Direction of Comparison Asymmetries in Relational Judgment: The Role of Linguistic Norms

Roese, Neal J.; Sherman, Jeffrey W.; Hur, Taekyun

doi:10.1521/soco.1998.16.3.353

Cited by 13 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, while the effect of self‐references remained significant, t (120)=3.97, p <.001, β=0.35, that of comparison focus was eliminated, t (120)=−1.61, p =.11, β=−0.14. In addition, a Sobel test showed that this mediation effect was significantly different from zero, Sobel (Goodman I) z =2.39, p =.017 (Preacher & Leonardelli, 2001).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 95%

The focus effect and self‐positivity in ratings of self‐other similarity and difference

Pahl

Eiser

2006

British J Social Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We conducted 2 studies investigating comparative ratings of similarity or difference and the thoughts underlying these ratings. Participants compared either the self with others (self-->other focus) or others with the self (other-->self focus). People expressed higher distinctiveness under self-->other focus than under other-->self focus (focus effect) when rating difference in Studies 1 and 2, and when rating similarity in Study 1. Analyses of verbal reports showed that people mentioned the self more than others under self-->other focus, but mentioned self and others to the same extent under other-->self focus. Moreover, Study 2 showed that participants spontaneously made more positive statements for the self under self-->other focus than under other-->self focus. This effect was significantly mediated by the number of self-references made. Implications for recent models of social judgment are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 95%

The focus effect and self‐positivity in ratings of self‐other similarity and difference

Pahl

Eiser

2006

British J Social Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The linguistic framing of gender differences may also have a more direct effect on how legitimate existing status differences between women and men appear to be than via the reinforcement of status‐related stereotypes. People tend to communicate as if others shared their category norms (Pratto, Korchmaros, et al, ) and expect comparisons to be framed the same way as they would spontaneously frame them (Roese, Sherman, & Hur, ). When people cannot, or do not, obey these conventions, communication is impaired (Pratto, Korchmaros, et al, ) and cognitive attention is aroused (Holbrook, Krosnick, Carson, & Mitchell, ; Roese et al, ).…”

Section: Effects Of the Comparative Framing Of Gender Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…People tend to communicate as if others shared their category norms (Pratto, Korchmaros, et al, ) and expect comparisons to be framed the same way as they would spontaneously frame them (Roese, Sherman, & Hur, ). When people cannot, or do not, obey these conventions, communication is impaired (Pratto, Korchmaros, et al, ) and cognitive attention is aroused (Holbrook, Krosnick, Carson, & Mitchell, ; Roese et al, ). Accordingly, comparisons that adhere to linguistic conventions for the respective context should communicate the impression that everything is normal and how it is supposed to be, whereas comparisons that violate these conventions should disrupt the usual flow of communication, including the subtle reinforcement of beliefs about gendered status and power resonating with a conventional framing.…”

Section: Effects Of the Comparative Framing Of Gender Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Framing gender differences: Linguistic normativity affects perceptions of power and gender stereotypes

Bruckmüller

Hegarty

Abele

2011

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When unknown groups and equal status groups are compared by contrasting one group ("the effect to be explained") against another ("the linguistic norm"), the group positioned as the norm is sometimes perceived as more powerful, more agentic, and as less communal. Such perceptions may contribute to status-linked stereotypes, as group differences are spontaneously described by positioning higher-status groups as the linguistic norm. Here, 103 participants considered gender differences in status to be larger and more legitimate and applied gender stereotypes more readily upon reading about gender differences in leadership that were framed around a male rather than a female linguistic norm. These effects did not generalize to 113 participants who read about gender differences in leisure time preferences framed around either norm. Jointly, these results suggest that the effects of linguistic framing on perceived group status and power and on group stereotypes generalize to domains where there are real differences in status, and contexts in which higher-status groups are the default standard for comparison.

show abstract

“…Cognitive reference points were shown to be crucial in similarity judgments (Rosch Brought Tversky & Gati 1978;Roese, Sherman & Hur 1998), judgments of symbolic magnitude (Jamieson & Petrusic 1975;Holyoak 1978), spatial cognition (Sadalla, Burroughs & Staplin 1980;Couclelis, Golledge, Gale & Tobler 1987), social judgments (Holyoak & Gordon 1983;Karylowski, Kornazewski & Motes 2000), negotiations (Kahneman 1992;Kristensen & Gärling 2000), and marketing behaviour (Nunes & Boatwright 2003;Thomas & Menon forthcoming). Cognitive reference points were shown to be crucial in similarity judgments (Rosch Brought Tversky & Gati 1978;Roese, Sherman & Hur 1998), judgments of symbolic magnitude (Jamieson & Petrusic 1975;Holyoak 1978), spatial cognition (Sadalla, Burroughs & Staplin 1980;Couclelis, Golledge, Gale & Tobler 1987), social judgments (Holyoak & Gordon 1983;Karylowski, Kornazewski & Motes 2000), negotiations (Kahneman 1992;Kristensen & Gärling 2000), and marketing behaviour (Nunes & Boatwright 2003;Thomas & Menon forthcoming).…”

Section: Cognitive Reference Pointsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The linguistics of zero: A cognitive reference point or a phantom?

Tribushinina

2009

Folia Linguistica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Insights from cognitive psychology indicate that the zero value on a scale is an important reference-point phenomenon in the processing of relative adjectives. However, linguistic evidence for the reference-point status of the zero value has not been provided hitherto. In this paper, I search for such evidence by analyzing the use of dimensional adjectives denoting vertical size in two languages -English and Russian. Three types of linguistic implications of the zero are discussed. First, the zero point is crucial to the account of markedness asymmetry between antonymous adjectives. Second, the reference-point status of the zero value motivates differences in the compatibility of relative adjectives with maximality adverbs in languages such as Russian. Third, the location of the zero point and the position of the entity vis-àvis the zero point have implications for adjective-noun combinability.

show abstract

Direction of Comparison Asymmetries in Relational Judgment: The Role of Linguistic Norms

Cited by 13 publications

References 26 publications

The focus effect and self‐positivity in ratings of self‐other similarity and difference

The focus effect and self‐positivity in ratings of self‐other similarity and difference

Framing gender differences: Linguistic normativity affects perceptions of power and gender stereotypes

The linguistics of zero: A cognitive reference point or a phantom?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About