Are Women Brave or Braver Than Men? Judgments of Implicit and Explicit Intergroup Comparisons

IF 2 3区 文学 Q2 COMMUNICATION
Alexandra Lux, Susanne Bruckmüller, Vera Hoorens
{"title":"Are Women Brave or Braver Than Men? Judgments of Implicit and Explicit Intergroup Comparisons","authors":"Alexandra Lux, Susanne Bruckmüller, Vera Hoorens","doi":"10.1177/0261927x231210513","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"People learn about social groups by reading and hearing verbal statements. We investigated if the perceived truth and acceptability of such statements depend on whether they are implicitly vs. explicitly comparative (e.g., “Women are brave” vs. “Women are braver than men”). Participants (Study 1: Ns = 259; Study 2: N = 246) rated the truth, acceptability, familiarity, and positivity of implicitly vs. explicitly comparative, stereotypical vs. counter-stereotypical statements about positive vs. negative features. Consistent with an Etiquette Hypothesis, implicitly (vs. explicitly) comparative statements about positive features were judged as truer and more acceptable, presumably because they adhered better to a positivity norm. Consistent with a Fluency Hypothesis, stereotypical explicitly (vs. implicitly) comparative statements about age groups were judged as truer, presumably because of higher ease-of-processing. Thus, mechanisms affecting judgments vary somewhat with the groups compared. We discuss the role of metacognitive and normative processes in stereotype maintenance and stereotype change.","PeriodicalId":47861,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Language and Social Psychology","volume":"55 2","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Language and Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927x231210513","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

People learn about social groups by reading and hearing verbal statements. We investigated if the perceived truth and acceptability of such statements depend on whether they are implicitly vs. explicitly comparative (e.g., “Women are brave” vs. “Women are braver than men”). Participants (Study 1: Ns = 259; Study 2: N = 246) rated the truth, acceptability, familiarity, and positivity of implicitly vs. explicitly comparative, stereotypical vs. counter-stereotypical statements about positive vs. negative features. Consistent with an Etiquette Hypothesis, implicitly (vs. explicitly) comparative statements about positive features were judged as truer and more acceptable, presumably because they adhered better to a positivity norm. Consistent with a Fluency Hypothesis, stereotypical explicitly (vs. implicitly) comparative statements about age groups were judged as truer, presumably because of higher ease-of-processing. Thus, mechanisms affecting judgments vary somewhat with the groups compared. We discuss the role of metacognitive and normative processes in stereotype maintenance and stereotype change.
女人比男人勇敢还是比男人勇敢?内隐和外显群体间比较的判断
人们通过阅读和听口头陈述来了解社会群体。我们调查了这些陈述的感知真实性和可接受性是否取决于它们是隐含的还是明确的比较(例如,“女人勇敢”和“女人比男人勇敢”)。参与者(研究1:Ns = 259;研究2:N = 246)评估了关于正面和负面特征的隐式比较、显性比较、刻板印象和反刻板印象陈述的真实性、可接受性、熟悉度和积极性。与礼仪假说一致,关于积极特征的隐式(与显式)比较陈述被认为更真实,更可接受,大概是因为它们更符合积极规范。与流畅性假设一致,关于年龄组的陈规定型的明确(与隐含)比较陈述被认为更真实,可能是因为更容易处理。因此,影响判断的机制因组而异。我们讨论了元认知过程和规范过程在刻板印象维持和刻板印象改变中的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
14.30%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: The Journal of Language and Social Psychology explores the social dimensions of language and the linguistic implications of social life. Articles are drawn from a wide range of disciplines, including linguistics, cognitive science, sociology, communication, psychology, education, and anthropology. The journal provides complete and balanced coverage of the latest developments and advances through original, full-length articles, short research notes, and special features as Debates, Courses and Conferences, and Book Reviews.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信