UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Depersonalization in structured groups Fritz, Anna Sabine 1987

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1987_A8 F74.pdf [ 3.67MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0097058.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0097058-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0097058-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0097058-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0097058-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0097058-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0097058-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0097058-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0097058.ris

Full Text

DEPERSONALIZATION EN STRUCTURED GROUPS by ANNA SABINE FRITZ B.A. (Psychology), Reed College, 1982 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Psychology We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA December 1986 ANNA SABINE FRITZ, 1986 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and study. I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes, may be granted by the head o f my department or by h i s or her r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood t h a t copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department o f "Psj cU.o\o^rj ' The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date )E-6 f3/8'l} ABSTRACT This thesis examined a topic from the field of intergroup relations, namely the consequences of the process of depersonalization. According to Turner, depersonalization is that process whereby people come to perceive themselves and others more as interchangeable exemplars of a social category than as unique personalities defined by their differences from others. Based on research involving simple or unstructured groups, he formulated the consequences of depersonalization in his Assimilation-Contrast Model as the enhancement of intragroup similarities (assimilation) and intergroup differences (contrast) with a pro-ingroup bias. The generality of the Assimilation-Contrast Model has recently been challenged by Smith's Person-Situation Model of depersonalization, on the grounds that the assimilation-contrast effect may not be observed in complex or structured groups. The present work derived and tested the validity of three sets of predictions on the behavior of structured and unstructured groups under depersonalized conditions based on the Assimilation-Contrast and Person-Situation Models. To this end, structured and unstructured groups were studied under two levels of depersonalization, one level of non-explicit outgroup comparison and a second level of explicit outgroup comparison. This resulted in four experimental conditions. A fifth condition of non-categorized individuals functioned as a control group. Fifty-eight college aged males participated in the experiment which consisted of a game-like procedure (brainstorming task). Subjects participated in a group (experimental conditions) or alone (control condition). The assimilation-contrast effect was assessed in three ways. Subjects were asked about their overall impressions regarding the group and the individual ii ingroup members ('global questionnaire items'), they were asked to rate other ingroup members on a number of personal attributes ('personal attribute ratings'), and thirdly, they were asked to rate the products of the ingroup as well as those of the outgroup ('product ratings'). There were four major Findings: (a) In unstructured groups, ingroup assimilation was more pronounced under higher levels of depersonalization than under lower levels. This was in line with previous research findings involving the Assimilation-Contrast Model.(b) In structured groups, ingroup assimilation was less under higher levels of depersonalization than it was under lower levels. This was predicted by the Person-Situation Model. (c) Structured groups expressed more assimilation-contrast behavior than unstructured groups. This finding was not predicted by either model, (d) In structured as well as unstructured groups, more outgroup contrast was observed under high levels of depersonalization than under low levels. This was in line with the predictions of the Assimilation-Contrast Model. The findings showed that all three sets of predictions were found to be useful in describing a certain component of the behavior of the groups under study. It was concluded that the assimilation-contrast effect may constitute less monolithic a phenomenon than originally suggested by Turner. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ii Acknowledgements vii 1. THE RESEARCH QUESTION „. 1 What is a social group? _ 2 Group behavior 4 Depersonalization and the Assimilation-Contrast Model 6 The Person-Situation Model 9 Predictions based on the models 12 Summary 16 2. METHOD 18 Design 18 Subjects 19 Procedure 19 Conditions 22 Dependent measures 23 Predictions 25 Scales, scoring and analyses 27 3. RESULTS 29 Manipulation check - categorization procedure 31 Liking-Evaluation indices 32 Global questionnaire items 32 Personal attribute ratings 36 Product ratings _ 37 Similarity indices 38 Global questionnaire items 38 Personal attribute ratings 39 Product ratings 39 4. DISCUSSION 41 Similarity indices versus Liking-Evaluation indices 50 The three types of measures used 51 Spontaneous self-categorization - control condition 54 Conclusion 55 References 58 Table Captions 63 Table I 64 Table U 66 Table III ~ 67 iv Table IV 68 Table V : 69 Figure Captions 70 Figure 1 •. 71 Figure 2 72 Figure 3 73 Figure 4 74 Appendix A - Instructions for Brainstorming Task 75 Appendix B - Rating Sheets 77 Appendix C - Questionnaires I and II 82 Appendix D - Consent and Debriefing Forms 89 v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS On this page, I wish to express my appreciation for all the help I received on the completion of this thesis. I am very grateful to my supervisor Dr. Philip Smith for his valuable guidance, support and encouragement at all times. I wish to thank Dr. Carol Martin and Dr. Susan Butt for serving on my thesis cx)rnrnittee, especially Carol's active interest and helpful criticism are much appreciated. My thanks to Suzanne Hala for her good job as co-experimenter and to Jon Druhan for helping me out with the experimental sessions ("for living life before noon"). I am very thankful to Lorraine Ball, Warren Weir and Ed Wishnow for the many ways in which they helped me. vi 1. THE RESEARCH QUESTION Depersonalization is a hypothetical concept. It has been used to describe the cognitive process whereby people come to think of themselves and others in terms of representative group characteristics rather than individual characteristics. According to Turner (1985) who formulated the concept, through depersonalization people come to perceive themselves and others more as interchangeable exemplars of a social category than as unique personalities defined by their differences from others. He sees depersonalization to be a central process to group behavior affecting people's thought, feeling and action towards members of their own and other groups. To date, there is much empirical evidence to support the theory of depersonalization as an adequate way of conceptualizing the cognitive components of group behavior. In the Assimilation-Contrast Model (Tajfel, 1969; Turner, 1985), Turner has described what he believes to be the consequences of depersonalization. Recently, Smith (1985) has questioned Turner's assumptions of the Assimilation-Contrast Model and has proposed an alternative formulation, the Person-Situation Model of depersonalization. The present research studies the consequences of the depersonalization process. The two models, the Person-Situation Model and the Assimilation-Contrast Model are investigated in comparison to one another, in this way to contribute to our understanding of the consequences of the depersonalization process. 1 1. THE RESEARCH QUESTION / 2 WHAT IS A SOCIAL GROUP? An entire nation may be called a group. A few people in a face to face interaction may also comprise a group. In both instances, the individuals involved share a common social identification, or, in other words perceive themselves as belonging to the same social group or category (Turner, 1981, 1982). This definition of social group emphasizes the perceptual and cognitive bases of group formation. It is central to Turner's Theory of Self-Categorization (1985) which is a further development of Social Identity Theory (Tajfel, 1978, 1981; Turner, 1975, 1981). In contrast, traditional approaches to group behavior in social psychology assume groups form as a result of interdependency between individuals. According to them, a group is defined as two or more persons who are psychologically interdependent as expressed in their interactions and influences of one another and their attractions to each other. Turner (1982, 1985) calls this most popular theory of group behavior the Social Cohesion Model or interdependence perspective. We must replace it, he argues, by the alternative Self Categorization Theory (1985) of group behavior which is: a) a more generic theory in that it attempts to explain group phenomena in any social group, from racial or national groups to small face to face groups, and b) in line with empirical Findings of what constitutes the necessary and sufficient antecedents of group formation. The interdependence perspective is preoccupied with the study of group behavior as expressed in cohesive or solidary relationships between individuals in small groups. It is difficult to imagine that such affective ties could form the basis of people's private acceptance of their group membership in a larger group, for which interactive bases of group belongingness are minimal. On experimental grounds as well, 1. THE RESEARCH QUESTION / 3 the interdependence hypothesis of group formation has been seriously challenged. Research results have appeared which allow one to conclude that what is sufficient and necessary for group formation is not interdependence, interaction and interpersonal attraction but self-perceived group membership (Turner, 1981, 1982). What have become known as the Social Categorization experiments are the most powerful demonstrations of the role of self-categorization in group formation and group behavior. Employing a procedure known as the Minimal Group Paradigm, Tajfel, Flament, Billig and Bundy (1971) conducted first experiments to address the question whether social categorization per se was sufficient to cause intergroup discrimination. The participants of the study (school boys) were randomly assigned to one of two distinct groups (eg. either X or Y), group membership was anonymous, there was no goal interdependence, no interaction between them or any other basis for cohesive relations, thus a minimal group. The experimental task was to distribute monetary rewards to anonymous ingroup and outgroup members, no personal benefit was possible. The results were that individuals systematically chose reward allocation strategies which discriminated between ingroup and outgroup members, favoring the ingroup. They showed group behavior by reacting to others in terms of their own and others group membership. The mere recognition of belonging to a group was sufficient for the emergence of group behavior. Other experiments modified the basic procedure. The effects of similarity, rewardingness and interpersonal attraction were investigated to see whether they would compete with the self-categorization effect Furthermore, the dependent variable, discrimination, was measured in various ways both at the behaviorial and judgmental 1. THE RESEARCH QUESTION / 4 level. The overriding finding was that self-categorization per se is necessary and sufficient for group behavior (Billig & Tajfel, 1973; Doise, 1978; Lemyre & Smith, 1985; Tajfel, 1978; 1981; Turner, 1978; 1983; Turner, Hogg, Turner & Smith, 1984; Wetherell & Turner, 1984). On the basis of these findings Turner (1982) redefined the concept of social group in cognitive terms. As stated at the beginning of the chapter, we speak of a group when two or more individuals perceive themselves as members of the same social category. GROUP BEHAVIOR We may state the following: when people are aware of belonging to a group, they (ingroup) will tend to behave in a discriminatory fashion towards another group (outgroup), given that this group is defined and a relevant one against which to compare their own. Discrimination implies not only a clear differentiation between two groups but, furthermore, a pro-ingroup bias. In the Minimal Group Paradigm experiments, discrimination was expressed in the reward allocation strategy characterized by maximum ingroup profit plus maximum intergroup differentiation, a strategy termed "competitive ingroup favoritism". Turner and Tajfel (Tajfel, 1978; 1982; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner, 1975, 1981, 1985) explain the discriminatory nature of intergroup behavior in the following way: We define and evaluate ourselves in terms of our group memberships. In order to do so, we compare ourselves to the outgroup on relevant dimensions of intergroup comparison, seeking a "positive distinctiveness" for ourselves that will maintain or enhance our positive identity as group members. Turner (1981) first called this hypothetical explanation of intergroup discrimination Social Identity Theory and has now extended and renamed it Self-Categorization Theory 1. THE RESEARCH QUESTION / 5 (1985). The theory rests on the two basic assumptions that: 1) our self-concept is composed of a personal and a social identity, and 2) we have a basic need for positive social identity (self-esteem) that we search for, via positive self-evaluation. The hypothesized link between intergroup discrimination and self-esteem has been experimentally supported (Oakes & Turner, 1980; Turner & Spriggs, 1982; Lemyre & Smith, 1985). People do not always think of themselves or interact with one another as group members. This is reflected in Turner's above assumption that the self-concept comprises a social as well as a personal identity. In behavioral terms, Tajfel and Turner (1979) speak of intergroup and- interpersonal behavior. This is based on Tajfel's (1978) conceptualization of interpersonal and intergroup behavior as the two extremes of a bipolar continuum. The 'interpersonal-intergroup continuum' (Turner & Tajfel, 1979; Tajfel, 1978) locates interpersonal and intergroup behavior at opposite ends of a bipolar continuum. To conceptualize interpersonal and intergroup behavior as located along a continuum clarifies that there are varying degrees of interpersonal and intergroup behavior, yet that at the same time, a definite distinction can be made between the two. Instances of a pure interpersonal and a pure intergroup interaction are more easily imagined in theory than observed in reality, especially in the case of the truly interpersonal encounter which means it is fully determined by the interpersonal relationships of the persons involved. A likely example though, could be an interaction between two playmates (particularly if of same sex, age group and family, which would all reduce the possibility of their group memberships playing an important role). A classic intergroup encounter would be a sports game between two teams. Experimental support for Tajfel and Turner's distinction between interpersonal and 1. THE RESEARCH QUESTION / 6 intergroup behavior may be found in the following studies. For example, Turner (1978) and Brown and Deschamps (1980) observed that when the salience of group membership varied, social behavior varied. In a 'minimal group' situation involving reward allocations, subjects only discriminated between ingroup and outgroup members when their group membership was emphasized, in conditions where it was de-emphasized, high levels of self-favoritism were observed, irrespective of the affiliation of the other recipients. Other indications