Direct and indirect dimensional compensation: Is there a difference between observers and group members?

Abstract

Dimensional compensation takes place when perceivers judge one of two social targets higher on one of the two fundamental dimensions while judging the other target higher on the second dimension. Interestingly, the majority of studies on the dimensional compensation effect focused on direct measures, with almost no attempt to rely on more indirect measures. We tested whether dimensional compensation also takes place at a more indirect level (Brief-IAT). In Experiment 1, observers presented with unknown groups dimensionally compensated both directly and indirectly. Experiment 2 had participants assigned to one of two novel groups. Whereas low-competence group members dimensionally compensated on both direct and indirect measures, high-competence group members dimensionally compensated at the direct level but did not conceed any advantage to the low-competence group at the indirect level. As a set, our findings shed new light on direct and indirect dimensionally compensatory judgments as a function of perceivers’ vantage points as observers and group members.

The Facets of Social Hierarchy: How Judges’ Legitimacy Beliefs and Relative Status Shape Their Evaluation of Assertiveness and Ability

“…An intriguing question is whether the pattern observed in Studies 1a and 1b would emerge when people belong to one of the groups. Building on other findings, most notably in the literature on compensation (Schmitz & Yzerbyt, 2020;Yzerbyt, 2018), we expected group members to be as likely to manifest the pattern that was found in Studies 1a and 1b.…”

“…For instance, keeping the ingroup constant, for example, psychology students, one would want to examine the ratings of the ingroup and either a superior outgroup, such as medical students, or an inferior outgroup, for example, social work students . Alternatively, it would be important to minimize the interference of existing stereotypes and create a situation by which people face a minimal paradigm that throws them in a social context in which their ingroup is either the lowstatus group or the high-status group (Schmitz & Yzerbyt, 2020).…”

The many faces of compensation: The similarities and differences between social and facial models of perception

“…Moreover, compensation was only tested at a verbal level. For instance, by the means of traits' ratings (e.g., [22]) or by having people choose specific content-and valenceoriented questions [23], select behavioral descriptions [24], or react to associations between group labels and traits (i.e., Brief-IAT [25]). Hence, the question remains if non-verbal stimuli, such as visual information conveyed by faces, may also be biased in a compensatory way and under unconstrained conditions.…”

“…Although robust, research on the compensation effect has exclusively been built on verbal outputs such as written descriptions or reactions to group labels. Furthermore, the designs and measures used in previous studies restrained participants' responses to a limited set of options determined a priori by researchers (e.g., [18,24,25,85). These two aspects are not trivial limitations when considering that everyday life social impressions are formed freely and comprise multi-modal components (e.g., auditory stereotypes [86]; visual stereotypes [64]).…”

When my actions shape your looks: Experience-based properties of approach/avoidance bias the visual representation of others.

“…The reverse correlation paradigm has proven very efficient in measuring evaluative biases on face representation (e.g., Dotsch et al, 2008, 2011, 2013; Imhoff et al, 2013; Ratner et al, 2014; Schmitz & Yzerbyt, 2020; Young et al, 2014). For instance, when participants had to select the most Moroccan-looking face, the average face resulting from the reverse correlation procedure came across (as assessed by independent judges) as being more negative as participants’ prejudice proved stronger (Dotsch et al, 2008, 2011).…”