Origins
The common ingroup identity model (Gaertner et al., 1993) held that recategorizing "us" and "them" into one superordinate group reduces bias. Mummendey and Wenzel (1999) highlighted a different possibility. Evaluating a difference requires a standard of comparison, and that standard is the shared superordinate category. When Germans and Poles are both Europeans, for example, Germans who regard German traits as truly European will see Polish differences not as mere differences but as deviations from the norm. Projecting ingroup traits onto the superordinate category in this way is called ingroup projection.
Evidence
Wenzel and colleagues (2003) showed across several group pairs, including Germans and Poles and business and psychology students, that the more people saw their own group as representative of the superordinate category, the more negative their attitudes toward the outgroup. This connects to the motive for positive distinctiveness in social identity theory. Bianchi and colleagues (2010) used reaction-time tasks to show that people automatically associate their own nation's traits more strongly with "European," suggesting projection is not only a conscious judgment. Wenzel and colleagues (2007) synthesized this evidence, concluding that stronger superordinate identity can actually increase projection and discrimination.
Conditions for tolerance
Waldzus and colleagues (2003) showed that representing the superordinate category not as a single prototype but as a diverse whole reduces ingroup projection and increases tolerance toward the outgroup. Projection also weakens when the superordinate prototype is unclear or ill-defined. Hornsey and Hogg (2000) proposed a dual identity approach that maintains subgroup identities alongside the superordinate identity rather than erasing them. The model helps explain how majorities monopolize national identity and see minorities as less authentic citizens, as well as problems such as collective narcissism.
FAQ
- What is the ingroup projection model in simple terms?
- Even when everyone is said to be part of the same nation, each group may take its own ways as the standard of a true member and see other groups as less authentic and inferior.
- How does it differ from the common ingroup identity model?
- The common ingroup identity model says a shared superordinate group reduces bias, while the ingroup projection model says the superordinate group can become a standard for discrimination and increase bias.
Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26
References
- Mummendey, A., & Wenzel, M. (1999). Social discrimination and tolerance in intergroup relations: Reactions to intergroup difference. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(2), 158–174. The theoretical paper that launched the model.
- Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993). The common ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. European Review of Social Psychology, 4(1), 1–26. The contrasting common ingroup identity model.
- Wenzel, M., Mummendey, A., Weber, U., & Waldzus, S. (2003). The ingroup as pars pro toto: Projection from the ingroup onto the inclusive category as a precursor to social discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(4), 461–473. Key evidence linking projection to discrimination.
- 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(1), 31–47. Complex superordinate representations reduce projection.
- Wenzel, M., Mummendey, A., & Waldzus, S. (2007). Superordinate identities and intergroup conflict: The ingroup projection model. European Review of Social Psychology, 18(1), 331–372. The definitive review of the ingroup projection model.
- Bianchi, M., Mummendey, A., Steffens, M. C., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2010). What do you mean by "European"? Evidence of spontaneous ingroup projection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(7), 960–974. Evidence that ingroup projection occurs spontaneously.
- Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000). Assimilation and diversity: An integrative model of subgroup relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(2), 143–156. An integrative model of subgroup and superordinate identity.