are that groups have consistently been observed to be more competitive than individuals under the same conditions (Wilson & Kayatani, 1968; Dustin & Davis, 1970; Doise & Sinclair, 1973; Doise & Weinberger, 1973). Intergroup/interpersonal differences have been reported in research on negotiation and bargaining (Stephenson, 1978), in studies on aggression (Yaffe & Yinon, 1979) and in research on gTOup decision making (Lamm & Myers, 1978; Wetherell & Turner, 1984). These research findings support what one is often able to observe and conclude from intergroup encounters in the real world: Individuals behave differently when they are part of a group from when they are not Depersonalization and the Assimilation-Contrast Model Tajfel and Turner (1979) used the concept of 'interpersonal-intergroup continuum' to describe the varying degrees to which a person's self and other perception will be influenced by 'personal identification' or 'social identification'. At one extreme of the continuum, individuals' characteristics and interpersonal relationships determine behaviors, at the other extreme, behaviors are fully determined by social group memberships. If a particular group membership is salient for a person, then 'social identification' is predominant for them and their cognitive processes may be 1. THE RESEARCH QUESTION / 7 described as 'intergroup thinking'. The person thinks of themselves and others in terms of representative characteristics that define the group as ,a whole, that is, their perception of self and others is stereotypic. Expressed in terse form, the cognitive output of a functioning social identification is essentially a stereotypic perception (Turner, 1982; Brown & Turner, 1981). This form of stereotypic or depersonalized self-perception Turner (1985) refers to as depersonalization. It should be noted that depersonalization is understood as a state as well as a process. Turner speaks of a state of depersonalization as well as a process of depersonalization. The interpersonal-intergroup continuum may be used to illuminate the difference. A state of depersonalization would be a behavioral instance located on the intergroup end of the continuum. The process of depersonalization describes the change from interpersonal to intergroup behavior along the bipolar continuum. This kind of a stereotypic perception implies that individuals become perceptually interchangeable because they are perceived in terms of their shared category characteristics and not their personal idiosyncratic nature. Indeed, everyday examples come to mind where we automatically assign common category characteristics to all members including ourselves, ie. "dog lovers are better people". Assigning attributes of some category to all members of the category is a fundamental aspect of categorizing activity (Tajfel, 1959; 1972; Doise, 1978). Applied to intergroup relations/ this 'means that group members perceive outgroup members as being similar or interchangeable and also other ingroup members as being similar among themselves. Moreover, it is found that people also overestimate the (perceived) differences between their group and the other group. Thus, when group membership is salient people will subjectively enhance intragroup similarities and exaggerate intergroup differences. 1. THE RESEARCH QUESTION / 8 This Finding stems from early work on the effects of categorization on physical stimuli (Secord, Bevan & Katz, 1956; Razran, 1950; Tajfel, 1959; Tajfel, Sheikh & Gardner, 1964). When a dichotomous classification was superimposed on a series of physical stimuli, perceived similarity of characteristics within a category and perceived differences - between categories were increased. Later on, similar effects were observed in the realm of social perception. Studies of natural categories such as English and Welsh, Blacks and Whites, males and females, Catholics and Protestants, and French Canadians and English Canadians, have found that people overestimate intragroup homogeneity and intergroup differences (Brewer, 1979; Doise, 1978; Tajfel, 1978). These findings provided the basis for Tajfel's (1969) Assimilation-Contrast Model of stereotyping. He thought that the relatively automatic cognitive processes associated with categorization together with a motivation to enhance the relative value of the ingroup produced the accentuation of intragroup similarities and intergroup differences. The Minimal Group Paradigm experiments (eg. Billig & Tajfel, 1973; Tajfel et al., 1971; Turner, 1978) introduced earlier played the key role in Tajfel's efforts to study categorization effects and group relations. Inasmuch as they represented a convincing demonstration of the necessary and sufficient constituent for group formation, that is categorization into groups, these experiments also provided insight into consequences of categorization. In the Minimal Group Paradigm experiments, what was labelled 'ingroup favoritism' was the most frequently pursued reward allocation strategy. This strategy distributes reward points in such a way that differences between groups are maximized and the ingroup members get more than the outgroup. This constitutes an example of the assimilation-contrast effect at the behavioral level. The Minimal Group Paradigm experiments not only demonstrated how group behavior unfolds and 1. THE RESEARCH QUESTION / 9 what its consequences are, but furthermore provided the impetus for Social Identity Theory and for the formulation of the Assimilation-Contrast Model. A further integrative development was the conceptualization of depersonalization as the psychological process underlying group behavior. Turner, who built on Tajfel's Assimilation-Contrast Model, argues that the major consequence of depersonalization is the accentuation of perceived similarity, equivalence and interchangeability among ingroup members and exaggeration of differences between groups, consistent with a positive ingroup evaluation. In a recent paper (1985), Turner develops as his central hypothesis that the depersonalization of self-perception is the basic process underlying those group phenomena which are interpreted as having an assimilation-contrast component He shows how a number of major group phenomena can be derived from this hypothesis. According to his theory, such intergroup processes like social stereotyping, group cohesion and ethnocentrism, cooperation and altrusim, emotional contagion and empathy, collective behavior, shared norms and influence processes, are all characterized by a uniformity of thought feeling and action among members of the ingroup and simultaneous differentation from the outgroup. The Person-Situation Model An alternative formulation of the effects of depersonalization has recently been put forward by Smith (1985). Central to his Person-Situation Model is the question of whether the homogenization of relations within a group is always the most predominant feature of the consequences of depersonalization. The Person-Situation Model questions the generality of the assimilation-contrast process of depersonalization on the grounds that certain situations in which depersonalization were expected to be 1. THE RESEARCH QUESTION / 10 at its highest do not seem to be characterized by similarity or interchangeability of group members. Smith mentions, that members of sports teams, combat units and musical orchestras, for example, become less, not more interchangeable at the point of intergroup competition. He argues this is related to the different roles or positions group members occupy in these groups. According to the Person-Situation Model, depersonalization influences a person's thinking by drawing away attention from the causal priority of persons and their dispositions, towards the causal priority of their predicaments or situations. Expressed in a different way, depersonalization changes one's understanding of persons in terms of their personal, idiosyncratic characteristics to an understanding of others in terms of their shared situation as defined by their group membership. Smith speaks of 'egocentric' and 'ethnocentric' judgment characterizing a personalized and 'de'-personalized state, respectively. 'Egocentric' means that attention is directed to idiosyncratic, internal personality characteristics for judgment and decision making. 'Ethnocentric' means that group characteristics, like positions and roles within a group and how well they are fulfilled are important for judgment and decision making. He summarizes the primary implications of the Person-Situation Model in the following form: "1) among members of groups in a relatively interpersonal state, the criteria of interpersonal judgment and decision making (including person perception, attribution, attraction, cooperation and influence) will be egocentric, based on the degree to which others do or do not satisfy the norms of interpersonal complementarity and the requirements of self-esteem, and, 2) among members of groups in a relatively intergroup, depersonalized state, the criteria of judgment and decision making will be ethnocentric, 1. THE RESEARCH QUESTION / 11 based on the perceived importance of various positions and roles within the group in achieving positive group status, and the degree to which individuals fulfill the obligations of these positions" (Smith, 1985, p.8). It is predicted by Smith that depersonalization will lead to accentuation of intragroup similarities only when groups are unstructured as opposed to structured. In the case of unstructured groups in which members do not occupy different positions there exists no criterion relevant to group membership that could serve as a basis for differentiating among members in terms of their impact on the group. In structured groups, on the other hand, with different roles or positions, group members will be looked upon as different and not as similar or interchangeable because the roles will differ with respect to degree of importance to overall benefit of the group, and the extent to which individuals fulfill the requirements of a certain role. In short, while there continues to exist a uniformity of purpose among members of a structured group, the structural differentiation in terms of roles introduces a differentiation (perceived and actual) among its members that will inhibit a general increase in perceived similarity among members of the same group. The Person-Situation Model, first presented in the specific context of research on the effects of depersonalization on leadership processes, generates predictions about the effects of depersonalization on intergroup relations involving any kind of group. Building on the assimilation-contrast findings in unstructured groups, this model represents a generic explanation of the consequences of depersonalization. Like the Assimilation-Contrast Model, it understands depersonalization as the fundamental process underlying intergroup behavior. However, it departs from the assumption of the 1. THE RESEARCH QUESTION / 12 Assimilation-Contrast Model that an increase in perceived intragroup similarities and intergroup differences is the major consequence of depersonalization. According to the Person-Situation Model, the assimilation-contrast phenomenon emerges in intergroup relations when no differential positions are held within a group that would provide a basis for differential thought, feeling or action on the part of group members, with respect to the common goal of group benefit In this sense, Smith argues that the assimilation-contrast finding is an artefact of the kind of groups that have been typically convened in experimental studies of group behavior. Turner and Smith both agree that in a depersonalized or intergroup state, interaction between people is determined by their group memberships. They differ in what they understand to be the result of depersonalization: Intragroup similarity and simultaneous intergroup contrast (Turner) or ethnocentric judgment (Smith)? PREDICTIONS BASED ON THE MODELS This question is central to the present study. Predictions based on the two models are tested by comparing the depersonalized interactions of unstructured and structured groups. Before turning to the present design and predictions, Turner's assumptions concerning the Assimilation-Contrast Model require a closer look because two sets of predictions regarding the consequences of depersonalization in structured groups may be derived from them. The first set of predictions is straightforward, the second one requires more inference. (1) Given the assumption of the Assimilation-Contrast Model that the major consequence of depersonalization is intragroup assimilation and intergroup contrast 1. THE RESEARCH QUESTION / 13 combined with the fact that Turner has never addressed the issue of group structure, one may directly apply his model to group interactions involving structured groups expecting 'assimiliation-contrast' as the major outcome. This has been proposed by Smith (1985) in a recent paper. (2) While Turner does not acknowledge the specific, though frequently observed case of structured groups in his writings or in the formulation of the Assimilation-Contrast Model, it is open to interpretation whether he has simply not addressed yet this more complex form of group, or, whether he means to suggest that group structure does not affect the otherwise observed intragroup assimilation and intergroup contrast To me, some of his hypotheses (Turner, 1985) imply at least as much as a sensitivity to the fact that certain intragroup circumstances or processes might overshadow the clear manifestation of the assimilation-contrast feature of group behavior. For example, in his recent self-categorization paper, Turner expresses the consequences of depersonalization in the following way: "It follows directly from the nature of depersonalization that the salience of an ingroup-outgroup categorization increases the mentally perceived prototypicality of ingroup members on the stereotypical dimensions defining the ingroup category" (Turner, 1985 p.37). He goes on to address the phenomenon of mutual attraction and develops the hypothesis that the attractiveness of individual persons within a group depends upon their perceived prototypicality in comparison with other ingroup members. As evidence he adduces the data that ". people are more attracted to ingroup members perceived as better than their fellows in some way relevant to or important for the group, for example in terms of relative status or prestige, valued personality traits, their relative success, correctness or competence in some group task or activity, and in the general degree to which they 1. THE RESEARCH QUESTION / 14 conform to group norms and role expectations (Lott & Lott, 1965)" (Turner, 1985, p.39). Thus, according to Turner it is conceivable that when persons in a group hold different positions, all in some way salient to the needs and goals of the group, their fulfillment of. these positions as well as the importance of these positions per se will be judged differentially by them and the other group members, at least with respect to intragroup processes, such as mutual attraction. To arrive at the concrete predictions that make up the second set of predictions based on the Assimilation-Contrast Model, I built on two major assumptions expressed in the above quotations. First, Turner assumes a positive relationship between the salience of an intergroup contrast and group members' perceived prototypicality of each other along relevant category dimensions. This stems directly from the empirically established finding that the more salient the in/out-group contrast, the greater perceived homogeneity within groups and differences between groups (Brewer, 1979; Brewer & Silver, 1978; Doise et al, 1972; Turner & Spriggs, 1982, Wilder, 1978). Secondly, Turner assumes a relationship between a person's contribution to the group's goals and needs and the evaluation of that by fellow group members. Given different roles in a group, this will necessarily result in