University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The Effect Of Positive Affective Arousal On Crossed Categorization Effects

(USC Thesis Other)

The Effect Of Positive Affective Arousal On Crossed Categorization Effects

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UM I films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality o f th e copy subm itted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand com er and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back o f the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeefa Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 THE EFFECT OF POSITIVE AFFECTIVE AROUSAL ON CROSSED CATEGORIZATION EFFECTS by Darren Ichiro Urada A Thesis Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF ARTS (Social Psychology) December 1995 Copyright 1995 Darren Ichiro Urada UMI Number: 1379594 UMI Microform 1379594 Copyright 1996, by UMI Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 UNIVERSITY O F SO U TH ER N CALIFORNIA TH E GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9 0 0 0 7 T his thesis, w ritten by D a a a s a / U a a o a_________________ under the direction o f h Thesis C om m ittee, and approved by all its members, has been pre sented to and accepted by the D ean o f T h e Graduate School, in partial fu lfillm en t o f the requirements fo r the degree o f , M A S m . Q E .. A R T S . . . . . . . . . Dtan THESIS COMMI 0 M 6 r~ /((/<// ° i / —t - s Chairman j i Acknowledgements I would like to thank Norman Miller, Erik Vanman, and Rand Wilcox for all of the helpful advice and guidance they provided while serving on my guidance committee for this thesis. I would also like to give acknowledgement to Lynn Urban, who wrote the grant proposal from which the idea for this study came. Finally, I would like to thank all of the members of Norman Miller’s lab group who contributed invaluable ideas, comments, and constructive criticisms while this study was being developed. Table of Contents In tro d u ctio n ......................................................1 M eth o d ................................................................9 R esu lts.............................................................. 17 D iscu ssio n....................................................... 23 R eferen ces....................................................... 28 F o o tn o te s.........................................................31 A ppendixes ................................. ...32 iv LIST O F TABLES 1. Means, standard deviations, and 20% trimmed means of target ratings..................... 18 2. Means, standard deviations, and 20% trimmed means of target rankings...................19 3. Predictions and results ....................................................................................... 22 V L IST O F FIG U RES 1. Predictions of target ratings in after adjusting for category dominance....................... 7 2. Alternative broadening of categorization predictions........................................ 7 3. Mean ratings of targets by mood condition and target type................ 22 vi Abstract The effect o f positive affect on ratings and rankings of convergent or crossed category targets were compared among subjects in whom either positive or neutral affect was induced. Categories were manipulated to be either dominant or non-dominant. Positive affect was induced using an autobiographical recollection procedure. When positive affect was induced, a pattern of target ratings and rankings corresponding to II = Io > Oi and Oo was found (I=dominant ingroup membership, i=nondominant ingroup membership, 0=dominant outgroup membership, o=nondominant outgroup membership), whereas when neutral affect was induced, the pattern found was II > Ii > Io > Oo. The practical and theoretical implications o f these findings are discussed. From Yugoslavia and Rwanda, countries tom by battles between ethnic groups, to civil strife weary Los Angeles, intergroup bias and conflict have proved to be remarkably robust phenomena. A large number o f studies have found evidence of intergroup biases even when studying randomly assigned “minimal groups” created in the laboratory (for reviews see Brewer, 1979; Horwitz & Rabbie, 1982; Messick & Mackie, 1989). One method proposed for reducing intergroup conflict involves taking advantage of the fact that people often hold at least some group memberships in common even if they hold conflicting memberships along other group dimensions. People categorize others as being either ingroup or outgroup members along a number of different dimensions (e.g. race, religion, political affiliations, age, etc.). When salient categorizations o f the other person are either homogeneously ingroup or outgroup, convergent categorization is said to exist. On the other hand, if the other person is perceived to be an ingroup member on one salient dimension while being outgroup member on another salient dimension, crossed categorization is said to exist. It has been hypothesized that the existence of convergent memberships augments intergroup bias by increasing category distinctiveness while the existence of crossed categorization may attenuate intergroup bias by reducing category distinctiveness (Vanbeselaere, 1991). It has therefore been argued that making crossed categorizations salient might be an effective way to decrease intergroup bias (Brewer & Miller, 1984; Messick & Mackie, 1989; Vanbeselaere, 1991). 2 A number o f studies have been conducted to demonstrate crossed categorization effects (Arcuri, 1982; Brewer, Ho, Lee, & Miller, 1987; Brown & Turner, 1979; Deschamps & Doise, 1978; Hagendoom & Henke, 1991; Hewstone, Islam, & Judd, 1993; Schofield & Sagar, 1977; Vanbeselaere, 1987) on group bias, but the demonstrated crossed categorization effects have varied widely from study to study. Recently, Macrae, Milne, and Bodenhausen (1995) sought to explain differences in salience between multiple category dimensions in terms of an interplay of excitatory and inhibitory mechanisms, but they did not look directly at crossed categorization effects. One purpose o f this paper is to attempt to provide explanations for the variation in categorization results by studying the effect that one moderating variable, positive affect directly on the crossed categorization effect. Previous studies have found that positive affective arousal causes broader categorization (Isen & Daubman, 1984). Participants in Isen and Daubman’s positive affect conditions grouped more items together in a sorting task and rated less prototypic exemplars more as members of the category in a categorization task. This series of studies is particularly convincing because the authors demonstrated broadened categorization under positive affective arousal not only across two types o f categorization tasks (rating and sorting), but also across two types o f materials (words and colors), and three types o f positive-affect mood manipulations (refreshments, receipt of a small gift, and a comedy film). Isen (1987) has outlined three different mechanisms through which positive affect might impact cognitive organization: an increase in the complexity o f the cognitive context, priming of affective features, and activation of brain regions that promote holistic processing. A brief overview of each of these mechanisms follows. Increase in the complexity o f the cognitive context: Isen (1987) theorized that positive affect may cue positive material in memory, which has been found to be more extensive than other types o f memory. According to Isen, positive affect and positive material cue a wider range of associates than does neutral material. Thus, people who experience positive affective arousal may be more likely to think of more ideas and experience a more complex cognitive context. When more ideas come to mind simultaneously, relationships that otherwise would not be seen may become apparent as ideas not normally associated are brought into contiguity with one another. Thus, a more complex cognitive context may then be expected to lead to greater integration o f ideas and result in broader categorization on some tasks. Priming o f affective features: Since many cognitions have affective components or affectively toned alternative meanings, Isen theorized that perceived relatedness among these cognitions might be increased by priming the affective components that they share. In addition to Isen's conceptualization of priming effects on categorization, priming may serve an additional role in social categorization. Evidence has been found that negative affect is associated with outgroups (Dijker, 1987; Jackson & Sullivan, 1989; 4 Stephan & Stephan, 1989; Vanman & Miller, 1993), so positive affect may be associated with ingroups. This suggests that positive affective arousal might direct attention toward positive aspects of a target person such as ingroup memberships. Activation o f brain