Personalization and differentiation as moderators of triggered displaced aggression towards out ...

24 Pages·2007·0.38 MB·English

European Journal of Social Psychology
Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 37, 297–319 (2007)
Publishedonline25August2006inWileyInterScience(www.interscience.wiley.com).DOI:10.1002/ejsp.359
Personalization and differentiation as moderators of triggered
displaced aggression towards out-group targets
EDUARDO A. VASQUEZ1*,
NURCAN ENSARI2, WILLIAM C. PEDERSEN3,
RAE YUNZI TAN1 AND NORMAN MILLER1*
1University of Southern California, Los Angeles,
USA
2AlliantInternationalUniversity,LosAngeles,USA
3California State University, Long Beach, USA
Abstract
Twostudiesexaminedthereductionoftriggereddisplacedaggression(TDA)viabottom-upprocessing
modesofde-categorization.Participantswereprovokedbytheexperimenterandtheninteractedwith
anostensibleout-groupmemberwhoeitherdidordidnotprovideasecond(triggering)provocation.
Study 1 compared TDA toward a triggering out-group member who had previously been either
differentiatedfromtheout-group,madethefocusofself-othercomparison,orwasinano-information
control condition. As predicted, both differentiation and self-other comparison reduced aggression
relativetothecontrolcondition.Study2examinedtheeffectofnegativeself-disclosurefromtheout-
grouptarget,andcontrasteditseffectswithbothself-othercomparisonwithanegativeother,andano-
information control condition. As predicted, triggered participants in the negative self-disclosure
conditionaggressedlessthanthosetriggeredinthenegativeself-othercomparisonorno-information
control conditions. The liking induced by self-disclosure mediated its aggression-reducing effect.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Imagineamanwho,afterbeingangeredbyaseverereprimandfromhisboss,refrainsfromretaliation
forfearoflosinghisjob.Afewminuteslater,oneofhisco-workers—anout-groupmember—borrows
a pen from his desk without permission. In response, he publicly berates the borrower for being
presumptiveandinappropriate,surprisingthosewhowitnesshisoutburstinresponsetosuchaminor
infraction. This scenario illustrates triggered displaced aggression (TDA). The TDA paradigm, as
implemented by Pedersen, Gonzales, and Miller (2000), conceptually describes circumstances in
which a minor provocation, the trigger, can elicita retaliatory response of greater magnitude than is
warrantedbythetit-for-tatmatchingrulethatgenerallygovernssocialinteraction(Axelrod,1984).It
identifiestheexperienceofaprevious,moreintenseprovocationasacriticalantecedentforthiseffect.
*Correspondenceto:EduardoA.VasquezandNormanMiller,DepartmentofPsychology,UniversityofSouthernCalifornia,
SeeleyG.MuddBuilding,Room501,LosAngeles,CA90089-1061,USA.E-mail:[email protected]@usc.edu
Received 10 February 2005
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 23 January 2006
298 Eduardo A. Vasquez et al.
Empiricalevidencesuggeststhathigherlevelsofdisplacedaggressionareexpressedtowardsout-
grouprelativetoin-groupmembers(Pedersen,Bushman,Vasquez,&Miller,2006).Inourillustration,
theinsultingretaliatoryoutburstfromthereprimandedworkerislikelytobeofgreaterintensitywhen
the borrower is known to belong to a social category that differs from that of his own.
Boththeinductionofdifferentiationamongout-groupmembersandpersonalizedinteractionwith
them are de-categorization processes that can decrease prejudice (Brewer & Miller, 1984; Ensari &
Miller,2002).Consequently,theyarealsolikelytoreduceTDA.Additionally,becausethepurposeof
thestudiesreportedhereinwastoexamineaggression-reducingeffects,itmakessensetostudytarget
personswhoarelikelytoelicithighlevelsofaggression,suchasout-groupmembers.Therefore,intwo
TDA studies we examined aggression-reducing effects of distinct modes of de-categorization:
differentiationandself-othercomparison(Study1)andnegativeself-disclosureandcomparisonofself
toanegativeother(Study2).Inbothstudiesthetriggeringpersonwasanout-groupmember.Thisisthe
first research to assess such effects.
The introduction is organized inthe following manner: First, we describe the TDAparadigm and
discuss the moderating role of group membership on TDA effects. Then, we discuss the beneficial
effects of two modes of de-categorization in reducing intergroup bias: differentiation and
personalization. In doing so, we further distinguish two components of personalization: self-other
comparison and self-disclosure. Finally, we make the argument that by employing procedures
previouslyshowntoreduceprejudice,suchasde-categorization,wecanreducethelevelofretaliatory
aggression expressed towards a triggering out-group member in the TDA paradigm.