differential perception and judgment of ingroup members. These two predicted occurrences lead me to hypothesize that the specific frame-of-reference or the most, important comparison for positive group identification determines the consequences of depersonalization, that is whether assimilation-contrast is expressed or overshadowed. For illustration, consider the following real world instances of group behavior explained in terms of this Most Important Comparison hypothesis. Imagine two sports teams at a game: (1) Immediately following the game, both teams are on the field, in close 1. THE RESEARCH QUESTION / 15 vicinity to one another, if not face to face interaction with one another. In this situation, the trainer of a team, or the team members will not make differential judgments about other team members. In front of the other group, all ingroup members are seen as similar and better than the outgroup. In this example, the most important comparison is the outgroup. Crucial for positive group identification is the direct comparison to the outgroup. Differential role fulfillments are secondary, the assimilation-contrast effect is expressed. (2) It is intermission. Each trainer talks to his team, typically showing such behaviors as giving different instructions to the different players, making different evaluative comments to the different players and exchanging one player for another. This is because the players occupy different positions, the different role expectations of which they fulfill to differing degrees. The trainer and other team members perceive them as different (and differently) and act towards them differently based on group relevant criteria, not on personal characteristics of the players. In this example, the most important comparison is with respect to the other group members. Crucial for positive group identification is how well a group member meets the role expectations in comparison to the other group members. Differential role fulfillments are of most concern so that the assimilation-contrast effect is overshadowed. Based on the above thoughts, the second set of predictions derived from Turner regarding the consequences of depersonalization in structured groups is formulated: In an intergroup situation involving structured groups, the 1. THE RESEARCH QUESTION / 16 assimilation-contrast effect will either be openly manifested or overshadowed depending on the most important comparison for positive group identification. In this way, three specific sets of predictions have been generated concerning the behavior of structured groups in a depersonalized state. One set of predictions (Set I) is derived from the Person-Situation Model, and two sets (Set II and Set III) are derived from the Assimilation-Contrast Model. The three differ in their predictions regarding the assimilation-contrast phenomenon in structured groups. Set I predicts that the assimilation-contrast phenomenon will not be observed in structured groups as it would be in unstructured groups. Set II predicts that the assimilation-contrast phenomenon will occur in structured groups just as it would in unstructured groups. Set III predicts that the assimilation-contrast phenomenon will be exhibited in structured groups in those situations where the most important comparison for the positive self-identification for the group is the outgroup. S U M M A R Y Two current models about the consequences of depersonalization will be studied to learn which model might serve best as a representation of the consequences of this process. Specifically, we will study the Person-Situation Model and the Assimilation-Contrast Model in comparison to one another. The Person-Situation Model challenges the Assimilation-Contrast Model on the grounds that the assimilation-contrast phenomenon might not be the major consequence of depersonalization in groups different from simple groups. The Person-Situation Model hypothesizes that in complex groups, structure introduces a cognitive differentiation among group members that should 1. THE RESEARCH QUESTION / 17 lead to differential judgment and decision making rather than to the assimilation-contrast phenomenon observed for unstructured groups. Three specific sets of predictions derived from the two models will be compared. The planned experiment will involve minimal groups, continuing in the tradition of previous research of the Social Categorization approach. If we can continue to illuminate fundamental group processes by studying minimal groups (minimal bases for group belongingness) we will have provided further support for the claim that perceptual and cognitive processes might form the initial necessary bases for group formation and subsequent group behavior. Structured and unstructured groups will be studied in a depersonalized state, under conditions which vary the comparison relation to the outgroup. On the basis of the Most Important Comparison hypothesis, two situations of intergroup comparison will be created, modelled after the two aforementioned scenarios involving sports teams. The scenarios involved situations which were similar in that they both were intergroup situations in which people interacted in a depersonalized manner, in the sense of Turner's theory. The situations were different with respect to their foci for positive group identification, one had an inwardly directed focus, the other an outwardly directed focus. Therefore we will look, both, at a situation in which comparison to the outgroup will be the most important comparison and at a situation in which comparison to other ingroup members will be the most important comparison. The two distinctions between structured and unstructured groups, and between the two comparison levels will result in four different conditions of groups. In addition, we will include a fifth condition, non-categorized persons. They will function as a control condition. The expression of the assimilation-contrast effect will be assessed by observing the statements ingroup members will make about each other and about members of the outgroup, while engaged in intergroup interactions. 2. METHOD DESIGN Structured and unstructured groups were studied in a depersonalized state, taking into account the explicitness of comparison to the outgroup. The two variables, Group Structure (Structured vs. Unstructured) and Outgroup Comparison (Explicit vs. Non-explicit comparison) formed a 2x2 factorial design to which a fifth cell, the Non-categorized Control condition was added (see Figure 1). The Outgroup Comparison variable could have also been referred to as 'salience of group membership' or 'degree of depersonalization', based on the well-established findings that intergroup competition is positively related to salience of group membership or degree of depersonalization. The depersonalized conditions Explicit and Non-explicit outgroup comparison represented states of intergroup behavior. The Non-categorized Control condition represented a state of interpersonal behavior. In terms of Tajfel and Turner's interpersonal-intergroup continuum, the Control condition may be seen as located on the end marking personalized interactions. The Non-explicit and Explicit outgroup comparison states may be seen as located on the end marking depersonalized interactions, somewhat apart, reflecting the even stronger depersonalization of the latter state from the former. In the Explicit conditions, two groups (ingroup and outgroup) of the same condition participated in each other's presence in the same experimental session, in the same room. In the Non-explicit conditions, an outgroup was not actually present but only referred to. In the Control condition, the individuals present. in each experimental session were not categorized into a group but participated independently from another. 18 2. METHOD / 19 SUBJECTS Fifty-eight college aged males volunteered to participate in this study. The only criterion for participation was that a person would not take part in an experimental session in which they personally knew any of the others present The monetary compensation for participation was $4.00. PROCEDURE The experiment consisted of a game-like procedure in which subjects participated as groups (experimental conditions) or as individuals (Control condition). The order in which conditions were tested was randomly determined. However, it was not always possible to adhere to this sequence because it was difficult to schedule participants for the double sessions for which 6 subjects were needed. Therefore, the double sessions took place whenever 6 subjects were available at the same time. The experimental investigations were conducted at the Psychology Department of the University of British Columbia, over a period of four weeks. They took place in a large laboratory room which could be partitioned by a curtain. A square table with a chair on each side was set up in the room. Placed on the table were index cards and pencils. For the double sessions, for which two groups were present at the same time, two such tables were set up at opposite ends of the room. The general procedure for all conditions took place as follows. 1. Introduction to the study: Upon arrival at the laboratory room subjects were seated around the table. The experimenter briefly introduced the study informing 2. METHOD / 20 participants that they would be working on tasks involving brainstorming and would be asked to answer some questions about their own and others participation in these tasks. . 2. Brainstorming task: Index cards and a sheet containing the instructions for the brainstorming task (see Appendix A) were distributed to each person. The instructions for the task were read aloud by the experimenter. The brainstorming task took 15 minutes during which the experimenter left the room. 3. Rating of ingroup ideas: Each person selected their five best ideas from the ideas that they had come up with in the brainstorming session. Each labelled their ideas 1 through 5 to ensure that in the subsequent rating of ideas an order in which to rate could be maintained. Subjects also put an identifying code on each of their idea cards so that it would be clear which ideas were from the same person. On a rating sheet (see Appendix B), subjects rated their own five ideas on a scale from 1 to 7, T marking the positive end of the scale. Then they passed their idea cards on to the person on their left and proceeded to rate the idea cards of the person on their right In this way, idea cards were passed on once more so that everyone rated all five ideas of each person present 4. Questionnaire I (see Appendix C): Subjects were asked to answer questions regarding their group and its members. First they described themselves on a number of personal adjectives (QI.l). Adjective pairs consisting of a personality attribute and its antonym were presented along a bipolar 7-point rating scale. After describing themselves in terms of these adjective ratings, they described the other two members 2. METHOD / 21 in their group in this fashion (QI.2 to QI.3). Then they were asked a number of questions (again presented in terms of 7-point bipolar rating scales) which aimed, in various ways at a group .member's global satisfaction with the group and its' members, that is QI.4 addressed .commitment to group, QI.5 to QI.7 addressed liking of individual ingroup members and QI.8 to QI.11 addressed group performance. 5. Rating of outgroup ideas: A standardized set of outgroup ideas, that is three sets of five idea cards along with the appropriate rating sheet (see Appendix B) were distributed. In the Explicit comparison conditions, subjects were lead to believe that the other group present had produced the ideas they were given to rate as outgroup ideas. In the Non-explicit comparison conditions, subjects were told that another group who had participated in this study earlier had produced the ideas they were given to rate as outgroup ideas. In the Control condition, subjects were told that other individuals who had participated in the study earlier had produced the ideas they were given to rate. Then subjects were asked to proceed in the same way as described under 3. 6. Questionnaire II (see Appendix C): Subjects were asked to answer questions regarding the comparison between ingroup and outgroup. The response format for these questions was also in terms of 7-point bipolar rating scales. QII.1 addressed feelings regarding the ingroup, QII.2 addressed feelings regarding the outgroup, and QII.3 concerned the perceived difference between outgroup and ingroup ideas. 7. Debriefing (see Appendix D): After subjects were thanked for their participation in the research project they were introduced to the assimilation-contrast phenomenon as it has been observed in the laboratory context and in the real world. 2. METHOD / 22 The objective of the present experiment, that is to study the manifestation of the assimilation-contrast effect in structured vs. unstructured groups, based on the Person-Situation and Assimilation-Contrast Models, was explained. Finally, subjects were given the opportunity to raise questions or discuss issues of interest to them. Experimental sessions (steps 1 through 7) lasted 30-45 minutes, depending on condition. CONDITIONS The design consisted of four experimental conditions (A,B,C,D) and one Control condition (E) (see Figure 1). The variable, Outgroup Comparison, consisted of the two levels Non-explicit outgroup comparison and Explicit outgroup comparison, which marked progressively more depersonalized situations. The dichotomous variable, Group Structure, consisted of the two levels Structured group and Unstructured group. The Non-categorized Control condition could be seen as representing a third level of the variable, Outgroup Comparison, in the' sense that this variable marked progressively less depersonalized situations. For the variable, Group Structure, the Control condition did not represent a third level, but rather marked a different state altogether, that is 'no group'. Therefore, the fifth cell representing the Control condition could not be neatly integrated to yield a complete factorial design. In all five conditions, three persons participated in one session. In the four experimental conditions (A,B,C,D), the three persons formed a group, whereas in the Control condition (E), the three subjects participated as independent individuals. In the Explicit comparison conditions (A,B) in which two sessions were run concurrently, group formation was determined by asking each of the six persons present to draw a slip of 2. METHOD / 23 paper. In the Non-explicit comparison conditions (C,D), subjects were told they comprised a group for the purposes of the study. Structured conditions (A,C) differed from the Unstructured conditions (B,D) with respect to the role of group leader. This role was intended as a cognitive differentiation rather than a functional one, to the degree that this is possible. For this reason, somewhat minimal and open-ended instructions were given for this role. After one person was selected for it, through drawing slips of paper, the leader was asked to sit on the side of the table which faced the experimenter. The group was simply informed that the role of leader would involve certain responsibilities later on with respect to representing the group and making decisions for the group, but no further definitions of instructions were given concerning the leader role. The introduction to the study and the debriefing occurred exactly in the same way for all conditions. Procedural variations occurred at step 2 where formation into groups took place in the experimental conditions and assignment to the leader role in Structured conditions. Step 4 and step 6 were varied for the Control condition: Questionnaire I was shorter and Questionnaire II was skipped because the respective questions did not apply to the Control group. Aside from these procedural differences, the form in which participants were addressed and referred to in the instructions (i.e. as a group with leader, as a group with no leader, etc.) varied across conditions. DEPENDENT MEASURES The assimilation-contrast phenomenon was assessed using three different categories of questions. These were a) global questions regarding the ingroup and 2. METHOD / 24 outgroup (see Questionnaire I & II in Appendix C), b) descriptions of self and other ingroup members in form of personal attribute ratings (see Questionnaire I), and c) the evaluation of ingroup and outgroup products (see Rating Sheets for ingroup and outgroup in Appendix B). The three question types were named 'global questionnaire items', 'attribute ratings' and 'product ratings', respectively. The intention behind using these diversified measures was to allow a closer examination of the various forms in which the assimilation-contrast phenomenon is expressed. This was done for three reasons. The first one may be linked to Turner's conceptualization of the assimilation-contrast phenomenon. According to Turner, the phenomenon manifests itself in a person's thought, feeling and action. Therefore, the present study aimed to include such various forms of group related behaviors as overall attitudes towards the group and its individual members, evaluations of one another in terms of personal attributes and evaluations of each others' task products. Another reason for the use of different types of questions concerned the role of the variable Structure. Since the intragroup differentiating effect of structure was under investigation, it became necessary not only to ask individuals about their views regarding the group at large but also regarding individual group members. Thirdly, a further goal was to examine Turner's hypothesis regarding the parallel occurrence of ingroup and outgroup stereotyping in depersonalized states. In his theory, Turner assumes that an expression of assimilation is correlated with an equal expression of contrast Thus, in order to investigate whether the assimilation component and the contrast component are expressed to the same extent it seemed beneficial to illuminate both processes, those within the group and those directed towards the outgroup, using various types of questions. 