Role of meaningful subgroups in explaining differences in perceived variability for in-groups and out-groups.

Park, Bernadette; Ryan, Carey S.; Judd, Charles H.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.553

Cited by 160 publications

(189 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

166

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is particularly true for unfamiliar rather than familiar others (see Idson & Mischel, 2001). Similarly, research on group perception suggests that, compared with in-groups, out-groups are described in terms of abstract qualities (Fiedler, Semin, & Finkenauer, 1993;Werkman, Wigboldus, & Semin, 1999) and are perceived as being more homogeneous (Jones, Wood, & Quattrone, 1981;Park & Judd, 1990;Park & Rothbart, 1982), as being less differentiated into subgroups (Brewer & Lui, 1984;Linville, 1982;Park, Ryan, & Judd, 1992), and as possessing more structured, predictable properties (Linville, Fischer, & Yoon, 1996). Together, these lines of research suggest that the various dimensions of psychological distance have a similar effect on level of construal.…”

Section: Implications For Psychological Distancementioning

confidence: 99%

Creeping dispositionism: The temporal dynamics of behavior prediction.

Nussbaum

Trope

Liberman

2003

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

257

225

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Four studies tested the hypothesis that temporal distance increases the weight of global dispositions in predicting and explaining future behavior. Study 1 found that the correspondence bias was manifested more strongly in predictions of distant future behavior than of near future behavior. Study 2 found that participants predicted higher cross-situational consistency in distant future behavior than in near future behavior. Study 3 found that participants sought information about others' more global dispositions for predicting distant future than near future behavior. Finally, Study 4 found that participants made more global causal attributions for distant future outcomes than for near future outcomes. The results were interpreted as supporting the assumption of construal level theory that perceivers use more abstract representations (higher level construals) to predict and explain more distant future behaviors.The ability to control one's outcomes in social situations often depends on one's ability to predict others' behavior. The quality of everyday life decisions, such as the decision to approach or avoid others, to compete or cooperate, or to seek or avoid help, depends on one's ability to predict how others will respond. Indeed, much of the motivation for social information processing has been assumed to derive from the need to reduce uncertainty in predicting others' behavior (see, e.g., Fiske, 1993;Higgins & Bargh, 1987;Trope & Liberman, 1996). Sometimes these predictions concern others' near future behavior (e.g., "Will Leslie come to my birthday party this weekend?"). In other cases, the predictions concern more distant future behavior (e.g., "Will Leslie come to my birthday party next month?"). The question we address in this article is what kind of knowledge perceivers use for predicting behavior in near future versus distant future situations. If we suppose that perceivers have the same information about the two situations, the question is whether perceivers would use this information differently depending on whether they are trying to predict others' behavior in near future or in distant future situations. Temporal ConstrualOur approach to this question is grounded in the socialcognitive view that perceivers' predictions of future events depend on how the perceivers mentally construe those events (see, e.g., Griffin & Ross, 1991;Sherman, 1980;Wilson, Wheatley, Meyers, Gilbert & Axsom, 2000). In this view, perceivers' predictions about their own and others' behavior are based on an abstract, schematic representation of the behavior and fail to incorporate contextual factors. Overreliance on schematic models of future behavior has been assumed to underlie individuals' overconfident behavior predictions (Dunning, Griffin, Milojkovic, & Ross, 1990;Vallone, Griffin, Lin, & Ross, 1990). Several researchers have suggested that the planning fallacy-namely, the tendency to underestimate task completion times-can be traced to individuals' reliance on oversimplified representations of future tasks-representati...

show abstract

Section: Implications For Psychological Distancementioning

confidence: 99%

Creeping dispositionism: The temporal dynamics of behavior prediction.

Nussbaum

Trope

Liberman

2003

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

257

225

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similarly, Libby and Eibach (2002, Study 4) found that imagining performing an activity from a third-person perspective produced more abstract, less detailed reports than imagining the same activity from a first-person perspective. Finally, research on group perception suggests that compared with ingroups, outgroups are described in terms of abstract qualities (Fiedler, Semin, & Finkenauer, 1993;Werkman, Wigboldus, & Semin, 1999) and are perceived as more homogeneous (Jones, Wood, & Quattrone, 1981;Park & Judd, 1990;Park & Rothbart, 1982), less differentiated into subgroups (Brewer & Lui, 1984;Linville, 1982;Park, Ryan, & Judd, 1992), and as possessing more structured, predictable properties (Linville, Fischer, & Yoon, 1996).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The association between psychological distance and construal level: Evidence from an implicit association test.

Bar‐Anan¹,

Liberman²,

Trope³

2006

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

473

291

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to construal level theory (N. Liberman, Y. Trope, & E. Stephan, in press;Y. Trope & N. Liberman, 2003), people use a more abstract, high construal level when judging, perceiving, and predicting more psychologically distal targets, and they judge more abstract targets as being more psychologically distal. The present research demonstrated that associations between more distance and higher level of construal also exist on a pure conceptual level. Eight experiments used the Implicit Association Test (IAT; A. G. Greenwald, D. E. McGhee, & J. L. K. Schwartz, 1998) to demonstrate an association between words related to construal level (low vs. high) and words related to four dimensions of distance (proximal vs. distal): temporal distance, spatial distance, social distance, and hypotheticality. In addition to demonstrating an association between level of construal and psychological distance, these findings also corroborate the assumption that all 4 dimensions of psychological distance are related to level of construal in a similar way and support the notion that they all are forms of psychological distance.

show abstract

“…This is not because people are somehow more strongly offended by outgroup members' transgressions than by ingroup members' transgressions, on the contrary, because negative ingroup deviants threaten the positive distinctiveness of the ingroup, they are often judged more harshly than comparable outgroup deviants (Marques, Yzerbyt, & Leyens, 1988;Marques & Paez, 1994). However, ingroup stereotypes are more complex than outgroup stereotypes, and typically contain a number of subtypes to capture the deviant's behaviour without causing modification of the stereotype in general (Park et al, 1992;Richards & Hewstone, 2001). In the event that no such subtype exists, the general motivation to preserve the positive distinctiveness of the ingroup causes group members to mentally exclude the negative deviant from their group, classifying him or her as atypical and exceptional (Castano et al, 2002;Hutchison & Abrams, 2003).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Dealing with deviants: The effectiveness of rejection, denial, and apologies on protecting the public image of a group

Leeuwen¹,

Bosch²,

Hopman³

2009

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public transgressions by group members threaten the public image of a group when outside observers perceive them as representative of the group in general. In three studies, we tested the effectiveness of rejection of a deviant group member who made a racist comment in public, and compared this to several other strategies the group could employ to protect their image. In Study 1 (N ¼ 75) and Study 2 (N ¼ 51), the group was judged less racist after rejecting the deviant than after claiming a non-racist position or not responding to the transgression. Perceived typicality of the deviant partially mediated this effect in Study 2. In Study 3 (N ¼ 81), the group was judged least racist after forcing the deviant to apologize and as most racist after denying the severity of the transgression. Results also showed a negative side-effect of rejection. Perceived exclusion of the deviant contributed to a perception of the group as disloyal to its members, which resulted in a less favorable overall group evaluation. Potential benefits and risks of rejection, denial, and apologies are further discussed in the General Discussion.

show abstract

Role of meaningful subgroups in explaining differences in perceived variability for in-groups and out-groups.

Cited by 160 publications

References 23 publications

Creeping dispositionism: The temporal dynamics of behavior prediction.

Creeping dispositionism: The temporal dynamics of behavior prediction.

The association between psychological distance and construal level: Evidence from an implicit association test.

Dealing with deviants: The effectiveness of rejection, denial, and apologies on protecting the public image of a group

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About