TRIGGERED DISPLACED AGGRESSION
In the typical instance of displaced aggression, a person who is first provoked under conditions that
preclude retaliation against its source subsequently aggresses against a seemingly innocent target
(Dollard,Doob,Miller,Mowrer,&Sears,1939;Hovland&Sears,1940;Marcus-Newhall,Pedersen,
Carlson,&Miller,2000).Theinteresting(andpuzzling)aspectofthisphenomenonisthatthetargetof
aggressiondoesnotinstigateretaliationfromtheaggressor,andthus,appearstobetheinnocentvictim
of a seemingly irrational act.
More recently, researchers have experimentally identified a form of displaced aggression termed
triggereddisplacedaggression(Miller,Pedersen,Earlywine,&Pollock,2003;Pedersenet.al.,2000).
Inourillustrativeexample,thereprimandfromthebossistheinitialprovocationandtheborrowingof
the pen without permission is the trigger. Our fictitious example also illustrates an interesting
characteristicofTDA:theaggressiveresponseviolatestheubiquitousmatchingrule(Axelrod,1984),
whereby provocations elicit responses of essentially matching intensity, which only escalate in
increments that slightly exceed the previous provocation. Thus, the level of retaliation in the TDA
paradigm can exceed the sum of the independent aggression-producing effects of the original
provocation and the trigger (Pedersen et al., 2000).
Stablecharacteristicsofthetargetofaggression,suchaspersonalitytraitsandgroupmembership,
can moderate aggressive responding (e.g., Anderson, Deuser, & DeNeve, 1995; Carlson, Marcus-
Newhall, & Miller, 1990). For our purpose herein, the specific characteristic of interest is group
membership. Countless reports of events throughout human history suggest that higher levels of
aggressionareexpressedtowardsout-group,relativetoin-groupmembers—anoutcomeconfirmedby
experimentalresearch(Baron,1979;Carlsonetal.,1990;Donnerstein&Donnerstein,1978;Rogers&
Prentice-Dunn, 1981; Struch & Schwartz, 1989).
Copyright#2006JohnWiley&Sons,Ltd. Eur.J.Soc.Psychol.37,297–319(2007)
Decategorization as a moderatorof TDA 299
ThiseffecthasalsobeendemonstratedintheTDAparadigm.Inonestudy,researchersmanipulated
thecategoryofthetargetandfoundthathigherlevelsofaggressionweredisplacedtowardsout-group
relativetoin-grouptargets(Pedersenetal.,2006).Theauthorsproposedtwopotentialexplanationsfor
thiseffect.First,negativesettings,includinginteractionswithout-groupmembers,arelikelytoprimeor
activate negative cognitions and affect, which then increase the magnitude of displaced aggression
(Berkowitz,1997;Marcus-Newhalletal.,2000).Second,makingin-groupmembershipsalientislikely
to provide a buffering effect against retaliation, either by impacting inhibitory factors or affective
reactionstoprovocations.Ourgoalhere,however,wasnottotestthesepotentialexplanations,butrather,
to assess the efficacy of promising methods to reduce aggression towards out-group members, in the
context of the TDA paradigm. Given the aggression-augmenting effect of out-group membership on
aggressive behavior (Carlson et al., 1990; Marcus-Newhall et al., 2000; Pedersen et al., 2006) it is
importanttoexamineprocessesortechniquesthatmaycounterit.Towardsthisgoal,weassumethata
reductioninaggressiontowardout-groupmemberscanbeaccomplishedbyemployingtechniquesthat
effectively reduce intergroup bias. Specifically, we focus on differentiation and personalization.
DE-CATEGORIZATION AND THE REDUCTION OF OUT-GROUP BIAS
Humanscontinuouslycategorizeindividualsintosocialgroups,aprocessthatdifferentiatesout-groups
fromin-groups,andthatmanybelieveistheprecursortoprejudice(Tajfel,1978;Tajfel,Billig,Bundy,
& Flament, 1971). Under category-based responding, a top-down processing mode, out-group
membersaresubjecttoanegativebias.Inthefollowingsectionswedistinguishbetweentop-downand
bottom-up de-categorization processes, noting that both can reduce negative reactions toward out-
groupmembers.However,itisthebottom-upprocessingmodesthatwestudyhereinasconceptually
distinct means of reducing TDA.