2. M E T H O D / 25 PREDICTIONS Three sets of predictions regarding the expression of assimilation-contrast were derived from the two models under study. Prediction Set I was derived from the formulation of the Person-Situation Model, Set II and Set III were derived from the Assimilation-Contrast Model. The predictions stated how strongly the assimilation-contrast effect was expected to be observed in the various experimental conditions relative to one another. It should be noted that the experimental predictions were stated in terms of relative amounts of assimilation-contrast behavior expressed. When the models, in particular the Person-Situation Model, were discussed in a theoretical context earlier on, the assimilation-contrast effect was frequently mentioned as either observable or not Turner assumed the assimilation-contrast effect to be the major consequence of depersonalization. In response to this assumption Smith predicted that an assimilation-contrast effect might not be the major consequence of depersonalization in structured gToups, or, in other words, that the assimilation-contrast effect might not be observed in structured groups. Despite a formulation of the consequences of depersonalization in terms of presence or absence of assimilation-contrast, it is clear on the basis of Depersonalization theory that neither Turner nor Smith assumed that the assimilation-contrast effect is an all-or-none phenomenon. Based on the understanding that depersonalization and also its consequences are a matter of degree, the present experiment tested predictions about relative amounts of assimilation-contrast in comparison to one another across varying experimental conditions. Therefore, experimental predictions on amounts of assimilation-contrast behavior expected are not to be understood as absolute. For example, the statement that no assimilation-contrast effect was expected for the Control 2. METHOD / 26 condition does not mean an absolute absence but rather reflects the assumption that the the assimilation-contrast behavior in the Control condition may be called 'none', and relative to that the behavior in the other experimental conditions may be called 'more'. Common predictions for Set I, Set II and Set III: On the grounds that both models understand depersonalization to be a matter of degree and assume, that it increases with salience of group membership, all three sets predicted that the assimilation-contrast effect would be stronger in the Explicit comparison state than in the Non-explicit comparison state, in Unstructured groups. For the non-categorized condition, the participants of which would presumably be in a personalized state, no assimilation-contrast effect was expected to be observed. Set I: According to the Person-Situation Model, depersonalization in structured groups should result in less, not more, interchangeability at the point of intergroup competititon. Therefore, little or no assimilation-contrast effect was expected for Structured groups. Given the assumption that assimilation-contrast effects will vary with respect to the degree of explicitness of outgroup comparison, the effect was predicted to be a minimum for the Explicit outgroup comparison state. Thus, if assimilation-contrast would be observed at all, under Non-explicit comparison conditions, then even less assimilation-contrast would be expected for Explicit comparison conditions. Following from that, it was predicted that the Structured conditions would demonstrate less assimilation-contrast behavior than the Unstructured groups. Set II: These predictions represented a direct application of the assumptions of 2. METHOD / 27 the Assimilation-Contrast Model to the case of Structured groups. Thus, for Structured as well as, for Unstructured groups, the assimilation-contrast phenomenon was expected to occur under both outgroup comparison levels, and it was predicted to be more pronounced under Explicit outgroup comparison than under Non-explicit outgroup comparison. Set III: These predictions were also based on the Assimilation-Contrast Model. It was hypothesized that Group Structure and Outgroup Comparison would interact in such a way that the differing roles of group members in Structured groups would lead to differential judgment under Non-explicit comparison to outgroup but much less so under Explicit comparison to outgroup. Therefore, the assimilation-contrast effect was expected, to be weaker in Structured groups with Non-explicit comparison to outgroup than in Structured groups with Explicit comparison to outgroup. Furthermore, Structured groups under Non-explicit outgroup comparison were expected to show less than the Unstructured groups under comparable outgroup comparison conditions, and therefore also much less than the Unstructured groups under Explicit outgroup comparison. SCALES, SCORING AND ANALYSES All responses were given in terms of ratings using 7-point Likert-type scales. Usually, T marked the positive end of the scale and '7' the negative end, with the exception of a few personal attribute ratings for which the polarity was reversed to counteract the possibility of a response set (see Appendices B & C). In the data analyses all items were recoded in the positive direction, that is the larger a group mean the more affirmative a response. 2. METHOD / 28 One-tailed t-tests were performed to compare all experimental groups to the control group on the dependent measures to check whether the categorization procedure had been successful in producing group behavior among the experimental groups. The data on the dependent measures were analyzed using 1-way (by condition) and 2-way (by structure x outgroup comparison) ANOVA and MANOVA procedures. 3. RESULTS The dependent variables of the study were subjects' responses to the global questionnaire items, their ratings on the personality attributes and . on the group products (brainstorming ideas). For the analyses the responses to those different types of questions were assigned descriptive variable labels. Some dependent variables directly represent the response to a single questionnaire item, other dependent variables represent a composite score from more than one response. Dependent variables of the question category of global questionnaire items were (indicated in brackets is how they relate to the items of Questionnaire I & II): Commitment to Group (Q4), Like Group (Q5), Like Other Members ((Q6 + Q7)/2), Group Performance (Q8), Own Performance (Q9), Other Member Performance ((Q10 + Qll)/2), Ingroup Favoritism (Q12), Outgroup Favoritism (Q13), Inoutfavoritism (Q12-Q13), Outgroup Contrast (Q14), Ingroup Evaluation (Q4 + Q5 + Q6 + Q7 + Q12), Outgroup Evaluation (Q13 + Q14), Liking Difference (Q6-Q7) and Performance Difference (abs(Q9-Q10)+abs(Q9-Qll)+abs(QlO-Qll)). Dependent variables of the question category of personal attribute ratings were (indicated in brackets is how they relate to the items of Questionnaire I): Liking Ingroup (summary score across 6 personal attribute ratings for entire ingroup), Liking Other Ingroup Members (summary score across 6 personal attribute ratings for other ingroup members), Liking Self (summary score across 6 personal attribute ratings for self), Personality Attribute Difference Index 1 (absolute difference between ratings of other two ingroup members across the 7 personal attributes), Personality Attribute 29 3. RESULTS / 30 Difference Index 2 (sum of absolute differences between the two pairs of ratings of self and one other ingroup member across the 7 personal attributes) and Personality Attribute Difference Index 3 (sum of absolute differences between ratings of the three possible pairs of ingroup members across the 7 personal attributes). Dependent variables of the question category of product ratings were (indicated in brackets is how they relate to the items of the Rating Sheets): Evaluation Ingroup Ideas (summed score for rating of ideas of entire ingroup), Evaluation Other Ingroup Member Ideas (summed score for rating of ideas of the two other ingroup members), Evaluation Self Ideas (summed score for rating of ideas of self), Evaluation Outgroup Ideas (summed score for rating of ideas of entire outgroup), Variance Ingroup Ideas (variance across idea ratings of entire ingroup), Variance Other Ingroup Members' Ideas (variance across idea ratings of other two ingroup members) and Variance Outgroup Ideas (variance across idea ratings of entire outgroup). The different types of questions, the global questionnaire items, the personality attribute ratings and the product ratings, were looked at in two different ways. In the conceptualization of the assimilation-contrast effect, assimilation is characterized by perceived similarity, homogeneity and interchangeability among ingroup members with a positive ingroup bias. Intergroup contrast is characterized by perceived similarity, homogeneity and interchangeabilty and negative evaluation of the members of the outgroup by members of the ingroup. Therefore, these two expressions of the assimilation-contrast phenomenon, the stereotyped perception and the evaluative component, were translated into two ways of assessing the assimilation-contrast effect One way was to look at the similarity of views expressed, the other was to look at 3. RESULTS / 31 the liking and evaluation expressed among the members of a group. These two ways of looking at responses were named Similarity indices and Liking-Evaluation indices, respectively. Before presenting the findings in this light, I will draw attention to the comparison between the subjects who participated as a group and those who participated as individuals. This comparison serves as a manipulation check for the success of the categorization procedure. MANIPULATION CHECK - CATEGORIZATION PROCEDURE All experimental conditions were compared to the Control condition to test whether categorization into groups had the intended effect that groups would behave differently than non-categorized individuals in the ways that have been alluded to. Table 1 displays the means and t-values contrasting experimental conditions to the Control condition on dependent variables. Any ratings of self were not included in these comparisons between all experimental conditions with the Control condition because self-statements were not expected to differ significantly between categorized and non-categorized individuals. Furthermore, only those of the global questionnaire items appear in Table 1 which were answered by the Control group. The t-tests revealed that the categorization manipulation had the predicted effect for all Liking-Evaluation indices and some of the Similarity indices. Table 1 shows that the means for the experimental conditions on any measures of ingroup liking were significantly higher (p .005 and p .01) than for the Control condition. Interestingly, the mean for Evaluation Outgroup Ideas, was also significantly higher (p .01) in the experimental groups than in the Control group, a finding which is given special attention later. The Similarity indices for the most part also showed that the experimental conditions were 3. RESULTS / 32 significantly (p .01 and p .05) less varied in their responses regarding the ingroup and outgroup than were participants in the Control condition. Exceptions were Personality Attribute Difference Indeces 1, 2 and 3 which showed insignificant differences between all experimental conditions and the Control condition, similarly the measure, Liking Difference, which only approached significance (p .10) in differentiating between all experimental groups and the Control group. Following below are the findings for the dependent measures of assimilation-contrast, grouped under the categories of Liking-Evaluation indices and Similarity indices, in that order. It needs to be mentioned that the present findings are statistically not very strong overall, yet they show a consistent pattern of distribution of means across conditions. Because of its consistency this pattern deserves attention even though it often consists of statistically marginal results. LIKING-EVALUATION INDICES Global questionnaire items The group means on the global questionnaire items, which addressed ingroup and outgroup liking are displayed in Table 2. As expected, the Non-categorized condition had the lowest means of all conditions on those items relevant to Non-categorized individuals. This means that these persons expressed the least positive evaluations towards the others present in their experimental session. Surprisingly, Non-explicit comparison, Structured groups consistently showed the highest mean of all groups on measures of ingroup liking. Under increased Explicitness of Outgroup 3. RESULTS / 33 Comparison these means were lower again for Structured groups. The opposite occurred in Unstructured groups. Under Explicit outgroup comparison, Unstructured groups showed higher mean scores on questions of ingroup liking than under Non-explicit outgroup comparison. Overall, Unstructured groups in the Non-explicit comparison condition had noticeably lower mean scores than Non-explicit, Structured groups. On measures of outgroup liking and differentiation, such as Outgroup Favoritism and Outgroup Contrast, both Structured and Unstructured groups were less favorable towards the outgroup under a higher level of Explicitness of Outgroup Comparison. Again, Structured groups were more extreme, that is their mean score on Outgroup Favoritism was smaller and on Outgroup Contrast higher than the mean of the Unstructured groups of comparable level of Outgroup Comparison. First, univariate ANOVAs were performed on the responses to the global questionnaire items (see Table 2). Two-way ANOVAs testing the effects of Outgroup Comparison and Group Structure and the interaction between the two produced a significant main effect for Outgroup Comparison