regions that promote holistic processing: Isen {1987) noted that some evidence suggests that holistic processing is associated with activation o f the posterior portion of the right hemisphere o f the brain. It has been hypothesized that integration o f ideas may result from positive affect because of activation of these regions. The above mechanisms become relevant to the crossed categorization effect if one assumes that a person faced with a target person with multiple category memberships assimilates all of the available information to categorize the target person on a single “like me” or “not like me” dimension. Consider a study in which participants are faced with descriptions o f a number of "target" people who can be categorized as ingroup or outgroup members on one important (dominant) dimension and on one less important (nondominant) dimension. First I will discuss the pattern that should be found in the control group, when subjects are experiencing neutral affect. Then I will discuss how the patterns should differ when subjects are given a positive affect induction. Participants who are in a neutral affective state should categorize targets by weighing both of the target's group memberships, giving higher preference to targets if they hold ingroup memberships and lower preferences to those who hold outgroup memberships. On this basis, they should rate targets as Ii > Io = Oi > Oo. Similar patterns have been 5 found previously by Hagendoom and Henke (1991), Vanbeselaere (1991), and Hewstone et al. (1993). However, in this case, because some categories are more important than others, participants can be expected to give higher weight to ingroup and outgroup memberships on these categories than to memberships on the non-dominant categories. Adjusting for the effect o f dominance should yield the pattern li > Io > Oi > Oo once category dominance is taken into account. What effect might positive affect have on the participant’s perceptions o f these targets? Isen suggests that people who experience positive affect may be more likely to integrate their view o f themselves and others, perhaps by perceiving both to be parts o f a larger whole. She bases this hypothesis not only on her own findings regarding integration o f material, but also on other findings she cites that suggest a more cooperative orientation, increased helpfulness, and decreased aggression as a function o f positive affect (Baron & Ball, 1974; Berkowitz, 1972; Isen, 1970; Isen & Levin, 1972). On the more specific topic of ingroup / outgroup definitions, Isen (1987) states," It may be that people who are happy see less distinction between themselves and others or see themselves and others in perspective as parts o f a larger whole” ( p. 242). This places us in a position to make predictions regarding the effect that positive affect will have on crossed categorization effects. If we represent the category memberships o f the target persons using “I” to stand for ingroup membership on the dominant dimension, “O” to stand for outgroup membership on the dominant dimension, and “i” and “o” to represent 6 ingroup and outgroup membership on the nondominant dimensions, respectively, then we might use Isen’s statements to predict participant ratings o f the various targets under positive affective conditions. If positive affect induces a perception or feeling o f greater unity with others, leading one to categorize others more broadly as being similar to oneself whenever there is at least a weak starting basis for doing so (i.e., at least one ingroup membership), we might expect to find ratings conforming to the pattern li = Io = Oi > Oo. This process may be aided by the priming effect o f positive affect that directs attention toward ingroup memberships. However, dominance o f one category over the other would tend to depress the ratings o f the Oi target relative to that o f the Io target. This would lead us to the pattern Ii = Io > Oi > Oo. This pattern is shown in Figure I along with the expected neutral affect pattern. This pattern has previously been found by Brown and Turner (1979) and Hagendoorn and Henke (1991). Note that the only difference between the two above predictions lies in the rating o f the Oi person. An alternative hypothesis Isen did not mention is that persons experiencing positive affect might integrate information to categorize others more broadly as being either more similar to themselves or more broadly as being not similar to themselves. That is, when faced with the crossed category targets,positive affectively aroused participants might be expected to exhibit a greater tendency to rate targets based solely upon their dominant group memberships while assimilating or ignoring their nondominant group memberships. This pattern can be represented as Ii = Io > Oi = Oo, as shown in Figure 2. 7 Figure 1. Predictions of target ratings after adjusting for category dominance. High 0 0 Z ~ Medium h a n Low Dominant Non-dominant ■ Positive Affect □ Neutral Affect INGROUP INGROUP OUTGROUP INGROUP OUTGROUP INGROUP T A R G E T TY PE OUTGROUP OUTGROUP Figure 2 Alternative broadening of categorization predictions High 0 0 Z — Medium b < cm Low Dominant Non-dominant ■ □ Positive Affect Neutral Affect INGROUP INGROUP OUTGROUP INGROUP OUTGROUP INGROUP T A R G E T T YP E OUTGROUP OUTGROUP 8 Interestingly, the implication of this prediction is that under certain conditions, namely when one is faced with an Oi target, positive affect may be detrimental to social interaction. Isen does not seem to take this position because of evidence suggesting that positive affect usually is beneficial to social interaction. However, in the crossed categorization literature, the pattern described above has arisen more than once (Arcuri, 1982; Hagendoom & Henke, 1991; Hewstone et at., 1993). These studies did not involve any deliberate positive affect manipulations, but the mere existence of these patterns together with a plausible explanation for them based on positive affect suggests that we ought to give this explanation consideration. Between affective conditions, no difference is predicted in ratings of the Ii target. The Io target, however, is expected to be rated higher by persons experiencing positive affect than by persons experiencing neutral affect because people experiencing positive affect should see the Io group as being more similar to themselves. No prediction is made for the Oi target. As for the Oo target, no difference is predicted because, according to Isen (1987), “studies showing increased benefit of ingroup members as a function of factors such as similarity do not find a concomitant increase in harm to, or rejection of, outgroup members (e.g., Billig & Tajfel, 1973; Homstein et al., 1971)” (p. 243). It should be noted that there are more similarities than differences between the above predictions. In fact, the only divergent predictions occur in the ratings o f the Oi target. My predictions can be summarized as follows: 9 In the positive mood condition: Ii = Io > Oi and Oo In the neutral mood condition: Ii > Io > Oi > Oo In positive vs, neutral condition comparisons: Ii (positive) = II (neutral) Io (positive) > Io (neutral) (no Oi group predictions) Oo (positive) = Oo (neutral) Method Participants Forty-six undergraduate psychology students (26 female, 17 male) at the University o f Southern California volunteered for the study in order to receive extra credit points in their psychology classes. Three participants were excluded from the statistical analysis because they indicated suspicion of the study’s cover story during the post-experimental interview and were able to guess at least part of the study’s true purpose. Design The design was a 2 (Affective Arousal: positive, neutral) X 4 (Target Information: dominant ingroup / non-dominant ingroup, dominant ingroup / non-dominant outgroup, 10 dominant outgroup / non-dominant ingroup, dominant outgroup / non-dominant outgroup) factorial with the first factor varied between subjects and the second varied within subjects. The affective arousal condition was randomly determined prior to the experimental session. The order of the target information was counterbalanced using a Latin-square design, with the type (explained below) and order of the dominant/non dominant information within each target being randomly determined. Materials and Procedures Participants signed up for the study on a posted sign-up sheet labeled “Team Problem Solving”. On this sheet, they were informed that they would be given the opportunity to get to know someone, then engage in a problem solving task with that person. Prospective participants were instructed to sign up by writing their student identification numbers (generally the same as social security numbers) next to the time that they would like to participate. For each one-hour time slot, there were three spaces, but two or three o f these were always filled by bogus