European Journal of Social Psychology

Hamilton, David L.

doi: 10.1002/ejsp.436pmid: N/A

Recent developments in the study of group perception have been guided by four concepts: homogeneity, essentialism, agency, and entitativity. Research on these topics has broadened the scope of questions asked, issues studied, and explanatory mechanisms that are important in the perception of groups. This article summarizes each concept, discusses its contribution to understanding group perception, and highlights unresolved questions that need investigation. Possible conceptual interpretations of the relations among these concepts and their relationship to stereotyping are then discussed. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Correll, Joshua; Park, Bernadette; Judd, Charles M.; Wittenbrink, Bernd

doi: 10.1002/ejsp.450pmid: N/A

Using a videogame to simulate encounters with potentially hostile targets, three studies tested a model in which racial bias in shoot/don't‐shoot decisions reflects accessibility of the stereotype linking Blacks to danger. Study 1 experimentally manipulated the race‐danger association by asking participants to read newspaper stories about Black (vs. White) criminals. As predicted, exposure to stories concerning Black criminals increased bias in the decision to shoot. Studies 2 and 3 manipulated the number of White and Black targets with and without guns in the context of the videogame itself. As predicted, frequent presentation of stereotypic (vs. counterstereotypic) targets exacerbated bias (Study 2) and—consistent with our process account—rendered stereotypes more accessible (Study 3). Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Sani, Fabio; Bowe, Mhairi; Herrera, Marina; Manna, Cristian; Cossa, Tiziana; Miao, Xiulou; Zhou, Yuefang

doi: 10.1002/ejsp.430pmid: N/A

This paper presents two studies, conducted in two different countries, investigating perceptions of ingroups as enduring, temporally persistent entities, and introduces a new instrument measuring ‘perceived collective continuity’ (PCC). In Study 1 we show that perceptions of ingroup continuity are based on two main dimensions: perceived cultural continuity (perceived continuity of norms and traditions) and perceived historical continuity (perceived interconnection between different historical ages and events). This study also allows the construction of an internally consistent PCC scale including two subscales tapping on these two dimensions. Study 2 replicates findings from the first study; it also reveals that PCC is positively correlated to a set of social identity‐related measures (e.g., group identification and collective self‐esteem), and that its effects on these measures are mediated by perceived group entitativity. Overall, these two studies confirm that PCC is an important theoretical construct, and that the PCC scale may become an important instrument in future research on group processes and social identity. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Oldmeadow, Julian; Fiske, Susan T.

doi: 10.1002/ejsp.428pmid: N/A

High‐status outgroups tend to be stereotyped as competent, while low‐status groups tend to be stereotyped as incompetent. These stereotypes provide legitimacy to hierarchical social systems. However, research to date has tended to focus on the socio‐structural correlates and cross‐cultural stability of these stereotypes, emphasising universality over malleability. The current research demonstrates that, although strong, the association between status and competence, but not status and warmth, is moderated by ideological beliefs and attitudes towards inequality. In two studies, participants high in belief in a just world (BJW) or social dominance orientation (SDO) were more likely than those low in BJW or SDO to view a high‐status target as more competent than a low‐status target. Findings support the view that status stereotypes justify social inequalities, and demonstrate that they are sensitive to ideological orientations. Implications for theory and research on status and power stereotypes are discussed. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Biernat, Monica; Eidelman, Scott

doi: 10.1002/ejsp.432pmid: N/A

Letters of recommendation typically use subjective language that is open to interpretation. In three studies, participants “translated” letters of recommendation for female and male applicants written by sexist, anti‐sexist, or “control” professors. Predictions were based on the shifting standards model [Biernat, Manis, & Nelson, 1991], the attributional principle of augmentation [Kelley, 1971, and models of “correction” for contamination [e.g., Wilson & Brekke, 1994]. Participants translated equivalent letters as indicating lesser ability in female than male applicants, particularly when the letter writer was described as sexist, but own impressions of the candidate diverged from those of the sexist writer. Differential standard use and attributional augmentation did not appear to be responsible for these effects. Instead, writer sexism triggered dislike and corrective processes in impression formation. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Gonsalkorale, Karen; Williams, Kipling D.