on the item Outgroup Contrast (p .05), a significant main effect for Group Structure on Outgroup Contrast (p .025) and marginal main effects for Group Structure on Commitment to Group (p .075), Ingroup Favoritism (p. 075) and Outgroup Contrast (p .075), and and significant interaction effects on Like Group (p .05), Like Other Members (p .05) and Ingroup Favoritism (p .025). Before conducting post-hoc comparisons to identify which cells differed due to the experimental variables, Outgroup Comparison and Group Structure, correlation coefficients were calculated among the above mentioned dependent measures to 3. RESULTS / 34 summarize highly related items under one score for further analyses. To accomplish this, the less powerful correlational procedure seemed more justifiable than factor analysis, for which the present sample! size would have been tod small. As can be seen in Table 2, the interaction pattern. observed for the means of Structured and Unstructured groups under low and high levels of Outgroup Comparison reached statistical significance for some items in the two-way ANOVAs. Combining highly correlated variables into one score allowed for the possibility of strengthening and clarifying this pattern. The correlational analyses yielded two sets of highly correlated variables (see Table 3). One of them consisted of questions more or less directly concerned with liking of the ingroup, that is Commitment to Group, Like Group, Like Other Members and Ingroup Favoritism. Correlations among these items were significant beyond the .0001 level. They were added to form the combined score Ingroup Evaluation for subsequent analyses. The other set consisted of the items Outgroup Favoritism and Outgroup Contrast which were correlated beyond the .0001 level of significance. These items, which addressed liking for outgroup and differentiation from outgroup (products), respectively, were added to form the combined score Outgroup Evaluation for subsequent analyses. Two of those variables not included under either Ingroup Evaluation or Outgroup Evaluation were poorly correlated with most of the other questionnaire items. Specifically, those two items were Group Performance and Own Performance. Because content-wise they were related to Other Members Performance, this latter item, although it correlated highly with the other Ingroup Evaluation items, was not included in the Ingroup Evaluation score. Even though these three performance-related items mostly were significantly correlated among one another, they were not combined to form a third summary score because no significant or marginal main effects or interaction effect were observed for any of them in the 3. RESULTS / 35 two-way ANOVA procedure. Univariate, two-way ANOVAs on the combined scores yielded a marginal interaction effect (F(l,40) = 3.973, p = .053) on Ingroup Evaluation. This interaction is plotted in Figure 2. Post-hoc paired contrasts were conducted via simple effects analysis using mean square within as the best estimator of the error variance. These comparisons showed that the Unstructured, Non-explicit comparison condition was significantly lower than the Structured, Non-explicit comparison condition (F(l,19) = 7.084, p = .015). The difference between the means for the Structured conditions under Explicit and Non-explicit outgroup comparison also almost reached significance with F(l,19)=4.269 at p=.052. A glance at Figure 2 in which the standard errors of the means are indicated shows that interaction effect was due to the difference between Unstructured and Structured groups under Non-explicit levels of Outgroup Comparison and to the difference in means between the Non-explicit and Explicit outgroup comparison, Structured groups. For the combined score Outgroup Evaluation, its item Outgroup Contrast was recoded to parallel Outgroup Evaluation such that the lower a mean the more it expressed 'contrasting' or dislike of outgroup. Two-way ANOVA on this measure produced two main effects. A just marginal main effect for Outgroup Comparison (F(l,43) = 2.891, p=.096) and a significant main effect for Group Structure (F(l,43) = 6.298, p = .016). Figure 3 demonstrates that the Structured groups were much more negative towards the outgroup than the Unstructured groups, and that there was a tendency in both types of groups to devalue the outgroup more under Explicit comparison conditions. 3. RESULTS / 36 In/outgroup contrast was also looked at in terms of the difference between scores on Ingroup Favoritism and Outgroup Favoritism. The measure Inoutfavoritism was formed by subtracting the (lower) score for the outgroup from the score for the ingroup. When group means on Inoutfavoritism were compared by two-way ANOVA a significant main effect for Group Structure (F(l,43)=9.321, p = .O04) and a significant interaction effect between Outgroup Comparison and Group Structure (F(l,43) = 6.541, p=.014) emerged. The Structured groups had a significantly higher difference score between liking of ingroup and outgroup than the Unstructured groups. As was the case on the previous measure of contrast, the Structured groups expressed the stronger contrasting behavior. The interaction between Outgroup Comparison and Group Structure on Inoutfavoritism is plotted in Figure 4. Post-hoc comparisons via simple effects analysis showed the Unstructured, Non-explicit comparison condition to be significantly different from all other three conditions. In the Non-explicit comparison condition, Unstructured groups were much weaker in their outgroup dislike than the Structured groups. The F-value for difference in means for the two groups was F(l,21) = 16.823, p=.001. The difference in outgroup contrast between Non-explicit and Explicit comparison conditions exhibited by the Unstructured groups was statistically significant with F(l,21) = 11.233 at p = .0003, paralleling the earlier observation for Unstructured groups on Outgroup Contrast, For Structured groups, the difference on Inoutfavoritism between Non-explicit and Explicit comparison groups was insignificant Personal attribute ratings With respect to rating ingroup members on the personal attributes, similar observations were made for the means of Structured and Unstructured groups as were 3. RESULTS / 37 for the global questionnaire items. In the Structured groups, ingroup member liking was lower under Explicit comparison than under Non-explicit, and in the Unstructured groups the reverse was observed. To be noted as different from findings regarding the global questionnaire items is that Unstructured groups were above the Structured groups with their means. Table 4 lists the group means and two-way ANOVA results for the three summary scores for the personal attribute ratings. As expected, the Control group was the least positive of all groups in evaluating other ingroup members as well as self. As already mentioned, noteworthy is the familiar pattern of lower means in Structured groups and higher means in Unstructured groups under Explicit as compared to Non-explicit outgroup comparison, although the pattern is too weak here to have reached statistical significance. Product ratings The means for product ratings appear in Table 5. Regarding the evaluation of the ingroup the Structured groups exhibited yet again a new pattern to earlier, while the Unstructured groups behaved like on the earlier reported ingroup measures. The ratings of outgroup products are in line with earlier observations on outgroup measures. Two-way ANOVA results were significant for the outgroup ratings but not the ingroup ratings. Nevertheless, the pattern described by the changes in means across conditions is of interest. With respect to evaluation of ingroup products, Structured groups behaved now very similarly to the Unstructured groups, that is with Explicit comparison to outgroup, the evaluation of ingroup products was higher than with Non-explicit comparison. The lowest ingroup ratings were observed for the Control 3. RESULTS / 38 condition. On the ratings for outgroup products, Structured groups showed much lower means than Unstructured groups in the Non-explicit comparison condition. Two-way ANOVA results yielded a significant main effect for Group Structure (see Table 5). The means for both types of groups were lower under Explicit comparison conditions than they were under Non-explicit comparison conditions, however, this difference was not significant Interestingly, the Control condition had the lowest mean for evaluation of outgroup products. SIMILARITY INDICES Global questionnaire items The two Similarity indices constructed based on the global questions were Liking Difference and Performance Difference, the former representing a difference score across liking of other ingroup members and the latter a difference score across the contributions to group performance of all three group members. On Liking Difference, univariate ANOVA produced a marginal main effect for Group Structure (F(l,41)=3.599, p = .065). The Structured groups differentiated more than the Unstructured groups between the other two ingroup members on liking, under both levels of Outgroup Comparison. Also, in both types of groups, difference scores were smaller under high. comparison than under low comparison conditions, more drastically so in the Unstructured groups than in the Structured groups. The Control 3. RESULTS / 39 condition had the highest difference score which means they varied the most in their liking of the other two persons present Two-way ANOVAs performed on Performance Difference did not produce significant effects. On this measure, the Control condition reached the highest mean score reflecting most differentiation between ratings of the other individuals present Personal attribute ratings Three types of indices were computed here to reflect how similarly all ingroup members were perceived or rated on the personal attributes. One kind of index involves the absolute difference in rating the other two ingroup members, a second one involves absolute difference between the pairs of self and one other and self and the third member, and the third type of index is a summation of the first two. For each of the three indices, two-way MANOVAs were performed for each of the 7 items, individually. Then, two-way ANOVAs were performed on the summary scores, (i.e. Personality Attribute Difference Index 1, Personality Attribute Difference Index 2 and Personality Attribute Difference Index 3) of each index across the 7 items. The analyses did not produce significant results. Product ratings Similarity with respect to product ratings was assessed by looking at the variances across ratings of the entire ingroup (Variance Ingroup Ideas), ratings of the 3. RESULTS / 40 other two members (Variance Other Ingroup Members Ideas) and ratings of outgroup products (Variance Outgroup Ideas). For these indices, no statistical differences between the means were found. 4. DISCUSSION These" results give us a more complicated picture of the assimilation-contrast phenomenon than suggested by the Person-Situation and Assimilation-Contrast Models. As we shall see, neither of the models with their derived sets of prediction emerged unambiguously as the best explanation of the present findings. Both models turn out to be useful, though, in explaining certain components of this perhaps not so monolithic phenomenon. First of all, attention must be drawn to the effect that categorization had. The present study provided, once more, a demonstration of the ease with which categorization into groups can induce group behavior. Comparisons between those individuals who were categorized into groups (i.e. the experimental conditions) and those who were not (i.e. the Control condition) showed this clearly on most measures of ingroup assimilation and outgroup contrast For example, all Liking-Evaluation measures strongly demonstrated the positive ingroup and negative outgroup bias among those people in the experimental conditions compared to those in the Control condition. The Similarity measures also demonstrated this effect. Most although not all, of the Similarity measures reflected significantly more similarity in views among persons in the experimental conditions compared to those in the Control condition. Based on the observed difference between all experimental conditions and the Control condition and the hypothesized distinction between intergroup and interpersonal behavior (Tajfel & Turner, 1971) it may be concluded that on the whole the experimental conditions showed more depersonalized interactions than the Control condition. 41 4. DISCUSSION / 42 The results indicate that the Liking-Evaluation measures worked decisively better than the Similarity measures. While on the former measures the groups showed a consistent pattern of differences in means, which also often reached statistical significance, on the latter measures they did not differ much. The following discussion focuses on the results for Liking-Evaluation measures as indicators of the assimilation-contrast effect The Similarity measures, specifically the role of these measures and their relationship to the Liking-Evaluation measures, are discussed in a later section. It will be recalled that the assimilation-contrast effect was assessed in three ways. Persons were asked about their overall impressions regarding the entire group and individual group members ('global questionnaire items'), they were asked to rate other ingroup members on a number of personal attributes ('personal attribute ratings'), and thirdly, they were asked to rate the products of the ingroup as well as those of the outgroup ('product ratings'). The assimilation-component, which refers to within-group processes, was assessed by all three of these question types. The contrast-component, which refers to between-group processes, was assessed via global questionnaire items and product ratings. The findings for these different measures of intra- and intergroup processes shall now be interpreted in light of the models under study, the Person-Situation Model, and the Assimilation-Contrast Model. Briefly, the Person-Situation Model makes predictions about the depersonalized interactions of structured groups. It questions the generalizability of the assimilation-contrast effect to such complex groups as structured groups. The Assimilation-Contrast Model, on the contrary, assumes the effect to be the major consequence of depersonalized interactions, for any type of group. In the beginning, specific sets of predictions were derived from 4. DISCUSSION / 43 the models. What these entailed will become evident again in the following discussion. There are four major observations in the research results that seem to be the most noteworthy. To start with the most straightforward one, we will first consider the well-studied Unstructured groups. As expected, the Unstructured groups, under Non-explicit and Explicit levels of outgroup comparison, exhibited lower and higher levels of ingroup assimilation, respectively. This was observed consistently across all measures of the global questionnaire items, the personal attribute ratings and the ratings of the group products. Even though the differences in means between low and high comparison levels were not large enough to reach statistical significance, this pattern occurred consistently on all measures. For outgroup contrast, the same observation was made, however, the expression of outgroup contrast in both Unstructured and Structured groups will be discussed later. All three sets of predictions had assumed this occurrence for Unstructured groups. It was expected that the more depersonalized an interaction - and the increasing levels of Outgroup Comparison were designed to lead to increasing degrees of depersonalization - the more assimilation-contrast effect would be expressed. This expectation was based on Turner's theory of depersonalization, which in turn, rests on the experimental support obtained for the notion of the 'interpersonal-intergroup' continuum of behavioral