European Journal of Social Psychology

SEDIKIDES, CONSTANTINE

doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199703)27:2<121::AID-EJSP808>3.0.CO;2-2pmid: N/A

Perceivers individuate cognitively the ingroup more than the outgroup; that is, perceivers use person categories to process information about the ingroup, but use stereotypic attribute categories to process information about the outgroup. This phenomenon is labelled the differential processing effect (DPE). Is the DPE moderated by relative group status? In two experiments, either high‐ or low‐status members of permeable‐boundary groups (i.e. groups that encourage upward mobility) read through information about unfamiliar ingroup and outgroup members. Relative group status moderated the DPE. Clustering indices in recall and confusions in a name‐matching task indicated that high‐status members individuated the ingroup more than the outgroup, thus replicating the DPE. However, low‐status members individuated the outgroup more than the ingroup, thus reversing the DPE. A third experiment suggested that these findings are predicated on the ingroup information being stereotype‐consistent. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

LINDSTRÖM, PER

doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199703)27:2<145::AID-EJSP811>3.0.CO;2-Cpmid: N/A

A theoretical model for analysing persuasive attempts in discussions with special emphasis on exchanges of political opinions where alleged facts play a salient role, is outlined. It is suggested that alleged facts put forward in a discussion can be categorized according to the degree of correspondence between the participants' judgments. A discussion which revolves around the validity of facts is characterized as an interactive sequence of mutual attempts to either transfer facts or obstruct the transfer of facts, to a category consisting of commonly accepted, reliable and relevant information. The model is applied to the politically delicate controversy over the causes for the stranding of a Soviet submarine near a Swedish naval base in 1981. The contending sides were shown to be extremely unwilling to accept facts introduced in the debate by each other, as both reliable and relevant. Results are discussed by reference to the role of preexisting beliefs in considerations of factual information. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

BLANZ, MATHIAS; MUMMENDEY, AMÉLIE; OTTEN, SABINE

doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199703)27:2<165::AID-EJSP812>3.0.CO;2-3pmid: N/A

Data from several recent studies consistently show a positive–negative asymmetry in social discrimination: within a minimal social situation tendencies towards ingroup favouritism which usually appear in allocations of positively valenced resources are absent in the domain of negatively valenced stimuli. The present study investigates whether this valence‐asymmetry has any correspondence to variations in normative evaluations of positive versus negative outcome allocations. For this purpose perceptions of normative appropriateness as well as frequency expectations of outside observers regarding outcome allocations made by categorized group members were investigated. Results show that parity choices were perceived as more normatively appropriate than out‐ or ingroup favouritism. While outgroup favouritism was judged as inappropriate as ingroup favouritism for positive resources, ingroup favouring decisions for negative resources were perceived as the least appropriate response within the minimal social situation. In addition, in contrast to results of St. Claire and Turner (1982) non‐categorized subjects expected ingroup favouring decisions by group members more frequently than parity or outgroup favouring choices with respect to positively valanced resources. When, however, negative resources were to be allocated, outgroup favouritism was predominantly expected. Results are discussed in terms of justice considerations and are linked to a normative account of the positive‐‐negative asymmetry in social discrimination. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

GAFFIÉ, BERNARD; MARCHAND, PASCAL; CASSAGNE, JEAN‐MICHEL

doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199703)27:2<177::AID-EJSP813>3.0.CO;2-Wpmid: N/A

The question of how political ideology influences the perception of others is central for an understanding of relations between political groups. To characterize how political positions shape social perception, 106 students were selected according to political affinity and asked to describe political groups using either psychological or sociological qualifiers. Right‐wing subjects were more likely to use psychological terms to describe political groups, whereas left‐wing ones preferred sociological descriptors. Students with a right‐wing position reported greatest satisfaction with psychological descriptors, while those with a left‐wing position were more concerned with the relevance of qualifiers for constructing an ‘objective’ perception of reality. These observations confirm the existence of differing inclinations in the perception of social facts and social groups. Such perceptive/cognitive processes, linked to ideological patterns, seem to be inseparable from the contents to which they apply, and express the social positioning and the ideological orientations of their authors. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

MIKULA, GEROLD; FREUDENTHALER, HERIBERT H.; BRENNACHER‐KRÖLL, SIGRUN; SCHILLER‐BRANDL, RENATE

doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199703)27:2<189::AID-EJSP814>3.0.CO;2-Opmid: N/A

Two studies explored the arrangements and rules which are used in the division of household tasks and their frequencies of use with different kinds of tasks. In addition, the studies analysed justice evaluations of the arrangements and rules and the covariation of justice ratings with different kinds of tasks, gender, and relative size of raters' own contributions to the household labour. Data were obtained from two different types of household systems: households of students sharing flats and family households with adolescent children. Eight different arrangements and rules were distinguished. The frequencies of use differed significantly and were influenced by considerations of practicability, usefulness and efficiency. The justice ratings were guided by the ideal of an equal allocation of labour and additionally shaped by functional considerations of applicability and usefulness, and self‐serving tendencies. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

THOMPSON, SUZANNE C.; KOHLES, JEFFREY C.; OTSUKI, TERESA A.; KENT, DOUGLAS R.

doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199703)27:2<209::AID-EJSP815>3.0.CO;2-7pmid: N/A

The outgroup homogeneity phenomenon was examined by having majority group members (White Americans) judge the variability in attitudes about intergroup relations in their own group and one outgroup (African Americans). A preliminary study found the threat of the attitude statements to the group doing the judging seemed to affect whether or not participants showed outgroup or ingroup homogeneity. For the present study, statements about ethnic group relations were prerated to obtain two sets of items that aroused either high or low threat to White Americans. White students judged the homogeneity of these items for their own group and for African Americans. Outgroup homogeneity was found for the low threat items and ingroup homogeneity was found for the high threat items. This study demonstrates that the homogeneity effect depends on the threat of the attitude content to the group doing the judging. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

VAN OVERWALLE, FRANK

doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199703)27:2<221::AID-EJSP821>3.0.CO;2-Kpmid: N/A

The joint model integrates Mill's methods of difference and agreement for making causal attributions, and introduces a novel type of context attributions which reflect the opposite categories of the standard attribution responses provided in previous covariation research external versus the person, general versus the stimulus, and stable versus the occasion). The joint model predicts that attributions to standard causes require Mill's method of difference and that attributions to context causes require Mill's method of agreement. Two empirical studies demonstrated that the joint model fitted adequately with all of subject's standard and context attribution responses, in contrast to earlier theorizing and data involving only the method of difference (cf. Cheng & Novick, 1990) or only the method of agreement (cf. Hilton, Smith & Kim, 1995) which received less empirical support. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

SMITH, JOHN L.; BERRY, NICKY J.; WHITELEY, PAUL

doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199703)27:2<237::AID-EJSP803>3.0.CO;2-7pmid: N/A

Female high and low self‐monitors were interviewed by a female experimenter who adopted either an androgynous or a feminine guise. An analysis of responses scored for femininity yielded a significant interaction between self‐monitoring and interviewer guise which, when subjected to further analysis, revealed a significant simple effect for high self‐monitors but not for low self‐monitors. High self‐monitors scored significantly higher on femininity when with the feminine guise interviewer, but lower when with the androgynous guise interviewer. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.