Subgroup Relations: A Comparison of Mutual Intergroup Differentiation and Common Ingroup Identity Models of Prejudice Reduction Author Matthew Hornsey, Michael Hogg Publication Year 2000 Type Journal Article Abstract 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. Keywords attitudes, classification, ingroup outgroup, social identity Journal Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin Volume 26 Pages 242-256 Type of Article Journal Article DOI 10.1177/0146167200264010 Full text Participants and Design Seventy-two male and 119 female introductory psychology students [...] were randomly allocated to the four cells of a 2 (superordinate category salient or nonsalient) × 2 (subordinate category salient or nonsalient) between-participants design. Procedure On arrival at the laboratory, participants were reminded of a local issue that was receiving a great deal of public and media interest at the time. The state government had proposed that a large tract of vacant inner city land be converted into a passive recreational park. The participants’ task was to plan what should be included in the park to make it both popular and feasible. They were given a list of 30 objects and services [...] and asked to choose and prioritize the 10 options that they considered to be most essential to the success of the park. In the individual condition, participants were given no priming of their category memberships. In the superordinate condition, participants’ university membership was emphasized and their status as individuals was deemphasized. On the top of the response sheet, participants were given two labels— university student and town planner—and were asked to circle the label that applied to them. Participants in the simultaneous condition were given the instructions for the superordinate condition followed by the instructions for the subordinate condition. Participants in these conditions, then, were led to believe that the experimenters were interested in comparing university students with town planners as well as comparing the performances of the two faculty areas. These participants were given response sheets and questionnaires on which it was possible to circle the labels that best represented both their superordinate (university) and subordinate (humanities or math-science) categories. Participants were given 20 minutes to complete the task, after which questionnaires were distributed. Materials The dependent measures questionnaire had 23 items. Participants were told that after completing the questionnaire they would be performing the task again, but in groups. They then rated the extent to which they agreed with the following statements: [Text A]. Type of Prejudice/Bias Other Country Australia Method Lab Setting College/University Google ScholarDOIBibTeX