numbers. Thus, for every available position, it appeared as if the participant would be participating with two other participants, but no information about these bogus participants could be determined other than the uninformative number. There was always at least one time slot that was completely filled by bogus numbers (no real participants were run during this time) because it was felt that presenting a time sheet in which every time slot had exactly two participants signed up would arouse suspicion. When participants reported for the study, they found a closed door with a sign on it. The sign listed five identification numbers, one o f which was the participant’s and four of which were bogus, followed by room numbers to which each person was asked to report. The real participant was always asked to report to the same room, which was around a comer about 15 meters away. The room numbers the bogus participants were supposedly directed to were in the same building as the real participant’s room but were scattered about its ten floors. When participants arrived at the room they had been directed to, they were greeted by the experimenter and led through office-space to a small adjoining room (approximately 3 m by 3 m) where they were seated alone. The experimenter looked at his watch and said, “There are supposed to be four other subjects participating at the same time as you. Let me go check to see if everyone’s here.” Leaving the door open, the experimenter then walked into the adjoining room to an unplugged touch-tone telephone sitting on a desk. At this point, the experimenter was out o f the sight o f the participant but still well within earshot, (about 5 m away). The experimenter audibly picked up the phone, punched in a phone number, and engaged in a short mock conversation, supposedly with another experimenter. The experimenter always ended with, “Oh, one more? How long do you want to wait? (pause) Uh-huh. (pause) Okay, well, just call me when everybody’s here, (pause) Okay, bye.” As the experimenter hung the phone up, he pushed the play button on a General Electric AM/FM radio/cassette player (model 12 number 3-5284A) next to the phone. The sound o f the phone being hung up masked the sound of the button being pushed on the cassette player. The first 60 seconds of tape were silent, during which time the experimenter went back into the participant’s room and informed the participant that they needed to wait for one additional participant to arrive. The experimenter had the participant sign in and briefly engaged him or her in conversation until the 60 seconds of silence on the tape had finished. At this time the cassette player began playing a recording of a phone ringing. The experimenter excused himself from the participant’s room and went back into the adjoining room. The experimenter picked up the phone while clearing his throat, which masked the sound of him pushing the stop button on the cassette player. The experimenter engaged in a brief mock conversation in which the participant could hear him say, “Hello? (pause) Oh, they’re here? Great! Should I start? (pause) Okay, talk to you soon. Bye.” The experimenter went back into the participant’s room and informed the participant that the study was ready to begin. It was explained that there were four other people in the other rooms, two o f which had been recruited through the normal subject pool (using the same sign-up sheet as the participant had) and two of which were recruited from outside the subject pool. The intent of this embellishment was to make it more plausible to the participant that one of the other participants might be an older adult, since there are not normally a large number of older adults in the subject pool at the University o f Southern California. It was also hoped that this statement would help to prevent participants from making immediate assumptions about the “other participants” based on their membership in the USC psychology subject pool. Next, the participant was told that he or she was participating in a study designed to investigate how people interact with people they had just met when they needed to come to an agreement on solutions to simulated interpersonal problems. The participant was then told that the experimenters had previously found that they could collect the most useful data from observations o f discussions when the people engaged in those discussions felt comfortable with each other and that therefore there would be an opportunity for the participant to choose one or two partners. However, it was also explained that the participant would only receive a limited amount o f information about the other participants because the experimenters were also interested in studying how the amount of information participants received about their partners before they met would affect their future discussions. It was explained that this was also the reason that the participants had been separated into different rooms for the time being. At this point the participant was asked if there was any reason to believe he or she knew any of the other current participants in the study. Since the other participants were, in fact, bogus, the participants invariably answered “no”. To further enhance the plausibility of the cover story, the participant was told to draw a number from a box filled with numbered slips o f paper. It was explained that the number drawn would correspond to the number of pieces o f information that the 14 participant would be given about the other participants, and that the numbers in the box ranged from zero to four. In fact, all of the slips o f paper were marked with the number two. Next, the participant was asked to fill out an information form so that information could be given to the other participants (see Appendix A). The form asked participants to categorize themselves along the dimension of age (young adult or older adult), political beliefs (more liberal or more conservative), nationality (U.S. citizen or citizen of another country), and religiosity (not religious or very religious). After categorizing themselves on each dimension, participants were asked how important each of the categorizations were to their “sense o f who they are” and were asked which two categorizations were the most important to their self identity. After the participant had completed the information form, the experimenter took the form and stated that he needed to go exchange information with the other experimenters. He explained that this would take about ten minutes, but in the meantime the participant could help out by participating in a separate study on moods and life experiences. After the participant agreed (none declined), they were the given instructions for the mood manipulation task. The mood manipulation was an autobiographical recollection task. The instructions, based on those used by Baker and Guttfreund (1993), are given in Appendix B. The participant was asked if there were any questions, then the participant was left alone for ten minutes. The experimenter used the ten minutes to create four descriptions for the bogus participants (targets) by using the information provided by the real participant. The descriptions each contained one dominant dimension trait (defined as one of the two dimensions that the participant listed as being most important on the information sheet) and one non-dominant dimension trait (defined as one of the two dimensions that the participant did not list as being most important). Whether the dominant trait occurred first or second in the description was randomly determined. Because there were two dominant (e.g.., nationality and age group) and two nondominant (e.g., political beliefs and religiosity) dimensions that could be used for each description, the description for which each dimension was used was determined randomly. The four descriptions corresponded to dominant ingroup / nondominant ingroup, dominant ingroup / nondominant outgroup, dominant outgroup / nondominant ingroup, and dominant outgroup / nondominant outgroup configurations. The order that the configurations were presented in was counterbalanced using a Latin-square design. Each categoiy dimension was used twice - once as an ingroup and once as an outgroup. The end result was that every trait type (e.g. liberal, U.S. citizen, young adult, conservative, etc.) was used one time throughout the four target descriptions. Although only two group memberships per target were given to the participant, these descriptions were hand-written on a form with spaces for up to four pieces o f information per target in order to aid in the cover story (see Appendix C). 