Group homogeneity perception in status hierarchies: The moderating effect of the salience of group status differentials

Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale

Volumn 21, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 67-111

  Lorenzi Cioldi, Fabio ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GENEVA   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Group status; Ingroup and outgroup homogeneity; Oppression theories

Indexed keywords

EID: 56049092038     PISSN: 0992986X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (105)

1. Arcuri, L., Castelli, L., Boca, S., Lorenzi-Cioldi, F., & Dafflon, A.-C. (2001). Fuzzy gender categories: How emotional expression influences typicality. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 60, 179-191.
2. Ashburn-Nardo, L., Voils, C. I., & Monteith, M. J. (2001). Implicit associations as the seeds of intergroup bias: How easily do they take root? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 789-799.
3. Blalock, H. M. (1967). Toward a theory of minority group relations. New York: Wiley.
4. Boldry, J. G., & Gaertner, L. (2006). Separating status from power as an antecedent of intergroup perception. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 9, 377-400.
5. Boldry, J. G., Gaertner, L., & Quinn, J. (2007). Measuring the measures: A meta-analytic investigation of the measures of outgroup homogeneity. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 10, 157-178.
6. Boldry, J. G., & Kashy, D. A. (1999). Intergroup perception in naturally occurring groups of differential status: A social relations perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1200-1212.
7. Bourdieu, P. (1987). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
8. Brauer, M. (2001). Intergroup perception in the social context: The effects of social status and group membership on outgroup homogeneity and ethnocentrism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 15-31.
9. Brauer, M., & Judd, C. (2000). Defining variables in relationship to other variables: When interactions suddenly turn out to be main effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 410-423.
10. Brauer, M., & Bourhis, R. Y. (2006). Social power. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 601-616.
11. Brewer, M. B. (1988). A dual process model of impression formation. In T. K. Srull & R. S. Wyer (Eds.), Advances in Social Cognition (vol. 1, pp. 1-36). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
12. Brewer, M. B. (1993). Social identity, distinctiveness, and in-group homogeneity. Social Cognition, 11, 150164.
13. Brown, R. J., & Smith, A. (1989). Perceptions of and by minority groups: The case of women in Academia. European Journal of Social Psychology, 19, 61-75.
14. Cabecinhas, R., & Amâncio, L. (1999). Asymmetries in the perception of other as a funcion of social position and context. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 58, 40-50.
15. Cabecinhas, R., Lorenzi-Cioldi, F., & Dafflon, A.-C. (2004). Direct and indirect assessment of group homogeneity perceptions in a natural group setting. Psicologia, 17, 431-452.
16. Chappe, B., Brauer, M., & Castano, E. (2004). Advantaged groups are more variable than disadvantaged groups: The case of preferences and habits. Current Psychology of Cognition, 22, 407-425.
17. Conway, M., Pizzamiglio, M. T., & Mount, L. (1996). Status, communality, and agency: Implications for stereotypes of gender and other groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 25-38.
18. Copeland, J. T. (1994). Prophecies of power: Motivational implications of social power for behavioral confirmation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 264-277.
19. DePaulo, B. M. (1992). Nonverbal behavior and self-presentation. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 203-243.
20. Dépret, E., & Fiske, S. T. (1999). Perceiving the powerful: Intriguing individuals versus threatening groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 461-480.
21. Devos, T., Comby, L. & Deschamps, J.-C. (1996). Asymmetries in judgements of ingroup and outgroup variability. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European Review of Social Psychology (vol. 7, pp. 95-144). New York: Wiley.
22. Doosje, B., Ellemers, N., & Spears, R. (1995). Perceived intra-group variability as a function of group status and identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 410-436.
23. Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Validzic, A. (1998). Intergroup bias; Status, differentiation, and a common in-group identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 109-120.
24. Ellemers, N., van Rijswijk, W., Roefs, M., & Simons, C. (1997). Bias in intergroup perceptions: Balancing group identity with social reality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 186-198.
25. Ellyson, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1985). Power, dominance, and nonverbal behavior: Basic concepts and issues. In S. L. Ellyson & J. F. Dovidio (Eds.), Power, dominance, and nonverbal behavior (pp. 1-27). New York: Springer.