Top-Down Modes of Processing
There are at least three distinct top-down modes of information processing that, in principle, might
reduce category-based responding, and hence, induce de-categorization. First, one can provide
information indicating additional group categories to which out-group members belong. Such
informationmakesthetargetofevaluationappearmorecomplex,whichcandiminishtheeffectsofthe
originalcategorization(Crisp,Hewstone,&Rubin,2001).Asecondapproachmakesasuperordinate
categorysalient(Gaertner&Dovidio,2000).Theout-groupisre-categorizedintoabroaderin-group
thatincludestheperceiver’scategoryaswell.Athirdmodeofinducingde-categorizationinvolvesthe
presentation of additional counter-stereotypical information about a particular out-group as a whole
(Miller, 2002). In response, the perceiver might develop a more differentiated perception of the out-
group, but also, when receiving positive information, a perception that is less negative. In practice,
however,thislattermodeofinducingde-categorizationhasnotbeenshowntobeeffectiveinreducing
bias towards out-group members (Locksley, Borgida, Brekke, & Hepburn, 1980).
Bottom-Up Modes of Processing
Personalization
Separatefromthesethreetop-downmodesofde-categorization,arebottom-upmodesofreducingbias
(Brewer&Miller,1984).Personalizationisonesuchbottom-upprocess.Inapersonalizedinteraction,
Copyright#2006JohnWiley&Sons,Ltd. Eur.J.Soc.Psychol.37,297–319(2007)
300 Eduardo A. Vasquez et al.
informationencodedaboutanout-groupmemberisnotdominatedbytherelevantsocialcategory,but
rather,byuniqueattributesofthatindividualthatarerelevanttotheself.Personalizedinteractioncan
not only reduce bias against the out-group member involved in the interaction (Berg & Wright-
Buckley,1988;Fiske&Neuberg,1990),butalso,itsbenefitscanextendtoothermembersoftheout-
group,particularlywhentheout-groupmemberwithwhomsuchinteractionhasoccurredisperceived
asrepresentative(i.e.,istypical)ofhis/hersocialcategory(Brown&Hewstone,2005;Ensari&Miller,
2002, 2005; Hewstone & Brown, 1986; Hewstone & Lord, 1998).
Personalization, however, is a global concept that consists of a number of distinct bottom-up
processing modes. Next, we discuss two modes of personalization: self-other comparison and self-
disclosure.Self-othercomparisoninvolvesthecomparisonofanother’spersonalattributeswiththoseof
theselfandnotwiththestereotypedimageofout-group(Brewer&Miller,1984).Necessarily,theout-
grouppersoninvolvedinself-othercomparisonbecomesindividuated.Additionally,however,self-other
comparison involves noticing similarities and differences between the self and other, which further
reducesrelianceonone’scategory-basedstereotype,andincreasestheperceivedvariabilityoftheout-
group.Thus,theresultingevaluationofanout-groupindividualisbasedonhisorherpersonalattributes.
Its subsequent consequence can be a reduction of negative bias towards that person (Miller, 2002).
Self-disclosurereferstothesharingofintimate,personalinformationwithanother(seeCollins&
Miller, 1994; Miller, 2002). Thus, it too necessarily individuates. It may also induce self-other
comparisoninthatwhenthedisclosersharesindividuatinginformationitmayelicitcomparisonstoself
along dimensions relevant to the self. In addition, self-disclosure may have other beneficial effects,
such as decreasing anxiety and increasing familiarity. Together, these effects can lead to improved
processing of individuating information (Rothbart & John, 1985; Sears, 1983; Wilder, 1984). Self-
disclosure makes a unique contribution, however, by encouraging the other person to perceive the
discloserastrusting. Imbeddedintheactofself-disclosureistheimplicitmessagethatthediscloser
trusts the recipient (Steel, 1991; Worthy, Gary, & Kahn, 1969), which in turn, by motivating liking
(Collins & Miller, 1994; Halverson & Shore, 1969) and friendship (Cook, 1978; Pettigrew, 1997)
toward the discloser, can reduce out-group bias (Ensari & Miller, 2001, 2005; Miller, 2002).
Differentiation
Finally,differentiationisyetanotherformofde-categorization(Brewer&Miller,1984).Asamodeof
bottomupprocessing,itconsistsofdistinguishingaparticularout-grouppersonfromhisorhergroup.
