alexander, brewer & herrmann, 1999.pdf

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology1999, Vol. 77. No. 1, 78-93

Copyright 1999 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.0022-3514/99/53.00

Images and Affect: A Functional Analysis of Out-Group Stereotypes

Michele G. Alexander, Marilynn B. Brewer, and Richard K. HerrmannThe Ohio State University

Drawing from research on inter-nation images, the authors proposed and tested a functional theory ofout-group stereotypes in 3 experiments. In the theory, it is hypothesized that behavioral orientationselicited by specific patterns of intergroup relationships (goal compatibility, relative power, and relativestatus) give rise to unique schematic representations of an out-group. The representations specified in thetheory include 1 positive image (i.e., ally) and 3 differentiated negative images (i.e., enemy, dependent,barbarian). In all 3 experiments, participants read and imagined scenarios describing an intergroupsituation in which the structure of relationships between in-group and out-group was varied. Results fromExperiments 1 and 2 indicated that relationship cues were sufficient to elicit the predicted images, andsome of the images were more likely to be activated under high incidental arousal. In a 3rd experimentan implicit measure was used to demonstrate that the images are activated spontaneously. Overall, resultsimplicate the role of affective state and behavioral intent in shaping the content of social stereotypes.

With the rise of social cognition as a dominant perspective insocial psychology, the focus of research on social stereotypes andstereotyping shifted from the study of the content of social stereo-types embedded in intergroup relations to the study of structureand process. Questions about why groups are stereotyped in certainways gave way to questions about how stereotypes are formed andwhat role they play in processing social information. Althoughearlier theories of intergroup perception explicitly acknowledgedthe functions that stereotypes serve in maintaining and justifyingthe structural relationships between groups (e.g., Campbell, 1967;M. B. Smith, Bruner, & White, 1956; Tajfel, 1981), this functionalperspective was, for the most part, ignored in the social psycho-logical literature on social stereotypes in the 1970s and 1980s.

More recently, there has been evidence of renewed interest inunderstanding the function that group stereotypes serve in specificintergroup contexts. Questions are again being raised about thecontent of category stereotypes: How is content shaped by thestatus and roles assigned to groups in a society, and how dostereotypes function to maintain and justify the structure of inter-group relations and intergroup behavior (e.g., Eagly, 1987; Fiske,1998; Jost & Banaji, 1994)? As Bouris, Turner, and Gagnon(1997) put it, "Stereotypes function to represent intergroup reali-ties . . . creating images of the out-group (and the in-group) thatexplain, rationalize and justify the intergroup relationship andone's past, present and future behaviour within it" (p. 273). From

Michele G. Alexander and Marilynn B. Brewer, Department of Psychol-ogy, The Ohio State University; Richard K. Herrmann, Department ofPolitical Science, The Ohio State University.

We thank Jane Baki, Elaine Bednar, Heidi Parsons, Cindy Plew, andToby Pollock for their invaluable assistance with data collection and M.Atiq Rahman for his advice on the statistical analyses in portions of thisarticle.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to MicheleG. Alexander, who is now at the Psychology Department, 5742 Little Hall,University of Maine, Orono, Maine 04469-5742. Electronic mail may besent to [email protected].

this perspective, understanding group cognition requires under-standing the context of intergroup relationships from which beliefsand stereotypes are derived.

Image Theory in International Relations

Social psychological interest in the origins and functions ofgroup stereotypes has its parallel in the international relations fieldof political science, where scholars have been studying the originsand consequences of the images that nation-states hold of eachother as political entities, particularly in the context of interna-tional conflict. Boulding (1956, 1959) defined an image in thiscontext as a cognitive, affective, and evaluative structure andargued that "the images which are important in international sys-tems are those which a nation has of itself and of those otherbodies in the system which constitute its international environ-ment" (1959, pp. 120-121). Boulding felt that perceived hostilityor friendliness and the perceived strength or weakness of a unitwere central features of a nation's image of that unit. In subsequentwork, particular attention was paid to the enemy images that formwhen the other unit is perceived to be very hostile and strong (R.Cottam, 1977; Holsti, 1967; Shimko, 1991; Silverstein, 1989;White, 1965, 1968).

