Accuracy in the judgment of in-group and out-group variability

The accuracy of in-group and out-group variability judgments was examined by comparing those judgments with the variability of self-ratings provided by random samples of group members. Following Park and Judd (1990), perceptions of both group dispersion and group stereotypicality were examined. Accuracy was examined both by within-subject sensitivity correlations and by simple discrepancies between perceived and actual variability estimates. In-group-out-group differences in sensitivity were shown, particularly for judgments of stereotypicality. These differences were related to differences in the degree to which out-group variability is underestimated relative to in-group variability (i.e., the out-group homogeneity effect). Out-group stereotypicality judgments were overestimated, supporting the view that out-group stereotypes are overgeneralizations. Whether dispersion judgments were over- or underestimated depended on their measurement.     

Effects of power on perceived and objective group variability: evidence that more powerful groups are more variable

The perception of group variability is affected by social power and status. Three different mechanisms may be responsible for these effects: (a) the power of the perceiver affects perceived group variability; (b) the power of the perceived group affects its perceived variability; and (c) the power of the group affects its actual variability. Two studies are reported to tease apart these three mechanisms and provide support for the third. In the first study, high- and low-power groups interacted and subsequently judged each other. In the second study, participants observed and rated the Study 1 groups, either knowing their power relationship or not. Results suggest that members of high-power groups manifest greater interpersonal variability than members of low-power groups.     

The police officer's dilemma: using ethnicity to disambiguate potentially threatening individuals

Using a simple videogame, the effect of ethnicity on shoot/don't shoot decisions was examined. African American or White targets, holding guns or other objects, appeared in complex backgrounds. Participants were told to "shoot" armed targets and to "not shoot" unarmed targets. In Study 1, White participants made the correct decision to shoot an armed target more quickly if the target was African American than if he was White, but decided to "not shoot" an unarmed target more quickly if he was White. Study 2 used a shorter time window, forcing this effect into error rates. Study 3 replicated Study 1's effects and showed that the magnitude of bias varied with perceptions of the cultural stereotype and with levels of contact, but not with personal racial prejudice. Study 4 revealed equivalent levels of bias among both African American and White participants in a community sample. Implications and potential underlying mechanisms are discussed.     

Framing interethnic ideology: effects of multicultural and color-blind perspectives on judgments of groups and individuals

In 3 experiments, White American college students received a message advocating either a color-blind or a multicultural ideological approach to improving interethnic relations and then made judgments about various ethnic groups and individuals. Relative to a color-blind perspective, the multicultural perspective led to stronger stereotypes, greater accuracy in these stereotypes, and greater use of category information in judgments of individuals. This increase in between-category differentiation occurred both for attributes that favored the in-group and for attributes that favored the out-group and was also paired in some cases with greater overall positivity toward the out-group. The findings lead us to question the implicit assumption driving the majority of social psychological efforts at prejudice reduction: that the categorization process leads to prejudice, and that the relevance of social categories must therefore be de-emphasized.     

When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated

Procedures for examining whether treatment effects on an outcome are mediated and/or moderated have been well developed and are routinely applied. The mediation question focuses on the intervening mechanism that produces the treatment effect. The moderation question focuses on factors that affect the magnitude of the treatment effect. It is important to note that these two processes may be combined in informative ways, such that moderation is mediated or mediation is moderated. Although some prior literature has discussed these possibilities, their exact definitions and analytic procedures have not been completely articulated. The purpose of this article is to define precisely both mediated moderation and moderated mediation and provide analytic strategies for assessing each.     

Fundamental dimensions of social judgment: understanding the relations between judgments of competence and warmth

In seems there are two dimensions that underlie most judgments of traits, people, groups, and cultures. Although the definitions vary, the first makes reference to attributes such as competence, agency, and individualism, and the second to warmth, communality, and collectivism. But the relationship between the two dimensions seems unclear. In trait and person judgment, they are often positively related; in group and cultural stereotypes, they are often negatively related. The authors report 4 studies that examine the dynamic relationship between these two dimensions, experimentally manipulating the location of a target of judgment on one and examining the consequences for the other. In general, the authors' data suggest a negative dynamic relationship between the two, moderated by factors the impact of which they explore.     

Accentuation and sensitization effects in the categorization of multifaceted stimuli

Categorization affects perceptions in ways that are assumed to underlie social stereotypes. Research on categorization, however, has focused either on very simple stimuli or on judgmental tasks that focus attention only on single dimensions. To more fully understand the role of categorization in social perception, it is important to examine its effects in the case of multifaceted stimuli and holistic judgments. In 3 studies, participants formed an impression of a focal category of multifaceted stimuli either by itself or in the context of another category. They then judged the typicality of exemplars to the focal category. Results showed that categorization in the presence of a context produced both accentuation and sensitization effects: Participants accentuated between-category differences on relevant dimensions, and they were less sensitive to exemplar differences on irrelevant dimensions.     

Treating stimuli as a random factor in social psychology: a new and comprehensive solution to a pervasive but largely ignored problem

Throughout social and cognitive psychology, participants are routinely asked to respond in some way to experimental stimuli that are thought to represent categories of theoretical interest. For instance, in measures of implicit attitudes, participants are primed with pictures of specific African American and White stimulus persons sampled in some way from possible stimuli that might have been used. Yet seldom is the sampling of stimuli taken into account in the analysis of the resulting data, in spite of numerous warnings about the perils of ignoring stimulus variation (Clark, 1973; Kenny, 1985; Wells & Windschitl, 1999). Part of this failure to attend to stimulus variation is due to the demands imposed by traditional analysis of variance procedures for the analysis of data when both participants and stimuli are treated as random factors. In this article, we present a comprehensive solution using mixed models for the analysis of data with crossed random factors (e.g., participants and stimuli). We show the substantial biases inherent in analyses that ignore one or the other of the random factors, and we illustrate the substantial advantages of the mixed models approach with both hypothetical and actual, well-known data sets in social psychology (Bem, 2011; Blair, Chapleau, & Judd, 2005; Correll, Park, Judd, & Wittenbrink, 2002).     

Family Functioning and the Course of Adolescent Bipolar Disorder

The symptoms of bipolar disorder affect and are affected by the functioning of family environments. Little is known, however, about the stability of family functioning among youth with bipolar disorder as they cycle in and out of mood episodes. This study examined family functioning and its relationship to symptoms of adolescent bipolar disorder, using longitudinal measures of family cohesion, adaptability, and conflict. Parent- and adolescent-reported symptom and family functioning data were collected from 58 families of adolescents with bipolar disorder (mean age = 14.48 ± 1.60; 33 female, 25 male) who participated in a 2-year randomized trial of family-focused treatment for adolescents (FFT-A). Cohesion and adaptability scores did not significantly change over the course of the study. Parent-reported conflict prior to psychosocial treatment moderated the treatment responses of families, such that high-conflict families participating in FFT-A demonstrated greater reductions in conflict over time than low-conflict families. Moreover, adolescent mania symptoms improved more rapidly in low-conflict than in high-conflict families. For all respondents, cohesion, adaptability, and conflict were longitudinally correlated with adolescents’ depression scores. Finally, decreases in parent-reported conflict also predicted decreases in adolescents’ manic symptoms over the 2-year study. Findings suggest that family cohesion, adaptability, and conflict may be useful predictors of the course of adolescent mood symptoms. Family conflict may be an important target for family intervention in early onset bipolar disorder.