An experiment (n = 61) investigated the effects of ingroup and outgroup homogeneity on ingroup favouritism, stereotyping and the overestimation of relative ingroup size. As predicted, outgroup homogeneity was conducive to ingroup favouritism. Ingroup homogeneity, however, failed to influence ingroup favouritism. Also unexpectedly, asymmetry in group homogeneity — irrespective of whether the ingroup or the outgroup was the more homogeneous group — led to pronounced stereotyping of both groups and to the overestimation of relative ingroup size.

Two studies, one conducted in the Netherlands (N 87) and one in Italy with two samplesÐCatholic Youth (N 41) and Young Communists (N 41)Ðassessed the cross-cultural generality of the previously con®rmed hypothesis (Pepitone & Saotti, 1997) that six universal nonmaterial beliefsÐfate, God, luck, chance, just punishment, and just rewardÐare used selectively to interpret life events. A`selective correspondence' between the six beliefs and the standard life event cases speci®cally constructed to engage the belief-specializations was predicted. All three samples showed the predicted correspondence in terms of signi®cant ordinal correlations in a 6 nonmaterial belief  9 life events classi®cation. In addition, the ®ndings are consistent with the assumption that the degree of selective correspondence depends upon the importance of beliefs in the sample under study.

Jones and Davis's [1965. Advances in experimental social psychology. Academic Press] notion of “personalism” was experimentally tested in a situation in which behavior had negative hedonic relevance for the recipient. It was hypothesized that (1) if a person is attacked by another person, this victim will react more negatively than when no attack occurs and that (2) a victim who is singled out for attack will react more negatively compared with victims of an undistinctive attack (i.e., when the actor behaves similarly toward the victim and a third person). A 2 × 2 design was employed with “Victim of attack” as the first factor (no attack vs. attack) and “Behaviour toward a third person” as the second factor (no attack vs. attack). The main dependent variable was the number of attacks by the victim toward the attacker (retaliation). Thirty‐two students took part in the experiment. Victims of attack retaliated more against the attacker than those who suffered from no attack. Victims of a personalistic attack retaliated more than victims of an undistinctive attack. The results, confirming both hypotheses, support an attributional view on harm‐doing and contradict the notion of retaliation as pure behavioral reciprocity. Aggr. Behav. 25:91–96, 1999. © 1999 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Jones and Davis's [1965. Advances in experimental social psychology. Academic Press] notion of "personalism" was experimentally tested in a situation in which behavior had negative hedonic relevance for the recipient. It was hypothesized that (1) if a person is attacked by another person, this victim will react more negatively than when no attack occurs and that (2) a victim who is singled out for attack will react more negatively compared with victims of an undistinctive attack (i.e., when the actor behaves similarly toward the victim and a third person). A 2 ´ 2 design was employed with "Victim of attack" as the first factor (no attack vs. attack) and "Behaviour toward a third person" as the second factor (no attack vs. attack). The main dependent variable was the number of attacks by the victim toward the attacker (retaliation). Thirty-two students took part in the experiment. Victims of attack retaliated more against the attacker than those who suffered from no attack. Victims of a personalistic attack retaliated more than victims of an undistinctive attack. The results, confirming both hypotheses, support an attributional view on harm-doing and contradict the notion of retaliation as pure behavioral reciprocity. Aggr. Behav. 25:91-96, 1999.

No abstract