Itcorrespondstothefirsttop-downmodeofde-categorizationdiscussedabove,whereinanout-groupis
differentiatedintosub-groupsthatdifferfromtheout-groupprototypeindistinctivewaysandthereby
actstopromoteamoredifferentiatedperceptionofthatgroup.Inbottom-updifferentiation,however,
onelearnsthataparticularout-groupmemberpossessescharacteristicsthatarenotinaccordwiththe
out-groupstereotype.Consequently,thatout-groupmemberbecomesde-categorized.Thislatterform
of de-categorization corresponds to sub-typing, as discussed for instance, by Hewstone and Lord
(1998). This mode of bottom-up de-categorization is distinct from the bottom-up modes of
personalizationthatwepreviouslydiscussedinthatwhileitdistinguishesthetargetpersonfromhisor
her group, the information that creates such differentiation does not directly involve the self.
Individuation and Bottom-Up De-Categorization
Itisimportanttoconsidertherelationofindividuationpersetothesedifferentbottom-upprocessing
modes and to discuss why it is important to examine them individually. Although individuation
Copyright#2006JohnWiley&Sons,Ltd. Eur.J.Soc.Psychol.37,297–319(2007)
Decategorization as a moderatorof TDA 301
necessarily occurs during any interpersonal interaction, such interaction is not necessary for
individuation.Itcanbeprovidedinsteadbyathirdpersonorbyreadingautobiographicalinformation
about the individual. In contrast, though self-other comparison is possible with second-hand
information,itisconsiderablymorelikelyduringdirectinteraction.Similarly,whenonelearnsabout
theself-disclosurethathasbeenmadetoathirdpartyratherthantheperceiver,thoughsuchinformation
is individuating, the trust-inducing effects of that self-disclosure are likely to bevitiated. Finally, as
previously discussed, when differentiation occurs as a bottom-up form of de-categorization, the
information received does more than merely individuate that individual. By differentiating the
individual group member from her group, that information de-categorizes that individual.
Thesedistinctbottom-upprocessesmayimpactintergrouprelationstodifferentdegrees.Moreover,
asargued,self-othercomparison,self-disclosure,anddifferentiation(sub-typing)implicateadditional
processes beyond individuation. Consequently, they are expected to impact bias more strongly than
wouldindividuationalone.Extendingtheseideastoaggressivecontexts,weexpectthateachofthese
three conceptually distinct bottom-up processes—self-other comparison, self-disclosure, and
differentiation—can reduce aggressive behavior.
Intwostudies,weusedtheTDAparadigmtoexaminethereductionofaggressiontowardanout-
group member by means of differentiation, self-other comparison, and self-disclosure, (but not
individuationperse).Ourkeytheoreticalpointregardingtheeffectsofthesethreeconceptuallydistinct
factors is that they can change the perceptions of and/or attitude towards an out-group target in a
positive manner, thereby reducing an aggressor’s reaction to a triggering action by that out-group
member. These expectations,as previously noted, are based on the fact that ourstudies focus onthe
reductionofaggressiontowardanindividualout-grouptarget,nottheout-groupcategoryasawhole.
Whether or not our manipulations of these three processes produce a sub-typing of the target of
aggression,andwhetherobservedreductionsofaggressiondependonsuchsub-typingisbeyondour
scope herein. Moreover, we do not contend that the valence of the information presented about the
targetperson is irrelevant. Clearly, when such informationis positiveit would likely have a positive
effect.Rather,ourexpectationsareconstrainedtoacomparisonamongconditionswhereinthevalence
of information is controlled.
In summary, differentiation, self-other comparison, and self-disclosure can beneficially impact
attitudes toward out-group members (Miller, 2002). Though each may have its impact through a
distinctprocess,withdifferentiationandself-othercomparisonpredominantlyrestingoncognitive,and
self-disclosure on more motivational effects, nevertheless, we expect that each can decrease TDA.
STUDY 1
Asnoted,researchershaveinvokedprejudice1andnegativepriming(Pedersenetal.,2006)toexplain
thegreaterdisplacementofaggressiontowardstriggeringout-groupmembersrelativetotriggeringin-
group members. To develop methods of reducing such out-group-directed aggression, we made the
followingassumption:processesthatreduceintergroupbiasshouldalsoreducetheaggressionthatis
oftenaconsequenceofbias.InStudy1,wecomparedtheeffectsoftwobottom-uptypesofinformation
1Wenotethatintergroupbiasisdistinctfromintergroupaggression.Priorresearchsuggeststhatbias,whichisprimarilydrivenby
in-groupfavoritism,isconceptuallydistinctfromaggression(Struch&Schwartz,1989).Inthepresenceofconflictbetween
membersofdifferentgroups,however,thelikelihoodofintergroupaggressionincreases.Undersuchconditions,aggressionwill
paralleltheout-groupcomponentofethnocentricbias—characterizedconceptuallyasthedifferencebetweenin-groupfavoritism
andout-grouphatred.Inotherwords,thoughbiasandaggressionareconceptuallydistinct,biascanaffectaggressioninthe
presenceofamotivator,suchasprovocation.
