Does personality categorization affect intergroup attitudes via personal values moderation and social identity complexity mediation?
More details
Hide details
Faculty of Psychology, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand
Faculty of Education, Prince of Songkla University, Pattani, Thailand
Submission date: 2022-04-17
Final revision date: 2022-11-05
Acceptance date: 2022-11-22
Online publication date: 2023-01-23
Corresponding author
Penprapa Prinyapol   

Faculty of Education, Prince of Songkla University, Pattani, Thailand
Previous research indicated that social categorization increased intergroup attitude. The current study extended research on social categorization by adopting the multiple personality categorization concept to explore whether it would alter inter-group attitudes toward Muslims and Buddhists.

Participants and procedure:
Study 1 examined multiple personality category perceptions among Buddhist and Muslim students living in the troubled southern provinces. Participants were 382 Thai Buddhist and Muslims students of mean age 20.15 years (SD = 1.01). They took the multiple personality categorization perception scale on outgroup perceived personality. Study 2 evaluated a mediated social identity complexity and a moderated personal value in association between multiple personality categori-zation and intergroup attitudes. Participants were 150 Thai Buddhists and Muslim students of mean age 20.31 years (SD = 0.94). They took the scales of multiple personality categorization: short version, intergroup attitudes, social identity complexity, and personal values. Descriptive statistics, independent t-tests and SEM were used to test hypotheses.

Study 1: Ten shared traits were identified (creative, smart, objective, talented, generous, kind, curious, resourceful, serious, skeptical) by both groups. This brought up awareness of similarity in shared personalities. Study 2: Multiple personality categorization and personal values were linked positively with intergroup attitudes. Personal values affected the links be-tween multiple personality categorization and intergroup attitudes. However, social identity complexity as a mediator was nonsignificant.

Muslim and Buddhist students were stimulated to explore their similarity in personality traits. Educators and policy makers may use the findings on personal values and multiple personality categorization to plan long-term sustainable cooperation between Buddhists and Muslims.