26. Fazio, R. H., & Olson, M. A. (2003). Implicit measures in social cognition research: Their meaning and use. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 297-327.
27. Fiedler, K., Kemmelmeier, M., & Freytag, P. (1999). Explaining asymmetric intergroup judgments through differential aggregation: Computer simulations and some new evidence. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European Review of Social Psychology (vol. 10, pp. 1-40). New York: Wiley.
28. Fiske, A. P., Haslam, N., & Fiske, S. T. (1991). Confusing one person with another: What errors reveal about the elementary forms of social relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 656-674.
29. Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling other people. The impact of power on stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48, 621-628.
30. Fiske, S. T. (2000). Interdependence and the reduction of prejudice. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 115-135). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
31. Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum model of impression formation, from category based to individuating processes: Influence of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (vol. 23, pp. 1-74). San Diego: Academic Press.
32. Frable, D. E. S., & Bem, S. L. (1985). If you are gender schematic, all members of the opposite sex look alike. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 459-468.
33. Frable, D. E. S., Blackstone, T., & Scherbaum, C. (1990). Marginal and mindful: Deviants in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 140-149.
34. Franco, F. M., & Maass, A. (1999). Intentional control over prejudice: When the choice of measure matters. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 469-478.
35. Goodwin, S. A., Gubin, A, Fiske, S. T., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2000). Power can bias impression processes: Stereotyping subordinates by default and by design. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 3, 227-256.
36. Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360-1380.
37. Gregory, S. W., & Webster, S. (1996). A nonverbal signal in voices of interview partners effectively predicts communication accommodation and social status perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1231-1240.
38. Guinote, A. (2001). The perception of group variability in a nonminority and a minority context: When adaptation leads to outgroup differentiation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 117-132.
39. Guinote, A. (2007). Behaviour variability and the situated focus theory of power. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European Review of Social Psychology (vol. 18, pp. 256-295). New York: Psychology Press.
40. Guinote, A., Judd, C. M., & Brauer, M. (2002). Effects of power on perceived and objective group variability: Evidence that more powerful groups are more variable. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 708-721.
41. Guinote, A., Brown, M., & Fiske, S. (2006). Minority status decreases sense of control and increases interpretive processing. Social Cognition, 24, 169-186.
42. Guinote, A., Mauro, C., Pereira, M. H., & Monteiro, M. B. (2007). Children's perception of group variability as a function of status. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31, 97-104.
43. Hall, J. A., Murphy, N. A., & Carney, D. R. (2006). On the varieties of asymmetrical dependency: Feelings, motives, behavior, and accuracy in a dyadic interaction. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 583-599.
44. Henley, N. M. (1977). Body politics: Power, sex, and nonverbal communication. Englewood-Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
45. Hewstone, M., Crisp, R. J., Contarello, A., Voci, A., Conway, L., Marietta, G., & Willis, H. (2006). Tokens in the tower: Perceptual processes and interaction dynamics in academic settings with 'skewed', 'tilted', and 'balanced' sex ratios. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 9, 509-532.
46. Holtgraves, T. (1994). Communication in context: Effects of speaker status on the comprehension of indirect requests. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1205-1218.
47. Hurtig, M.-C., & Pichevin, M.-F. (1990). Salience of the sex-category system in person perception: Contextual variations. Sex Roles, 22, 369-395.
48. Jackman, M. R., & Senter, M. S. (1980). Images of social groups: Categorical or qualified? Public Opinion Quarterly, 44, 341-361.
49. Judd, C. M., & Park, B. (1988). Out-group homogeneity: Judgments of variability at the individual and group levels. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 778-788.
50. Karasawa, M., Karasawa, K., & Hirose, Y. (2004). Homogeneity perception as a reaction to identity threat: Effects of status difference in a simulated society game. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 613-625.
51. Kelley, H. H. (1951). Communication in experimentally created hierarchies. Human Relations, 4, 39-56.
52. Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265-284.
53. Klauer, K., Wegener, I., & Ehrenberg, K. (2002). Perceiving minority members as individuals: the effects of relative group size in social categorization. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 223-245.
