Article

Naturalização da diferença: Representações sobre raça e grupo étnico

1 Bookmark
 · 
48 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Explored the hypothesis that in-group members perceive their own group as more variegated and complex than do out-group members (the out-group homogeneity principle). In Exps I and II, 168 men and 171 women estimated the proportion of men or women who would endorse a variety of personality/attitude items that varied on stereotypic meaning (masculinity–femininity) and social desirability (favorable–unfavorable). It was predicted and found that out-group members viewed a group as endorsing more stereotypic and fewer counterstereotypic items than did in-group members. Findings are interpreted as support for the out-group homogeneity principle, and it is argued that since this effect was general across items varying in social desirability, the phenomenon was independent of traditional ethnocentrism effects. Exp III asked 90 members of 3 campus sororities to judge the degree of intragroup similarity for their own and 2 other groups. Again, each group judged its own members to be more dissimilar to one another than did out-group judges. In Exp IV, a theory was proposed suggesting that different "levels of social categorization" are used to encode in- and out-group members' behavior and that this process could account for the perception of out-group homogeneity. It was predicted and found that 109 men and 131 women were more likely to remember the subordinate attributes of an in- than out-group member, which provides some evidence for the theoretical model. (26 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 05/1982; 42(6):1051-1068. · 5.08 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: re-examine a very old social psychological question: why do our labels for social categories possess such extraordinary power / the argument we propose in this paper utilizes a distinction between 'natural kind' categories (such as birds, fish, gold, and daffodils) and 'human artifact' categories (such as chair, bicycle, sweater, and house) / argue that people are inclined to view categories of natural kinds as less arbitrary than those of artifact kinds because natural kinds are believed to possess underlying essences that make one category different from another / whereas social categories are in reality more like human artifacts than natural kinds, they are often perceived as more like natural kinds are social categories like natural kinds / the inductive potential of social categories / the alterability of social categories / implications of treating social categories as natural kinds (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

Full-text

View
1 Download