Self‐stereotyping and self‐enhancement in gender groups

Lorenzi‐Cioldi, Fabio

doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420210504

Cited by 80 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Speci®cally, there is evidence that gender identity is more salient for women than for men (e.g. Lorenzi-Cioldi, 1991, 1998. Consequently, women may ®nd it more dif®cult than men to`switch off' their gender identity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Stretching the boundaries: strategic perceptions of intragroup variability

Rubin

Hewstone

Voci

2001

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We hypothesised that people would strategically alter their perceived intragroup variability on ingroup-threatening traits in order to maintain positive perceptions of their self and their ingroup. Speci®cally, we predicted that people would perceive (1) greater relative outgroup homogeneity and (2) greater general intragroup variability on ingroup negative and outgroup positive traits. We con®rmed the outgroup homogeneity prediction in a minimal group experiment (N 80) and a gender group experiment (N 164). In a second gender group experiment (N 137), we found that ingroup size moderated this effect: only minority group members showed the predicted pattern of outgroup homogeneity. Evidence for the general intragroup variability prediction was less conclusive. We discuss the results in terms of variability strategies. Copyright # 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.The outgroup homogeneity effect (OH) is the tendency to perceive out-group members as being less variable than in-group members (for reviews, see Devos, Comby & Deschamps, 1996;Mullen & Hu, 1989;Ostrom & Sedikides, 1992;Voci, 2000). Researchers have usually found OH to be quite a small effect (Mullen & Hu, 1989;Park & Judd, 1990), and under some circumstances it is reversed to become an ingroup homogeneity effect (IH; Simon, 1992).Recently, researchers have broadened their investigations to examine perceived intragroup variability in general, rather than focusing on ingroup-outgroup differences per se (for a review, see Doosje, Spears, Ellemers & Koomen, 1999). A key assumption underlying this line of research is that people change their perceived intragroup variability in a strategic manner in order to maintain positive perceptions of their self and their ingroup during ingroup-threatening comparisons (e.g. Doosje, Spears & Koomen, 1995b). Following Doosje et al., we will describe such changes as variability strategies.In the present research, we aimed to integrate work on OH and IH with work on general perceived intragroup variability. In particular, we were interested in testing whether a strategy-based explanation could be used to predict instances of OH and IH. VARIABILITY STRATEGIES AS A FUNCTION OF TRAIT TYPEWe operationalised ingroup threat by systematically varying the type of traits along which judgements of intragroup variability were made. Traits can vary in terms of their stereotypicality and valence. In terms of stereotypicality, traits can be either stereotypical of the ingroup ± ingroup traits ± or stereotypical of the outgroup ± outgroup traits. In terms of valence, traits can be either socially desirable ± positive traits ± or socially undesirable ± negative traits. The dimensions of stereotypicality and valence can be crossed orthogonally to form four different types of trait: ingroup positive, ingroup negative, outgroup positive and outgroup negative.Ingroup positive and outgroup negative traits do not pose a threat to the ingroup because they provide favourable intergroup comparisons. In contrast, ingroup negative and outgroup pos...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Stretching the boundaries: strategic perceptions of intragroup variability

Rubin

Hewstone

Voci

2001

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This does not, however, mean that women are less identified with their gender group than are men (Branscombe, Kobrynowicz, & Owen, 1995;Lorenzi-Cioldi, 1991). Even when women are highly identified with their gender group, however, Williams and Giles (1978) suggested that`new forms of personal freedom' (p. 445), rather than rigid role adherence, are the consequence.…”

Section: Gender Status and The Groupmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Eagly & Mladinic, 1994;Lorenzi-Cioldi, 1991;Williams & Best, 1977). Masculinity and femininity is assessed in the BSRI via multiple items selected, in part, on the basis of their relative social desirability (Bem, 1974).…”

Section: Measuring Simple Discrepancies Between Levels Of Gender±rolementioning

confidence: 99%

Maladjustment implications of self and group gender–role discrepancies: An ordered-discrepancy model

