Not one of us predictors and consequences of denying ingroup characteristics to ambiguous targets
➤ Gửi thông báo lỗi ⚠️ Báo cáo tài liệu vi phạmNội dung chi tiết: Not one of us predictors and consequences of denying ingroup characteristics to ambiguous targets
Not one of us predictors and consequences of denying ingroup characteristics to ambiguous targets
Running Head "NOT ONE OF US"1‘Not one of us’: Predictors and Consequences of Denying Ingroup Characteristics to AmbiguousTargetsNour Kteily* Kellogg S Not one of us predictors and consequences of denying ingroup characteristics to ambiguous targets School of ManagementSai all Cottenll* Harvard UniversityJun SidannisHarvard UniversityJennifer Sheehy-SkellingtonHarvar d UniversityRobin Bergh Uppsala UniversityWord Count: 12.996* These authors contributed equally to this manuscript[IN PRESS AT PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN]“NOT ONE O Not one of us predictors and consequences of denying ingroup characteristics to ambiguous targets F US"3On the 15th of April, 2013, two bombs exploded near tile finish line of the Boston Marathon, killing three people and injuring two hundred and eNot one of us predictors and consequences of denying ingroup characteristics to ambiguous targets
ighty others. Surveillance footage quickly determined two primary suspects, captured in grainy photos wearing backpacks near the incident. SpeculationRunning Head "NOT ONE OF US"1‘Not one of us’: Predictors and Consequences of Denying Ingroup Characteristics to AmbiguousTargetsNour Kteily* Kellogg S Not one of us predictors and consequences of denying ingroup characteristics to ambiguous targets whether the incident was carried out by foreign or American actors. Shortly thereafter, the FBI released the names of Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Unusually, although we quickly learned more about their life histories, many of the outstanding questions about the motivation behind the attacks, and Not one of us predictors and consequences of denying ingroup characteristics to ambiguous targets the racial and ethnic status of the perpetrators, remained unanswered (Walsh. 2013).A complex picture emerged: although their names clearly sounded fNot one of us predictors and consequences of denying ingroup characteristics to ambiguous targets
oreign to most Americans, we learned that they had been living 111 the United States for many years. Moreover, in spite of the fact that they did not Running Head "NOT ONE OF US"1‘Not one of us’: Predictors and Consequences of Denying Ingroup Characteristics to AmbiguousTargetsNour Kteily* Kellogg S Not one of us predictors and consequences of denying ingroup characteristics to ambiguous targets the very region that gave name to the term ‘Caucasian'. In light of their ambiguous background, the question of whether or not the bombers were White became highly salient and hotly debated by social commentators and media members. For example. David Sirota wrote in Salon the day after the attacks Not one of us predictors and consequences of denying ingroup characteristics to ambiguous targets (prior to then identities being known) about his hope that the terrorists were White and homegrown. He argued that if the bombers turned out to be WhiNot one of us predictors and consequences of denying ingroup characteristics to ambiguous targets
te, they would be perceived as an aberration or an anomaly and would not provoke aggressive responses toward other groups by the U.S. government (SiroRunning Head "NOT ONE OF US"1‘Not one of us’: Predictors and Consequences of Denying Ingroup Characteristics to AmbiguousTargetsNour Kteily* Kellogg S Not one of us predictors and consequences of denying ingroup characteristics to ambiguous targets alsh. 2013). Nevertheless, even after the images of the brothers weie released, their racial identity was the subject of much debate, as evidenced by headlines such as “Are the Tsarnaev Brothers'•NOT ONE OF US"4White?” (Walsh, 2013), “Are the Tsarnaevs White?” (Beinart. 2013), and “The Unbearable Wh Not one of us predictors and consequences of denying ingroup characteristics to ambiguous targets iteness of the Brothers Tsarnaev” (First Post. 2013). In stun, the potential Whiteness of the Tsarnaev brothers became a highly salient dimension in tNot one of us predictors and consequences of denying ingroup characteristics to ambiguous targets
he aftermath of rhe Marathon attacks, and one that we assumed would be highly relevant to White Americans/Shortly after the attack in Boston, another Running Head "NOT ONE OF US"1‘Not one of us’: Predictors and Consequences of Denying Ingroup Characteristics to AmbiguousTargetsNour Kteily* Kellogg S Not one of us predictors and consequences of denying ingroup characteristics to ambiguous targets hael Adebowale— were racially unambiguous. Nevertheless, in the immediate aftermath of then suspected lethal attack on a British soldier, then national status (as British citizens or as foreigners) remained unclear. Thus, although there were important differences in the nature and context of the ter Not one of us predictors and consequences of denying ingroup characteristics to ambiguous targets rorist attacks, an important and unusual similarity between these two events was the fact that the status of the perpetrators as members of individualNot one of us predictors and consequences of denying ingroup characteristics to ambiguous targets
s' own group or members of an external group was ambiguous.These two incidents provided naturalistic settings in which to investigate an important queRunning Head "NOT ONE OF US"1‘Not one of us’: Predictors and Consequences of Denying Ingroup Characteristics to AmbiguousTargetsNour Kteily* Kellogg S Not one of us predictors and consequences of denying ingroup characteristics to ambiguous targets ngroup characteristics is one with important consequences, both for the individuals being characterized and for the groups involved. Research in intergroup relations has long shown that categorization into groups results in a preference for one’s own group over the outgroup (Allport. 1954. Gramzow & Not one of us predictors and consequences of denying ingroup characteristics to ambiguous targets Gaertner. 2005: Sheriff 1967). This bias manifests Itself 111 terms of increased positive regard andThese debates about the Tsarnaev brothers' WhitenNot one of us predictors and consequences of denying ingroup characteristics to ambiguous targets
