Elianne A. Albath, Elena Stephan, Rainer Greifeneder
{"title":"排斥者的耻辱印记:社会排斥增加了行为者与观察者之间的差异","authors":"Elianne A. Albath, Elena Stephan, Rainer Greifeneder","doi":"10.1002/ejsp.3030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The actor–observer difference describes the tendency to explain own actions with variable and external aspects, but others’ actions with stable and internal characteristics. We test two opposing predictions of how changes in attribution vary as a function of being ignored and excluded. On the one hand, individuals may cope by psychologically distancing themselves from sources of exclusion, potentially producing stable and internal representations of them. On the other hand, excluded individuals are particularly sensitive to social cues, which may foster a more variable and externally motivated representation of sources’ behaviours. Consistent with the first prediction, excluded (vs. included) individuals (total <i>N</i> = 1,052 in four studies) perceived causes for negative hypothetical outcomes as more internal and, to a somewhat lesser extent, more stable for others involved in the interaction. The use of different methodological approaches across studies attests to this conclusion's robustness and addresses alternative explanations.</p>","PeriodicalId":48377,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Social Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ostracizers’ mark of disgrace: Social exclusion increases the actor–observer difference\",\"authors\":\"Elianne A. Albath, Elena Stephan, Rainer Greifeneder\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ejsp.3030\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The actor–observer difference describes the tendency to explain own actions with variable and external aspects, but others’ actions with stable and internal characteristics. We test two opposing predictions of how changes in attribution vary as a function of being ignored and excluded. On the one hand, individuals may cope by psychologically distancing themselves from sources of exclusion, potentially producing stable and internal representations of them. On the other hand, excluded individuals are particularly sensitive to social cues, which may foster a more variable and externally motivated representation of sources’ behaviours. Consistent with the first prediction, excluded (vs. included) individuals (total <i>N</i> = 1,052 in four studies) perceived causes for negative hypothetical outcomes as more internal and, to a somewhat lesser extent, more stable for others involved in the interaction. The use of different methodological approaches across studies attests to this conclusion's robustness and addresses alternative explanations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48377,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Social Psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Social Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.3030\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.3030","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Ostracizers’ mark of disgrace: Social exclusion increases the actor–observer difference
The actor–observer difference describes the tendency to explain own actions with variable and external aspects, but others’ actions with stable and internal characteristics. We test two opposing predictions of how changes in attribution vary as a function of being ignored and excluded. On the one hand, individuals may cope by psychologically distancing themselves from sources of exclusion, potentially producing stable and internal representations of them. On the other hand, excluded individuals are particularly sensitive to social cues, which may foster a more variable and externally motivated representation of sources’ behaviours. Consistent with the first prediction, excluded (vs. included) individuals (total N = 1,052 in four studies) perceived causes for negative hypothetical outcomes as more internal and, to a somewhat lesser extent, more stable for others involved in the interaction. The use of different methodological approaches across studies attests to this conclusion's robustness and addresses alternative explanations.
期刊介绍:
Topics covered include, among others, intergroup relations, group processes, social cognition, attitudes, social influence and persuasion, self and identity, verbal and nonverbal communication, language and thought, affect and emotion, embodied and situated cognition and individual differences of social-psychological relevance. Together with original research articles, the European Journal of Social Psychology"s innovative and inclusive style is reflected in the variety of articles published: Research Article: Original articles that provide a significant contribution to the understanding of social phenomena, up to a maximum of 12,000 words in length.