Enemy images have been treated in political science in termsanalogous to how psychologists conceive of a stereotype. Featuresof the enemy image include a very simple picture of the othergroup's motivations in both substantive and normative terms. Theenemy is seen as motivated by a very few self-serving interests, allof which are judged to be evil and immoral. The enemy image alsofeatures a characterization of the adversary as being conspiratorialand led by a monolithic and hierarchical decision-making system(Jervis, 1976). The enemy image in its ideal typical form alsodescribes the adversary as a "paper tiger," meaning that it aims tointimidate others with its threats and noises, but in fact it is quitehollow and weak. The stereotype describes the enemy as pursuingits evil ambitions in an opportunistic way, advancing when itsenses weakness on other people's part and retreating quickly

78

IMAGES AND AFFECT 79

when it senses firm will and resolve on the part of others (R.Cottam, 1977; Jervis & Snyder, 1991).

International relations scholars have not only identified theattributes of an enemy image, they have also demonstrated itseffects on the perception and interpretation of new information,memory, and policy choice (Herrmann, Voss, Schooler, & Ciar-rochi, 1997). A number of studies have shown that the stereotypeis immune to empirical disconfirmation (Stuart & Starr, 1982).Aggressive acts on the part of the adversary fulfill expectations,whereas nonaggressive acts are attributed to situational constraintsor conspiratorial tricks. In either case, no evidence falsifies thebasic image. When two adversaries have mirror enemy images ofeach other, a spiral escalation in tension is expected and is noteasily defused (Bronfenbrenner, 1961; Osgood, 1962).

Although the enemy image and spiral models of conflict havebeen the subjects of a substantial body of research, internationalrelations researchers have explored other images as well. White(1968) paired the enemy image with a virile self-image. R. Cottam(1977) identified an ally image and more complex imperialist andcolonialist images. Herrmann (1985; Herrmann & Fischerkeller,1995) extended the analysis by examining degenerate and barbar-ian images, and M. L. Cottam (1986, 1994) identified and refineda set of dependent images. As additional images were cataloged,component parts of images were organized into sets of attributes,such as attributes describing the target country's motivations,attributes describing the decision-making process in the targetcountry, and attributes describing the willpower and abilities of thetarget country. Herrmann et al. (1997) demonstrated experimen-tally that these component attributes were connected to each otherin systematic ways, and that enemy, ally, colony, and degenerateimages had schematic properties. When research participants weregiven information about a hypothetical country that contained oneattribute of an image, they assumed that the country had additionalattributes consistent with the same image. For instance, whengiven information about the motives of a foreign country thatconformed to the enemy image, participants who were then askedabout the country's decision process and power structure selectedattributes consistent with the enemy image.

Going beyond the mere description of images as an organizedstereotype, the theory of images advanced by R. Cottam (1977)and Herrmann (1985) argued that images form as a consequence ofstrategic relationships between nations and serve a functionalpurpose. Working from Heider's (1958) balance theory, Herrmann(1985) suggested that images in international relations serve tobalance a positive self-image and behavioral inclinations. Herr-mann argued that the nature of relationships between nations isrepresented in terms of perceived threats and perceived opportu-nities that are analogous to Heider's notion of sentiment. Imagesare a set of unit relations (cognitive attributes) that are attached toa foreign country. The cognitive system is balanced when theevaluative and behavioral implications of the image match thebehavioral inclination generated from the threat or opportunity ina way that maintains consistency with a positive, moral self-image(see also Sande, Goethals, Ferrari, & Worth, 1989).

Herrmann (1985) identified three critical dimensions of inter-group relationships that give rise to sentiments and associatedimages. Like Boulding, Herrmann assigned particular importanceto (a) evaluations of competitive versus cooperative goal interde-pendence and (b) assessments of relative power and added (c)

evaluations of relative cultural status as the central determinants ofstrategic relationships. When relationships are defined by extremevalues on these three dimensions, attributions about the othernation's motivations, decision-making process, willpower, andabilities follow from the need for psychological balance or behav-ioral justification.