ess took place both in parallel and in concert with discussions about their ‘Americanness’. Given research suggesting that, for many individuals AmeriRunning Head "NOT ONE OF US"1‘Not one of us’: Predictors and Consequences of Denying Ingroup Characteristics to AmbiguousTargetsNour Kteily* Kellogg S Not one of us predictors and consequences of denying ingroup characteristics to ambiguous targets nd noteworthy factors about the Tsarnaev brothers was specifically the fact that they might have been White. which we expected (and media reports confirmed) to matter to White Americans ill addition to any concerns about then Amencaiuiess per se."NOT ONE OF US"5favoritism towards the ingroup relativ Not one of us predictors and consequences of denying ingroup characteristics to ambiguous targets e to the outgroup (Mullen. Brown. Á Smith. 1992: Tajfel & Turner. 1986). increased empathy and prosocial behavior towards members of the ingr oup (HomNot one of us predictors and consequences of denying ingroup characteristics to ambiguous targets
stein, 1976: Piliavin. Dovidio. Gaeitner. & Clark. 1981). construal of other ingroup members as closer to the self (Turner. Hogg. Oakes. Reicher. WethRunning Head "NOT ONE OF US"1‘Not one of us’: Predictors and Consequences of Denying Ingroup Characteristics to AmbiguousTargetsNour Kteily* Kellogg S Not one of us predictors and consequences of denying ingroup characteristics to ambiguous targets duals IS importantly influenced by whether they perceive these individuals in ingroup versus outgroup terms.The determination of who belongs to the ingroup also matters for the gl oup itself. Individuals are motivated to hold their group in positive regard (Tajfel & Turner. 1986) and are concerned w Not one of us predictors and consequences of denying ingroup characteristics to ambiguous targets ith its level of overall functioning, as well as its status and standing in society (Stelzl. Janes. & Seligman. 2007). These concerns should influenceNot one of us predictors and consequences of denying ingroup characteristics to ambiguous targets
the ascription of ingroup membership to others. Firstly, we would expect individuals to be sensitive to how those they admit to the ingroup influenceRunning Head "NOT ONE OF US"1‘Not one of us’: Predictors and Consequences of Denying Ingroup Characteristics to AmbiguousTargetsNour Kteily* Kellogg S Not one of us predictors and consequences of denying ingroup characteristics to ambiguous targets rt its smooth frmctioning and cohesiveness (Feldman. 1984). Secondly, we expect that group members will employ strategies to enhance and protect its image: one such strategy is to ascribe group membership to valued individuals and deny it to imdesnable others (Castano. Yzerbyt. Bourguignon. & Seron. Not one of us predictors and consequences of denying ingroup characteristics to ambiguous targets 2002; Leyens & Yzerbyt, 1992). Examples of this include the conferral of honorary degrees to venerated individuals by universities, and companies droNot one of us predictors and consequences of denying ingroup characteristics to ambiguous targets
pping celebrity endorsees who engage in egregious, socially undesirable behavior from their 'corporate family*.Consistent with the notion that group mRunning Head "NOT ONE OF US"1‘Not one of us’: Predictors and Consequences of Denying Ingroup Characteristics to AmbiguousTargetsNour Kteily* Kellogg S Not one of us predictors and consequences of denying ingroup characteristics to ambiguous targets care when making ingroup categorizations. Such caution helps avoid the'•NOT ONE OF US"6‘contamination’ of (lie ingroup and any damage to its functioning or status that that might ensue (see also Ho. Sidanius, Cuddy. & Banaji. 2013; Stelzl et al.. 2007; Leyens & Yzerbyt. 1992). At the same time. It Not one of us predictors and consequences of denying ingroup characteristics to ambiguous targets may pay not only to exclude ncgalix c ambiguous targets dial may contaminate the group but also to include positive ambiguous targets, and thus to basNot one of us predictors and consequences of denying ingroup characteristics to ambiguous targets
k in their reflected glory', indeed. consistent with both exclusion of negative and inclusion of positive ambiguous targets. Stelzl er al. (2007) founRunning Head "NOT ONE OF US"1‘Not one of us’: Predictors and Consequences of Denying Ingroup Characteristics to AmbiguousTargetsNour Kteily* Kellogg S Not one of us predictors and consequences of denying ingroup characteristics to ambiguous targets , but as Jamaican after he was subsequently disqualified for steroid use.Individual differences in the conferral of ingroup characteristicsAlthough our reasoning suggests that all group members should show some concern with determining who does and who does not belong to their group, there is nevert Not one of us predictors and consequences of denying ingroup characteristics to ambiguous targets heless theoretical reason to expect individual differences 111 how disci miniating individuals are 111 ascribing others with ingroup characteristics,Not one of us predictors and consequences of denying ingroup characteristics to ambiguous targets
a question that has received scant empirical investigation (but see Blascovich. Wyer, Swart. & Kibler. 1997; Ho et al., 2013: Krosch. Bemsten. Amodio.Running Head "NOT ONE OF US"1‘Not one of us’: Predictors and Consequences of Denying Ingroup Characteristics to AmbiguousTargetsNour Kteily* Kellogg S Not one of us predictors and consequences of denying ingroup characteristics to ambiguous targets inus. Stallworth.Gọi ngay
Chat zalo
Facebook