Minorities gain acceptance by foregrounding traits valued in the superordinate group

Evidence

This position is consistent with the in-group projection model of Wenzel et al. (2007), which holds that the superordinate group supplies the basis for comparing and differentiating in-group from out-group, or for integrating the (former) out-group into the in-group. Favorable (ingroup) features are projected onto the superordinate group, and the minority will be valued to the extent that it possesses these features. As such, it is essential that minority group members, whether ingroup or out-group, draw attention to their fit with features of the superordinate category and avoid comparisons involving the features that were responsible for their nonmajority status in the first place. Differences between out-group features and those projected onto the prototype (the superordinate group) are the bases for out-group rejection and discrimination. — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1425

Categorization

Category: Definitional Content

• DEFINE: Explains the in-group projection model: how the majority prototype becomes the yardstick by which minorities are valued or rejected.

Related

• Groups are judged by fit with a superordinate prototype that favors the majority (similarity 0.92)
• Minority influence requires majority acceptance of the minority as legitimate in-group (similarity 0.87)
• Distinct minority group members show higher satisfaction and self-esteem than majorities. (similarity 0.82)
• In-group minorities out-persuade in-group majorities on objective but undecided judgment tasks (similarity 0.80)
• Social identity derives its value from comparisons against out-groups (similarity 0.80)
• Majority members contrast with in-groups while minorities assimilate with them (similarity 0.80)
• In-groups acquire definition only through comparison and contrast with out-groups (similarity 0.80)
• Minority influence on majorities requires social legitimacy, which stigmatized groups cannot attain (similarity 0.79)
• Valuing one’s in-group does not inevitably produce out-group discrimination (similarity 0.79)
• In-group identity is defined only through contrast with out-groups (similarity 0.78)
• Numeric underrepresentation alone poorly captures what makes a minority group. (similarity 0.78)
• Inclusion and differentiation needs counterbalance each other in group identification (similarity 0.78)
• Reframing outgroups as part of a shared superordinate identity reduces bias (similarity 0.78)