interactions (see chapter 1). Our next observation concerns the Structured groups under Non-explicit and Explicit outgroup comparison levels. As predicted by the Person-Situation Model, their pattern of responses was exactly reversed to that of the Unstructured groups. On the global questionnaire items, Structured groups indicated significantly less ingroup liking 4. DISCUSSION / 44 under Explicit outgroup comparison levels than they did under Non-explicit levels. This was also true for the personal attribute ratings, although here the difference was not statistically significant These findings for ingroup liking support the predictions of Smith's Person-Situation Model. He predicted that the assimilation-contrast effect would weaken if not disappear under increased depersonalization, that is under Explicit levels of outgroup comparison. It will be recalled that he introduced the terms 'egocentric' and 'ethnocentric' judgment to characterize personalized and depersonalized states, respectively. Based on this distinction he argued that group structure provided a group with criteria for their ethnocentric decision-making that would lead to differential liking and evaluation of other ingroup members rather than to Turner's ingroup assimilation. It should be mentioned that this weak assimilation-contrast effect in the Explicit outgroup comparison condition was not observed for the third type of assimilation-contrast measure, the ratings of ingroup products. With respect to the ratings of ingroup products the Structured groups behaved parallely to the Unstructured groups. Under conditions of Explicit comparison to outgroup, the members of Structured groups evaluated each others' products higher, thus expressing more assimilation than under Non-explicit comparison to outgroup. However, this difference was not statistically significant Because this observation is not statistically significant we cannot conclude that, in the Structured groups, liking each others' products played a different role than liking each other as persons. Also, on no other counts did the product ratings produce different results from the other measures of assimilation-contrast Still, in a later section, the theoretical nature of the three types of measures and in what ways they might have differed, specifically in the Structured groups, will be discussed. We will now turn to the most surprising result of the present study, namely, 4. DISCUSSION / 45 the differences between the Structured and Unstructured groups in amount of assimilation-contrast effect expressed. Contrary to all predictions it was found that members of Structured groups expressed significantly more assimilation-contrast behavior than those of the Unstructured groups. The global questionnaire items once again proved to be the strongest measures of assimilation-contrast Here, the Structured groups expressed significantly more ingroup assimilation than the Unstructured groups, at least in the Non-explicit comparison conditions. In the Explicit comparison conditions, this difference disappeared. The groups expressed very similar degrees of assimilation, due to the fact that here, Structured groups showed less assimilation and Unstructured groups more assimilation than in the Non-explicit comparison conditions. Regarding the reactions to the outgroup, the same unexpected finding was observed. Structured groups engaged in significantly stronger outgroup contrasting than Unstructured groups. On the other measures, • the Structured groups did not show stronger ingroup assimilation, however, their tendencies to negatively contrast the outgroup were, once again, more pronounced than in the Unstructured groups. For example, the outgroup product ratings were much lower in the Structured groups than in the Unstructured groups. How can this finding be explained? It seems so contrary to the expectations of the Person-Situation Model as well as the Assimilation-Contrast Model. The former predicted relatively less or hardly any expression of the assimilation-contrast phenomenon in Structured versus Unstructured groups (Set I). The latter predicted either no difference at all between these two types of groups (Set II) or differences in line with the predictions of the Person-Situation Model but only under Non-explicit levels of outgroup comparison (Set III). In the present experiment, Structured groups were actually stronger in their expression of the assimilation-contrast phenomenon, than 4. DISCUSSION / 46 Unstructured groups. In the following I will suggest that this might be true for structured groups in general, under certain conditions. It seems likely that introducing roles in a group naturally brings with it an enhancement of salience of group membership. Particularly, the role of group leader carries a lot of weight: 'leader' is a connotative expression; it seems inseparable from 'group'. In the present experiment, the Structured groups might have felt 'groupier' than the Unstructured groups, due to the assignment of leader role. In that case we could conclude that Structured groups were more depersonalized than Unstructured groups, throughout the experimental session, and that this accounted for the stronger assimilation-contrast effect observed in the Structured groups. However, the present findings demonstrate that structure is not correlated with a positive ingroup bias at all times: under Explicit conditions, ingroup assimilation was lessened in Structured groups. Whereas structure seemed to provide the group with a positive group identification under Non-explicit conditions, as indicated by high ingroup assimilation, structure seemed to become disruptive and work against a positive group identification under Explicit conditions, as indicated by a lessened ingroup assimilation. This leads to the following assumption about the effect of structure in a group: structure can provide a group with a stronger group identification, which, under certain conditions, will result in stronger ingroup favoritism than in a no structure condition. While at this point, this represents no more than an interesting hypothetical assumption that is worth investigating in the future, the present results call for a preliminary explanation for the observed effect of structure on the assimilation-contrast phenomenon. We shall now come to the fourth and last major finding of the present research. It concerns the reactions of Structured and Unstructured groups towards the 4. DISCUSSION / 47 outgroup. These reactions are interpreted as the contrast component of the assimilation-contrast effect For Structured groups the results for contrasting behavior turned out to be different from those regarding assimilation, behavior. It was found that Structured groups, like the Unstructured groups, negatively contrasted the outgroup more in the Explicit comparison conditions than -in the Non-explicit comparison conditions. Outgroup Evaluation which was a composite score based on questions regarding the outgroup showed this difference to be statistically significant This finding is in line with the predictions of the Assimilation-Contrast Model. Increased depersonalization, that is an increased level of outgroup comparison, was hypothesized to lead to more contrasting against the outgroup in both types of groups. Set II was based on the assumption that Structured and Unstructured groups would not differ at all in their intergroup relations as a consequence of increased levels of outgroup comparison. The assumption underlying Set III was that in an intergroup situation involving Structured groups, the assimilation-contrast effect would be openly manifested or overshadowed depending on the most important comparison for positive group identification. The so-called Most Important Comparison hypothesis was derived from two imagined kinds of situations involving intergroup comparison. In one situation, the most important comparison for the group was the outgroup (comparison between two sports teams in direct competitive interaction). It was hypothesized that in this case the assimilation-contrast effect would be expressed because differential role fulfillments within the group would be secondary. In the other situation, the most important comparison for the group was the comparison among individual ingroup members (comparison between team members among each other because outgroup not immediately present). It was hypothesized that the assimilation-contrast effect would be subdued because differential role fulfillments would be of most concern to group 4. DISCUSSION / 48 members. It is this second set of predictions, Set III, that is of interest now for the interpreting the results regarding the outgroup contrast of the Structured groups. With the Most Important Comparison hypothesis in mind one can draw an interesting parallel between the present findings regarding outgroup contrast as well as ingroup assimilation and the two situations of intergroup comparison described above. Let the outgroup contrast results represent instances of direct comparison to outgroup, paralleling the first situation of intergroup comparison just described. This is not hard to imagine, as all these measures of outgroup contrast involved direct evaluations of the outgroup in comparison to the ingroup. In this way the results may be found to support the Most Important Comparison hypothesis because assimilation-contrast behavior was expressed towards the outgroup. Next, let the earlier reported ingroup assimilation results represent instances of comparison among ingroup members, paralleling the second situation of intergroup comparison just described. Again, this requires no difficult leaps, as instances of intragroup comparison are precisely what all those assimilation measures are. In this case too, the findings support the Most Important Comparison hypothesis because as reported earlier the assimilation effect for Structured groups was subdued. Can this new, post-hoc application of the Most Important Comparison hypothesis be reconciled with the original set of predictions (Set III) that was originally generated by this hypothesis? It was shown earlier that Set III was not supported by the present results. According to the original prediction, the Explicit level of outgroup comparison should have produced a Most Important Comparison situation of the first kind, that is comparison to the outgroup. Similarly, the experimental 4. DISCUSSION / 49 condition of Non-explicit level of outgroup comparison should have produced a Most Important Comparison situation of the second kind, that is comparison among ingroup members. However, this was not found. In general, the Explicit and Non-explicit comparison levels did not turn out to represent strongly different levels of depersonalization. Instead, direct questions regarding the outgroup versus direct questions regarding ingroup members appear to be much stronger and also perhaps less ambiguous representations of the two situations of intergroup comparison generated by the Most Important Comparison hypothesis. At the very least, this post-hoc interpretation of contrast versus assimilation results in terms of the Most Important Comparison hypothesis demonstrates the potential of this hypothesis. The Most Important Comparison hypothesis is interesting because it makes much sense as an explanation of real world occurrences. It needs to be investigated further in future research. To summarize the four major observations, 1. Unstructured groups expressed more ingroup assimilation under conditions of increased depersonalization than under decreased depersonalization. This confirms Set I, Set II, Set III. 2. Structured groups expressed more ingroup assimilation under conditions of decreased depersonalization than under increased depersonalization. This confirms Set I. 3. The assimilation-contrast effect was expressed more strongly in the Structured groups than in the Unstructured groups. This is contrary to all prediction sets. 4. Unstructured and Structured groups expressed more outgroup contrast under 4. DISCUSSION / 50 conditions of increased depersonalization than under decreased depersonalization. For the Structured groups, this was contrary to the expression of ingroup assimilation. This confirms Set III. These are the most important aspects of the present findings. Furthermore, I would like to draw attention to three more issues that emerged from the present results. One concerns the differential success of the Similarity indices versus the Liking-Evaluation indices. The second centers on the role of the three types of measures used. And finally there is the issue of spontaneous self-categorization among persons in the Control condition. They will be discussed in that order. SIMILARITY INDICES VERSUS LIKING-EVALUATION INDICES It may be stated that the Similarity indices were weak in comparison to the Liking-Evaluation indices. Only for one Similarity index could significant differences between groups be reported. For Liking Difference Other Ingroup Members a significant main effect for Structure was reported. In line with finding three from above, this Similarity index showed Structured groups to be more pronounced in their ingroup assimilation. No other Similarity indices produced significant differences between groups. Also, for the most part no consistent pattern emerged in which means differed from one another. The t-test results comparing the means of all experimental groups with that of the Control group were also not as strong for Similarity indices as they were for Liking-Evaluation indices. With respect to global questionnaire items and product ratings, Similarity indices were successful in differentiating between experimental and Control groups, however, less strongly so than the Liking-Evaluation measures. The 4. DISCUSSION / 51 t-test results for personal attribute ratings showed no differences between the experimental and Control groups in their similarity of views across ingroup members. A possible explanation for the lack of success of the Similarity indices concerns the type of similarity indices used in this study. Retrospectively, it seems that the Similarity measures were not appropriate because they were closely tied to the Liking-Evaluation measures. The Similarity indices were based on ratings which are evaluative measure, per se. Therefore, Similarity indices might have been no more than less direct and thus weaker measures of liking and evaluation than the Liking-Evaluation indices. In this sense, any assessment of the similarity of views expressed in some way other than in terms of an evaluative scale would have been a purer measure of similarity. Not until similarity of views among the members of a group is assessed in a way which is more independent from evaluation, can we draw any useful conclusions about the role of similarity in the assimilation-contrast phenomenon. THE THREE TYPES OF MEASURES USED The present study purposely employed three different categories of questions to study the assimilation-contrast phenomenon. The reasons for this were manifold. Because the assimilation-contrast phenomenon is understood to be as all encompassing as to include a person's thought, feeling and action, the present study aimed to include various forms of group-related behaviors such as, evaluations of one another in terms of personal attributes and evaluations of each others' task products. Another reason why the use of different types of questions was necessary is related to the role 4. DISCUSSION / 52 of structure. With the major focus of the study on structure-induced intragroup differentiation, it became necessary not only to ask individuals about their perceptions and feelings regarding the group at large but also regarding individual ingroup members. Another goal of the study was to symmetrically study within-group processes and between-group processes in order to examine Turner's hypothesis regarding the parallel occurrence of ingroup and outgroup stereotyping in depersonalized states. To examine whether the assimilation