Representing ‘Us’ and ‘Them’: Building Blocks of Intergroup Cognition

Three experiments explored whether group membership affects the acquisition of richer information about social groups. Employing a minimal-groups paradigm, 6- to 8-year-olds were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 novel social groups. Experiment 1 demonstrated that immediately following random assignment to a novel group, children were more likely to generalize negative behaviors to outgroup members and positive behaviors to ingroup members and to report a preference for ingroup members. Experiments 2 and 3 showed that this initial ingroup-favoring bias interacts with subsequent learning, thereby attenuating the effect of negative information about the ingroup and enhancing the effect of negative information about the outgroup. These effects were more powerful with respect to preferences than induction: After hearing that some ingroup members behaved badly, children predicted that ingroup members would behave more negatively than outgroup members, but they did not express preferences for the outgroup over the ingroup. Together these data shed light on the construction of social category knowledge as well as the processes underlying the absence of own-group positivity among children from lower-status social groups.     

Misperceptions in intergroup conflict. Disagreeing about what we disagree about

Two studies examined misperceptions of disagreement in partisan social conflicts, namely, in the debates over abortion (Study 1) and politics (Study 2). We observed that partisans tend to exaggerate differences of opinion with their adversaries. Further, we found that perceptions of disagreement were more pronounced for values that were central to the perceiver's own ideology than for values that were central to the ideology of the perceiver's adversaries. To the extent that partisans assumed disagreement concerning personally important values, they were also inaccurate in perceiving their adversaries' actual opinions. Discussion focuses on the cognitive mechanisms underlying misperceptions of disagreement and strategies for reducing intergroup conflict.     

Preratio pausing: effects of an alternative reinforcer on fixed- and variable-ratio responding

Seven rats responding under fixed-ratio or variable-ratio schedules of food reinforcement had continuous access to a drinking tube inserted into the operant chamber. Under different conditions they could drink either tap water or one of two saccharin solutions. In a baseline condition, the drinking bottle was empty. Preratio pausing was observed with both schedules, more so with the fixed-ratio than the variable-ratio schedule, and increasing the concentration of the saccharin solution increased the duration of pausing. Comparisons with baseline performances revealed that the additional pausing was largely, but not entirely, spent drinking. The results support the view that pausing under ratio schedules is a consequence of competition between the scheduled reinforcer and alternative reinforcers that also are available within the experimental environment.     

Positive and negative reinforcement: Should the distinction be preserved?

Michael (1975) reviewed efforts to classify reinforcing events in terms of whether stimuli are added (positive reinforcement) or removed (negative reinforcement). He concluded that distinctions in these terms are confusing and ambiguous. Of necessity, adding a stimulus requires its previous absence and removing a stimulus its previous presence. Moreover, there is no good basis, either behavioral or physiological, that indicates the involvement of distinctly different processes, and on these grounds he proposed that the distinction be abandoned. Despite the cogency of Michael's analysis, the distinction between positive and negative reinforcement is still being taught. In this paper, we reconsider the issue from the perspective of 30 years. However, we could not find new evidence in contemporary research and theory that allows reliable classification of an event as a positive rather than a negative reinforcer. We conclude by reiterating Michael's admonitions about the conceptual confusion created by such a distinction.     

Response Mode Effects and Moral Values

In five studies, we measured the extent to which subjects weight moral product attributes in different response modes. We found that nonprice judgments such as likelihood of purchase ratings were more reflective of expressed moral attitudes than were pricing responses, and that holistic price evaluations were especially unlikely to reflect moral considerations. Post-task ratings confirmed the preference results, as did an experiment controlling for the influence of task goals. Our results have implications for compatibility theories of preference elicitation, the predictability of respondent ratings of attribute unacceptability, and the measurement of utilities for morally charged attributes.     

The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations

In this article, we attempt to distinguish between the properties of moderator and mediator variables at a number of levels. First, we seek to make theorists and researchers aware of the importance of not using the terms moderator and mediator interchangeably by carefully elaborating, both conceptually and strategically, the many ways in which moderators and mediators differ. We then go beyond this largely pedagogical function and delineate the conceptual and strategic implications of making use of such distinctions with regard to a wide range of phenomena, including control and stress, attitudes, and personality traits. We also provide a specific compendium of analytic procedures appropriate for making the most effective use of the moderator and mediator distinction, both separately and in terms of a broader causal system that includes both moderators and mediators.     

Self-Presentation in Job Interviews: When There Can Be “Too Much of a Good Thing”1

Male and female subjects interviewed female applicants for an entry-level management position. The applicants were actually confederates of the researcher who engaged or did not engage in two different tactics of self-presentation: the emission of many positive nonverbal cues and the use of one popular grooming aid (perfume). It was predicted that alone, each of these tactics would enhance ratings assigned to the applicants. However, together, they would induce negative reactions among interviewers (e.g., attributions of manipulativeness to the applicant). It was further hypothesized that such reactions would be stronger among male than among female interviewers. Finally, it was predicted that the two self-presentational tactics investigated would affect interviewers' memory for information presented by the applicants. Results offered support for all of these hypotheses.