@article{BlanzMummendeyOtten, author = {Blanz, Mathias and Mummendey, Am{\´e}lie and Otten, Sabine}, title = {Wahrgenommene Motive f{\"u}r soziale Diskriminierung}, series = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Sozialpsychologie}, volume = {26}, journal = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Sozialpsychologie}, pages = {135 -- 147}, language = {de} } @article{BlanzMummendeyOtten, author = {Blanz, Mathias and Mummendey, Am{\´e}lie and Otten, Sabine}, title = {Perceptions of relative group size and group status}, series = {European Journal of Social Psychology}, volume = {25}, journal = {European Journal of Social Psychology}, number = {2}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420250208}, pages = {231 -- 247}, abstract = {The positive-negative asymmetry in social discrimination proposes a threshold for ingroup favouritism within the negative domain: in contrast to comparable studies dealing with in- and outgroup evaluations on positive attributes, ingroup favouritism does not occur when negative attributes are used. The present study focuses on two aspects of this threshold: it investigates processes, which may influence the absence of ingroup favouritism in the negative domain, and it tests 'aggravating' variables, which seem to be suficient to elicit ingroup favouritism even in the negative domain. Results show that ingroup favouritism occurred within the negative domain when several aggravating conditions were included, namely high salience of size- and status- similarity between groups and high ingroup identification. Furthermore, subjects under minimal conditions tended to overestimate relative size as well as relative status of their ingroup. The perception of group members to belong to a high status majority is interpreted as a sufficient condition counteracting tendencies towards ingroup favouritism within the negative domain.}, language = {en} } @article{BlanzMummendeyOtten, author = {Blanz, Mathias and Mummendey, Am{\´e}lie and Otten, Sabine}, title = {Normative evaluations and frequency expectations regarding positive versus negative outcome allocations between groups}, series = {European Journal of Social Psychology}, volume = {27}, journal = {European Journal of Social Psychology}, number = {2}, doi = {https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199703)27:2\%3C165::AID-EJSP812\%3E3.0.CO;2-3}, pages = {165 -- 176}, abstract = {Data from several recent studies consistently show a positive-negative asymmetry in social discrimination: within a minimal social situation tendencies towards ingroup favouritism which usually appear in allocations of positively valenced resources are absent in the domain of negatively valenced stimuli. The present study investigates whether this valence-asymmetry has any correspondence to variations in normative evaluations of positive versus negative outcome allocations. For this purpose perceptions of normative appropriateness as well as frequency expectations of outside observers regarding outcome allocations made by categorized group members were investigated. Results show that parity choices were perceived as more normatively appropriate than out- or ingroup favouritism. While outgroup favouritism was judged as inappropriate as ingroup favouritism for positive resources, ingroup favouring decisions for negative resources were perceived as the least appropriate response within the minimal social situation. In addition, in contrast to results of St. Claire and Turner (1982) non-categorized subjects expected ingroup favouring decisions by group members more frequently than parity or outgroup favouring choices with respect to positively valanced resources. When, however, negative resources were to be allocated, outgroup favouritism was predominantly expected. Results are discussed in terms of justice considerations and are linked to a normative account of the positive-negative asymmetry in social discrimination.}, language = {en} } @article{OttenMummendeyBlanz, author = {Otten, Sabine and Mummendey, Am{\´e}lie and Blanz, Mathias}, title = {Intergroup discrimination in positive and negative outcome-allocations: Impact of stimulus valence, relative group status, and relative group size. Personality and Social Psychology}, series = {Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin}, volume = {22}, journal = {Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin}, number = {6}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167296226003}, pages = {568 -- 581}, abstract = {Three studies investigated the determination of social discrimination by the valence of stimuli that are allocated between groups. The studies were based on either the minimal group paradigm or a more reality-based laboratory intergroup setting, with stimulus valence, group status, and group size as factors and with pull scores on Taifel matrices as dependent variables. In general, the results showed that group members did not discriminate against the out-group when allocating negative stimuli, where as for positive stimuli the typical in-group bias was found. However, those participants whose positive social identity was threatened by assigning them to inferior or minority groups showed an increased willingness to favor the in-group over the out-group in the allocation of both positive and negative stimuli.}, language = {en} } @article{BlanzMummendeyOtten, author = {Blanz, Mathias and Mummendey, Am{\´e}lie and Otten, Sabine}, title = {Positive-negative-asymmetry in social discrimination: The impact of stimulus-valence and size- and status-differentials on intergroup evaluations}, series = {British Journal of Social Psychology}, volume = {34}, journal = {British Journal of Social Psychology}, number = {4}, doi = {https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1995.tb01074.x}, pages = {409 -- 419}, abstract = {Examined the influence of stimulus valence (positive vs negative) and size and status differentials on intergroup differentiation, using a sample of 276 Ss. The dependent measures included evaluative attributes which referred either to a status-related or to a status-unrelated dimension. Ss took part in group experiments in which minority-majority conditions were present and in which groups had to rate each other. As expected, generally there was in-group favoritism in the positive domain in which inferior minorities showed highest biases. In-group favoring evaluations in the negative domain appeared only under aggravating conditions (i.e., when the in-group had inferior and minority status). However, while this pattern of findings was true with respect to status-unrelated measures, there was a mere reproduction of the status manipulations on measures which were related to the status differential.}, language = {en} }