Internality, academic status and intergroup attributions

Abstract

Some pupils categorized as good vs. bad pupils were given a questionnaire of attributions, thus allowing the calculation of internality scores. They were also requested to answer as would a good (vs. a bad) pupil do. Finally, they also had to predict in which way a good (vs. a bad) pupil would answer on their behalf. The results were explained within the frame of two different theoretical fields: the theory of the norm of internality and the biases in terms of intergroup attributions. These results show that 1) the attribution of internal explanations relates to an attribution of value that takes place within the intergroup evaluation, 2) whereas the ultimate attribution error can clearly be observed among the good pupils, the bad pupils exhibit an attributive pattern that is favorable to the good pupils.Children's academic status (good vs. bad pupils) is a frequently referred to variable in the field of pupils' causal attributions from a psycho social standpoint. Nevertheless, little is known about the extent attributions may be affected by the mobilization of an academic status that explicitly positions pupils within the school hierarchy and in an intergroup relation. This forms the basis of the present study.

When Attribution of Consistency Depends on Group Value: Social Valorization of Preference for Consistency in Equivalent and Asymmetric Intergroup Relations

“…Namely, high-status group members almost systematically favor their own group and sometimes derogate the outgroup, whereas low-status group members often exhibit outgroup favoritism, i.e., favoring the high-status group (Brown, 1995, for review;Guimond, Dif, & Aupy, 2002). On this basis, authors (Dubois & Beauvois, 1996;Dubois, Beauvois, Gilibert, & Zentner, 2000;Pansu et al, 2005) have considered that, as people tend to attribute more positive judgments to their ingroup in equivalent intergroup relations, then a judgment systematically attributed to an ingroup should be considered socially valued. Similarly, as people tend to attribute more positive judgments to a high-status group in asymmetric intergroup relations, then a judgment systematically attributed to the high-status group should be considered socially valued.…”

“…Similarly, as people tend to attribute more positive judgments to a high-status group in asymmetric intergroup relations, then a judgment systematically attributed to the high-status group should be considered socially valued. For example, as it is socially valued, internality is systematically attributed to the ingroup in studies activating equivalent intergroup relations (Dubois et al, 2000) and to the high statusgroup in studies based on asymmetric intergroup relations (Dubois & Beauvois, 1996;Beauvois, Gilibert, Pansu, & Abdelaoui, 1998;Pansu et al, 2005).…”

An integrative model of scholastic judgments: Pupils’ characteristics, class context, halo effect and internal attributions

“…After choosing their own causal explanations, the subjects have to choose those of other persons who are assumed to be valued to different extents. The results obtained with this paradigm show that subjects often apply the internality strategy to describe persons or groups that carry value (Dubois & Beauvois, 1996;Pansu, Tarquinio, & Gilibert, 2005). In the judge paradigm, subjects must judge persons who are known by their explanation strategy: internality, externality, self-serving or modesty.…”

Claiming the Validity of Negative In-group Stereotypes When Foreseeing a Challenge: A Self-handicapping Account

“…In addition, people who endorse negative in-group stereotypes for their own benefit are likely to be viewed negatively by others. In general, people unfavorably evaluate those who make excuses and favorably evaluate individuals who accept personal responsibility for their performance outcomes (Beauvois & Dubois, 1988;Dubois & Beauvois, 1996;Hirt, McCrea, & Boris, 2003). In this regard, when people use the strategy of endorsing negative in-group stereotypes, they may be viewed as selfdefeating and disloyal.…”