Conformity to sex-typed norms, affect, and the self-concept

The self-concept plays an important role in conformity to sex-typed social norms. Normative beliefs that men are powerful, dominant, and self-assertive and that women are caring, intimate with others, and emotionally expressive represent possible standards for whom people ought to be and whom they ideally would like to be. In the present research, to the extent that sex role norms were personally relevant for participants, norm-congruent experiences (i.e., those involving dominance for men and communion for women) yielded positive feelings and brought their actual self-concepts closer to the standards represented by ought and ideal selves.     

External intergroup threat as an antecedent to perceptions in in-group and out-group homogeneity.

The present research examined the relationship between external intergroup threat and perceptions of group variability. The first study found that when Texas A&M University students worked on a task in which students from a rival university were allegedly biased against them, they perceived more intragroup similarities versus differences than in an out-group benevolent condition and a control condition, and they also perceived the self as more similar to the in-group and more different from the out-group. These results were replicated in a second study, which used the same methodology except that the benevolent condition was excluded. The findings are discussed in terms of different reactions that individuals have to internal and external intergroup threat. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The view from below: Intergroup relations from the perspective of the disadvantaged group.

This study examined how disadvantaged group members perceive and respond to members of a disadvantaged out-group and an advantaged out-group. Three experiments revealed that a disadvantaged out-group was harmed more and seen as more homogeneous when its own performance was similar to or better than the in-group, and when it was in the presence of an advantaged out-group that performed similar to or better than the in-group. Conversely, an advantaged group was harmed more and seen as more homogeneous when its own performance was worse than the in-group, and when it was in the presence of a disadvantaged out-group that performed worse than the in-group. The results were interpreted in a social comparison framework, suggesting that responses to outgroups are influenced by their status and performance as well as the performance of other out-groups in the situation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)