Affiliation:
1. Laboratory for Experimental Social Psychology, Leuven Brain Institute, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
2. Department of Psychology, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
Abstract
People learn about social groups by reading and hearing verbal statements. We investigated if the perceived truth and acceptability of such statements depend on whether they are implicitly vs. explicitly comparative (e.g., “Women are brave” vs. “Women are braver than men”). Participants (Study 1: Ns = 259; Study 2: N = 246) rated the truth, acceptability, familiarity, and positivity of implicitly vs. explicitly comparative, stereotypical vs. counter-stereotypical statements about positive vs. negative features. Consistent with an Etiquette Hypothesis, implicitly (vs. explicitly) comparative statements about positive features were judged as truer and more acceptable, presumably because they adhered better to a positivity norm. Consistent with a Fluency Hypothesis, stereotypical explicitly (vs. implicitly) comparative statements about age groups were judged as truer, presumably because of higher ease-of-processing. Thus, mechanisms affecting judgments vary somewhat with the groups compared. We discuss the role of metacognitive and normative processes in stereotype maintenance and stereotype change.
Funder
Special Research Fund of KU Leuven
Subject
Linguistics and Language,Sociology and Political Science,Anthropology,Language and Linguistics,Education,Social Psychology
Reference61 articles.
1. Abrams D., Swift H. J. (2012). Experiences and expressions of ageism: Topline results (UK) from round 4 of the European Social Survey, ESS Country Specific Topline Results (2). Centre for Comparative Social Surveys. Retrieved from: https://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/docs/findings/ESS4_gb_toplines_experiences_and_expressions_of_ageism.pdf.
2. Stereotyping by omission: Eliminate the negative, accentuate the positive.
3. The pollyanna hypothesis
4. Politeness and Language
5. One Group’s Advantage or Another Group’s Disadvantage? How Comparative Framing Shapes Explanations of, and Reactions to, Workplace Gender Inequality