doi: 10.1002/ejsp.392pmid: N/A

Previous research has shown that ostracism even by outgroup members is aversive. In this study we examined whether ostracism by a particular type of outgroup, a despised outgroup, was sufficient to inflict emotional distress. We manipulated ostracism using Cyberball, an on‐line ball toss game. Ostracized participants reported lower levels of belonging, self‐esteem, control, and meaningful existence, and more negative mood, than included participants. Moreover, ostracism by despised outgroup members was no less aversive than ostracism by rival outgroup or ingroup members. Participants differentiated between the groups, however; ostracized individuals reported greater outgroup negativity than included participants only when their co‐players were members of the despised outgroup. We interpret these results as evidence for the powerful impact of ostracism and the potential importance of distinguishing between qualitatively different outgroups. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Tarrant, Mark; Campbell, Ewan

doi: 10.1002/ejsp.441pmid: N/A

Two studies tested the hypothesis that responses to within‐group criticism are influenced by perceptions of a critic's prior adherence to ingroup norms. Participants responded to criticism which originated from ingroup members who either had previously adhered to or deviated from a group norm. Across both studies, criticising the ingroup yielded more negative group evaluations for antinormative members than it did for normative members. Participants also reported highest levels of sensitivity overall to communication (whether critical or praising of the ingroup) which came from antinormative members. Mediational analyses (Study 2) indicated that these effects were driven by perceptions of whether the communication violated a group expectation, and also perceptions of the critic's identification with the group. Study 1 also provided evidence that reactions to criticism are made in response to social identity concerns: the effects of prior norm adherence were observed only in participants who were highly identified with the ingroup. The research integrates previous work on group deviance and responses to criticism by elaborating the conditions under which criticism originating from within a group is most and least likely to be tolerated by its members. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Rubini, Monica; Moscatelli, Silvia; Albarello, Flavia; Palmonari, Augusto

doi: 10.1002/ejsp.391pmid: N/A

This experiment (N = 239) investigated the effects of group power and legitimacy of power differentials on intergroup discrimination, measured through negative outcome allocations and linguistic abstraction. Furthermore, it examined the mechanisms through which group power affects discrimination by testing the mediating role of perceived interdependence and social identification. Three power conditions were created by modifying the standard minimal group paradigm: equal, high and low power conditions. Power was directly proportional (legitimate conditions) or inversely proportional (illegitimate conditions) to group members' performance in a problem‐solving task. Results showed that intergroup discrimination in the high and low power conditions was higher than in the equal power condition on both the allocation and the linguistic measures. Legitimacy moderated the effect of group power on negative outcome allocations, while it had a main effect on the linguistic abstraction. In addition, perceived interdependence turned out to be the main mediator of the effect of power on negative outcome allocations. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Sibley, Chris G.; Liu, James H.

doi: 10.1002/ejsp.459pmid: N/A

Four studies examined explicit and implicit perceptions of ethnicity and nationhood in New Zealand (NZ). NZ Europeans/Pakeha (the majority group) endorsed a bicultural perspective and explicitly rated both their own ingroup and Maori (the indigenous peoples of NZ) as contributing equally to NZ national identity and culture (Study 1). Contrary to the divergence between explicit and implicit ethnic‐national associations observed in the USA, implicit associations in NZ were generally consistent with explicitly stated values. Pakeha and Maori, but not Asian New Zealanders, were both strongly implicitly associated with the national category ‘NZ’ (Studies 1–3), although this general tendency was qualified by weak levels of ingroup favoritism from all three ethnic groups (Study 2). Finally, the small tendency for Pakeha to implicitly associate their ingroup more strongly with NZ was erased by using moderately well‐known Pakeha and Maori rugby players as targets (Study 4). These findings contrast with the American = White implicit associations described by Devos and Banaji (2005), and provide insight into the ways in which socio‐cultural realities foster convergence or divergence between explicit and implicit beliefs about equality and the function of ethnicity in nationhood. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

van Prooijen, Jan‐Willem; Lam, Jerôme

doi: 10.1002/ejsp.421pmid: N/A

In the current research, the authors investigate the influence of intergroup status and social categorizations on retributive justice judgments, that is, the extent to which observers perceive punishment as fair. Building on social identity theory and the model of subjective group dynamics, it is predicted that when the ingroup has higher status than the outgroup, people are relatively less concerned about punishment of an outgroup offender than when the ingroup has lower status than the outgroup. Two experiments revealed that participants are more punitive towards an ingroup than an outgroup offender when ingroup status is high but not when ingroup status is low. Furthermore, in correspondence with our line of reasoning, this finding emerged because participants were less punitive towards outgroup offenders when ingroup status is high than when ingroup status was low. It is concluded that the perceived fairness of punishment depends on the offender's social categorization and intergroup status. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.