Theorizing gender in the face of social change: Is there anything essential about essentialism?

The authors examine how beliefs about the stability of the social hierarchy moderate the link between sexism and essentialist beliefs about gender and how the expression of essentialist beliefs might reciprocally affect the social structure. Studies 1 (N = 240) and 2 (N = 143) presented gender-based inequality as stable, changing, or changed. In both studies, sexism was positively associated with essentialism only among men and only when inequality was presented as changing. Study 3 (N = 552) explored the possible consequences of expressing essentialist theories for social change. Exposure to essentialist theories increased both men's and women's acceptance of inequality. Exposure further increased men's support for discriminatory practices and boosted their self-esteem. These patterns demonstrate that although essentialism is linked to prejudice, this link is itself not essential. Rather, essentialism may be invoked strategically to protect higher status when this is threatened by change and may be successful in so doing. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Two faces of anonymity: Paradoxical effects of cues to identity in CMC

This paper presents two experimental studies investigating the effects of presenting cues that provide information about the interactors – called cues to identity – in computer mediated communications (CMCs). Study 1 shows that even though cues to identity affected interpersonal evaluations, in making them more positive, the presence of these cues were associated with less certainty and less medium satisfaction for users with experience in online communication. Study 2 shows that when performing an online communication task, participants felt more certain, were more satisfied with the medium, and thought they had performed better in the absence of cues to identity. Thus, this study supports the widespread assumption that rich interactions (i.e., interactions that allow the transmission of cues to identity such as face-to-face) are superior in that they make the interaction more personal, but that these outcomes are not mirrored by the evaluation of the interaction. It is suggested that the presence of cues to identity positively affects interpersonal perceptions, but at the same time decreases perceptions of solidarity or entitativity.     

Individuality and Social Influence in Groups: Inductive and Deductive Routes to Group Identity.

A distinction between forms of social identity formation in small interactive groups is investigated. In groups in which a common identity is available or given, norms for individual behavior may be deduced from group properties (deductive identity). In groups in which interpersonal relations are central, a group identity may also be induced from individual group members' contributions, making individuality and individual distinctiveness a defining feature of the group (inductive identity). Two studies examined the prediction that depersonalization produced by anonymity has opposite effects for groups in which social identity has been induced or deduced. Results confirmed the prediction that depersonalization increases social influence in groups whose identity was more deductive. In contrast, depersonalization decreases social influence in inductive identity groups. Implications for the role of social identity in small groups are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Seeing one thing and doing another: Contrast effects in automatic behavior.

Research on automatic behavior demonstrates the ability of stereotypes to elicit stereotype-consistent behavior. Social judgment research proposes that whereas traits and stereotypes elicit assimilation, priming of exemplars can elicit judgmental contrast by evoking social comparisons. This research extends these findings by showing that priming exemplars can elicit behavioral contrast by evoking a social comparison. In Study 1, priming professor or supermodel stereotypes led, respectively, to more and fewer correct answers on a knowledge test (behavioral assimilation), but priming exemplars of these categories led to the reverse pattern (behavioral contrast). In Study 2, participants walked away faster after being primed with an elderly exemplar. In Study 3, the proposition that contrast effects reflect comparisons of the self with the exemplar was supported. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Influence of long-term racial environmental composition on subjective well-being in African Americans.

Two studies (N=126, N=114) of African Americans supported a model predicting that more racially segregated life contexts are associated with feelings of acceptance by other in-group members and, to a lesser extent, rejection by outgroup members. In-group acceptance and out-group rejection in turn influenced identification with the in-group, which was a strong predictor of psychological well-being. Alternative models were not supported. Results suggest that environments that are segregated offer in-group support and acceptance, thereby protecting self-esteem against possible perils of rejection by a powerful out-group. Findings suggest that the improvement of intergroup relations should not be at the expense of intragroup relations. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives.

An integrative social identity model of collective action (SIMCA) is developed that incorporates 3 socio-psychological perspectives on collective action. Three meta-analyses synthesized a total of 182 effects of perceived injustice, efficacy, and identity on collective action (corresponding to these socio-psychological perspectives). Results showed that, in isolation, all 3 predictors had medium-sized (and causal) effects. Moreover, results showed the importance of social identity in predicting collective action by supporting SIMCA's key predictions that (a) affective injustice and politicized identity produced stronger effects than those of non-affective injustice and non-politicized identity; (b) identity predicted collective action against both incidental and structural disadvantages, whereas injustice and efficacy predicted collective action against incidental disadvantages better than against structural disadvantages; (c) all 3 predictors had unique medium-sized effects on collective action when controlling for between-predictor covariance; and (d) identity bridged the injustice and efficacy explanations of collective action. Results also showed more support for SIMCA than for alternative models reflecting previous attempts at theoretical integration. The authors discuss key implications for theory, practice, future research, and further integration of social and psychological perspectives on collective action. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Intergroup Distinctiveness and Differentiation: A Meta-Analytic Integration.

The authors examined the relation between perceptions of intergroup distinctiveness and intergroup differentiation in a meta-analysis. They tested the social identity theory prediction that low intergroup distinctiveness underlies differentiation (the "reactive distinctiveness" hypothesis) for effects on behavioral and judgmental differentiation. In addition, they examined the moderating power of 4 variables that H. Tajfel and J. C. Turner (1979) predicted would influence differentiation (group identification, relevance of the dimension of comparison, relevance of the outgroup. and nature of intergroup relations). Analysis of 60 tests revealed that the overall effect of distinctiveness on differentiation was not significantly different from 0, but reactive distinctiveness was found on behavioral differentiation measures, whereas reflective distinctiveness was found on judgmental differentiation measures. Only group identification was a reliable moderator. High identifiers showed reactive distinctiveness, whereas low identifiers showed reflective distinctiveness. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Social processes and group decision making: anonymity in group decision support systems

Various social processes in decision-making groups are considered detrimental to the quality of decisions. It is often assumed that removing the ability for groups to exert strong social influence on its members improves group decisions. Group Decision Support Systems (GDSSs) are increasingly used to remedy the social faults of the decision-making process in groups. In these systems, anonymity is seen as a tool to reduce the impact of the group over its members, and therefore as the key to improved group performance. This meta-analytic review examines the assumption that anonymity in GDSSs is beneficial for group decision-making on a range of performance indicators. In 6 meta-analyses of 12 independent investigations there is no support for this hypothesis. The only reliable effect of anonymity was to lead to more contributions, especially more critical ones. An alternative model is presented to account for the findings. This model argues that performance in decision-making groups depends on the social context and relevant social norms as well as on system characteristics such as anonymity. It is concluded that the integration of anonymity into phases of group decision support does not guarantee improved performance.     

Comparative processes in personal and group judgments: Resolving the discrepancy.

The judgment mechanisms underlying personal- and group-level ratings of discrimination and privilege were investigated in high- and low-status groups. A consistent personal–group discrepancy is found for discrimination and privilege but is not due to personal differentiation from the group. Instead, personal and group ratings are based on different comparison standards and levels of self (personal vs. social identity); personal motives influence personal ratings, and social motivations influence group ratings. This analysis is supported by contrasting the traditional discrepancy score with a direct comparison measure (Study 2) and by showing the sensitivity of group ratings (but not personal ratings) to group audience and degree of group identification (Studies 3 and 4). Studying the different meanings communicated with personal and group ratings provides more insight into the dimensions of deprivation than do analyses of discrepancy scores. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)