Copyright#2006JohnWiley&Sons,Ltd. Eur.J.Soc.Psychol.37,297–319(2007)
302 Eduardo A. Vasquez et al.
processing,differentiationandself-othercomparison,toano-informationcontrolconditiontoexamine
theiraggression-reducingeffectswithintheTDAparadigm.Weconstrainedtheaveragevalenceofthe
information presented about the target person in the differentiation and the self-other comparison
conditions to be neutral.
Wemadethreepredictions:first,weexpectedparticipantsintheTDAparadigm,(personswhowere
provokedandsubsequentlytriggeredbyanout-groupmember),toexpresshigherlevelsofaggression
thanthosenottriggered;second,weexpectedtriggeredparticipantsinboththedifferentiationandthe
self-other comparison conditions to aggress less than triggered participants in the no-information
control condition.
Method
Participants and Design
Sixty-eightundergraduatestudents(47femalesand21males)fromanintroductoryPsychologyclassat
theUniversityofSouthernCaliforniawererecruitedforvoluntaryparticipation.Ineachexperimental
session,aconfederate,trainedpriortothestudy,playedtheroleofasecondparticipant.Participants
were randomly assigned to one of the six conditions in a between subjects design. The study was a
2(trigger manipulation: trigger, no trigger)(cid:1)3(bottom-up processing manipulation: self-other
comparison, differentiation, no-information control group) factorial design. All conditions were
preceded by an initial provocation. We did not manipulate the presence or absence of the initial
provocationbecausefourpreviousstudieshaveshownthatinitsabsence,asubsequentminortrigger
hasnoimpactonaggression(Pedersenetal.,2000,twostudies;Vasquez,Denson,Pedersen,Stenstrom,
&Miller, 2005; Bushman,Bonacci, Pedersen, Vasquez, &Miller, 2005). Thus,there is no reason to
expectthelow-aggressionlevelsexpectedintheprovocation/notriggerconditionstodifferfromthose
in a no provocation condition. Instead, because we were interested in reducing aggression, it made
sensetofocusonlyonconditionsinwhichaggressionislikelytovary(i.e.,conditionsinwhichthereis
an initial provocation). Thus, inclusion of a no provocation condition would only reduce efficiency
without producing any clarifying results.
Forasimilarreason,wedidnotmanipulategroupmembership,butinsteadmadethetargetofTDA
anout-groupmemberinallconditions.Inpriorresearch,in-groupmembershipdecreasedTDAsuch
thattheTDAinthisconditionwasatthesamelevelsasintheno-triggerconditions(Pedersenetal.,
2006).Expectingpersonalizationanddifferentiationtohavelittleeffectonaggressiontowardin-group
members,wethereforefocusedonaconditionthatelicitshigherbaselinelevelsofaggression—anout-
group target condition—thereby increasing the likelihood of interesting results.
Procedure
Fourconfederatesassistedusinthisstudy.Whentheparticipantarrivedfortheexperiment,he/shewas
seated in a room with a confederate who pretended to be another participant. The experimenter
introducedherselfandtoldtheparticipants,aspartofthecoverstory,thatthepurposeofthestudywas
toexaminehowreligiousaffiliationandpersonalityinfluenced problemsolving.Theparticipantand
theconfederatewerethengivenaformthataskedfordemographics,suchaslevelofeducation,sex,
age,major,andreligiousornon-religiousaffiliation(e.g.,Christianity,Judaism,Buddhism,Hinduism,
Islam,Atheism,andAgnosticism).Theconfederatehadpreviouslybeeninstructedbytheexperimenter
to enter a religious affiliation after they had noticed that the participant had indicated his/her own
Copyright#2006JohnWiley&Sons,Ltd. Eur.J.Soc.Psychol.37,297–319(2007)
Decategorization as a moderatorof TDA 303
religiousaffiliation.Inordertobeperceivedasanout-groupmember,theconfederatethenwrotedown
areligiousaffiliationthatdifferedfromthatoftheparticipant.Thequestionnairealsoincludedasection
thatrequiredparticipantstoratethestrengthoftheiridentificationwiththeirreligiousfaith(1¼notat
all, 7¼extremely) and write about one distinctive aspect of their faith that they believed makes it
different from other religions. This section served to enhance in-group identity and make group
membership salience. Group membership was also made salient by having the participant and the
confederatewearnametagsstatingtheirrespectivereligion.Inadditioneachparticipantwasaskedto
read a short article that described basic beliefs of the religion with which they identified in order to
further increase their in-group identity.