Burris

Branscombe

Klar

1997

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Deviation from personal ideals and group standards has maladaptive consequences. Using insights from self-categorization and social identity theories, an ordereddiscrepancy model of maladjustment was proposed in which simultaneously deviating from both types of standards is associated with increased maladjustment for members of high status groups, except when such dual discrepancies imply that one is closer to one's ideals than is one's group. In the latter case, decreased maladjustment can be expected. For members of low status groups, discrepancies from ideals, but not from one's group, were expected to predict maladjustment. Patterns of deviations on dimensions of masculinity and femininity predicted maladjustment among men, a high status group, and women, a low status group, as hypothesized. Implications for social identity and self-categorization theories, and for gender±role research, are discussed.

show abstract

“…In support of this hypothesis, there is ample evidence that self-stereotyping-the ascription of ingroup-defining traits to the self-is the outcome of a salient social identity (e.g. Haslam, Oakes, Reynolds, & Mein, 1999;Haslam, Oakes, Reynolds, & Turner, 1999;Lorenzi-Cioldi, 1991;Simon & Hamilton, 1994;Spears, 2001). Thus research has shown more self-stereotyping in intergroup contexts (which make for social identity salience) than in intragroup contexts (which make for personal identity salience).…”

Section: Self-categorization Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Fluidity in the self‐concept: the shift from personal to social identity

Onorato¹,

Turner²

2004

Euro J Social Psych

291

160

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dominant personality models of the self-concept (e.g. self-schema theory) conceive of the self as a relatively stable cognitive representation or schema. The self-schema controls how we process selfrelevant information across a myriad of situations. Conversely, self-categorization theory argues that self-perception is highly variable and context-dependent. It was hypothesized in two studies (N ¼ 114 and 200) that the effect of personal self-schemas on information-processing would be eliminated when the context makes a conflicting higher-order identity salient. Results largely supported selfcategorization theory. Across various dependent measures (trait endorsements, response latencies, and confidence in self-descriptions), participants generally responded in line with the salient identity, even if this pattern of responding directly contradicted their personal self-schema. Implications for dominant personality models of the self-concept are examined. Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. This paper examines the nature of the self-concept, in particular whether the self is a fluid or stable entity. The fluidity issue is addressed by comparing and contrasting two influential theories of the self, namely self-schema theory (Markus, 1977(Markus, , 1990) and self-categorization theory (Turner, 1999;Turner, Oakes, Haslam, & McGarty, 1994). On the one hand, self-schema theory and social cognition models more generally ascribe a great deal of stability to the self-system. On the other hand, selfcategorization theory conceptualizes the self as a highly dynamic process. The present research extends previous work in both research traditions. In two related studies we test whether selfperception is a context-dependent process, or the manifestation of enduring personality traits or selfschemas. SELF-SCHEMA THEORYSelf-schema theory maintains that the core self comprises our self-schemas-'knowledge structures developed by individuals to understand and explain their own social experiences' (Markus & Sentis, 1982, p. 45). It is assumed that we develop these self-structures for our most centrally-defining attributes. For one person independence may be a centrally-defining attribute, while for another creativity or extroversion may be central (Markus, 1977;Markus & Sentis, 1982). Self-schemas are stable self-representations; they facilitate information-processing such that individuals quickly accept congruent information and reject incongruent information (Markus, 1977). Despite the theory's initial emphasis on stability, self-schema theorists later sought to render the model more dynamic by introducing the concept of a working self-concept (Markus & Nurius, 1986;Markus & Wurf, 1987). The working self was conceived as a temporary structure that contains one's currently active self-aspect. Moreover, the malleability of the self-system was attributed to the varying accessibility of self-aspects that surround the core elements (Markus & Kunda, 1986). Thus the revised model retained the idea that self-schemas are sta...

show abstract

Self‐stereotyping and self‐enhancement in gender groups

Abstract: This study investigated the eflects of sex membership and its salience on individuals' self-stereotyping and the motivation to define oneself positively (self-enhancement).Bern 's (1981) gender-schema andMarkus's (1977)

Cited by 80 publications

References 42 publications

Stretching the boundaries: strategic perceptions of intragroup variability

Stretching the boundaries: strategic perceptions of intragroup variability

Maladjustment implications of self and group gender–role discrepancies: An ordered-discrepancy model

Fluidity in the self‐concept: the shift from personal to social identity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About