Stereotypes and Prejudicial Attitudes

Saenger, Gerhart; Flowerman, Samuel H.

doi:10.1177/001872675400700207

Cited by 25 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This result complements ®ndings of earlier studies (e.g. Esses & Zanna, 1995;Peabody, 1968;Saenger & Flowerman, 1954;Smedley & Bayton, 1978). For example, Peabody demonstrated that members of dierent groups may agree about the type of traits ascribed to a group, but may disagree about the evaluation of those traits.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

The effect of comparative context on central tendency and variability judgements and the evaluation of group characteristics

Doosje

Haslam

Spears

et al. 1998

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A study is reported that examines the effects of comparative context on central tendency and variability judgements of groups, and the evaluation of group characteristics. The central assumption is that these social judgements are not absolute, but depend on the social context in which they are grounded. It is demonstrated that people vary their description of the ingroup in terms of central tendency and group variability as a function of the possibility of comparing the ingroup favourably with other groups in the judgemental task. In a similar vein, it is shown that the evaluation of an ingroup characteristic is not fixed, but depends on its relative favourability within the comparative context. The results of this study clearly demonstrate the importance of comparative context in group perception and are discussed with reference to self‐categorization theory and alternative models of social judgement. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

The effect of comparative context on central tendency and variability judgements and the evaluation of group characteristics

Doosje

Haslam

Spears

et al. 1998

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This implies that it is essential in an intergroup context to view positively one's in-group (any social category that individuals belong to that is salient at the given moment) more than any out-group (social categories that individuals do not identify with at that same moment). Empirical studies support this assumption (Campbell, 1967;Esses, Haddock & Zanna, 1994;Esses & Zanna, 1995;Peabody, 1968;Rustemli, Mertan & Ciftci, 2000;Saenger & Flowerman, 1954;Scaillet & Leyens, 2000;Smedley & Bayton, 1978).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Differentiating in‐group favoritism from shared reality in intergroup perception

Dimdiņš

Montgomery

2004

Scandinavian J Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two basic factors influence mutual ratings of social groups: in-group favoritism (related to the evaluative aspects of a rating) and the perception of shared reality (related to the descriptive aspects). In two studies, we examine the usefulness of Peabody's (1968) method of separating evaluative and descriptive aspects of rating in intergroup judgments. In Study 1, Latvian and Russian students made different evaluations of both groups, but the same groups agreed on the descriptive ratings. In Study 2, male and female psychology students rated each other from own, in-group, and out-group perspectives. The participants did not show any in-group favoritism in their own ratings, but they expected their fellow students to be in-group biased. The participants agreed on the descriptive ratings of both groups. The results demonstrate that shared reality influences intergroup ratings, despite differences in evaluations.

show abstract

“…Karlins et al, 1969, cf. Saenger andFlowerman, 1954). This is obviously inadequate insofar äs it overlooks the power relations existing between the social categories.…”

Section: Presenting 'Race' Stereotypes äS Neutral Cognitionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Race stereotypes’ and racist discourse

Condor¹

1988

Text - Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The stereotype construct has enjoyed a central place in social psychological approaches to racismand prejudice for the past half Century. Recentaccounts of 'race' categorization and Stereotyping äs aspects of social cognition may, however, be contrasted wtih developing approaches which seek to analyze racial imagery through discourse. In discussing the relationship between the stereotype construct and racial discourse, the present paper wülfocus on two considerations. First that the phenomena termed 'race stereotypes*constitute aspects of discourse. Second, that social psychological accounts of stereotypes constitute text. Bringing these two themes together, it is suggested that, by presenting 'race' stereotypes äs cognitive rather than rhetorical phenomena, the discourse of 'social cognition' may unintentionally parallel some of the types of argument which have been identified äs characteristic of 'new' racism. It is suggested that theorists adopting the discourse of 'social cognition' may incorporate into theiraccounts elementsof 'metalevelracism' (denying the meaning and implications of the notion of 'race 1 ). Finally, it is suggested that, by portraying 'race' stereotypes and categories äs cognitive phenomena which can be traced to an external 'reality' of racial distinction, some social cognition texts may, themselves, adopt elements of 'race thinking'.Approaches to 'racial 9 imagery: Stereotypes and discourse 'Race stereotypes' äs a subject matter in social psychologySocial psychology, like all scientific enterprises, is wedded firmly to the social context in which theory is developed, research funded and insights applied. In

show abstract

Stereotypes and Prejudicial Attitudes

Cited by 25 publications

References 0 publications

The effect of comparative context on central tendency and variability judgements and the evaluation of group characteristics

The effect of comparative context on central tendency and variability judgements and the evaluation of group characteristics

Differentiating in‐group favoritism from shared reality in intergroup perception

‘Race stereotypes’ and racist discourse

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About