzus, S., Mummendey, A., Wenzel, M., & Boettcher, F. (2004). Of bikers, teachers and Germans: Groups’ diverging views about
their prototypicality. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 385–400.Waldzus, S., Mummendey, A., Wenzel, M., & Weber, U. (2003). Towards tolerance: representations of superordinate categories and
perceived ingroup prototypicality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 31–47.Wenzel, M., Mummendey, A., & Waldzus, S. (2008). Superordinate identities and intergroup conflict: The ingroup projection model.European Review of Social Psychology, 18, 331–372.
Wenzel, M., Mummendey, A., Weber, U., & Waldzus, S. (2003). The ingroup as pars pro toto: Projection from the ingroup onto theinclusive category as a precursor to social discrimination. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 461–473.
Yzerbyt, V., Dumont, M., Wigboldus, D., & Gordijn, E. (2003). I feel for us: The impact of categorization and identification on emotionsand action tendencies. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 533–549.
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 985–997 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/ejsp