Behavior Speaks Louder than Traits

Geschke, Daniel; Sassenberg, Kai; Ruhrmann, Georg; Sommer, Denise

doi:10.1027/0044-3409.215.4.248

Cited by 4 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The linguistic category model (Semin & Fiedler, 1988) divides interpersonal predicates into four categories according to their level of linguistic abstraction, increasing from descriptive action verbs to interpretive action verbs, state verbs, and adjectives. In line with previous research (e.g., Douglas & Sutton, 2010;Geschke, Sassenberg, Ruhrmann, & Sommer, 2007;Wigboldus et al, 2000), we based our linguistic abstraction manipulation only on the distinction between action verbs and adjectives, rather than on all four categories. We used four pairs of abstract/concrete descriptions (see Appendix A).…”

Section: Independent Variablementioning

confidence: 89%

A normative perspective on the linguistic intergroup bias: How intragroup approval of ingroup members who use the linguistic intergroup bias perpetuates explicit intergroup bias

Assilaméhou‐Kunz

Postmes

Testé

2019

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present research examined from a normative perspective how intragroup normative processes regulate the consequences of the linguistic intergroup bias (LIB). Results of three studies supported our hypothesis that intragroup approval of an ingroup member who uses the LIB plays a key role in perpetuating pro-ingroup bias. In Study 1, ingroup members who used pro-ingroup (vs. pro-outgroup) LIB elicited more intragroup approval and this effect was mediated by the perception of the speaker as being biased in favor of the ingroup. In Studies 2 and 3, intragroup approval (vs. disapproval) of an ingroup member who used the LIB enhanced the expression of pro-ingroup bias. By providing the first demonstration of how the LIB relates to intragroup normative processes, our studies highlight a new path by which the LIB helps perpetuate intergroup bias. K E Y W O R D Sintragroup approval, linguistic intergroup bias, normative regulations, pro-ingroup bias, social norms Correction added on 05 October 2019, after first online publication: in the title of this article, "members who use the linguistic intragroup bias" has been corrected to "members who use the linguistic intergroup bias". In the first sentence of the abstract, the second occurrence of "intragroup" has been corrected to "intergroup".

show abstract

Section: Independent Variablementioning

confidence: 89%

A normative perspective on the linguistic intergroup bias: How intragroup approval of ingroup members who use the linguistic intergroup bias perpetuates explicit intergroup bias

Assilaméhou‐Kunz

Postmes

Testé

2019

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The findings reported by Geshke et al [ 32 ] do not fit with the data and theory of the linguistic bias paradigm, which argues that the prevalent use of linguistic bias leads to belief maintenance. According to the lcm , prevalent use would lead to belief maintenance since lower levels of linguistic abstraction limit the impact of a behaviour to the specific circumstances in which it took place.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…Concretely describing belief-inconsistent information, then, allows pre-existing beliefs to remain intact by signalling to recipients that the information can be discounted or ignored. The study by Geschke et al [ 32 ], in contrast, suggests that concrete descriptions of belief-inconsistent information actually have a greater effect than abstract descriptions. This would suggest a corresponding increase in the impact of belief-inconsistent information, potentially leading to a change in pre-existing beliefs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Closest to this goal is a key study by Geschke, Sassenberg, Ruhrmann, and Sommer [ 32 ] that was conducted with the specific objective of clarifying what impact concrete information has on recipients. In this study, participants read about a belief-inconsistent exemplar and then answered questions about their impressions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…How can the results of Geschke et al [ 32 ] be reconciled with the linguistic bias paradigm. From a communication perspective, information that is shared does not need to be communicated because it is already understood to be shared [ 33 , 34 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

An inconclusive study comparing the effect of concrete and abstract descriptions of belief-inconsistent information

Collins¹,

Clement²

2018

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Linguistic bias is the differential use of linguistic abstraction (as defined by the Linguistic Category Model) to describe the same behaviour for members of different groups. Essentially, it is the tendency to use concrete language for belief-inconsistent behaviours and abstract language for belief-consistent behaviours. Having found that linguistic bias is produced without intention or awareness in many contexts, researchers argue that linguistic bias reflects, reinforces, and transmits pre-existing beliefs, thus playing a role in belief maintenance. Based on the Linguistic Category Model, this assumes that concrete descriptions reduce the impact of belief-inconsistent behaviours while abstract descriptions maximize the impact of belief-consistent behaviours. However, a key study by Geschke, Sassenberg, Ruhrmann, and Sommer [2007] found that concrete descriptions of belief-inconsistent behaviours actually had a greater impact than abstract descriptions, a finding that does not fit easily within the linguistic bias paradigm. Abstract descriptions (e.g. the elderly woman is athletic) are, by definition, more open to interpretation than concrete descriptions (e.g. the elderly woman works out regularly). It is thus possible that abstract descriptions are (1) perceived as having less evidentiary strength than concrete descriptions, and (2) understood in context (i.e. athletic for an elderly woman). In this study, the design of Geschke et al. [2007] was modified to address this possibility. We expected that the differences in the impact of concrete and abstract descriptions would be reduced or reversed, but instead we found that differences were largely absent. This study did not support the findings of Geschke et al. [2007] or the linguistic bias paradigm. We encourage further attempts to understand the strong effect of concrete descriptions for belief-inconsistent behaviour.

show abstract

Net-Based Knowledge Communication in Groups

Hesse

2007

Zeitschrift für Psychologie / Journal of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Net-based knowledge communication in groups as a topic for joint research work was established in 1997, when first suggestions emerged to submit a proposal to the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG) for a Special Priority Program (SPP). The grant enabled a number of projects to carry out related research in different disciplines, such as psychology, education, and computer science. Through the end of the SPP funding period in 2007 all projects strived to contribute to three overarching research goals: -setting an interdisciplinary research agenda, -building theory in the field by relating research on new media to "mainstream" concepts of the participating disciplines, and -establishing net-based knowledge communication as a research field of its own. The results of this endeavor were published in various journals over the years. The topic itself is still of interest to the former members of the SPP and other beyond them. This special issue contains work of four of the former members as well as one additional article. It will be introduced by a more conceptual view of this field and followed by four reports about empirical research on net-based knowledge communication.The first article by Jürgen Buder delineates a conceptualization of the field by analyzing three interrelated barriers facing designers and users of net-based knowledge communication: first, a content barrier from the fact that technologies often lack coherent representations of content provided or content exchanged; second, an interpersonal barrier as technologies often lack vital information about the persons with whom one is interacting; third, a coordination barrier refers to the notion that technologies often fail to provide the structure needed for participants to coordinate their activities. For each barrier, the author discusses how it affects psychological mechanisms important for interaction and how the respective barrier can be overcome. Furthermore, he identifies specific potentials of net-based technologies which allow the design of scenarios that might surpass the performance levels of face-to-face communication.

show abstract

Behavior Speaks Louder than Traits

Cited by 4 publications

References 19 publications

A normative perspective on the linguistic intergroup bias: How intragroup approval of ingroup members who use the linguistic intergroup bias perpetuates explicit intergroup bias

A normative perspective on the linguistic intergroup bias: How intragroup approval of ingroup members who use the linguistic intergroup bias perpetuates explicit intergroup bias

An inconclusive study comparing the effect of concrete and abstract descriptions of belief-inconsistent information

Net-Based Knowledge Communication in Groups

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About