uu.seUppsala University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
The group-motivated sampler
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology. Harvard Univ, Dept Psychol, 33 Kirkland St, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA.
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1326-6177
2019 (English)In: Journal of experimental psychology. General, ISSN 0096-3445, E-ISSN 1939-2222, Vol. 148, no 5, p. 845-862Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Does ingroup favoritism reflect experience or some preset motivation? The latter possibility is well examined in social psychology, but models from cognitive psychology suggest that unrepresentative samples of experience can generate biases even in the absence of motivational concerns. It remains unclear, however, how motivation and initially sampled experiences interact when both influences are possible, and people encounter new groups. Extending classic arguments about motivated information gathering, we propose that people can be described as “group-motivated samplers”—marked by a tendency to primarily seek out information about one’s own group, and to attend more to information that portrays the ingroup in a positive light. Four experiments showed that information seeking almost always starts with the ingroup, and that people chose to gather more information from the ingroup compared to an outgroup. In subsequent group evaluations, people were excessively positive about ingroups giving a good initial impression. Participants were also fairly accurate, on average, about the direction and magnitude of group differences when the ingroup was de facto better, but downplayed those differences in the opposite situation. Further analyses indicated that first experiences led to biased evaluations because people failed to discount for nonrepresentative (positive) ingroup experiences, whereas interpretive biases seem responsible for evaluations based on belonging to a better/worse performing group. Taken together, while social psychologists know that people tend to portray ingroups in a flattering light, we show how people selectively incorporate early experiences to build those impressions. 

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
American Psychological Association , 2019. Vol. 148, no 5, p. 845-862
Keywords [en]
*Biased Sampling, *Cognitive Bias, *Ingroup Outgroup, *Motivation, *Social Psychology, Arguments, Cognitive Psychology, Test Construction
National Category
Psychology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-383416DOI: 10.1037/xge0000601ISI: 000467411000005PubMedID: 31070438OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-383416DiVA, id: diva2:1315690
Available from: 2019-05-14 Created: 2019-05-14 Last updated: 2019-06-10Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Authority records BETA

Bergh, RobinLindskog, Marcus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Bergh, RobinLindskog, Marcus
By organisation
Department of Psychology
In the same journal
Journal of experimental psychology. General
Psychology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 15 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf