Memory for events varies as a function of the number of events in a given class, but previous research from organization theory did not succeed in establishing a consistent function relating memory and category size. We suggest that prior research can be systematized within a framework of relational and individual item processing. Relational processing refers to the encoding of similarities among events, and individual item, processing refers to encoding of distinctive information for each event. Assuming the importance of both types of information for precise recall and that the type of information encoded will depend on category size and the subject's attention to relational or distinctive features, predictions are derived concerning the interaction of orienting activity and category size. The predicted interaction was obtained in two experiments that demonstrated that small categories are better recalled following relational processing, and large categories are; better recalled following individual item processing. Additional dependent measures (clustering, category recall, items per category recall, and cued recall) provided highly consistent converging evidence for the proposed theoretical analysis. The general conclusion is that theories of memory must explain the paradoxical fact of the simultaneous importance of both similarity and difference.

In 4 studies, the authors demonstrated that when errors associated with action were inconsistent with decision nakers' orientation, they were undesirable and produced more regret than did errors associated with inaction. Conversely, when errors associated with action were consistent with decision makers' orientation. they were desirable and produced less regret than did errors associated with inaction. Desirability and consistency mediated this relationship, independent of mutability. These results were obtained when judgments and decisions to act or not act were made in close temporal proximity to one another as well as when participants reflected on their past decisions. The authors provide an analysis of when counterfactuals would and would not be expected to mediate judgments of normality and regret.

High- and low-self-esteem group members received feedback about their individual performance as well as that of their own group and an out-group. They then evaluated both groups. Yoked-control observer individuals also provided group evaluations. In the in-group success/out-group failure condition, in-group enhancement tendencies were attenuated by individual failure feedback and augmented by individual success feedback. Low-self-esteem group members who received individual failure feedback showed favoritism toward the unsuccessful out-group over their own successful in-group. In the in-group failure/out-group success condition, in-group enhancement tendencies were attenuated by individual success feedback and augmented by individual failure feedback. Thus individuals' position in a social hierarchy mediates upward and downward social mobility strategies.

High-and low-self-esteem participant and observer (control) Ss received evaluative feedback about the performance of in-groups and out-groups. Self-evaluations and evaluations of the groups were assessed. Results suggest that participant group members (vs. observers) enhance evaluations of both groups under conditions of failure feedback. Intergroup bias was obtained over and above these effects for participant high-self-esteem Ss. However, participant low-self-esteem Ss favored failing out-groups. Results suggest that individuals with different levels of self-esteem may differ in terms of their inferred status within groups. Intragroup comparisons may then influence one's choice of groups for social identification.The nature of intergroup relations is largely determined by definitions of group boundaries. Accordingly, investigating the causes and consequences of group identification is at the core of social psychological research. The earliest investigations of the consequences of group identification assumed that competition among groups was necessary for intergroup discrimination (e.g., Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, Sherif, & 1961). It became apparent, however, that bias does occur in the absence of explicit competition (e.g.

Subjects worked on an identical simple motor task that was described as being either rhigh or low in value. They worked alone or with a coactor whose performance rate was slightly superior or very superior to their own. When they performed with a very superior coactor on a high-value task, subjects were more frustrated and produced an inferior level of performance relative to those working with the same coactor on a low-value task. When subjects performed alone, however, they were not more frustrated while working on a high-than low-value task. Nevertheless, their performance scores reflected differences in motivation-subjects working on a high-value task tended to perform better than those working on a low-value task. These data are discussed within a social comparison framework and a resource investment analysis of goal value. The implications of this analysis for self-evaluation maintenance and modeling are discussed.