54. LaFrance, M., & Henley, N. M. (1994). On oppressing hypotheses: Or differences in nonverbal sensitivity revisited. In H. L. Radke & H. J. Stam (Eds.), Power/Gender: Social relations in theory and practice (pp. 287-311). London: Sage.
55. Lee, F., & Tiedens, L. Z. (2001). Who's being served? "Self-serving" attributions in social hierarchies. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 84, 254-287.
56. Lemaine, G. (1974). Social differentiation and social originality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 4, 17-52.
57. Linville, P. W., Fischer, G. W., & Salovey, P. (1989). Perceived distributions of the characteristics of in-group and out-group members: Empirical evidence and a computer simulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 165-188.
58. Lorenzi-Cioldi, F. (1988). Discriminations entre soi et autrui et catégorisation sociale. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 1, 239-256.
59. Lorenzi-Cioldi, F. (1993). They all look alike, but so do we, sometimes... Perception of in-group and out-group homogeneity as a function of gender and context. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 111-124.
60. Lorenzi-Cioldi, F. (1998). Group status and perceptions of homogeneity. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European Review of Social Psychology (vol. 9, pp. 31-75). New York: Wiley.
61. Lorenzi-Cioldi, F. (2001). The when and the why of how: From mental representations to social representations. In K. Deaux & G. Philogène (Eds.), Representations of the social: Bridging theoretical traditions (pp. 217-227). Oxford: Blackwell.
62. Lorenzi-Cioldi, F. (2002). Collections et agrégats [Collections and aggregates]. Grenoble: Presses Universitaires.
63. Lorenzi-Cioldi, F. (2006). Group status and individual differentiation. In T. Postmes & J. Jetten (Eds.), Individuality and the group: Advances in social identity (pp. 93-115). London: Sage.
64. Lorenzi-Cioldi, F., & Chatard, A. (2006). The cultural norm of individualism and group status: Implications for social comparisons. In S. Guimond (Ed.), Social comparison and social psychology (pp. 264-282). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
65. Lorenzi-Cioldi, F., Deaux, K., & Dafflon, A.-C. (1998). Group homogeneity as a function of relative social status. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 57, 255-273.
66. Lorenzi-Cioldi, F., Eagly, A. H., & Stewart, T. L. (1995). Homogeneity of gender groups in memory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 193-217.
67. Maass, A., Castelli, L., & Arcuri, L. (2000). Measuring prejudice: Implicit versus explicit techniques. In D. Capozza & R. Brown (Eds.), Social identity processes: Trends in theory and research (pp. 96-116). London: Sage.
68. Merton, R. K., & Kitt, A. S. (1950). Contributions to the theory of reference group behavior. In R. K. Merton & P. Lazarsfeld (Eds.), Continuities in the social research: Studies in the scope and method of the "American Soldier". Glencoe: Free Press.
69. Messick, D. M., & Mackie, D. M. (1989). Intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 45-81.
70. Montiel, C. J., & Macapagal, M. E. J. (2006). Effects of social position on societal attributions of an asymmetric conflict. Journal of Peace Research, 43, 219-227.
71. Mullen, B., & Hu, L. (1989). Perceptions of ingroup and outgroup variability: A meta-analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 10, 233-252.
72. Mummendey, A., & Schreiber, H.-J. (1983). Better or just different? Positive social identity by discrimination against, or by differentiation from, outgroups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 389-397.
73. Ostrom, T. M., & Sedikides, C. (1992). Out-group homogeneity effects in natural and minimal groups. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 536-552.
74. Overbeck, J. R., & Park, B. (2001). When power does not corrupt: Superior individuation processes among powerful perceivers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 549-565.
75. Overbeck, J. R., Tiedens, L. Z., & Brion, S. (2006). The powerful want to, the powerless have to: Perceived constraint moderates causal attributions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 479-496.
76. Park, B., & Judd, C. M. (1990). Measures and models of perceived group variability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 173-191.
77. Park, B., & Rothbart, M. (1982). Perception of out-group homogeneity and levels of social categorization: Memory for the subordinate attributes of in-group and out-group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 1051-1068.
78. Park, B., Ryan, C. S., & Judd, C. M. (1992). Role of meaningful subgroups in explaining differences in perceived variability for in-groups and out-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 553-567.