16 After ten minutes had elapsed, the experimenter returned and collected the mood manipulation essay from the participant. He then gave the four target descriptions to the participant along with the following instructions; You will be cooperating to come to a consensus on solutions to different problems with one or two of these people. No special knowledge or skills will be needed to solve these problems. It is only necessary that you two will be able to work carefully together. I know you don’t have a lot o f information to go on, but please try to do the best you can based on the information that you do have. Remember, try to choose someone who you think you will feel comfortable with. You will have to be able to work as a team with him or her. If you two are comfortable with each other, this will probably be easier. The participant was then given the dependent measure, which was a seven-point Likert scale asking how much the participant wished to be partners with each described target (see Appendix D). Participants were also asked to rank the targets (1-4) in order of preference. Finally, participants were asked what kind o f image they had of each target. This last question was included in the hope that it would be illuminating if no significant effects were found. The participant completed this form while the experimenter remained in the room doing paperwork. After the participant completed the dependent measure, the experimenter collected it and said that he would go meet with the other experimenters to pair the participants up. In the meantime, he explained, he would appreciate it if the participant completed the second part o f the moods and life events study participated in earlier. Once the participant agreed, he or she was given the mood manipulation check, a version o f the 17 PANAS (Watson, Clark & Tellegen, 1988) that instructed the participant to try to remember how he or she felt after writing about the life event earlier in the session. The version used is shown in Appendix E. After five minutes, the experimenter returned and probed the participant for suspicion. Following this, the participant was fully debriefed and excused. The full script for this study can be found in Appendix F. The debriefing statement can be found in Appendix G. Results Manipulation check: Participants who were in the positive affective arousal condition scored an average o f 31.65 points (out of a possible 50) on the positive affect portion of the PANAS scale, while participants in the neutral affect condition averaged 19.50. This difference was found to be significant using Welch's procedure (F^ = 24.02, £ < .05). On the negative affect portion of the scale, participants in the positive affect condition scored an average of 13.65 points, which was not significantly different from the average of 12.75 in the neutral condition (F^ = 0.46, £ > .05). At this point, participants who were in the positive affect condition had their data removed if their positive affect score was lower than the average score of participants in the neutral affect condition. Conversely, participants in the neutral affect condition were removed if their positive affect scores exceeded the average scores o f participants in the positive affective 18 arousal condition. This resulted in the removal o f two participants from each affective condition. Both rating and ranking data were collected, but both measurements yielded nearly identical results, making extended discussion o f both somewhat redundant. Therefore, only the analysis o f the rating data will be described at length here except where the ranking data yielded results different from that o f the rating data. Results o f analyses from the rating data can be found in Table 1. Results o f the ranking data, can be found in Table 2. The use o f multivariate ANOVA procedures in analyzing the ratings data was deemed inappropriate because non-normality and heterogeneity o f variance was found in Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and 20% trimmed means o f target ratings. Ii Io Oi Oo Positive Affect Condition 5.40(1.27) 5.47(1.02) 4.15(1.18) 3.61 (1.46) 5.50a 5.46a 4.00c 3.64d Neutral Affect Condition 5.79(1.18) 4.67(1.14) 3.67(1.53) 2.86(1.41) 5.920 4.75b 3.75c 2.79d The first number reported is the cell mean, followed by the standard deviation in parentheses, and the trimmed mean below it. Greater means indicate a greater preference for the target. Numbers with different subscripts IN THE SAME ROW differ significantly from each other. 19 Table 2. Means, standard deviations, and 20% trimmed means o f target rankings. Ii Io oi Oo Positive Affect Condition 1.85 (0.99) 1.84(1.01) 2.63 (0.78) 3.55 (.705) 1.53f l 1.58a 2.77c 3.77d Neutral Affect Condition 1.50 (0.92) 2.27 (0.96) 2.71 (0.85) 3.53 (0.74) 1.17a 2.17b 2.82c 3.75d The first number reported is the cell mean, followed by the standard deviation in parentheses, and the trimmed mean below it. Lower means indicate a greater preference for the target. Numbers with different subscripts IN THE SAME ROW differ significantly from each other. the data set. Fortunately, one need not necessarily perform an ANOVA F-test in order to perform multiple comparisons (Bemhardson, 1975). Bemhardson pointed out that multiple comparison methods exist that are able to provide exact control over Type I errors while not requiring an omnibus test to be performed first. Rom’s procedure (Rom, 1990), which employs a sequentially rejective method, can be used in the absence o f an omnibus test to test for differences between dependent or independent groups (Wilcox, 1996). Dunnett’s T3 procedure can also be used in the absence o f an omnibus test to examine differences between independent groups with unequal variances (Wilcox, 1996). Furthermore, Dunnett’s T3, which utilizes Welch’s procedure, does not rely on assumptions homogeneity o f variance. Rom’s procedure can be used with trimmed mean comparisons, which tend perform better under conditions o f non-normality and 20 heterogeneity o f variance than other tests based on means do. Thus, both Dunnett’s T3 and Rom’s procedures were utilized in the analyses. Although several apriori hypotheses existed, it was decided that all analyses performed would be two-tailed in order to add a measure o f conservatism. Female participants rated all targets lower than their male peers did. Dunnett’s T3 multiple comparison procedure was chosen over Rom’s procedure with trimmed t-tests to test these differences because some cells had as few as five participants, making analyses based on trimmed means potentially misleading. Dunnett’s T3 is based on Welch’s statistic, not on trimmed means. The outcome o f the analyses showed all differences between males and females to be non-significant. Although it is possible that the procedure failed to detect a difference due to inadequate power, there was no theoretical reason to expect real differences between males and females and there didn't appear to be any tendency for gender to interact with the variables of interest in this study, so data from participants of both genders were combined for all subsequent analyses. In the neutral affect condition, Rom’s procedure with 20% trimmed t-tests was utilized. As predicted, the Ii target was rated as a more desirable partner than the Io target (D = 6,63, £ < .05), who in turn exceeded the Oi target (D = 11.00, £ < .05). Lastly, the Oi target was more desirable than the Oo target (D = 6.34, £ < .05). 21 In the positive affective arousal condition, Rom’s procedure with 20% trimmed t- tests was used again. No difference was found between ratings of the desirability o f the Ii and Io targets as partners, (D = 0.01, £ = 0.95), as was predicted. Ratings of the desirability o f the Oi and Oo targets did not differ (D = 0.85, £ = 0.38), although, their mean ranks suggested a preference for the Oi targets did differ significantly (D = 19.8, £ < .05). In line with our predictions, the Io targets were rated as more preferable than either Oi targets (D = 16.79, £ < .05) or OO targets (D = 21.05, £ < .05). Similarly, as predicted, ratings of the Ii targets showed them to be preferred over both Oi targets (D = 11.34, £ < .05) and Oo targets (D = 11.12, £ < .05). For the independent group comparisons, Rom’s procedure was used with Yuen’s 20% trimmed t-test. Ratings for targets in the neutral affect condition were compared to ratings o f the same target type in the positive affect condition (i.e. Ii was compared to Ii, 10 was compared to Io, etc.). As predicted, there were no differences found between the 1 1 groups (Y = 7.94, £ = 0.37) or the Oo groups (Y = 1.52, £ = 0.15). Additionally, no difference was found between the Oi groups (Y = 0.56, £ = 0,58). The difference between the Io groups was in the predicted direction, but both the rating and ranking measurements narrowly failed to achieve conventional levels of significance (Y = 2.01, £ = .05; Y = 2.29, £ = 0.03, respectively)1 . Means of the rating data are shown in Figure 3. A summary o f the predictions and results can be found in table 3. 