Measures and models of perceived group variability.

Park, Bernadette; Judd, Charles H.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.2.173

Cited by 392 publications

(459 citation statements)

References 26 publications

(88 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

422

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our research benefitted from the use of a priming procedure that allowed for direct measurement of the extent of behavioral activation during the judgment process. In contrast, previous work on the OHE has relied primarily on correlational evidence (e.g., Judd & Park, 1988;Mackie et al, 1993;Park & Judd, 1990) and computer simulations (e.g., Linville et al, 1989). Still, the possibility remains that our results would have been different had we requested variability instead of central tendency judgments from our participants.…”

Section: Implications For Models Of the Out-group Homogeneity Effectcontrasting

confidence: 48%

Intergroup Bias in Group Judgment Processes: The Role of Behavioral Memories

Sherman¹,

Klein

Laskey

et al. 1998

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments examined the role of memory for behavioral episodes in judgments about in-groups and out-groups. Using a minimal group paradigm, participants read either positive or negative trait-relevant behaviors performed by group members. They then were asked to make judgments about the group's trait characteristics. Results demonstrated that, for groups described positively, judgments about the out-group but not the in-group were accomplished by retrieving from memory specific behaviors performed by group members. In contrast, for groups described negatively, judgments about the in-group but not the out-group were accomplished by retrieving specific behaviors performed by group members. These results suggest that basic differences in the way judgments about in-groups and out-groups are made contribute to the establishment and perpetuation of intergroup bias by decreasing the stability of negative in-group and positive out-group impressions and increasing the stability of positive in-group and negative out-group impressions. 1998Academic Press

show abstract

Section: Implications For Models Of the Out-group Homogeneity Effectcontrasting

confidence: 48%

Intergroup Bias in Group Judgment Processes: The Role of Behavioral Memories

Sherman¹,

Klein

Laskey

et al. 1998

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this work, African American participants consistently showed patterns of responses that are typical of intergroup judgments, demonstrating both out-group homogeneity effects (Park & Judd, 1990;Park & Rothbart, 1982) and ethnocentrism. White Americans' judgments of their in-group were generally consistent with these two phenomena, but White Americans' judgments of their outBernd Wittenbrink, Charles M. Judd, and Bernadette Park, Department of Psychology, University of Colorado.…”

mentioning

confidence: 87%

Evidence for racial prejudice at the implicit level and its relationship with questionnaire measures.

Wittenbrink¹,

Judd²,

Park³

1997

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Self Cite

633

672

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The content of spontaneously activated racial stereotypes among White Americans and the relation of this to more explicit measures of stereotyping and prejudice were investigated. Using a semantic priming paradigm, a prime was presented outside of conscious awareness (BLACK or WHITE), followed by a target stimulus requiring a word-nonword decision. The target stimuli included attributes that varied in valence and stereotypicality for Whites and African Americans. Results showed reliable stereotyping and prejudice effects: Black primes resulted in substantially stronger facilitation to negative than positive stereotypic attributes, whereas White primes facilitated positive more than negative stereotypic traits. The magnitude of this implicit prejudice effect correlated reliably with participants' scores on explicit racial attitude measures, indicating that people's spontaneous stereotypic associations are consistent with their more controlled responses.Over the past 40 years, opinion surveys have documented substantial changes in racial attitudes among White Americans (Campbell,

show abstract

“…Indeed, research has shown that more abstract superordinate representations are constructed for out-groups. For example, out-groups are perceived as more homogeneous and less distinctive on various dimensions than in-groups (i.e., as sharing superordinate characteristics, e.g., Jones, Wood, & Quattrone, 1981;Linville & Jones, 1980;Park & Judd, 1990;Park & Ruthbart, 1982). …”

Section: Projectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interpersonal similarity as a social distance dimension: Implications for perception of others’ actions

Liviatan

Trope

Liberman

2008

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

525

364

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Building on the assumption that interpersonal similarity is a form of social distance, the current research examines the manner in which similarity influences the representation and judgment of others' actions. On the basis of a construal level approach, we hypothesized that greater levels of similarity would increase the relative weight of subordinate and secondary features of information in judgments of others' actions. The results of four experiments showed that compared to corresponding judgments of a dissimilar target, participants exposed to a similar target person identified that person's actions in relatively more subordinate means-related rather than superordinate ends-related terms (Experiment 1), perceived his or her actions to be determined more by feasibility and less by desirability concerns (Experiment 3), and gave more weight to secondary aspects in judgments of the target's decisions (Experiment 2) and performance (Experiment 4). Implications for the study of interpersonal similarity, as well as social distance in general, are discussed. Keywords interpersonal similarity; social distance; construal level theory; social judgment; mental representations Imagine a close friend giving a job talk. Now imagine a stranger giving the same job talk. What type of representation would you construct for this action? Would you represent it in terms of an abstract superordinate goal (for instance, communicating one's research ideas) or rather bring to mind the subordinate, concrete means by which to achieve the goal (such as presenting power point slides)? And would your representation include primary and central aspects related to this action (for instance, the research question) or more secondary information (such as the slides' background design)?

show abstract

Measures and models of perceived group variability.

Cited by 392 publications

References 26 publications

Intergroup Bias in Group Judgment Processes: The Role of Behavioral Memories

Intergroup Bias in Group Judgment Processes: The Role of Behavioral Memories

Evidence for racial prejudice at the implicit level and its relationship with questionnaire measures.

Interpersonal similarity as a social distance dimension: Implications for perception of others’ actions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About