component and the contrast component are expressed to the same extent, it was important to investigate them both using these different types of questions. To the degree that a reasonable face validity could be maintained, the different questions used to study ingroup processes were mirrored with respect to study of the outgroup. It needs to be acknowledged that some of the question types or the way in which they were used constitute 'new territory'. For example, assessing views towards individual ingroup members to this detail, in addition to assessing views towards the group at large is a different approach from many previous studies in the field. More often than not, earlier studies have targeted only group members perceptions about the group at large. Also the product ratings constitute new territory in that they have not been studied in controlled laboratory settings as measures of the assimilation-contrast phenomenon between groups. In fact, the assimilation-contrast phenomenon has been most often studied in straightforward gain-involving situations in which expression of assimilation-contrast behavior was measured in terms of reward allocations. In comparison, some of the present measures such as product ratings, personality ratings 4. DISCUSSION / 53 and ratings of the performance contribution of individual others (part of the global questionnaire items), may be seen as more complex measures. And, finally to symmetrically study ingroup assimilation - and outgroup contrast in a detailed manner is also different from previous research in this field. When examining the results, the category of global questionnaire items stands out compared to the other two in terms of statistical strength. The pattern of differences in group means reported for these questions more often reached statistical significance than the similar pattern for the product ratings and the personal attribute ratings. It is suggested here that the novel character of the personality attributes (regarding individual members) and the product ratings compared to the well-tried character of the global questions might account for why the assimilation-contrast effect was not expressed more strongly on the former measures. It is assuring, though, that the results for the product ratings and the personal attribute ratings mainly supported the results for the global questions. On one count there were deviations: the Structured groups in their product evaluations of the ingroup expressed more assimilation under Explicit levels of depersonalization than under Non-explicit, an observation contrary to those made for global questions and personal attribute ratings. As mentioned earlier, when the second major finding was reported, one cannot draw any conclusions from this regarding the special role product ratings might have played in groups with structure. This would certainly constitute an interesting question for future research. The results for these different measures of ingroup and outgroup processes 4. DISCUSSION / 54 allow us to state that the assimlation component might not be congruent with the contrast component, at least not in Structured groups. Both the global questionnaire items and the product ratings indicated that Structured groups expressed more outgroup contrast under high depersonalization than under low. This was exactly opposite to the way that Structured groups expressed ingroup assimilation as measured by way of the global questions. To arrive at a concluding -statement about the three different categories of measures, one may say that the well-tried stood the test again, and that the newly tried measures, at the very least, provided support for the more traditional measures of the assimilation-contrast phenomenon. SPONTANEOUS SELF-CATEGORIZATION - CONTROL CONDITION There is indication that persons in the Control condition engaged in what has been referred to as 'spontaneous self-categorization' (Turner, 1985). Spontaneous or emergent self-categorization means that group formation takes place without an external imposition of social categorization. Specifically, one result in the present findings suggests that persons in the Control condition, on occasion acted like a group. With respect to the outgroup product ratings the unexpected observation can be made that the control individuals contrasted against the outgroup much more strongly than they contrasted against other individuals present in their experimental session. They rated the products of the other individuals in their experimental session much more favorably than those of the 'outgroup' members. One might make the claim that this could be related to truly existing qualitative differences between the idea products generated by the others present and the (fake) outgroup idea products. However, when the outgroup product ratings of the Control condition are compared to 'those of the other conditions 4. DISCUSSION / 55 the peculiar observation can be made that the Control condition expressed the most negative outgroup product evaluations! It is rather unlikely that a perceived qualitative difference between the products of other Control individuals and those of the outgroup would have lead the Control respondents to give the outgroup products the worst evaluations of all conditions. At least part of the Control condition's differentiation between 'ingroup' and 'outgroup' products must be due to a spontaneous self-categorization effect It is quite conceivable that a spontaneous self-categorization could have occurred in the Control condition. As pointed out by Turner (1985), a factor like physical closeness of persons could already trigger self-categorization, under certain circumstances. Circumstances were probably favorable for this occurrence in the Control condition of the present study in the following way. At first, when the ingroup assimilation measures were taken, the three individuals of the Control condition were guided by self-favoritism and no reason to act as a group. On these ingroup assimilation measures no strong evidence of a self-categorization effect can be noted. At the point of introduction of outgroup products, however, circumstances probably became favorable to spontaneous self-categorization because the products of three other persons 'who did this in an earlier session' suddenly provided a relevant comparison to the three persons of the Control condition. According to the positive distinctiveness principle (see chapter 1), self-favoritism turned into ingroup favoritism. This might well be the reason why the Control condition expressed negative outgroup contrast. CONCLUSION The findings differentially supported certain aspects of the Person-Situation Model and the Assimilation-Contrast Model. The results for the unstructured groups 4. DISCUSSION / 56 supported the predictions of the Assimilation-Contrast Model while the results for the structured groups partially supported the predictions of the Person-Situation Model and to some extent those of the Assimilation-Contrast Model. The present results were statistically not strong enough to allow conlusions about the adequacy of the models. In addition, a few somewhat difficult issues arose in this research which require attention in future research. Among them were the issues of usefulness of the Similarity indices versus the Liking-Evaluation indices, the differential strengths of the three types of measures of assimilation-contrast and the manipulation of the structure variable. As discussed earlier, these issues are not just unique to the present study but represent general challenges to future research of intergroup processes. Despite these issues the present results added important insight to the understanding of the depersonalization process. Two respects shall be mentioned in particular in which the present findings made contributions to the understanding of this central process underlying intergroup interactions. The predictions of the Person-Situation Model were supported with respect to the occurrence of ingroup assimilation. This indicates that structure within a group seems to work against an expression of ingroup assimilation which threatens the generality of the assimilation-contrast effect This is not only a promising result for the recent model but also of far reaching consequences for understanding intergroup processes. The other respect in which this research contributed concerns the character of the assimilation-contrast phenomenon. The present results suggested that the assimilation component may not be exactly congruent with the contrast component Overall, outgroup contrast was expressed more strongly than ingroup assimilation. For the Structured groups, the expression of the two components was actually in reversed directions under levels of increased depersonalization. Interestingly, elsewhere similar findings have been reported (Linville & Jones, 1980; Linville, 1982; 4. DISCUSSION / 57 Park & Rothbart, 1982) This group of researchers who do not necessarily share the theoretical assumptions of the Social Categorization approach predict greater perceived homogeneity of outgroup members and more extreme evaluative expressions towards the outgroup. The present study, based on the assumptions of depersonalization theory interpreted the more extreme expression of outgroup contrast than of ingroup assimilation in terms of the most important intergroup comparison available for positive group identification (Most Important Comparison hypothesis). As a final conclusion I wish to state that it might serve us better to think of the assimilation-contrast effect as a complex phenomenon that is sensitive not only to differences between inter- and intragroup processes but also to to the degree of depersonalization prevalent, and perhaps even to different modes of expression (thought vs. behavior). REFERENCES BILLIG, M.G., & TAJFEL, H. (1973). Social Categorization and Similarity in intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 27-52. BREWER, M.B. (1979). Ingroup bias in the minimal intergroup situation: a cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307-24. BREWER, M.B., & SILVER, M. (1978). Ingroup bias as a function of task characteristics. European Journal of Social Psychology, 8, 393-400. BROWN, R.J, & DESCHAMPS, J.C. (1980/81). Discrimination entre individus et entre groups. Bulletin de Psychologie, 34, 185-95. DOISE, W. (1978). Groups and individuals, explanations in social psychology. Cambridge University Press. DOISE, W., CSEPELI, G., DANN, H.D., GOUGE, C , LARSEN, K., & OSTELL, A. (1972). An experimental investigation into the formation of intergroup representations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 202-204. DOISE, W., & SINCLAIR, A. (1973). The categorization process in intergroup relations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 145-57. DOISE, W., & WEINBERGER, M. (1973). Representations masculines dans differentes situations de rencontres mixtes. Bulletin de Psychologie, 26, 649-57. DUSTIN, D.S., & DAVIS, H.P. (1970). Evaluative bias in group and individual competition. Journal of Social Psychology, 80, 103-8. LAMM, H., & MYERS, D.G. (1978). Group-induced polarisation of attitudes and behavior, in L.BERKOWITZ (ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 2, New York. 58 References / 59 LEMYRE, L., & SMITH, P.M. (1985) Intergroup discrimination and selfesteem in the minimal group paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 660-670. LINVILLE, P.W. (1982) The Complexity-Extremity effect and age-based stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 193-211. LINVILLE, P.W. & JONES, E E . (1980) Polarized appraisals of outgroup members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 689-703. LOTT, A.J. & LOTT, BE. (1965) Group cohesiveness as interpersonal attraction: a review of relationships with antecedent and consequent variables. Psychological Bulletin, 64, 259-309. OAKES, P.J., & TURNER, J.C. (1980) Social categorization and intergroup behavior: Does minimal intergroup discrimination make social identity more positive? European Journal of Social Psychology, JO, 295-301. PARK B. & ROTHBART, M. (1982) Perception of outgroup homogeneity and levels of social categorization : memory for the subordinate attributes of in-group and out-group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 1051-1068. RAZRAN, G. (1950). Ethnic dislikes and stereotypes: A laboratory study. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 45, 7-27. SECORD, P.F., BEVAN, W., & KATZ, B. (1956). The negro stereotype and perceptual accentuation. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 53, 78-83. SMITH, P.M. (1985). Leadership and intergroup relations: Depersonalization and the prospect of security. Paper presented to the British Psychological Association in September 1985. References / 60 STEPHENSON, G.M. (1978). Interparty and interpersonal exchange in negotiation groups, in H.BRANDSTATTER, J.H.DAVIS, and H.SCHULER (eds.), Dynamics of group decisions. London: Sage. TAJFEL; H. (1959). Quantitative judgment in social perception. British Journal of Psychology, 50, 16-29. TAJFEL, H. (1969). Cognitive aspects of prejudice. Journal of Social Issues, 25, 79-97. TAJFEL, H. (1972) Social categorization, English ms of La categorisation sociale. in S.MOSCOVICI (ed.) Introduction a la psychologie sociale. Vol. 1, chapter 8, pp. 272-302, Paris: Larousse. TAJFEL, H. (1978). Interindividual behavior and intergroup behavior, in H.TAJFEL (ed.) Differentiation between social groups. London: Academic Press. TAJFEL, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge: University Press. TAJFEL, H. (1982). Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge: University Press. TAJFEL, H., FLAMENT, C , BILLIG, M.G., & BUNDY, R.F. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149-77. TAJFEL, H., SHEIKH, A.A., & GARDNER, R.C. (1964). Content of stereotypes and the inference of similarity between members of stereotyped groups. Acta Psychologica, 22, 191-201. TAJFEL, H., & TURNER, J.C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict, in W.G.AUSTIN & S.WORCHEL (eds.) The social psychology of intergroup  relations. Monterey, Ca.: Brooks/Cole. References / 61 TURNER, J.C. (1975). Social comparison and social identity: Some prospects for intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 5-34. TURNER, J.C. (1978). Social Categorization and social discrimination in the minimal group paradigm, in H.TAJFEL (ed.) Differentiation hetween social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. London: Academic Press. TURNER, J.C. (1981) The experimental social psychology of intergroup behavior, in J.C.TURNER & H.GILES (eds.) Tmergroup hehavior. Oxford: Blackwell. TURNER, J.C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group, in H.TAJFEL (ed.) Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge: University Press. TURNER, J.C. (1983). Some comments on "The measurement of social orientations in the minimal group paradigm". European Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 351-367. TURNER, J.C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behavior, in E.J.LAWLER (ed.) Advances in group  processes: Theory and research. Vol 2. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press Inc. TURNER, J.C, HOGG, M.A., TURNER, P.J., & SMITH, P.M. (1984). Failure and defeat as determinants of group cohesiveness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 97-111. TURNER, J.C, & SPRIGGS, D. (1982). Social categorization, intergroup behavior and self-esteem: A replication. Unpublished manuscript WETHERELL, M., & TURNER, J.C. (1984). Social identification, differentiation and opinion shifts. Unpublished manuscript References / 62 WILDER, D.A. (1978). Reduction of intergroup discrimination through individuation of the outgroup. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1361-74. WILSON, W., & KAYATANI, M. (1968). Intergroup attitudes and strategies in games between opponents of the same or of a different race, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 24-30. YAFFE, Y., & YINON, Y. (1979). Retaliatory aggression in individuals and groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 9, 177-86. TABLE CAPTIONS Table I Means and t-values from one-tailed t-tests comparing experimental conditions to the Control condition on dependent variables. Table II Means and F-ratios for the effects of Comparison x Structure for the ANOVAs performed on the responses to the global questionnaire items. Table III Correlations among questionnaire items (1.4 to 1.11, II.l to II.3). Table IV Means and F-ratios for the effects of Comparison x Structure for the ANOVAs performed on the personal attribute ratings. Table V Means and F-ratios for the effects of Comparison x Structure for the ANOVAs performed on the ingroup and outgroup product ratings. 63 T a b l e I Means and t - v a l u e s from o n e - t a i l e d t - t e s t s comparing e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s to the C o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n on dependent v a r i a b l e s . VARIABLE CONDITION MEAN T-VALUE DF L i k i n g - E v a l u a t i o n I n d i c e s : Tngroup E v a l u a t i o n E C 45 11 5.09 4.41 2.83 54 Outgroup E v a l u a t i o n E C 45 11 5.22 4.55 2.54' 54 L i k i n g Ingroup E C 46 11 32.20 29.27 2.82' 55 L i k i n g Other E Ingroup Members C 47 11 31.90 28.50 3.09 56 E v a l u a t i o n Ingroup Ideas E C 47 11 85.43 78.18 2.56 56 E v a l u a t i o n Other E Ingroup Members' C Ideas 47 11 28.14 25.27 2.64 X X X 56 E v a l u a t i o n E Outgroup Ideas C 47 11 75.04 66.36 2.34 56 64 Table I continued VARIABLE CONDITION MEAN T-VALUE DF S i m i l a r i t y I n d i c e s : L i k i n g D i f f e r e n c e E C 45 11 .58 1.00 -1.44 54 Performance Dif f e r e n c e E C 45 11 1.96 3.27 -1.93 54 P e r s o n a l i t y E A t t r i b u t e D i f f e r e n c e C Index 1 47 11 6.02 6.82 -.65 56 P e r s o n a l i t y E A t t r i b u t e D i f f e r e n c e C Index 2 46 12.20 11 14.27 -1.19 55 P e r s o n a l i t y E A t t r i b u t e D i f f e r e n c e C Index 3 46 11 18.26 21.09 -1.09 55 Variance Ingroup Ideas E C 47 11 1.14 1.66 -2.05 56 Variance Other Ingroup Members' Ideas Variance Outgroup Ideas E C E C 47 11 47 11 1.18 1.72 1.78 2.88 -1.87 -2.24 xx 56 56 p < .005 XKp < .01 xp <.05 65 Table II Means and F-ratlos for the effects of Comparison x Structure for the ANOVA's performed on the responses to the global questionnaire items. VARIABLE CONDITION F-VALUES Structured Unstructured by by by Expl. Non-Expl. Expl. Non-Expl.(Control) Comp. Struct. Comp. x Struct. Commitment to Group 4.82 5.45 4.50 4.55 1 . 0 7 3 „ < t l ) 3.535* 0.836 Like Group 5.09 5.55 5.25 4.70 0 . 0 3 5 U 4 „ 1.733 4.254** Like Other Members 4.91 5.41 5.17 4.86 (4. 41) 0 .191 l M l ) 0.433 3.802*" Group Performance 5.00 5.64 5.17 5.09 0 .561 l l t W 0.249 0.955 Own Performance 5.36 5.55 5.33 4.82 (5. 81) 0.506, 1 | W 2.305 2.028 Other Member Performance 5.18 5.59 5.13 5.00 (4. 55) 0.426«,,4., 2.320 1.634 Ingroup Favoritism 5.50 6.08 5.58 5.18 0.233 ( 1 / t lj 3.561" 5.455*** Outgroup Favoritism 3.83 3.92 4.25 4.73 0.725 „,4w 3.534* 0.369 Outgroup Contrast 5.25 4.50 4.25 3.09 3 -913^ , 6.244*" 0.181 p<.025 w p<.05 *p <.075 Table III Correlations among questionnaire items Q.4 Commitment to Group Q.5 Like Group (Q.6+Q.7)/2 Like Other Members Q.8 Group Performance Q.9 Own Performance (Q.10+Q.ll-)/2 Other Member' Performance Q.4 Q.5 (Q.6+Q.7) 2 Q.8 (Q.10+Q.11) Q.9 2 Q.12 1.0000 551Q*** 1.0000 ,6026*** .8008*** 1.0000 4539 .2156 .1779 1.0000 3203* .4381** .3034* .5039*** 1.0000 ,5815*** .7337*** .7269*** .3920** .3419* 1.0000 Q.13 Q.14 Q.12 Ingroup Favoritism ,5177xx* .5783*** .4816*** .3870** .3411* .4297** 1.0000 Q.13 Outgroup Favori t Lsm ,2775 .0663 .2369 .1202 -.0032 .2457 .2057 1.0000 Q.14 Outgroup Contrast -.1696 .0436 -.0469 -.2286 .1792 -.0119 -.0054 -.6357***1.0000 rp<.0001 **p<.001 *p<.01, N=45 (except for Commitment to Group, N=44) Table IV Means and F-ratios for the effects of Comparison x Structure for the ANOVA's performed on the personal attribute ratings. VARIABLE CONDITION F - VALUES Structured Unstructured by by by Expl. Non-Expl. Expl. Non-Expl. (Control) Comp. Struct. Comp. x Struct. Liking Ingroup 31.44 32.11 32.94 32.30 (29.27) n. s. n. s. n. s. Liking Other Ingroup Members 31.21 31.96 32.50 31.95 (28.50) n.s. n. s. n.s. Liking Self 31.92 32.42 33.83 33.00 (30.82) n.s. n.s. n.s. Table V Means and F-ratios for the effects of Comparison x Structure for the ANOVA's performed on the ingroup and outgroup product ratings. VARIABLE CONDITION F - VALUES Structured Unstructured by by by Expl. Non-Expl. Expl. Non-Expl. (Control) Comp. Struct. Comp. x Struct. Evaluation 86.58 84.00 86.67 84.36 (78.18) Ingroup Ideas as n.s. n.s. n. s. Evaluation Other 28.42 27.71 28.50 27.91 (25.27) Ingroup Members' Ideas n.s. n.s. n.s. Evaluation Self 29.75 Ideas 28.58 29.67 28.55 (27.64) n.s. n.s. n.s. Evaluation Outgroup Ideas 69.92 71.33 78.25 81.18 (66.36) 0.448 7.921 0.055 XX p <-05 FIGURE CAPTIONS Figure 1 Experimental Design Figure 2 Comparison by Structure interaction on Ingroup Evaluation score Figure 3 Comparison and Structure main effects on Outgroup Evaluation score Figure 4 Comparison by Structure interaction on Inoutfavoritism score 70 Figure 1 Experimental Design Group Structure S t r u c t . Unstruct. E x p l i c i t Non-E x p l i c i t A B C D E (Control) 7 1 LU OC O O CO z o LU 30 - i 29 H 28 H 27-26 ^ 25^ 24 FIGURE 2. 9 Structure O No Structure non-explicit explicit COMPARISON 12 H LU O CJ CO z o LU 11 10 9H 8 6 FIGURE 3. • Structure O No Structure ~ 1 1 non-explicit explicit COMPARISON FIGURE 4. non-explicit explicit COMPARISON APPENDIX A - INSTRUCTIONS FOR BRAINSTORMING TASK 75 I n s t r u c t i o n s f o r b r a i n s t o r m i n g task Imagine the f o l l o w i n g : With the impending danger of a n u c l e a r war, the Canadian Government has d e c i d e d to c o n s t r u c t a time c a p s u l e c o n s e r v i n g d i f f e r e n t o b j e c t s of our l i f e here t h a t would best show to someone what c i v i l i z a t i o n on e a r t h was l i k e . The time c a p s u l e cannot c o n t a i n any l i v i n g organisms, o n l y o b j e c t s . I t has been d e c i d e d t h a t the t i m e c a p s u l e w i l l be p l a c e d deep w i t h i n the g r a n i t e of the Canadian S h i e l d . I t w i l l be s e a l e d and kept at a temperature t h a t w i l l p r e s e r v e the o b j e c t s i n s i d e f o r approximately 1000 y e a r s . I t s s i z e w i l l be about t h a t of a s t a n d a r d bedroom. Your t a s k i s t o f i l l t h i s time c a p s u l e w i t h o b j e c t s t h a t you f e e l a r e most r e v e a l i n g of what c i v i l i z a t i o n on e a r t h i s a l l about. Take t u r n s g o i n g around the t a b l e i n a c l o c k w i s e d i r e c t i o n , each naming one o b j e c t at a time to p l a c e i n the c a p s u l e . When i t i s your turn, t e l l your group what o b j e c t you want to put i n t o the c a p s u l e . A f t e r you have t o l d your idea p l e a s e w r i t e i t down on one of the index c a r d s you have i n f r o n t of you. Then i t i s the next person's t u r n , t h a t i s the person on your l e f t . Your group has 15 min to come up wit h as many good ideas as p o s s i b l e . Ok, good l u c k now and l e t your i m a g i n a t i o n run w i l d ! 76 APPENDIX B - RATING SHEETS 77 R a c i n g Sheet Now p l e a s e r a t e each one of your own 5 best i d e a s on a s c a l e from 1 t o 7, by c i r c l i n g a number: 1. i d e a : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 v e r y good v e r y bad 2. i d e a : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. i d e a : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. i d e a : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. i d e a : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Now pass y o u r i d e a c a r d s on t o group member on your l e f t . N e x t, r a t e t he i d e a s of group member you j u s t r e c e i v e d . 1. i d e a : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 v e r y good v e r y bad 2. i d e a : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. i d e a : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. i d e a : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. i d e a : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 78 Now pass these idea cards on to group member on your le f t . Next, rate the ideas of group member you just received. U i d e a : very gold 2 3 4 5 6 ^ 7 ^ 2. idea: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 . idea: 4. idea: 5. idea: 79 R a t i n g Sheet Now p l e a s e r a t e each one of the 5 best i d e a s t h a t the members of the o t h e r group came up w i t h . 1. i d e a : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 v e r y good v e r y b a d 2. i d e a : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. i d e a : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. i d e a : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. i d e a : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Now pass t h e s e i d e a c a r d s on t o the group member on y o u r l e f t , Next r a t e t h e i d e a s you j u s t r e c e i v e d . 1. i d e a : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 v e r y good v e r y bad 2. i d e a : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. i d e a : 4. i d e a : 5. i d e a : 1 2 3 4 5 80 Now pass these idea cards on to the group member on your le f t . Next rate the ideas you just received. 1. idea: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very good very 2. idea: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. idea: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. idea: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. idea: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 81 APPENDIX C - QUESTIONNAIRES I AND II 82 2. Next, please rate member of your group on these adjectives: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 f a i * unfair 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 unfriendly friendly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 warm cold 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 l a z v hard-working 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 self-assured hesitant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 pleasant unpleasant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 competitive cooperative 84 3. Next, please rate member of your group on these adjectives: 1 fair 1 unfriendly 1 warm 1 lazy 1 self-assured 1 pleasant competitive 7 unfair friendly 7 cold 7 hard-working hesitant unpleasant cooperat ive 8.5 4 . How much do you want t o c o n t i n u e w o r k i n g i n t h i s group f o r t h e next t a s k ? 1 2 v e r y much 6 7 v e r y l i t t l e 5. How much do you l i k e t he people i n you r group? 1 2 v e r y much 6 7 v e r y l i t t l e 6. How much do you l i k e member 1 2 v e r y much v e r y l i t t l e 7. How much do you l i k e member 1 2 v e r y much v e r y l i t t l e 86 8. How w e l l do you t h i n k y o u r group performed? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ve r y w e l l v e r y p o o r l y 9. How much d i d you c o n t r i b u t e t o yo u r group's performance? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 v e r y much v e r y l i t t l e 10. How much d i d member c o n t r i b u t e t o your group's performance? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 v e r y mtmh v e r y l i t t l e 11. How much d i d member c o n t r i b u t e t o your group's performance? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 v e r y much v e r y l i t t l e 87 Q u e s t i o n n a i r e 2 1. How f a v o r a b l e are your f e e l i n g s about your group? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 v e r y not a t a l l f a v o r a b l e f a v o r a b l e 2. How f a v o r a b l e are your f e e l i n g s about the o t h e r group? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 v e r y not a t a l l f a v o r a b l e f a v o r a b l e 3. How d i f f e r e n t d i d the o t h e r groups i d e a s seem from your group's i d e a s ' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 v e r y not a t a l l d i f f e r e n t d i f f e r e n t 88 APPENDIX D - CONSENT AND DEBRIEFING FORMS 89 Consent Form The p r e s e n t study about " B r a i n s t o r m i n g " i s conducted by Anna F r i t z and Dr. P h i l i p Smith from the P s y c h o l o g y Department a t UBC. In our study you w i l l be asked t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t a s k s t h a t i n v o l v e b r a i n s t o r m i n g and , a l s o , t o answer some q u e s t i o n s about y o u r own and o t h e r s p a r t i c i p a t i o n . The e n t i r e s e s s i o n w i l l l a s t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 45 min. No p e r s o n a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of any k i n d w i l l ever be r e q u i r e d of you as we want to p r e s e r v e complete anonymity. S h o u l d you have any q u e s t i o n s about the procedure p l e a s e f e e l f r e e to ask them so t h a t i t i s u n d e r s t o o d f u l l y by everyone. Your p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s study i s c o m p l e t e l y v o l u n t a r y . I t i s your r i g h t t o withdraw from i t a t any time without" e x p l a n a t i o n and w i t h no p e n a l t y . A complete, d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n of the study w i l l be g i v e n a t the end of the s e s s i o n . I have read and u n d e r s t o o d the above, and I agree to p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s s t u d y . I have r e c e i v e d a copy of t h i s c o n s e n t form. ( d a t e ) ( s i g n e d ) 90 D e b r i e f i n g Statement We would l i k e to thank you f o r p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h i s study and t e l l you why we are conducting t h i s study. Often, when groups are i n i n t e r a c t i o n with one another, a s o - c a l l e d ' a s s i m i l a t i o n - c o n t r a s t * e f f e c t may be observed. By " a s s i m i l a t i o n - c o n t r a s t ' i s meant the tendency i n people to enhance the s i m i l a r i t i e s among people i n t h e i r own group and to exaggerate the d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e i r own and the other group. Ingroup members are perceived as s i m i l a r and equivalent and evaluated p o s i t i v e l y , and outgroup members are perceived as d i s s i m i l a r from the ingroup and evaluated n e g a t i v e l y . The a s s i m i l a t i o n - c o n t r a s t phenomenon can often be observed i n the r e a l world, f r o example when d i f f e r e n t r a c i a l or ethnic groups i n t e r a c t , or two sports teams. In laboratory s t u d i e s , too, i t i s a w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d f i n d i n g . So f a r , however, i t has only i n v o l v e d simple, unstructured groups. In the present study we are t e s t i n g whether the a s s i m i l a t i o n -contrast tendency i s a l s o observed i n groups with s t r u c t u r e . A group with s t r u c t u r e i s one i n which the members occupy d i f f e r e n t r o l e s or p o s i t i o n s . The question i s whether the d i f f e r e n t p o s i t i o n s people occupy i n a structured group have an i n f l u e n c e on the a s s i m i l a t i o n - c o n t r a s t tendencies such that people w i t h i n one group w i l l be perceived as d i f f e r e n t r a t h e r than s i m i l a r . To t e s t t h i s we are examining how people i n a str u c t u r e d group versus i n an unstructured group respond to other ingroup members and to members of the outgroup. So you e i t h e r j u s t p a r t i c i p a t e d i n a structured group, i n an unstructured group or as a c o n t r o l group p a r t i c i p a n t . 91 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0097058/manifest

Comment

Related Items