22 Figure 3 Mean ratings o f targets by mood condition and target type. H < C H 6.0 5.0 U J G Z - 4.0 3.0 2.0 H Positive Affect □ Neutral Affect Dominant INGROUP INGROUP OUTGROUP OUTGROUP Non-dominant INGROUP OUTGROUP INGROUP OUTGROUP T A R G E T T Y P E Table 3. Predictions and Results. Positive affect condition: Ii = Io > Oi and Oo Neutral affect condition: Ii > Io > Oi > Oo Positive vs. Neutral condition comparisons: Ii (positive) = II (neutral) Io (positive) > Io (neutral) (no Oi group predictions) Oo (positive) = Oo (neutral) All predictions supported. All predictions supported. Prediction supported. Prediction marginally supported. Oi (positive) = Oi (neutral) Prediction supported. 23 Discussion The results obtained support Isen’s prediction that people who experience positive affect tend to see others as being more similar to themselves. This can be seen in the elevated ratings and rankings participants gave to Io group members in the positive affect condition. However, this benefit only seems to apply to others who are already ingroup members on at least one important category dimension. Targets who were outgroup members on the important dimension were not viewed any more favorably (or unfavorably) when participants were experiencing positive affect. In the positive affect conditions, it is unclear whether the Oi target is seen as more favorable than the Oo target or not. On this comparison, unlike all the rest, rating and ranking results diverge. In the positive affect condition, Oi and Oo ratings do not differ significantly, but their rankings do. It could be that participants experiencing positive affect see both targets as being very similar, but when forced to choose between one or the other, they prefer the Oi target to the Oo target. One theoretical interpretation of the rating data is that people experiencing positive affect may have a greater tendency to lump targets who are outgroup members on a dominant dimension into a “not like me” category even if they are ingroup members on a less important dimension. However, other data do not support this argument. First, there was a non-significant tendency for Oi targets to be rated and ranked higher when comparing positive affective condition participants to neutral affective condition participants. Second, and more importantly, examination o f the ranking data suggests that the difference in results is due to augmented ratings of the Oo target in the positive affect group. Whereas this difference is not significant when comparisons are made directly between the Oo ratings for the two affective conditions, the trend is an interesting one because it is inexplicable in terms o f the theories currently under consideration. O f course, because the difference between affect conditions is not significant and because the ranking data shows a different pattern, it is quite possible that the pattern in the positive affect condition is merely an anomaly. Further study is needed to clarify the effects o f positive affect on perception o f Oo targets. Interestingly, there was a non-significant tendency for participants in the positive affect condition to rate and rank double ingroup targets lower than participants in the neutral affect condition did. Reasons for this are unclear. On the one hand, it is possible that positive affect somehow reduces favoritism towards double ingroup members. On the other hand, however, it is possible that these trends are an artifact o f within- participants measurement. That is, participants may have lowered their Ii target ratings in order to equalize them with the ratings already given to the Io target group. However, this does not explain the trend for both ratings and rankings o f the Ii target to be actually non-significantly below those of the Io targets. O f course, these differences are so slight 25 that it is unwise to draw any conclusions on the basis o f them, but this leaves a question that may warrant future study. A second unexpected trend was the non-significant tendency for male and female participants to rate targets differently. Males tended to rate all targets higher than did females. Again, caution must be exercised when interpreting non-significant results, but the consistency o f these results (across 4 target types), suggests that further study may be warranted in this area. Two factors may have contributed to low power when testing for gender effects. First, fewer males participated in the study than females. After adjusting for removed participants and missing data, few males remained in certain cells (e.g. only five in the positive-affect, Oo rating cell). Second no appropriate omnibus test was available to test for a one factor between participants, one factor within participants design while being resistant to violations of assumptions o f normality and homogeneity of variance. Unlike the multiple comparison procedures used, such an omnibus test would have taken into account the consistency of the trend across target types and might have yielded somewhat different results. A conceptual replication of this study utilizing only between subjects manipulations is planned. We plan to modify the paradigm to allow several participants to be run simultaneously, allowing more participants to be run and thus increasing the probability o f finding normal distributions in our sample data. Together, these modifications may allow more powerful statistical techniques to be used in analyzing the next study’s data. 26 Also, for this study, it was assumed that higher target ratings resulted directly from greater perceived similarity to the targets. To strengthen this theoretical link, a more direct measure o f perceived target similarity is planned for the next study. Also, in the near future a modified version of this study is planned to determine whether multiple non-dominant ingroup memberships will have the same effect as using a single dominant dimension. Finally, we plan to replicate this study while adding a negative affect condition. In the real world, the findings from this study have practical implication for the attenuation of intergroup conflict. Where intergroup conflict is present, this study suggests that induction of positive affect can be a useful tool for reducing conflict, but only in certain cases. Positive affect may only be beneficial in cases in which a more important dimension can be made salient on which the parties involved are ingroup members. Perhaps the most surprising practical contribution o f this study lies in its identification of cases in which positive affect may fail to be beneficial. Where an important category does not exist or cannot be made salient, positive affect may have little impact, and in these cases it may prove more efficient to attempt a different type of intervention. When intervening with positive affect, this study suggests that the best strategy would be to attempt to de-emphasize the outgroup category along which the parties are feuding, and to emphasize a second category dimension along which the parties are ingroup members and which could potentially be seen as more important. If one is able to achieve this, then the induction of positive affect should lead to greater cooperation (at least while the positive affect remains present). For example, when leaders of Los Angeles gangs are brought together, it may be beneficial to first downplay their gang memberships and to emphasize another important dimension that they have in common, such as their shared cultures or racial backgrounds. If a sufficiently important dimension is made salient, the induction o f positive affect may significantly aid negotiations toward a gang truce. Of course, in some situations it may be difficult to find a dimension that can be seen as more important than the one along which the parties are feuding, particularly if the conflict is intense and/or has a long history. In these cases, emphasizing multiple ingroup memberships (e.g. race, culture, religion, shared neighborhoods, favorite sports teams, favorite music, and as many other shared interests and beliefs as possible) should theoretically have an additive effect, but this is an important topic that remains to be studied. 28 References Arcuri, L. (1982). Three patterns o f social categorization in attribution memory. European Journal o f Social Psychology. 12,271-282. Baker & Guttfreund (1993), The effects o f written autobiographical recollection induction procedures on mood. Journal o f Clinical Psychology. 49(4), 563-568. Bemhardson, C. (1975). Type I error rates when multiple comparison procedures follow a significant F test o f ANOVA. Biometrics, 31 _ , 719-724. Brewer, M.B. (1979). Ingroup bias in the minimal group situation: A cognitive- motivational analysis. Social Psychology Bulletin. 17,475-482. Brewer, M.B., Ho, H., Lee, J., & Miller, N. (1987). Social identity and social distance among Hong Kong schoolchildren. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 13(2), 156-165. Brewer, M.B., & Miller, N. (1984). Beyond the contact hypothesis: Theoretical perspectives on desegregation, InN . Miller & M.B. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in Contact: The Psychology o f Desegregation (pp 281-302). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Brown & Turner (1979). The criss-cross categorization effect in intergroup discrimination. British Journal o f Social and Clinical Psychology. 18, 371-383. Deschamps, J.C., & Doise, W. (1978). Crossed category memberships in intergroup relations. In H. Tajfel (Eds.), Differentiation between Social Groups. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dijker, A.J.M. (1987). Emotional reactions to ethnic minorities. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 305-325. Hagendoom, L., & Henke, R. (1991). The effect o f multiple category membership on intergroup evaluations in a north Indian context: class, caste and religion. British Journal o f Social Psychology, 30,247-260. Hewstone, M „ Islam, M.R., & Judd C.M.(1993). Models o f crossed categorization and intergroup relations. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 64. 779-93. 29 Horwitz, M., & Rabbie, J.M. (1982), Individuality and membership in the intergroup system. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social Identity and Intergroup Relations (pp. 241- 274), Cambridge and Paris: Cambridge University Press and Editions de la Matson des Sciences de l'Homme. Isen, A.M. (1987). Positive affect, cognitive processes, and social behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (pp. 203-253). San Diego: Academic Press. Isen, A.M., & Daubman, K.A. (1984). The influence o f affect on categorization. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology. 47, 1206-1217. Jackson, L.A., & Sullivan, L.A., (1989). Cognition and affect in evaluations of stereotyped group members. The Journal of Social Psychology. 129, 659-672. Macrae, Milne, & Bodenhausen (1995). The dissection o f selection in person perception: inhibitory processes in social stereotyping. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 69(3), 397-407. Messick, D.M., & Mackie, D.M. (1989). Intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 40,45-81. Schofield, J.W., & Sagar, H.(1977). Peer interaction patterns in an integrated middle school. Sociometry, 40, 130-138. Stephan, W.G., & Stephan C.W. (1989). Antecedents o f intergroup anxiety in Asian-Americans and Hispanic Americans. International Journal o f Intercultural Relations. 13.203-219. Watson, Clark, & Tellegen (1988). Development and validation o f brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6). 1063-1070. Wilcox, R.W. (1996). Statistics for the Social Sciences. San Diego: Academic Press. Vanbeselaere, N. (1987). The effects o f dichotomous and crossed social categorizations upon intergroup discrimination. European Journal o f Social Psychology. 17, 143-156. 30 Vanbeselaere, N. (1991). The different effects of simple and crossed categorizations: A result o f the category differentiation process, or o f differential category salience? In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European Review o f Social Psychology (pp. 247-278). Chichester: Wiley. Vanman, E.J., & Miller, N. (1993). Applications o f emotion theoiy and research to stereotyping and intergroup relations. In D.M. Mackie & D.L. Hamilton (Eds.), Affect, Cognition, and Stereotyping: Interactive Processes in Group Perception (pp. 213- 238. San Diego: Academic Press. Footnotes 1 - The unadjusted £ values for single tests are reported here in order to give the reader a precise indication of how far the score differences were from achieving significance. For the fourth in an ordered series of comparisons, Rom’s procedure requires £ < 0.013 to reject the null hypothesis at a = 0.05. A case could be made for removing two of the prior comparisons because it was predicted beforehand that they would yield non significant results, but still, the difference between the Io ratings and rankings would fail to achieve the £ < 0,025 required by Rom’s procedure for the second in a series of comparisons. APPENDIX A 32 S u b j e c t I n f o r m a t i o n F o r m 1. Would you describe yourself as being a y o u n g a d u l t , m i d d l e a g e d , or an o l d e r a d u l t? How important do you think this is for your sense of who you are? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all very much 2. Are you a U .S . c i t i z e n , or a citizen o f another c o u n tr y ? How important do you think this is for your sense of who you are? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all very much 3. If you had to choose one or the other, would you describe yourself as being generally politically more l i b e r a l or more c o n s e r v a t i v e ? How important do you think this is for your sense of who you are? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all very much 4. If you had to choose one or the other, would you describe yourself as generally being r e l i g i o u s or not r e l i g i o u s? How important do you think this is for your sense of who you are? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all very much Which of the above four (age, citizenship, political affiliation, religiosity), do you feel is the most important to your self identity? Which is the second most important? APPENDIX B 33 N e u tr a l A f f e c t I n d u c tio n I n s t r u c t i o n s : I w ould now l i k e t o a sk you t o ta k e a few m in u te s t o lo o k i n t o you r p a s t and t h in k a b o u t a mundane e v e n t i n your l i f e t h a t h as o c c u r r e d r e c e n t l y . When you f i n i s h r e a d in g t h e s e i n s t r u c t i o n s , you w i l l be g iv e n 10 m in u te s t o t h in k o f t h i s e v e n t and w r i t e down a d e s c r i p t i o n o f i t . I w i l l t e l l you when th e tim e i s o v e r . I w ould l i k e you t o t r y t o t h in k o f a l l o f t h e d e t a i l s o f what was h a p p en in g a t t h e t im e , t o t h e p o in t t h a t you c o u ld v i v i d l y im a g in e t h i s h a p p en in g t o you r i g h t now. Try t o remember how you f e l t a t t h e tim e t h e e v e n t o c c u r r e d , what l e d t o t h e s e f e e l i n g s , and w h eth er t h i s e v e n t had e l i c i t e d any th o u g h ts t h a t in c r e a s e d any f e e l i n g s you may h a v e h ad . On th e b la n k p a g e s t h a t f o l l o w , t r y t o d e s c r i b e t h e e v e n t i n d e t a i l . I t i s v e r y im p o r ta n t t h a t you ta k e t h i s r e f l e c t i o n e x e r c i s e s e r i o u s l y . T hink o f a mundane e v e n t t h a t made you f e e l n e i t h e r happy nor s a d . P l e a s e s t a r t now. Positive Affect Induction Instructions: X w ould now l i k e t o a sk you t o t a k e a few m in u te s t o lo o k i n t o you r p a s t and t h in k a b o u t what h as b een th e h a p p ie s t e v e n t in you r l i f e . When you f i n i s h r e a d in g t h e s e i n s t r u c t i o n s , you w i l l be g iv e n 10 m in u te s t o t h in k o f t h i s e v e n t and w r it e down a d e s c r i p t i o n o f i t . I w i l l t e l l you when t h e tim e i s o v e r . I w ould l i k e you t o t r y t o t h in k o f a l l o f t h e d e t a i l s o f what was h a p p en in g a t th e t im e , t o t h e p o i n t t h a t you c o u ld v i v i d l y im a g in e t h i s h a p p en in g t o you r i g h t now. Try t o remember how you f e l t a t th e tim e t h e e v e n t o c c u r r e d , what l e d t o t h e s e f e e l i n g s , and w h e th e r t h i s e v e n t had e l i c i t e d any th o u g h ts t h a t in c r e a s e d y o u r f e e l i n g o f h a p p in e s s . On t h e b la n k p a g e s t h a t f o l l o w , t r y t o d e s c r i b e th e e v e n t i n d e t a i l . I t i s v e r y im p o r ta n t t h a t you ta k e t h i s r e f l e c t i o n e x e r c i s e s e r i o u s l y . T hink o f an e v e n t t h a t made you f e e l a s i f you w ere on to p o f t h e w o rld and had e v e r y t h in g g o in g f o r y o u . P l e a s e s t a r t now. APPENDIX C D e s c r i p t i o n s o f O t h e r P a r t i c i p a n t s Amount of information to be received (0-4) _____ Participant #1 is: _____________________________________ Participant 02 is; Participant #3 is: Participant #4 is: 35 APPENDIX D Partner Selection Form How much do you wish to be partners with participant #1? 1 2 3 4 5 6 not at all How much do you wish to be partners with participant #2? 1 2 3 4 5 6 not at all How much do you wish to be partners with participant #3? 1 2 3 4 5 6 not at all How much do you wish to be partners with participant #4? 1 2 3 4 5 6 not at all Please list your preferences for partners below: First choice: Participant # ____ Second choice: Participant # ____ Third choice: Participant # ____ Fourth choice: Participant # ____ What kind of image do you have of participant #1? What kind of image do you have of participant #2? What kind of image do you have of participant #3? 