Albarello, F., & Rubini, M. (2012). Reducing dehumanization outcomes towards Blacks: The role of multiple cate-gorization and of human identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 875–882.
Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: a psychological interpretation. Holt.
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.
Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality”. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 47–92). Academic Press.
Anderson, N. H. (1968). Likableness ratings of 555 personality-trait words. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 9, 272–279.
Biernat, M., Vescio, T. K., & Theno, S. (1996). Violating American values: a “value congruence” approach to un-derstanding outgroup attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 387–410.
Boin, J., Fuochi, G., & Voci, A. (2020). Deprovincialization as a key correlate of ideology, prejudice, and intergroup contact. Personality and Individual Differences, 157, 109799. 10.1016/j.paid.2019.109799.
Brewer, M. B., & Pierce, K. P. (2005). Social identity complexity and outgroup tolerance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 428–437.
Byrne, D. (1961). The influence of propinquity and opportunities for interaction on classroom relationships. Hu-man Relations, 14, 63–69.
Cattell, R. B. (1947). Confirmation and clarification of primary personality factors. Psychometrika, 12, 197–220.
Cohrs, J. C., Moschner, B., Maes, J., & Kielmann, S. (2005). The motivational bases of right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation: Relations to values and attitudes in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1425–1434.
Corey, M. S., Corey, G., & Corey, C. (2014). Group: Process and practice (9th ed.). Brooks/Cole.
Crisp, R. J., Hewstone, M., & Rubin, M. (2001). Does multiple categorization reduce intergroup bias? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 76–89.
Crisp, R. J., & Meleady, R. (2012). Adapting to a multicultural future. Science, 336, 853–855.
Daniel, E., Hofmann-Towfigh, N., & Knafo, A. (2013). School values across three cultures: a typology and interrela-tions. SAGE Open, 3.
Davidov, E., Meuleman, B., Billet, J., & Schmidt, P. (2008). Values and support for immigration: a cross-country comparison. European Sociological Review, 24, 583–599.
Deep South Watch (2022). Deep South Watch database: January 2004 – February 2022. Retrieved from [accessed March 30, 2022].
De Raad, B., & Barelds, D. P. (2008). A new taxonomy of Dutch personality traits based on a comprehensive and unrestricted list of descriptors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 347–364.
Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993). The common ingroup identi-ty model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 1–26.
Gandal, N., Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2005). Personal value priorities of economists. Human Rela-tions, 58, 1227–1252.
Ganesan, A., & Carter-Sowell, A. R. (2021). Buffering anti-fat attitudes using contact: The roles of contact quantity, duration, favorability, and intergroup anxiety. Body Image, 38, 120–126.
Halford, G. S., Baker, R., McCredden, J. E., & Bain, J. D. (2005). How many variables can human process? Psycho-logical Science, 16, 70–76.
Hutchison, P., & Rosenthal, H. E. S. (2011). Prejudice against Muslims: Anxiety as a mediator between intergroup contact and attitudes, perceived group variability and behavioral intentions. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 34, 40–61.
Hutter, R. R., & Crisp, R. J. (2006). Implications of cognitive busyness for the perception of category conjunctions. The Journal of Social Psychology, 146, 253–256.
Hutter, R. R., Crisp, R. J., Humphreys, G. W., Waters, G. M., & Moffitt, G. (2009). The dynamics of category con-junctions. Group Process & Intergroup Relations, 12, 673–686.
Hutter, R. R., Wood, C., & Turner, R. N. (2013). Individuation moderates impressions of conflicting categories for slower processors. Social Psychology, 44, 239–247.
Isranews Agency (2017, March 7). The fragile issues of networking Buddhists in the southern border provinces. Re-trieved from
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Press.
Knifsend, C. A., & Juvonen, J. (2014). Social identity complexity, cross-ethic friendships, and intergroup attitudes in urban middle schools. Child Development, 85, 709–721.
Krosnick, J. A. (1991). Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5, 213–236.
Kurdi, B., Mann, T. C., Charlesworth, T. E. S., & Banaji, M. R. (2019). The relationship between implicit intergroup attitudes and beliefs. PNAS, 116, 5862–5871.
Lindeman, M., & Verkasalo, M. (2005). Measuring values with the Short Schwartz’s Value Survey. Journal of Per-sonality Assessment, 85, 170–178.
Miller, K. P., Brewer, M. B., & Arbuckle, N. L. (2009). Social identity complexity: Its correlates and antecedents. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12, 79–94.
Meyers-Levy, J. (1989). Priming effects on product judgments: a hemispheric interpretation. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 76–86.
Myyrya, L., Juujarvi, S., & Pesso, K. (2010). Empathy, perspective taking and personal values as predictors of moral schemas. Journal of Moral Education, 39, 213–233.
Newcomb, T. M. (1956). The prediction of interpersonal attraction. American Psychologist, 11, 575–586.
Oh, S. Y., Bailenson, J., Weisz, E., & Zaki, J. (2016). Virtually old: Embodied perspective taking and the reduction of ageism under threat. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 398–410.
Orth, U. R., & Kahle, L. R. (2008). Intrapersonal variation in consumer susceptibility to normative influence: To-ward a better understanding of brand choice decisions. Journal of Social Psychology, 148, 423–447.
Paluck, E. L., & Green, D. P. (2009). Prejudice reduction: What works? A review and assessment of research and practice. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 339–367.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Academic Press.
Prati, F., Crisp, R. J., Meleady, R., & Rubini, M. (2016). Humanizing outgroups through multiple categorization: The roles of individuation and threat. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42, 526–539.
Prati, F., Crisp, R. J., & Rubini, M. (2015). Counter-stereotypes reduce emotional intergroup bias by eliciting sur-prise in the face of unexpected category combination. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 61, 31–43.
Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W., Gaertner, S. L., McDonald, S. A., & Lamoreaux, M. J. (2010). Does a common ingroup identity reduce intergroup threat? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13, 403–423.
Roccas, S., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). Social identity complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 88–106.
Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S. H., & Knafo, A. (2002). The Big Five personality factors and personal values. Per-sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 789–801.
Sagiv, L., & Schwartz, S. H. (2000). A new look at national culture: Illustrative applications to role stress and mana-gerial behavior. In N. N. Ashkanasy, C. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), The handbook of organizational cul-ture and climate (pp. 417–436). Sage.
Schachter, S. (1951). Deviation, rejection, and communication. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 190–207.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1–65). Academic Press.
Silfver, M., Helkama, K., Lönnqvist, J. E., & Verkasalo, M. (2008). The relation between value priorities and prone-ness to guilt, shame, and empathy. Motivation and Emotion, 32, 69–80.
Souchon, N., Maio, G. R., Hanel, P. H. P., & Bardin, B. (2016). Does spontaneous favorability to power (vs. univer-salism) values predict spontaneous prejudice and discrimination. Journal of Personality, 85, 658–674.
Vanbeselaere, N. (1987). The effect of dichotomous and crossed social categorization upon intergroup discrimina-tion. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 143–156.
Vasiljevic, M., & Crisp, R. J. (2013). Tolerance by surprise: Evidence for a generalized reduction in prejudice and increased egalitarianism through novel category combination. PLoS One, 8, e57106.
Wohl, M. J. A., & Branscombe, N. R. (2005). Forgiveness and collective guilt assignment to historical perpetrator groups depend on level of social category inclusiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 288–303.
Yu-His, C. (n.d.). The Buddhist perception of humility. Retrieved from [accessed May 25, 2022].
Zibenberg, A., & Kupermintz, H. (2016). Personal values and intergroup empathy. Journal of Human Values, 22, 180–193.
Copyright: © Institute of Psychology, University of Gdansk This is an Open Access journal, all articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License (, allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top