79. Postmes, T., Haslam, S. A., & Swaab, R. I. (2005). Social influence in small groups: An interactive model of social identity formation. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European Review of Social Psychology (vol. 16, pp. 1-42). New York: Wiley.
80. Read, S. J., & Urada, D. I. (2003). A neural network simulation of the outgroup homogeneity effect. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 146-169.
81. Reynolds, K. J., & Oakes, P. J. (2000). Variability in impression formation: Investigating the role of motivation, capacity, and the categorization process. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 355-373.
82. Riley, T., & Fiske, S. T. (1991). Interdependence and the social context of impression formation. European Bulletin of Cognitive Psychology, 11, 173-192.
83. Rubin, M., Hewstone, M., Crisp, R. J., Voci, A., Richards, Z. (2004). Gender out-group homogeneity: The roles of differential familiarity, gender differences, and group size. In V. Yzerbyt, C. M. Judd, & O. Corneille (Eds.), The psychology of group perception: Perceived variability, entitativity, and essentialism (pp. 203-220). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
84. Ruscher, J. B., Fiske, S. T., Miki, H., & Van Manen, S. (1991). Individuating processes in competition: Interpersonal versus intergroup. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 595-605.
85. Ryan, C. S. (1995). Motivations and the perceiver's group membership: Consequences for stereotype accuracy. In Y.-T. Lee, L. J. Jussim, & C. R. McCauley (Eds.), Stereotype accuracy (pp. 189-214). Washington: American Psychological Association.
86. Ryan, C. S. (1996). Accuracy of Black and White College students' in-group and out-group stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1114-1127.
87. Sedikides, C. (1997). Differential processing of ingroup and outgroup information: The role of relative group status in permeable boundary groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 121-144.
88. Sekaquaptewa, D., & Espinoza, P. (2004). Biased processing of stereotype-incongruency is greater for low than high status groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 128-135.
89. Simon, B. (1992). The perception of ingroup and outgroup homogeneity: Reintroducing the intergroup context. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European Review of Social Psychology (vol. 3, pp. 1-30). New York: Wiley.
90. Simon, B., & Brown, R. (1987). Perceived intragroup homogeneity in minority-majority contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 703-711.
91. Simon, B., & Hamilton, D. L. (1994). Self-stereotyping and social context: The effects of relative in-group size and in-group status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 699-711.
92. Simon, B., & Pettigrew, T. F. (1990). Social identity and perceived group homogeneity: Evidence for the ingroup homogeneity effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 269-286.
93. Snodgrass, S. E. (1992). Further effects of role versus gender on interpersonal sensitivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 154-158.
94. Stewart, T. L., Jaspers, K. E., Estes, S. B., & Latu, I. M. (2007). Interethnic differences (or similarities?) in the relative individuation of women and men. Sex Roles, 57, 21-29.
95. Stewart, T. L., Vassar, P. M., Sanchez, D. T., & David, S. E. (2000). Attitude toward women's societal roles moderates the effect of gender cues on target individuation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 143-157.
96. Tajfel, H. (1978). The structure of our views about society. In H. Tajfel & C. Fraser (Eds.), Introducing social psychology (pp. 302-321). New York: Penguin Books.
97. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
98. Tajfel, H., Flament, C., Billig, M., & Bundy, R. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149-175.
99. Taylor, S. E., Fiske, S. T., Etcoff, N. L., & Ruderman, A. J. (1978). Categorical and contextual bases of person memory and stereo-typing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 778-793.
100. Van Rooy, D., Van Overwalle, F., Vanhoomissen, T., Labiouse, C., & French, R. (2003). A recurrent connectionist model of group biases. Psychological Review, 110, 536-563.
101. Vonk, R. (1999). Effects of outcome dependency on correspondence bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 382-389.
102. Walker, C. J. (1976). The employment of vertical and horizontal social schemata in the learning of a social structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 132-141.
103. Wilder, D. A. (1984). Predictions of belief homogeneity and similarity following social categorization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 323-333.
104. Young, H., van Knippenberg, A., Ellemers, N., & de Vries, N. (1999). The asymmetrical perception of men and women. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 2, 259-278.
105. Zàrate, M. A., & Smith, E. R. (1990). Person categorization and stereotyping. Social Cognition, 8, 161-165.