7 very much 7 very much 7 very much 7 very much What kind of image do you have of participant #4? 36 APPENDIX E This scale consists of a number of words that describe different feelings and emotions. Read each item and then write the appropriate answer in the space next to the word. Indicate to what extent you felt this way after you wrote about your life event. Use the following scale to record your answers. 1 2 3 4 5 very slightly a little moderately quite a bit extremely or not at all ___ ..interested irritable distressed alert excited ashamed upset inspired stronq nervous quilty determined scared attentive hostile jittery enthusiastic active proud afraid 37 APPENDIX F Procedures 1. Start: Greet subject, introduce self, look at watch. "There are supposed to be four other subjects participating at the same time as you...let me go check on the other rooms to see if everyone's here." "Call". Wait for "return call". 2. Introduction: "Thank you for participating in our study. This is a large scale study designed to investigate how people interact with people they have just met when they need to come to an agreement on solutions to simulated inter-personal problems. Participants of a wide range of ages, races, religions, and political affiliations have been recruited from a variety of different sources for this study. Right now there are four other people in other rooms who are also participating in this experiment. We will give you an opportunity to help us choose one or two partners for you. (Most participants will be matched up with one other person, but since there are five of you today, there's a possibility you may be placed in a group of three) . Once you have paired up with someone, you will be given a few minutes to get to know them and then you will engage in a problem solving task that will require you to discuss an issue and come to an agreement on its solution. I will be giving you more information about this task later. For now, we need to focus on pairing you up with a partner. Before we begin, however, I would like to remind you that participation in psychological research is completely voluntary. You have the right to stop at any point and still receive credit. Any questions? 3. "We have found that we are able to gain the most useful information from observations of conversations when the people engaged in those 38 conversations feel comfortable with each other. Therefore, in order to help us match you up with someone with whom you will feel comfortable, you and the other participants will first exchange some information about yourselves. After you have received information about the other participants, you will be given an opportunity to tell us who you'd like to talk to. However, you will only receive a limited amount of information about the other participants and they will only receive a limited amount of information about you. This is because we are also interested in studying the effect that the AMOUNT of information you receive about each other before you meet affects your future discussions. This is also why we have for now split you up and sent you to different rooms. I need to ask you a question at this point: do you have any reason to believe that anyone you know well might be also going through this experiment right now? Ok, good. 4. In order to make sure our experiment is unbiased, the condition you will be in, that is, how much information you will receive about the other participants, must be randomly selected. Here's a box with numbers ranging from zero to four. All participants will be asked to provide four pieces of information about themselves on a questionnaire you will fill out shortly. The number on the slip of paper that are about to choose will determine how many pieces of information you will receive about each of the other participants. I'd like you to now please reach into the box and pick out one slip of paper. I see that you will be receiving TWO pieces of information about each of the other participants. Any questions so far? Okay, in order to provide information about you to the other participants, we’d now like you to fill out this form. Each of the other participants are currently filling out the same form." 39 5. Thank you. I have to go get the other participants' descriptions, make copies, and distribute them. This will take a few minutes. To fill this time while I'm doing this, we'd like you to participate in a separate study of ours that takes about 10 minutes. We are doing a study on moods and life experiences. The instructions are in this folder. Go ahead and read the instructions carefully and let me know if you have any questions. Go ahead and begin, I'll be back shortly. 6. E returns with 4 descriptions. 7. "You will be having a discussion with one (or two) of these people. You and your partner will be cooperating to come to a consensus on solutions to different problems. No special knowledge will be needed to solve these problems - it is only necessary that you two will be able to work carefully together. Please read these descriptions and tell us who you would like to talk to. I know you don't have a lot of information to go on, but try to do the best you can based upon the information that you do have. Remanber, try to choose someone who you think you will feel comfortable with. You will be having a long discussion with your partner and will have to be able to work as a team with him or her. If you two are comfortable with each other, this will probably be easier. 8. DV. 9. "Thank you. I have to go meet with the other experimenters now to start pairing all of you up. We'll do our best to give everyone their top choices. In the meantime, here's another exercise from our colleague to work on. Please fill it out carefully. He has asked us to tell you to try to remember how you felt after you read his cards when you fill these out. Thanks!" (PANRS). 10. Debrief, probe for suspicion, dismiss. 40 APPENDIX G Debriefing Statement "Now that the experiment is over, I would like to tell you more about why we are conducting this study and also tell you some details about it that we didn't tell you about earlier. I am a graduate student in social psychology and I am interested in the effect that being in a good mood has on people's evaluations different kinds of people. You were in the (experimental/control) group, so we tried to put you into a (good/neutral) mood by having you read those index cards earlier. We didn't tell you specifically that this was the purpose of having you write about your life event because we didn't want that knowledge to affect your answers when you completed the mood scale. You see, we've found that some subjects change their answers somewhat when they think they know what the experimenter wants to hear. Also, you were told that you would be having a conversation with another person. In actuality, all of the descriptions of the other people were created by the experimenter. There really weren't any other subjects. We apologize for having to do this, but perhaps you can understand why we had to do the experiment in this way. The descriptions of the other people were based on your own descriptions of yourself. In order to test our hypotheses, we created these descriptions of other people so that some people would seem somewhat similar to you while others would seem different or very different from you (explain different combinations that the subject received). If we really did use other subjects, we would rarely be able to present you with these same combinations of characteristics, and thus we wouldn't be able to address our hypotheses well. That is, rather than relying on chance, we needed to control the descriptions of the other 41 people, and this is why we did what we did. We also tell our subjects that the experiment deals with interpersonal interaction instead of explaining i-ts true purpose because in reality this study has implications for sensitive topics like racism and sexism so we have to make sure that our subjects' responses are sincere and were not just the result of an effort to make what they feel is the socially desirable response. A great deal of time and effort went into constructing a situation that would be credible to everyone. Other researchers have hypothesized that being in a positive mood will cause people to differentiate between people in different ways than people in neutral moods do. We're trying to find out if this is actually the case and if so, exactly how they are different. This and other studies will hopefully give us a better understanding of the factors that affect the way people categorize each other, and, as I've noted earlier, this should have important implications for our understanding prejudice. Your answers will be kept anonymous - you have been assigned a subject number, and your answers will only be matched with that. Do you have any questions? Do you have any suggestions on how we might be able to improve this experiment in the future?"

