Power and Legitimizing Ideologies in Hierarchy‐Enhancing vs. Hierarchy‐Attenuating Environments

According to social dominance theory, intergroup dynamics are strongly influenced by the social positions which individuals hold in society. Several studies suggest that holding a position of power can, sometimes automatically, generate negative attitudes and hostile behaviors toward subordinate social groups. However, at present, the studies carried out on these effects of power have not taken into account the influence of the normative context. Based on the distinction made by Sidanius and Pratto between “hierarchy‐enhancing” (HE) vs. “hierarchy‐attenuating” (HA) environments, this study examines if the effects of power on legitimizing cognitions vary as a function of the normative environment. A laboratory study and a study conducted in a natural environment confirm our hypothesis that individuals holding a powerful or dominant social role in a HE setting differ significantly from individuals holding an equally powerful role in a HA setting. The effects of power observed in past research probably resulted from studying power in hierarchy‐enhancing environments, but not in hierarchy‐attenuating ones.     

When false memories do not occur: Not thinking of the lure or remembering that it was not heard?

The aim of the present study was to evaluate two explanations for the non-occurrence of false memories in the Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) paradigm. One explanation was that a critical lure is not recalled because the list failed to evoke it in the participant's mind. Another possible explanation was that the participant would identify the critical lure and would remember, at the time of recall, that the lure was not produced by an external source. In order to explore these two possible explanations for the non-occurrence of false memories, an experimental phase was added to the usual DRM paradigm: participants were asked to recall items they thought of but did not recall because these items were not members of the list presented by the experimenter. Among participants who did not recall the critical lure during the standard recall task, those who recalled the critical lure during the additional phase outnumbered those who did not recall it. This result is more consistent with the second explanation than with the first one.