The participants were then told that previous studies had found a significant correlation between
one’sreligiousfaithandpersonalitytraits.Itfurtherexplainedthattheexperimentinwhichtheywere
participating would expand on those findings by examining how religious affiliation and personality
affect problem-solving anddecision-making.Forthispurpose,the participantsweretoldthey would
subsequently complete a personality questionnaire and form an impression of the other person. In
addition, the experimenter stated that she was interested in how people solved problems and made
decisions,bothaloneandinateam,andthat,therefore,theparticipantwouldworkaloneonsometasks
and with the other participant on other tasks.
The experimenter then asked the participant to complete a bogus personality questionnaire to
ostensibly validate the previously mentioned findings on personality and religious affiliation. It
consisted of 15 items, which assessed 6 positive, 3 neutral, and 6 negative personality traits.
Participants were to indicate their level of agreement with the statements on the questionnaire
(1¼strongly disagree, 7¼strongly agree). Items on the questionnaire included ‘‘I am generally
friendly with people’’, ‘‘I do not like to be dependent on others’’, and ‘‘people often view me as
irresponsible’’.Whencompleted,theexperimentertoldtheparticipantsthattheywouldbeworkingon
the remaining tasks individually andin different rooms.This also marked the end ofanyinteraction
between the confederate and the participant.
Provocation Induction
Following the completion of the previous task, all participants were provoked. To induce the
provocation,theparticipantwasaskedtocompleteananagramtask,whichrequiredthats/hesolve15
anagrams(i.e.,scrambledwords)in4minuteswhiledistractinglyloudbackgroundmusicwasplayed.
Theanagramswerelistedonasheetofpaperinanincreasingorderofdifficulty,withthefirstfivebeing
relatively easy (e.g., pizza, grass) and the last five being the most difficult (e.g., photograph,
experiment). The participant was left to complete the task, which the experimenter subsequently
collectedandostensiblyscoredinanotherroom.Onreturning,theexperimenterberatedtheparticipant
for his/her poor performance on the anagram task. In a tone of voice that conveyed irritation, the
experimentertoldtheparticipantthatsheshouldprobablydothetaskagain,butshe(theexperimenter)
didnotwanttowastehertime(seePedersonetal.,2000).Then,theparticipantwasaskedtocomplete
moodmanipulationchecks.Theexperimenterthencontinuedwiththepersonalizationmanipulations.
Manipulation of De-Categorization
Participants were then told that the researchers wanted to examine the relation between their
impressionsoftheirpartnerandtheirscoresonthepersonalityquestionnairetheyhadjustcompletedin
Copyright#2006JohnWiley&Sons,Ltd. Eur.J.Soc.Psychol.37,297–319(2007)
304 Eduardo A. Vasquez et al.
order to compare it with previous research on personality and religious beliefs and thereby validate
those findings.
Self-Other Comparison Participants in the self-other comparison condition were given a
personalitytraitprofilethatvisuallydepictedratingsoftheirpartner’sandtheirownpersonalitytraits,
ostensibly based on the previously administered personality questionnaire (see Appendix A). The
profileconsistedof15personalitytraits,balancedfortheirvalence:6positive,6negative,and3neutral
traits.Eachpersonalitytraitwasdepictedbyastatement(e.g.,Iamnotapessimist;Iamoftencareless
indoingthings),whichwasfollowedbycolor-codedboxesthatindicatedhowtheparticipantandthe
confederate comparativelyscoredon each trait using aseven-pointscale that ranged fromunusually
lowtounusuallyhigh(nonumberswereassignedtothepointsonthescale).Yellowboxesindicatedthe
participant’s rating, and blue their partner’s. The purpose of this personality profile was to help
participants readily see similarities and differences between their own and their partner’s scores.
Ostensibly,theparticipantandtheirpartnerdifferedintheirratingsof11traits.For7ofthe15traits
(3 positive, 3 negative, and 1 neutral trait), however, the participant and the confederate ratings fell
withinwhatwasallegedtobetheaveragerangeofscoresamongpreviousparticipants.Theconfederate
wasratedasunusuallylowononeneutralandonenegativetrait,andasunusuallyhighontwopositive
traits.Inaddition,in4ofthe15traits(1positive,1neutral,and2negativetraits)theparticipantand
theirpartnerhadthesamescore.Theexperimentertoldtheparticipantthattheiroverlaponthesefour
traits was indicated by the green-colored (yellowþblue) boxes.
