So close,and yet so far: does collectivism foster transparency overestimation?

The present research demonstrated that horizontal collectivism (HC), the tendency to emphasize social bonds and interdependence, is associated with overestimating the extent to which one's preferences, feelings, and behavioral inclinations are transparent to close others. The link between HC and felt transparency was mediated by self-other merging but was not significantly mediated by perceived similarity, behavioral closeness, or metaperception positivity. Evidence of a causal connection was obtained in an experiment where individuals for whom interdependence was primed exhibited greater transparency overestimation than did those for whom it was not. Additional results indicated that higher HC is associated with greater confidence but not greater accuracy in judgments about a friend. The authors argue that other perspective-taking deficits involving overuse of the self in judgments of others should also be exacerbated by the self-other merging that is associated with HC.     

Invisible overtures: fears of rejection and the signal amplification bias

Four studies demonstrated that fears of rejection prompt individuals to exhibit a signal amplification bias, whereby they perceive that their overtures communicate more romantic interest to potential partners than is actually the case. The link between rejection anxieties and the bias was evident regardless of whether fears of rejection were assessed in terms of chronic attachment anxiety or were induced by reflection on a previous rejection experience. Mediation analyses suggested that the bias stems in part from an expected-augmenting process, whereby persons with strong fears of rejection incorrectly assume that the recipient of their overtures will take their inhibitions into account when interpreting their behavior. Implications for understanding the link between attachment anxiety and loneliness and for designing social skills interventions are discussed.     

Who can spot a potential problem gambler? Testing “it takes one to know one” and acquaintanceship effects in a university student population

How easy is it for individuals to detect low to moderate levels of problem gambling tendencies in others? Are individuals who have problem gambling tendencies themselves, or are close relationship partners, more accurate judges? We examine these questions in two studies involving a total of 336 interacting dyads drawn largely from a university student population. In Study 1 all pairs were strangers, whereas in Study 2 approximately half of the pairs were close. After the “judge” observed the “target” complete a gambling task, the dyad had a face-to-face discussion, with topics including favorite pastimes and personal weaknesses. Judges estimated the target's problem gambling tendencies, and both judges and targets self-reported their own gambling tendencies. There was evidence of modest, albeit somewhat inconsistent, accuracy in individuals’ judgments of the other person's problem gambling tendencies, but no “it takes one to know one” or acquaintanceship effects were apparent. Results also indicated that judges evidenced a projection bias, whereby they saw the target as similar to themselves, especially within close pairs. These results reveal that even after minimal interaction with a stranger individuals can be able to judge the person's gambling tendencies with some accuracy. At the same time, our findings indicating that close others and those with problem gambling tendencies themselves are not more or less tuned in to the early signs of a problem than anyone else suggest that it would be inappropriate to be especially convinced by—or skeptical of—these individuals’ judgments.     

Helpful Only in the Abstract?

ABSTRACT— This study tested the hypothesis that empathizing with out-group members is beneficial outside of, but not within, intergroup-contact situations. We predicted that in the context of intergroup interaction, the potential for evaluation would lead individuals' perspective-taking efforts to take on an egocentric and counterproductive flavor. As predicted, when empathy was instantiated during an intergroup exchange, it failed to exert its usual positive effect on intergroup attitudes and led higher-prejudice individuals to derogate an out-group member who was an interaction partner; empathy also blocked the prejudice-reducing influence of intergroup contact. Mediation analyses indicated that activation of negative metastereotypes regarding the out-group's view of the in-group accounted for these effects. The findings, which demonstrate ironic effects of empathy in intergroup interaction, indicate that interventions based on studies of individuals' reactions to out-group members in the abstract might have dramatically different consequences when put into practice in real exchanges between members of different groups.     

Salient Intergroup Ideology and Intergroup Interaction

ABSTRACT— Two experiments examined how rendering different intergroup ideologies salient affects dominant- and minority-group members' behavior during, and experience of, intergroup interactions. We hypothesized that ideologies that encourage an outward focus on appreciating out-group members' distinctive qualities (multiculturalism) would have more positive implications than ideologies that encourage a self-control focus on ignoring social categories and avoiding inappropriate behavior (color blindness and antiracism). As predicted, in both ostensible ( Study 1 ) and actual face-to-face ( Study 2 ) intergroup interactions, the multicultural ideological prompt led dominant- and minority-group members to adopt a more outward focus and hence to direct more positive other-directed comments to an interaction partner who was a member of an out-group. In contrast, the color-blind prompt fostered a prevention orientation in dominant-group members that led them to express negative affect toward their out-group interaction partner. The antiracist prompt had no consistent effects. Implications for efforts to improve intergroup relations are discussed.     

Dominant group members in intergroup interaction: safety or vulnerability in numbers?

An experiment examined how low- and high-prejudice dominant group members' (LPs' and HPs') reactions to intergroup contact were affected by whether they were accompanied by fellow ingroup members who exhibited prejudice-relevant behavior. Participants answered questions alone or in a group and then estimated how they were viewed by an observer who was an ingroup or an outgroup member. HPs believed that they were viewed more negatively by an outgroup member in the individual than the group condition. LPs showed the opposite effect, which led them to evaluate the outgroup member more negatively in the group condition. All participants in the group condition expected an outgroup member to exaggerate their similarity to the other ingroup members present, and LPs evaluated the other ingroup members more negatively when the observer was an outgroup member. The results suggest that intergroup attitudes guide the types of intergroup contact situations that are experienced most positively.     

In the worst rather than the best of times: effects of salient intergroup ideology in threatening intergroup interactions

Three studies demonstrated that a salient multicultural ideology increases hostile treatment of threatening outgroup interaction partners. The effect of multiculturalism on hostile behavior was evident regardless of whether threat was operationalized in terms of disagreement with an outgroup partner on important social issues (Studies 1 and 3) or rejection by the partner (Study 2). Moreover, the results clearly point to the learning orientation fostered by multiculturalism--as opposed to other factors such as enhanced other-focus, group-level attributions, or focus on differences--as the critical mediator of its effect on hostile behavior under threat. Thus, it appears that multiculturalism enhances the expression of hostility because it prompts individuals to really engage with and attach meaning and importance to threatening behaviors exhibited by outgroup members. The effects of multiculturalism were distinct from those of anti-racism and color-blindness, which set in motion processes that in many respects are directly opposite to those instantiated by multiculturalism. The findings highlight that the behavioral implications of multiculturalism may be quite different in conflictual interactions than they have previously been demonstrated to be in less threatening exchanges.     

The pitfalls of empathy as a default intergroup interaction strategy: Distinct effects of trying to empathize with a lower status outgroup member who does versus does not express distress

This experiment examined the hypothesis that trying to be empathic during intergroup interaction has positive effects on behavior when an outgroup interaction partner discloses significant hardships and thus expresses a need for support, but negative effects in the absence of a call for help. The results from an ostensible interaction study supported this hypothesis, and revealed that worries regarding negative evaluation partially accounted for the moderating role of partner hardship. Specifically, previous research indicates that trying to be empathic during intergroup interaction prompts individuals to reflect on their own evaluation by their outgroup partner, which for lower-prejudice individuals leads to positive metaperceptions and complacency and for higher-prejudice individuals leads to negative metaperceptions and enhanced effort. In the present study, having the outgroup partner disclose difficulties and distress increased the perceived likelihood of negative evaluation and appeared to trigger stronger efforts to convey positive signals for lower- and higher-prejudice individuals alike.