European identity's effect on immigration attitudes: Testing the predictions of the common Ingroup identity model versus ingroup projection model

Abstract A superordinate identity unites different subgroups into an overarching, common one. But does superordinate identification then improve or worsen attitudes towards the former outgroup? The common ingroup identity model (CIIM) asserts that recategorization ameliorates outgroup bias by reducing perceptions of intergroup threat. It predicts that superordinate identification will improve intergroup relations by promoting tolerance and acceptance of diversity. In contrast, the ingroup project model (IPM) asserts that identifying superordinately will actually exacerbate outgroup bias because ingroup members naturally project their own characteristics onto the superordinate category and will more strongly dislike the former outgroup for not fitting the “correct” superordinate prototype. Existing evidence—largely drawn from psychology lab experiments, not real‐world situations—suggests both models can be correct insofar as ingroup projection only occurs under certain conditions. In that case, which model is correct for European identity? Results from original survey data collected in three European countries (Germany, Poland, and the United Kingdom) show that increased identification with Europe is almost always associated with more favorable attitudes towards outgroup immigrants, even among those most likely to engage in ingroup projection. Future research should continue to investigate when and why this inclusivity does—and does not—hold.