Ouraimwastocontrolforthepotentialeffectsofvalenceofinformationandextremityoftheratings
and thereby assess uncontaminated effects of self-other comparison. The experimenter also
emphasized that it was important that participants think about the relation between their own scores
and those of their partner on each personality trait dimension, because past research has shown that
doingsowouldenablethemtoprocesssubsequentpersonalitytraitinformationbetterandassesstheir
partner more accurately.
Differentiation In the differentiation condition, the participants received a trait profile identical
(i.e., it contained the same 15 traits) to that given to the participants in the self-other comparison
conditionwiththeexceptionthattheprofilelistedtheratingsoftheirpartner’spersonalitytraitsaswell
asthe(ostensible)typicalpersonalitytraitsoftheirpartner’sreligiousgroup(seeAppendixB).Thus,in
thisconditionparticipantsdidnotseetheirownscoresonthepersonalitytraits.Theseratingswerealso
color-codedtohelpparticipantsseespecificsimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweentheirpartnerandthe
typical scores of other members of that out-group. Green-colored boxes represented traits on which
scores for the out-group partner were identical to those of the typical member of that group. The
identical scores occurred on the same traits as those on which the participant and the confederate
overlapped in the self-other comparison condition. In addition, the confederate and the typical out-
group member differed on the same traits and to the same degree as did the participant and the
confederate in the self-other comparison condition. In other words, the self-other comparison and
differentiation conditions differed only in that in the former, the comparisons were between the
participantandtheconfederate,whereasinthelatter,theywerebetweentheconfederateandthetypical
out-group member.
Asintheself-othercomparisoncondition,theexperimenteremphasizedtheimportanceofthinking
about how their partner’s traits comparewith those of most members of her group. The participants
were told that past research had shown that making such comparisons would help them process the
information better and assess their partner more accurately.
Copyright#2006JohnWiley&Sons,Ltd. Eur.J.Soc.Psychol.37,297–319(2007)
Decategorization as a moderatorof TDA 305
Control Condition
Intheno-informationcontrolcondition,participantsreceivednopersonalitytraitscores.Instead,they
were asked to assess the valence of the traits on the list used in the other conditions.
Trigger Manipulation
Followingthemanipulationofde-categorization,theexperimenterengagedtheparticipantinabogus
NASAtask,whichservedasthecontextforthetriggermanipulation.Theparticipantwastoldthatboth
s/heandtheotherparticipant(theconfederate)wouldevaluateeachother’sworkaspartofasecond
impression-formation task.
The participant received the task instructions for the second NASA task in an envelope. Shewas
instructed to think of five good characteristics, including traits, beliefs, and qualities that would be
helpfultoanastronaut.Theexperimenterleftheralonetocompletethetask.Whenshecompletedit,
theexperimenterreturnedwithaplainenvelopcontainingtheconfederate’sallegedcompletedwork.
The participant was then asked to place her own work in a similar envelop and then, to inspect her
partner’s work carefully and evaluate her partner’s performance. As indicated, the purpose of these
respectiveevaluationswastoprovidethebasisforthetriggermanipulation.Aftertheexperimenterhad
collected the participant’s own evaluation of the confederate’s performance, we gave her the bogus
evaluation of her own work, ostensibly provided by the out-group confederate. The evaluation
consistedofratingsoftheparticipant’sperformanceonthefollowingsixdimensions:(1)theoriginality
of the confederate’s answers; (2) the quality of the answers; (3) the effort put into the task; (4) the
variety of answers; (5) the degree to which the answers made sense; (6) the confederate’s overall
performance on the task. The scale used torate the performance ranged from 1 (nogood at all) to7
(extremely good).
Inthetriggercondition,theparticipant’sperformanceoneachofthedimensionswasratedthreeor
four, with an average overall rating of 3.5. In addition, in a space that was provided for additional
comments,theconfederatehadostensiblystatedthattheparticipant’sperformance‘‘couldhavebeen
better.’’Inthenotriggercondition,theparticipant’sperformancewasratedafiveorsixoneachofthe
relevantdimensions,withanaverageoverallratingof5.5.Inaddition,theconfederateostensiblystated
thattheparticipant’sperformancewasfine.Alltheparticipantsweregivenapproximately3minutesto
read the evaluation from the confederate.
Followingthetriggermanipulation,theparticipantwasaskedtocompleteanotherformcontaining
manipulation checks.
Aggression Measure
Theexperimentertoldtheparticipantthatthelasttaskwouldexaminetheeffectsofdecisionmakingon
performanceunderdistraction.Theparticipantwasledtobelievethatpriorresearchhaddetermined
that task performancewas improved by makinga decision prior toperforming that task andthat the
currentstudysoughttoexplorewhetherthisremainedtruewhentheparticipantisdistracted.Thus,for
the last task, the participant and partner were to perform a cognitive task under distraction.
Thedecision-makingaspectoftheexperimentinvolvedhavingtheparticipantdecidethelengthof
timethattheconfederatewastobedistracted.Theparticipantwastoldthattheexperimenterswantedto
determine whether the effects of distraction differ depending on the senses stimulated. Different
participants would be distracted through different senses (e.g., tactile, olfactory, visual, auditory),
Copyright#2006JohnWiley&Sons,Ltd. Eur.J.Soc.Psychol.37,297–319(2007)
306 Eduardo A. Vasquez et al.
dependingontheconditiontowhichtheyhadbeenrandomlyassigned.Theparticipantthenrandomly
selectoneoffourfoldedpiecesofpaperonwhichthemodalityofthedistractionwaswritten.Inreality,
allfourchoicesrequireddistracting theconfederatethroughthetactile sense.Theexperimenter also
told the participant that his or her partner had been randomly assigned to perform the task first and
consequently,theparticipantwoulddecideonadurationforwhichtheconfederatewastobedistracted.
Basedonthepreviouslydescribedselectionbytheparticipant,theconfederateallegedlywastoreceive
atactiledistractionbyplacingonehandinicewater.Theexperimenterfurtherexplainedthatoncethe
participant’s partner had completed his or her task, the participant: (a) would then receive visual
distractioninvolvingimagesofscenicviewswhileperforminghisowntask,and(b)thats/hewouldbe
distractedby them fora durationthat hadbeen selected bytheotherparticipant.Thekey-dependent
measureofaggressionwasthedurationthattheparticipanthadselectedfortheconfederatetoimmerse
his/herhandinicewater.Then,theparticipantsevaluatedtheirpartneronafinalimpressionevaluation
formcontainingquestionsthatservedasatriggermanipulationcheck.Theexperimenterthenprovided
adebriefingduringwhichparticipantsreceivedaninformationsheetthatexplainedthetruepurposeof
the study. The experimenter then answered any questions concerning the study.
Results
We withdrew 10 participants (8 females and 2 males) from the analyses because of suspicion. We
conducted Fisher’s exact test to assess whether there was differential attrition of participants across
conditions.Itshowednoevidenceofanydifferentialattrition.Thus,thefollowinganalysesincludeda
total of 58 participants.
Provocation and Trigger Manipulation Checks
Participantscompletedtwomoodmeasuresduringtheexperiment:onewascompletedshortlyafterthe
provocation but preceding the personalization manipulation; the other followed the trigger
manipulation. The mood measure after the initial provocation used item scales that ranged from 1
(definitely)to4(notatall).Thenegativeitemsonthisscale(irritable,distressed,angry,annoyed,hurt,
andtense) were combinedtoformanegativemood score(a¼0.83). Similarly, positivemood items
(elated,joyful,pleased,jittery,energetic,andrelaxed)werecombinedtocreateapositivemoodscore
(a¼0.65).Aftertheprovocation,participantsreportedfeelingmorenegative(M¼2.86)thanpositive
(M¼3.44), t(68)¼(cid:2)4.15, p<0.05.
Toassesstheeffectivenessofourtriggermanipulation,wecreatedacompositeusingtwoitemsthat
measuredhowsubjectreactedafterreceivingtheevaluationfromtheirpartner:irritatedandpleased.
The latter was reversed coded (a¼0.57). As expected, participants in the trigger condition reported
feelingmoreirritationandlesspleased(M¼4.76)withtheirpartner’sevaluationoftheirNASAtask
performance relative to those in the no trigger condition (M¼3.14), t(1, 56)¼4.88, p¼0.00.
Aggression
The aggression measure consisted of the assigned duration for which participants required their
partners to immerse their hand in ice water. We found no gender effects, and thus, pooled males
and females in our analyses. We conducted a 2(trigger/no trigger)(cid:1)3(no-information control/
differentiation/self-other comparison) ANOVA, and found a main effect for the latter variable
Copyright#2006JohnWiley&Sons,Ltd. Eur.J.Soc.Psychol.37,297–319(2007)