Uncertainty and Status-Based Asymmetries in the Distinction Between the "Good" Us and the "Bad" Them: Evidence That Group Status Strengthens the Relationship Between the Need for Cognitive Closure and Extremity in Intergroup Differentiation

Journal of Social Issues

Volumn 69, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 473-494

  Federico, Christopher M ^a   Hunt, Corrie V ^b   Fisher, Emily L ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^b Hart Research Associates   (United States)

^c HOBART AND WILLIAM SMITH COLLEGES   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLOSURE; GROUP BEHAVIOR; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; PERCEPTION; SOCIAL STATUS;

EID: 84883612014     PISSN: 00224537     EISSN: 15404560     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/josi.12025     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
2. Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
3. Chiu, C., Morris, M. W., Hong, Y., & Menon, T. (2000). Motivated cultural cognition: The impact of implicit cultural theories on dispositional attribution varies as a function of need for closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 247-259. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.191
4. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5. de Dreu, C., Koole, S. L., & Oldersma, F. L. (1999). On the seizing and freezing of negotiator inferences: Need for cognitive closure moderates the use of heuristics in negotiation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 348-362. doi: 10.1177/0146167299025003007
6. de Grada, E., Kruglanski, A. W., Mannetti, L., & Pierro, A. (1999). Motivated cognition and group interaction: Need for closure affects the contents and processes of collective negotiations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 346-365. doi: 10.1006/jesp.1999.1376
7. Doosje, B., Loseman, A., & van den Bos, K. (2013). Determinants of radicalization of Islamic youth in the Netherlands: Personal uncertainty, perceived injustice, and perceived group threat. Journal of Social Issues, 69, 586-604.
8. Esses, V. M., Medianu, S., & Lawson, A. S. (2013). Uncertainty, threat, and the dehumanization of immigrants and refugees. Journal of Social Issues, 69, 518-536.
9. Fazio, R. H. & Olson, M. A. (2003). Implicit measures in social cognition research: Their meaning and use. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 297-327. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145225
10. Federico, C., Golec, A., & Dial, J. (2005). The relationship between need for closure and support for military action against Iraq: Moderating effects of national attachment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 621-632. doi: 10.1177/0146167204271588
11. Fu, H.-Y., Morris, M. W., Lee, S.-L., Chao, M., Chiu, C.-Y., & Hong, Y.-Y. (2007). Epistemic motives and cultural conformity: Need for closure, culture, and context as determinants of conflict judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 191-207. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.191
12. Golec, A., & Federico, C. M. (2004). Understanding responses to political conflict: Interactive effects of the need for closure and salient conflict schemas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 750-762. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.87.6.750
13. Golec de Zavala, A. (2006). Cognitive and motivational factors underlying individual responses to political conflicts. In A. Golec de Zavala & K. Skarzynska (Eds.), Understanding social change: Political psychology in Poland (pp. 13-32). Hauppauge, New York: Nova Publisher.
14. Golec de Zavala, A., Federico, C. M., Cislak, A., & Sigger, J. (2008). Need for closure and competition in intergroup conflicts: Experimental evidence for the mitigating effect of accessible conflict-schemas. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 84-105. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.438
15. Hogg, M. A. (2003). Intergroup relations. In J. Delamater (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 479-501). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
16. Hogg, M. A., & Blaylock, D. L. (2012). Preface: From uncertainty to extremism. In M. A. Hogg & D. L. Blaylock (Eds.), Extremism and the psychology of uncertainty (pp. xv-xxv). West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
17. Hogg, M. A. (2012). Preface: From uncertainty to extremism. In M. A. Hogg & D. L. Blaylock (Eds.), Extremism and the psychology of uncertainty (pp. xv-xxv). West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
18. Hogg, M. A., & Adelman, J. (2013). Self-uncertainty, social identity and support for political and religious violence. Journal of Social Issues, 69, 436-454.
19. Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881-919. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x
20. Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339-375. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339
21. Jost, J. T., Pelham, B. W., & Carvallo, M. (2002). Non-conscious forms of system justification: Cognitive, affective, and behavioral preferences for higher status groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 586-602. doi: 10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00505-X
22. Kosic, A., Kruglanski, A. W., Pierro, A., & Mannetti, L. (2004). Social cognition of immigrants' acculturation: Effects of the need for closure and the reference group at entry. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 1-18. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.86.6.796
23. Kruglanski, A. W. (2004). The psychology of closed-mindedness. New York: Psychology Press.
24. Kruglanski, A. W., & Mayseless, O. (1987). Motivational effects in the social comparison of opinions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 834-842.
25. Kruglanski, A.W., Pierro, A., Mannetti, L., & DeGrada, E. (2006). Groups as epistemic providers: Need for closure and the unfolding of group centrism. Psychological Review, 113, 84-100. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.113.1.84
26. Kruglanski, A. W., Shah, J. Y., Pierro, A., & Mannetti, L. (2002). When similarity breeds content: Need for closure and the allure of homogeneous and self-resembling groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 648-662. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.83.3.648
27. Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1991). Group members' reactions to opinion deviates and conformists at varying degrees of proximity to decision deadline and of environmental noise. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 212-225.
28. Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind: "Seizing" and "freezing." Psychological Review, 103, 263-283.
29. Mullen, B., Brown, R., & Smith, C. (1992). Ingroup bias as a function of salience, relevance, and status: An integration. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 103-122. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420220202
30. Rudman, L. A., Feinberg, J., & Fairchild, K. (2002). Minority members' implicit attitudes: Automatic ingroup bias as a function of group status. Social Cognition, 20, 294-320. doi: 10.1521/soco.20.4.294.19908
31. Sachdev, I., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1991). Power and status differentials in minority and majority group relations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 1-24. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420210102
32. Shah, J. Y., Kruglanski, A. W., & Thompson, E. P. (1998). Membership has its (epistemic) rewards: Need for closure effects on ingroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 383-393.
33. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.
34. Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., van Laar, C., & Levin, S. (2004). Social dominance theory: Its agenda and method. Political Psychology, 25, 845-880. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00401.x
35. Spears, R., Jetten, J., & Doosje, B. (2001). The (il)legitimacy of ingroup bias: From social reality to social resistance. In J. T. Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 332-362). New York: Cambridge University Press.
36. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), The psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
37. Turner, J. C. (1978). Social comparison, similarity, and ingroup favoritism. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 235-250). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
38. Turner, J. C., & Brown, R. J. (1978). Social status, cognitive alternatives and intergroup relations. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 201-234). London: Academic Press.
39. van Knippenberg, A., & van Oers, M. (1984). Social identity and equity concerns in intergroup perceptions. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 351-361. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.1984.tb00651.x
40. Van Oudenhoven, J. P., Prins, K. S., & Buunk, B. P. (1998). Attitudes of minority and majority members towards adaptation of immigrants. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 995-1013. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(1998110)28.:6<995::AID-EJSP908>3.0.CO;2-8
41. Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1049-1062. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1049
42. Yzerbyt, V., & Demoulin, S. (2010). Intergroup relations. In S.T. Fiske, D. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 1024-1083). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.