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Social crossed categorization beyond the two -group model

PDF

Meta-analysis on the misattribution of arousal

PDF

Violent environments and their effects on children

PDF

Effect of affective reactions by an outgroup on preferences for crossed categorization discussion partners

PDF

Sexuality, Quality Of Life, And Emotional Distress Following Radical Prostatectomy For Carcinoma Of The Prostate

PDF

Rationalizing risk: sexual behavior of gay male couples

PDF

The Effect Of Discriminability On The Partial Reinforcement Effect In Human Gsr Conditioning

PDF

Mood Induction As An Analog To Depression In Older Adults: Aspects Of Depression And Cognitive Effects

PDF

Cognitive Assessment Of Reactance Using The Articulated Thoughts In Simulated Situations Paradigm

PDF

Aggression As A Function Of Arousal And Friendship Ties

PDF

The role of cues in the arousal of anxiety

PDF

The Effects Of Two Types Of Experimenter Intervention And Schedules Of Reinforcement On Verbal Operant Conditioning Of Affective Self-References

PDF

The Effect Of Conditions Of Risk, Internal Versus External Control Of Reinforcement, And Sex On Binary Choice Probability Learning

PDF

Alcohol's impact on triggered displaced aggression

PDF

The Emotional, Physiological, And Cognitive Reactions Of Boys And Girls From High-Conflict And Low-Conflict Homes To Simulated Marital Conflict

PDF

The Effects Of Making Social Desirability Judgments On Personality Inventory Scores Of Schizophrenics

PDF

Hypnotic Susceptibility, Achievement Motivation, And The Treatment Of Obesity

PDF

Modality and serial position effects in immediate and delayed recall

PDF

Intellectual And Cognitive Factors In The Production Of Psychological Stress Reactions

PDF

The Effects Of A Self Shock Procedure On Hallucinatory Activity In Hospitalized Schizophrenics

Asset Metadata

Creator Urada, Darren Ichiro (author)

Core Title The Effect Of Positive Affective Arousal On Crossed Categorization Effects

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Social Psychology

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,psychology, social

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Miller, Norman (committee chair), Vanman, Eric J. (committee member), Wilcox, Rand R. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-11483

Unique identifier UC11357812

Identifier 1379594.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-11483 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 1379594-0.pdf

Dmrecord 11483

Document Type Thesis

Rights Urada, Darren Ichiro

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA