The Effect of Occupational Status Cues on Memory for Male and Female Targets

The Out-Group Homogeneity Effect Across Development: A Cross-Cultural Investigation

The present studies investigated the out-group homogeneity effect in 5- and 8-year-old Israeli and German children (n = 150) and adults (n = 96). Participants were asked to infer whether a given property (either biological or psychological) was true of an entire group-either the participants' in-group ("Jews" or "Germans") or their out-group ("Arabs" or "Turks"). To that end, participants had to select either a homogenous or a heterogeneous sample of group members. It was found that across ages and countries, participants selected heterogeneous samples less often when inferring the biological properties of out-compared to in-group members. No effect was found regarding psychological properties. These findings have important implications for our understanding of the origins of intergroup bias.

Measuring the Measures

We meta-analytically synthesized the intergroup variability literature (177 effect sizes, from 173 independent samples, and 12,078 participants) to test the potential moderating effect of 11 measures of perceived variability. Aggregating across the measures, we detected a small but reliable tendency to perceive more variability among ingroup than outgroup members and such outgroup homogeneity was stronger among non-minimal than minimal groups. Furthermore, analyses that distinguished among the 11 measures revealed systematic discrepancies among the patterns of perception detected by those measures. Those systematic discrepancies further varied across social contexts defined by relative group status, with some measures yielding ingroup homogeneity and others outgroup homogeneity. We discuss the possibility that the measures of variability require different mental activities that interact with contextually induced cognitive and motivational processes to yield disparate intergroup perceptions.

What's in a Name? the Status Implications of Students' Terms of Address for Male and Female Professors

College students participated in two studies assessing differences in terms of address for male and female professors (i.e., first name vs. title) and the implications of the terms selected. In Study 1, 243 students reported their terms of address for professors of their present classes. As predicted, the probability of being addressed by title was significantly greater for male professors than female professors. In Study 2, 120 students read and answered questions about a transcript of a class session ostensibly taught by a male or female professor whom students addressed by first name or title. Professors were perceived to hold higher status when addressed by title, regardless of their gender. Female, but not male, professors addressed by title were perceived to be less accessible. These findings suggest that female professors hold lower status than male professors and must often choose between perceptions of status versus accessibility.

Majority, Minority, and Parity: Effects of Gender and Group Size on Perceived Group Variability

We investigated the effects of gender and group size on perceptions of group variability, using groups of students taking different majors that varied in the proportion of men and women (female-majority, parity, and male-majority). We found that both group size and gender had consistent effects on perceived out-group variability, even when potentially confounded alternative explanations were assessed. Men showed a stronger out-group homogeneity effect than women, except when women were in the majority (Studies One and Two), and women showed no in-group homogeneity effect. There was an association between out-group homogeneity and the tendency to generate more subgroups for the in-group than out-group (Study Two), but perceived variability was not associated with familiarity, distinctiveness, perceived group size, or perceived group status. These consistent effects qualify the conclusions of prior research in important ways, and cannot be explained in terms of differences in stereotype accuracy (Study Three), or a confound between the gender majority of a major and its perceived status (Study Four). We discuss our findings in terms of theoretical explanations for gender and size effects on out-group homogeneity, and methodological considerations.

The effect of attitude toward women on the relative individuation of women and men is mediated by perceived gender subgroups

The present study investigated whether a differential number of perceived subgroups for men and women mediated the previous finding that men and women with more traditional attitudes concerning women's roles individuate men more than women, whereas individuals with less traditional attitudes better individuate women (Stewart, Vassar, Sanchez, & David, 2000). Participants were asked to recall traits of 2 male and 2 female targets described to them. Comparison of memory errors for male vs female targets indicated relative individuation of men and women. Participants also generated subgroups of men and women and indicated their familiarity with these groups. As predicted, relative number of subgroups but not differential familiarity mediated the relationship between attitudes and relative individuation of men and women. More complex representations of women are proposed to facilitate organization of information about new members of this group.