Communication of interpersonal evaluations.

Blumberg, Herbert H.

doi:10.1037/h0033027

Cited by 160 publications

(88 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It is also the case that perceivers are less willing to express negative expectancies directly, or even indirectly, because of good manners, charity, or fear of the consequences (Blumberg, 1972;Shrauger, 1982). This pattern has been demonstrated in several studies in which perceivers given a negative (e.g.. cold, unsociable, dull) expectancy about a target behaved even more positively to targets than those given a positive expectancy (Bond, 1972;Ickes, Patterson, Rajecki, & Tanford, 1982;Major et aL, 1986;Swann & Snyder, 1980).…”

Section: Characteristics Of the Expectancymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because most people have generally favorable self-conceptions (Swann, Griffin, & Ely, 1982), it is consistent with their self-identity to confirm a positive expectancy. Furthermore, because most people prefer positive over negative feedback and prefer to have others view them in a positive light (McFarlin & Blascovich, 1981;Shrauger, 1975), confirming a positive expectancy also is consistent with self-presentational concerns.It is also the case that perceivers are less willing to express negative expectancies directly, or even indirectly, because of good manners, charity, or fear of the consequences (Blumberg, 1972;Shrauger, 1982). This pattern has been demonstrated in several studies in which perceivers given a negative (e.g.. cold, unsociable, dull) expectancy about a target behaved even more positively to targets than those given a positive expectancy (Bond, 1972;Ickes, Patterson, Rajecki, & Tanford, 1982;Major et aL, 1986;Swann & Snyder, 1980).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related behavior.

Deaux¹,

Major²

1987

Psychological Review

1,057

802

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A model that describes conditions influencing the display of gender-related behavior is presented as a supplement to existent models of sex differences. Whereas many previous models stress the importance of distal factors, our model emphasizes the degree to which gender-related behavior is variable, proximally caused, and context dependent. More specifically, we propose that gender-related behaviore are influenced by the expectations of perceivers, self-systems of the target, and situational cues. This model of gender-related behavior builds on theory and data in the areas of (a) expectancy confirmation processes and (b) self-verification and self-presentation strategies. Support for the model is presented, and suggestions are offered for its future development.Are men and women different, and if so, why? These seemingly simple questions have proved remarkably resistant to satisfactory answers, despite a long tradition of attempts. Investigators of some eras have emphasized differences between women and men, whereas those of other eras have argued for the essential similarity of the sexes. For example, in recent years one can observe a minimization of sex differences in the benchmark work of Maccoby and Jacklin (1974) and a reendorsement of sex differences in the subsequent work of Gilligan (1982), Eagly (1987), and others. Proponents of both views have had problems. Those who predict stable sex differences have had trouble accounting for the often limited ability of sex to predict behavior and for a variability that sometimes appears random.The order of authorship for this article was determined alphabetically and hence is arbitrary. The contributions of both authors are equivalent and inseparable.Portions of this article were developed while Kay Deaux was a Fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, where support was provided in part by the John D. and Catherine T. McArthur Foundation. Additional support was provided by Grants BNS-8217313 and BNS-8604993 from the National Science Foundation to Kay Deaux.Many people have contributed to our thinking in this article. A preliminary version of the model was presented at the Nags Head Conference on Sex and Gender in May 198S, and we thank the members of that conference for their feedback. The members of the Self, Cognition, and Affect Project at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences provided valuable input and a stimulating context. In addition, we thank the following people for their comments on earlier versions of this article: Richard Ashmore, Nyla Branscombe, Jennifer Crocker, John Darley, Frances Del Boca, Alice Eagly, Russ Fazio, Sam Glucksberg, Tory Higgins, Bill Martin, and Janet Spence.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kay Deaux, who is now at City University of New York, Graduate Center, Box 325, 33 West 42 Street, New York, New York 10036-8099 or to Brenda Major, Department of Psychology, Park Hall, State University of New York at Buffalo, Amherst, New York 14260.Those who argue that ...

show abstract

Section: Characteristics Of the Expectancymentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related behavior.

Deaux¹,

Major²

1987

Psychological Review

1,057

802

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, relationally close individuals avoid evaluating each other (Goffman, 1959). When they have no choice but to communicate information about each other, close individuals either distort the communication to make it more consistent with their partner's self-concept (Manis, Cornell, & Moore, 1974) or discuss each other's positive rather than negative traits (Blumberg, 1972). As Tesser and Rosen (1975) put it, among close individuals, good news tends to be communicated more frequently, more quickly, more fully, and more spontaneously than bad news" (the MUM effect; p. other with support, which regulates or alleviates negative affect (e.g., depression and stress; Cohen & Wills, 1985;Coyne, Burchill, & Stiles, 1991;Sarason, Sarason, & Pierce, 1990) and increases positive affect, feelings of well-being, and self-esteem (Cohen & Hoberman, 1983;Major, Testa, & Bylsma, 1991).…”

Section: The Relationships -As-enabler Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

The Self in Relationships: Whether, How, and When Close Others Put the Self “in Its Place”

Sedikides¹,

Campbell²,

Reeder³

et al. 2001

European Review of Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

favorable impression of the partner; and (b) expecting attributional generosity from the partner. In fact, when the partner violates this exp ectancy (i.e., when he/she displays the SSB), members of close dyads respond by manifesting the SSB in turn. We discuss these and several other contingencies that are likely to keep an individual's self-enhancement tendencies in check.Individuals enhance the self in diverse and remarkable ways. They consider themselves more moral, trustworthy, kind, and physically attractive than others. They rate themselves as above-average teachers, managers, and leaders. They also believe that they are happier than others, that they are likely to be healthier and live longer than others, and that they are more likely than others to experience positive life events but less likely than others to experience negative life events. They even believe they are better drivers! Such overblown self-evaluations are well documented (Sedikides & Strube, 1997). These beliefs are maintained through several mechanisms. One mechanism is biased memorial processes, such as better memory for positive than negative self-attributes (Skowronski, Betz, Thompson, & Shannon, 1991) and for feedback pertaining to one's strengths rather than one's weak@sses (Sedikides & Green, 2000). Another mechanism is the selective reconstruction, generation, and evaluation of confirming causal theories (Kunda, 1990;Ross, 1989). A third mechanism is the idiosyncratic (i.e., favorable to the self) definition of traits and abilities (Dunning, 1993). Other mechanisms include denial (Janoff-Bulman & Timko, 1987), psychological distancing from others (Schimel, Pyszczynski, Greenberg, O 'Mahen, & Arndt, 2000), affirmation of a self-domain that is unrelated to the selfdomain under threat (Steele, 1988), downward social comparison (Wills, 1981, favorable self-presentation (Schlenker & Pontari, 2000), and selffavoring causal attributions for success and failure -an attributional pattern known as the self-serving bias (SSB).The SSB is the individual's propensity to make internal attributions for success, but external attributions for failure. Stated otherwise, the SSB refers to the individual's taking responsibility for successful task outcomes, but denying responsibility, or blaming other persons or circumstances, for failed task outcomes. For example, students will take credit for passing a difficult examination, but will attribute failing the same examination to its difficulty or the instructor's tough grading policy; business partners working on an account will claim disproportionate credit if the account is gained, but will avoid personal responsibility if the account is lost; and group members will overemphasize their individual contribution on a group project, but will blame other members for the group's inferior output. The SSB is pervasive, and is one of the most robust and easily replicable phenomena in social and personality psychology (for both narrative and quantitative reviews, see Arkin, Cooper,

show abstract

“…These sources would compensate for the lack of other confirmatory indicators, such as status, expertise, interpersonal connections, direct access to information, and so forth, that are generally more available in face-to-face conversations with known players. Ayim (1994) also portrayed gossipers as intent on establishing the veracity of gossip, although Blumberg (1972) remarked that extensive monitoring of gossip over time is unlikely and impractical. In either case, the inclination to gossip covertly, anonymously, or vicariously betrays an awareness of the violation of privacy norms.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(In the case of positive gossip about a person, the gossiper is spared being obsequious while buoying the target's reputation with a "third-party endorsement.") Blumberg (1972), finding strong evidence that evaluations traveling through the network tend to stop short of their targets, concluded that a norm seems to exist "to keep people from learning too much about what others think of them" (p. 161). Wert and Salovey (2004), in this issue, also acknowledge that gossip affords one the benefits of various veins of social comparison while avoiding the risks of embarrassment or confrontation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Research on Gossip: Taxonomy, Methods, and Future Directions

Foster

2004

Review of General Psychology

488

702

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A half century of gossip research from multiple disciplines is reviewed. Discussed are definitions of the construct; social, evolutionary, and personal functions of the practice; and data collection methods. Though people engage in the practice frequently, there has been relatively little psychological research on gossip. The layperson's understanding of the term is included in, but insufficient to encompass, definitions used by researchers. Most data are ethnographic and discursive, and few parametric data exist. The area could benefit from better experimental methods and instruments. Neurobiological and social network analysis methods are promising foundations for further study. There are real-world implications for understanding gossip. Strengthening gossip theory and research methods will beneficially inform the way we view the practice in context.

show abstract

Communication of interpersonal evaluations.

Abstract: Condition Low acquaintance, Origin -self Receiver -friend Receiver -evaluatee Low acquaintance, Origin -other Receiver -friend Receiver -evaluatee High acquaintance, Origin -self Receiver -friend Receiver -evaluatee High acquaintance, Origin -other Receiver -friend Receiver -evaluatee

Cited by 160 publications

References 18 publications

Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related behavior.

Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related behavior.

The Self in Relationships: Whether, How, and When Close Others Put the Self “in Its Place”

Research on Gossip: Taxonomy, Methods, and Future Directions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About