Show simple item record

[journal article]

dc.contributor.authorSindic, Denisde
dc.contributor.authorReicher, Stephen D.de
dc.date.accessioned2011-09-25T02:50:00Zde
dc.date.accessioned2012-08-29T23:02:21Z
dc.date.available2012-08-29T23:02:21Z
dc.date.issued2008de
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/26753
dc.description.abstractOf bikers, teachers and Germans: Groups’ diverging views about their prototypicality. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 385–400] have shown that ingroup members often tend to judge the ingroup as more prototypical of the superordinate group than other subgroups. In this paper, we argue that, in addition to the motivational processes that have been posited to explain this phenomenon, prototypicality judgments may vary according to instrumental considerations. In particular, those who believe their ingroup interest to be undermined by remaining part of the common group will downplay ingroup’s prototypicality as a way to sustain their separatist position. In a first study (N = 63), we found that Scottish respondents who support Scottish independence judged the Scots to be less prototypical of Britain than the English, as compared with Scots who do not support independence. In a second study (N = 191), we manipulated the rhetorical context within which prototypicality judgments were made. Results showed that the pattern found in study 1 only applied when the issue of independence was made salient. When the issue of the importance of Scottish history in Britain was made salient, the opposite pattern appeared, i.e. supporters of independence judged the Scots more prototypical than the English compared to non-supporters. These results were also interpreted in instrumental terms. [author's abstract]en
dc.languageende
dc.subject.ddcPsychologyen
dc.subject.ddcPsychologiede
dc.subject.otherGroup prototypicality; Ingroup projection; Instrumental; Social identity; Self-categorization; Independence
dc.titleThe instrumental use of group prototypicality judgmentsen
dc.description.reviewbegutachtet (peer reviewed)de
dc.description.reviewpeer revieweden
dc.source.journalJournal of Experimental Social Psychologyde
dc.source.volume44de
dc.source.issue6de
dc.subject.classozSocial Psychologyen
dc.subject.classozSozialpsychologiede
dc.identifier.urnurn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-267533de
dc.date.modified2011-09-26T09:42:00Zde
dc.rights.licencePEER Licence Agreement (applicable only to documents from PEER project)de
dc.rights.licencePEER Licence Agreement (applicable only to documents from PEER project)en
ssoar.gesis.collectionSOLIS;ADISde
ssoar.contributor.institutionhttp://www.peerproject.eu/de
internal.status3de
dc.type.stockarticlede
dc.type.documentjournal articleen
dc.type.documentZeitschriftenartikelde
dc.rights.copyrightfde
dc.source.pageinfo1425-1435
internal.identifier.classoz10706
internal.identifier.journal199de
internal.identifier.document32
internal.identifier.ddc150
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.05.007de
dc.description.pubstatusPostprinten
dc.description.pubstatusPostprintde
internal.identifier.licence7
internal.identifier.pubstatus2
internal.identifier.review1
internal.check.abstractlanguageharmonizerCERTAIN
internal.check.languageharmonizerCERTAIN_RETAINED


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record