According to image theory, then, the structure of intergrouprelationships (cooperation-competition, relative strength, and rel-ative status) gives rise to sentiments and behavioral inclinationsthat must be balanced with the in-group's positive and moralself-image. Any tension between the behavioral inclination and therestraints of a moral self-image elicits a balancing process thatresults in a construction of the situation in which the tension isresolved by the in-group providing a morally acceptable accountfor acting in line with the behavioral inclination. Stereotypes orimages of the out-group are constructed to serve this balancingfunction.

In this theoretical account, the enemy image arises when therelationship between a person's in-group and an out-group ischaracterized by intense competition between two groups that aresimilar in cultural status and in power or strength. These relation-ship characteristics generate a sentiment of threat and a behavioralinclination to eliminate the threat by attack, which is in tensionwith normative rules about behavior toward similar others and byprospects of retaliation. The enemy stereotype balances the tensionbetween the behavioral inclination and the moral constraints. Itportrays the adversary as being so hostile in its motivationalattributes that destroying it, even through the use of force, isjustified. To protect self-image from qualms about mistreatinginnocent.members of the out-group, the in-group will adopt anenemy image that describes the out-group as monolithic in itsdecision making. The image describes the adversary's strength asessentially derivative of the in-group's weakness. In other words,it constructs a picture of the adversary in which the adversary isdescribed as a paper tiger only capable of mischief if the in-groupis timid and lacks resolve. The result of the image is a constructionin which attacking the enemy is the instrumentally reasonablecourse of action and a moral duty.

If the enemy image facilitates behavior in a threatening situationwith a coequal other, then the ally image serves a comparablefunction in facilitating the pursuit of cooperation. In a relationshipdefined by positive goal interdependence, similar capabilities, andequal status, there is a behavioral inclination to cooperate. This isexpected to produce an image of the partner that is characterizedby positive attributes. The partner's motives will be seen as benignand, in the ideal form, mostly altruistic. The out-group will also beseen as enjoying the benefits of gifted and popular leaders. Thestereotypical image eliminates reservations that might inhibit fullcooperation or cast any moral doubt on the partnership. By de-scribing the out-group in entirely positive terms, the ally image,like its enemy image counterpart, constructs a picture in whichacting on the behavioral inclination induced by the relationship isnot just acceptable but a moral duty.

The enemy and ally images are symmetric; as long as the twogroups involved perceive the intergroup relationships in the sameway, their mutual stereotypes should be mirror images of eachother (Bronfenbrenner, 1961). Two other relationships that havereceived substantial attention in image theory are those generatedby mutually incompatible goal interdependence between groups

80 ALEXANDER, BREWER, AND HERRMANN

that differ in power and status. The first of these arises when thein-group nation is much stronger than the target out-group nationand also has higher cultural status. In this relationship in-groupmembers have an opportunity to eliminate the goal incompatibilityby exploiting the asymmetries in their favor. Thus, this pattern ofintergroup relationships generates a behavioral inclination to seizethe opportunity, assert control over the target, and exploit thesituation to maximize the likelihood of achieving the in-group'sown goals. Exploitation, however, is typically constrained bymoral norms that do not equate might with right, in a politicalsetting where such exploitation is seen as imperialism. This tensiongenerates a cognitive representation of the out-group that permitsexploitative behavior to be reinterpreted as helping.

In the resulting dependent image, the target group is describedas being deeply divided between moderate, responsible, but in-competent good leaders, who are motivated by their concern withadvancing the welfare of the people, and radical, agitating badleaders, who are uninterested in the welfare of their own people.For in-group nations, this image of a divided and vulnerable nationjustifies using asymmetries in power and status to take control ofthe target out-group; in fact, it can now be construed as a moralduty. Taking control is seen not as exploiting the group but asprotecting it from both the evil internal radicals and their evilexternal patrons. In the 19th century, metaphors like "white man'sburden" captured the essence of the stereotype as it was applied toAsians and Africans by Europeans. Like the other images, itallowed people to seize the opportunity and act on the behavioralinclination without creating doubts about self-image. In extremecases, the interlopers expect gratitude and thanks from the targetgroup. They are mystified and offended by complaints and resis-tance from the target group, especially if these complaints suggestthe in-group is simply advancing its own self-interest.

The second asymmetric relationship image theorists have exam-ined is one in which the in-group country enjoys high culturalstatus but is vastly weaker than the out-group country and has itsgoals severely threatened by the out-group's agenda. This relation-ship pattern is said to produce a behavioral inclination that in-volves insulating the in-group by appeasing the stronger out-group.By appeasing the out-group in the short run, the in-group hopesthat its essence can be preserved until some future time when thebalance of capabilities changes and a viable chance for effectiveresistance exists. Appeasing the out-group can produce seriousmoral tension when it involves sacrificing important goals andvalues of the in-group. Passivity in this situation would threaten apositive self-image if it was understood to be cowardly and un-principled behavior.

The barbarian image relieves the moral tension by constructinga picture in which restraint is not only the prudent course but alsothe normatively correct choice. The image does this by portrayingthe out-group as evil and as enjoying wanton destruction for itsown sake. The out-group is also seen as incredibly strong, immuneto rational deterrents because its leaders enjoy destruction, willingto endure horrific losses, and unable to process costs and benefitsin a rational way. The barbarians are led by highly emotional andnot terribly intelligent leaders who will destroy anything at theslightest provocation, but they can be manipulated by cunning andintelligence. A barbarian image leads one to conclude that the bothmoral and prudent course of action is to avoid provoking orantagonizing the out-group. By using the in-group's superior in-

telligence and avoiding what would be a futile test of materialstrength, the in-group in this construction can best ensure its ownfuture. Appeasement can then be seen as the best strategy toadvance the future of the group and to protect its values rather thanas a capitulation and cowardly abandonment of principle.

A Generalized Model of Out-Group Images

Many of the components of image theory have counterparts insocial psychological research and theory. The idea that perceptionsof out-groups are shaped by the structural relationships betweenin-group interests and out-group interests is essential to functionaltheories of intergroup relations (Sherif & Sherif, 1953). Sherifsclassic Robbers Cave summer camp experiments (Sherif, Harvey,White, Hood, & Sherif, 1961) provided an empirical test of thenotion that goal compatibility determines intergroup attitudes andperceptions. Under competitive conditions, groups developed de-rogatory stereotypes of the out-group that changed in both contentand valence when common goals were introduced. In more recentwork, Insko and Schopler (1987) hypothesized that the competi-tiveness characterizing intergroup encounters gives rise to a ge-neric "group schema," in which "own-group members are ex-pected to be cooperative, friendly, loyal, helpful, courteous, and soon, while other-group members are expected to demonstrate suchcharacteristics as competitiveness, unfriendliness, aggressiveness,and boastfulness" (p. 244). In addition to goal compatibility, statusand power relations between groups are also implicated in recenttheories of stereotype formation. Fiske (1998; Fiske, Xu, Cuddy, &Glick, in press), for instance, speculated that interdependence andstatus differentials give rise to two different types of ambivalentout-group stereotypes: the respected-but-disliked out-group andthe liked-but-disrespected (incompetent) out-group. Fiske's con-cepts are similar to image theory in making distinctions betweenspecific negative schemas that are elicited by different patterns ofintergroup relationships.

International relations image theory, then, provides a basis for amore general theory of the functional origins of out-group stereo-types. At a somewhat more abstract level, the components of theally, enemy, dependent, and barbarian images may constitute ge-neric schema that are evoked by particular intergroup contexts orpatterns of intergroup relationships. More specifically, a general-ized image theory leads to the following hypotheses:

1. In-group-out-group relationships characterized by perceivedequal status, similar capacity, and compatible goals that give riseto inclinations for cooperative intergroup behavior will produce acognitive representation of the out-group that parallels the allyimage in the political arena (peaceful, trustworthy, democraticallyorganized, and intelligent).

2. In-group-out-group relationships characterized by equal sta-tus, equal capacity, and incompatible goals with behavioral incli-nations to attack the out-group will evoke a cognitive representa-tion of the out-group parallel to the enemy image (hostile,untrustworthy, monolithic, and opportunistic).

3. Intergroup relationships characterized by the incompatiblegoals of an in-group and a weaker, lower status out-group andassociated with exploitative behavioral inclinations will elicit thedependent image of the out-group (childish, incompetent, anddivided).

4. Relationships in which the out-group is stronger than the


in-group but lower in status and is perceived to have incompatiblegoals that evoke defensive appeasement will give rise to thebarbarian image of the out-group (ruthless, evil, and irrational).

To test these hypotheses, we conducted three experimentswherein participants were presented with scenarios describing anintergroup situation in which information about the pattern ofstatus, power, and goal relationships between the groups wasvaried. The question to be addressed in these studies was whetherthese relationship cues alone are sufficient to elicit detailed imagesof an out-group's characteristics that correspond to the hypothe-sized generic schemas.

Experiment 1

To assess the generic images associated with specific intergrouprelations, we gave research participants a realistic scenario thatincluded information about an in-group to which they belongedand the in-group's relationships with a particular out-group. Par-ticipants read the scenario while imagining themselves being theleader of a group of university students who are attempting tosecure the future of their financially threatened campus. Informa-tion about goal interdependence, relative capability, and relativestatus of the out-group defined four different patterns of intergrouprelationships. After reading one of the scenarios, participants re-sponded to a questionnaire that first assessed their strategic re-sponses to the out-group and then measured their beliefs about theout-group's motivational and organizational characteristics.

Method

Participants

A total of 93 (63 female and 30 male) undergraduate students from TheOhio State University-Mansfield participated in the study as part of arequirement in their introductory psychology course.

Procedure

Participants believed that the experiment was designed to assess personperception and cognition. Individuals were run in groups of approxi-mately 20, and each participant was randomly assigned one of the fourintergroup relationship scenarios as materials were distributed. Each indi-vidual participant was given a booklet, with instructions to read theintergroup scenario on the first page and imagine being involved in thesituation presented. After reading the scenario, participants completedquestionnaires assessing their perceptions of the out-group on a series ofmeasures designed to determine whether the pattern of intergroup relation-ships evoked the intended out-group images. Participants were then de-briefed and excused.

Materials and Measures

Construction of intergroup scenarios. A general intergroup scenariowas developed as a basis from which to manipulate the specific intergroupschemas tested in the present study. The participants were students attend-ing a branch campus of a large university who were accustomed to sharinga campus and campus resources (e.g., library, bookstore, parking lot) withstudents from a neighboring community technical college. Given thisarrangement, students attending the technical college composed a salientand meaningful out-group to the students at the branch campus whoparticipated in this study.

Included in the general scenario was a brief description of the respon-

dent's own in-group (i.e., students attending a regional campus of a largestate university seeking 4-year bachelor's degrees) and a description of thetargeted out-group (i.e.. students attending the community technical col-lege). All participants read that the future of their campus and its resourceswas uncertain because of reductions in state funding. As the leader of hisor her in-group, the participant's goal was to acquire funding to ensure thecampus continued to provide educational opportunities for those seeking4-year degrees in the region and to obtain more money and resources forthe branch campus. The participant's in-group was given some leverage toreach its goal. Specifically, the in-group knew some members of the boardof regents, and the group had the campus dean's support. The students atthe neighboring community technical college, however, were also con-cerned and were working on securing funding for their own college.

The general scenario was then tailored with specific information de-signed to manipulate the four patterns of intergroup relationships beingstudied. Information about the out-group was varied to generate differentconfigurations of relative strength, prestige, and goal compatibility asso-ciated with the four different behavioral orientations as specified by imagetheory. The specific manipulations corresponding to each intended imageare presented in Appendix A.

Response strategies. The extent to which the scenario informationelicited the intended behavioral orientation was assessed by one multiple-choice item. Participants selected one among four alternative responsestrategies that their group could use in dealing with the out-group. The fourstrategies were intended to represent the four different behavioral inclina-tions specified by image theory (cooperation, attack, exploitation, OT de-fensive appeasement) and were adapted to conform with the specificcontext presented in the scenario. The options provided were as follows:

1. Sharing their resources and cooperating with the out-group(cooperation/ally)

2. Competing with the out-group and strengthening their own positionwhile preventing the out-group from achieving its goal (attack/enemy)

3. Using the out-group's resources and information to help their ownin-group achieve its goals (exploitation/dependent)

4. Defending their own position and resources by compromising withthe out-group (appeasement/barbarian)

Image measures. For each hypothesized image, five descriptive state-ments were generated that instantiated different component aspects of thatimage. These components were those that according to international rela-tions image theory differentiated the images in terms of perception ofout-group goals, motivations, intentions, leadership, and decision making.(See Appendix B for the component descriptions associated with eachout-group image.) Image components were then decomposed and distrib-uted as response options to five multiple-choice questions about charac-terizations of the out-group. Four responses were provided (in randomizedorder) for each of the five questions, with each response representing anattribute of one of the four images. For each question, participants wereasked to select the one description among the four options that came closestto reflecting their perception of or expectations about the out-group. Foreach respondent, we computed four image scores based on the number ofally, enemy, barbarian, and dependent descriptors the respondent choseacross the five questions.

At the end of the image questionnaire, a composite image measure wasadded. The five components of each image were clustered together intoseparate sets, or image categories. Participants were asked to select the oneof these four descriptive categories that best represented their overallimpression of the out-group.

Manipulation checks. To assess the effectiveness of the intergrouprelationship manipulation, we had participants rate the degree of goalinterdependence between their group and the out-group and the relativecapability and status of the out-group on 5-point rating scales (with scaleendpoints labeled not at all and extremely). Participants rated the extent towhich the out-group's goals threatened their own goals, the extent to whichin-group and out-group goals were compatible, how strong the out-group

82 ALEXANDER. BREWER, AND HERRMANN

Table 1Means and Standard Deviations for Manipulation Checks by Scenario: Experiment I

Measure

Perceived threatPerceived compatibilityComparative strengthComparative status

(n

M

1.883.722.884.00

Ally= 25)

SD

1.241.100.601.24

Scenario

Enemyin = 24)

M

3.922.502.923.72

SD

1.101.280.711.20

Dependent(n = 21)

M

2.762.862.622.60

SD

0.991.230.861.02

Barbarian(n = 23)

M

3.912.393.782.57

SD

0.951.231.040.78

was compared with their in-group, and how similar the out-group was tothe in-group. Also, to determine the extent to which the hypotheticalscenario was self-relevant to participants, we had them rate how stronglythey identified with their role in the story, how important The Ohio StateUniversity—Mansfield is to them, and how bad they would feel if thecampus were closed down.

Results

Manipulation Checks

Mean ratings of the scenarios were analyzed in one-way anal-yses of variance (ANOVAs) to determine whether the four sce-narios differed significantly on the expected dimensions. A signif-icant main effect of scenario was found on the measures ofperceived threat, F(3, 92) = 20.18, p = .0001; perceived compat-ibility, F(3, 92) = 6.02, p = .001; comparative strength, F(3,92) = 8.70, p = .0001; and comparative status, F(3, 92) = 5.89,p = .001. Means and standard deviations of these measures foreach scenario are represented in Table 1. Overall, the differencesindicated that participants correctly interpreted the experimentalvariations as intended. No differences across conditions emergedon the extent to which participants identified with the scenario,considered the campus important to them, and would be upset ifthe campus they were currently attending closed.

Response Strategies

We conducted a chi-square test to determine whether eachscenario elicited the intended behavioral orientation as indicatedby participants' response strategy selections. The overall 4 (sce-nario) X 4 (response strategy) association was significant, )f{9,N =93) = 53.59, p = .00001, indicating that response choices diddiffer as a function of scenario content. The proportion of partic-ipants who selected each response strategy by scenario is presentedin Table 2.

By comparing the proportions that fall in the diagonals inTable 2 with those in the respective rows for each response option,we found it clear that although the base rate of selecting thevarious responses differed, the probability of selecting a particularbehavioral response was consistently highest in the correspondingscenario condition. Although the cooperative response strategywas chosen to some extent across all scenarios, the proportion inthe ally condition differed significantly from the enemy, depen-dent, and barbarian conditions, ^ ( 3 , TV = 93) = 15.76, p =.00007; 9.24, p = .002; and 13.41, p = .0003, respectively.

Using a separate 3 X 4 chi-square we determined that the threenegative scenarios produced significantly different patterns of re-sponse strategy selection, ^ ( 6 , N = 6$) = 29.18, p = .001. Theattack response was most frequently elicited by the enemy scenarioand the appeasement response by the barbarian scenario. However,in the case of the dependent scenario participants showed a pref-erence for the cooperative (ally) response compared with theexploitative (dependent) strategy, possibly reflecting the low threatposed by the low strength and low status out-group and the socialundesirability of the dependent response strategy (which had thelowest overall probability of selection).

Image Scores

As an initial test of the coherence of the four images, statisticalanalyses were conducted to determine whether the probability ofselecting multiple items from the same image (across the fiveimage questions) was greater than chance. Image scores, rangingfrom 0 to 5, were computed for each participant for all fourimages. Then, the frequency distribution of these obtained imagescores was compared with the expected values for each imagederived from a binomial distribution (where p = overall proportionof choices of responses of that image type).1

Chi-squares were computed for the difference between obtainedand expected frequency distributions for each image. Responsepatterns for the ally, ^ ( 5 , N = 93) = 185.24, p = .001; enemy,

5, N = 93) = 17.58, p = .005; and dependent image scores,5, N = 93) = 19.90, p = .005, all differed significantly from

chance, indicating that the proportion of scores of 0 or 4-5 werehigher than expected on the basis of random choice. The chi-square for the barbarian image scores did not differ significantlyfrom chance, ^ ( 5 , N = 93) = 8.96, p = .20. Thus, for at leastthree of the four images, the selection of attributes reflectedschematic connections among the component features of theimage.

Scenario X Image. To test whether the image scores varied asa function of the intergroup scenario, we undertook an analysisappropriate to the ipsative nature of the multiple-choice scores. AnANOVA involving one between- (ally scenario vs. enemy scenariovs. dependent scenario vs. barbarian scenario) and one within-

1 These base-rate proportions were .29 for components of the ally image,.32 for the enemy image, .27 for the dependent image, and .12 for thebarbarian image.


Table 2Proportion of Response Strategy as a Function of Scenario:Experiment I

Response strategy

AllyEnemyDependentBarbarian

Ally

.88

.04

.00

.08

Enemy

.25

.42

.08

.25

Scenario

Dependent

.62

.00

.33

.05

Barbarian

.30

.17

.04

.49

Note. Values in boldface indicate the proportion of correctly matchedresponse strategies selected for each scenario.

(ally score vs. enemy score vs. dependent score vs. barbarianscore) subjects factor was first conducted, with score nested inscenario. A significant overall interaction emerged, F(9,92) = 5.87, p = .0001, indicating that out-group scores wereaffected by the intergroup manipulations represented in the differ-ent scenarios. To determine whether the image patterns weredistinct for the three negative scenarios, we conducted a separate3 X 4 mixed ANOVA on the image scores with the ally scenarioremoved. Results yielded a significant two-way interaction, F(6,68) = 4.21, p = .0005.

Table 3 reports the mean image component scores by scenario.One-way ANOVAs were conducted on each image score byscenario, using the interaction error term, to determine if the meanscore varied by scenario in the predicted pattern. The ANOVAconducted on the ally image scores revealed a main effect forscenario, F(3, 92) = 4.51, p = .006. Planned comparisons indi-cated that ally scores were greatest for those participants exposedto an ally scenario, compared with those in the enemy condition,F(3, 92) = 6.62, p = .001; the dependent condition, F(3,92) = 13.39, p = .0001; or the barbarian condition, F(3,92) = 11.54,p = .0001.

The ANOVA conducted on the enemy image scores alsoyielded a main effect for scenario, F(3, 92) = 3.68, p = .02.Simple effects tests indicated that those exposed to the enemyscenario had significantly higher scores than those exposed to theally, F(3, 92) = 6.77, p = .001, or the dependent out-group, F(3,92) = 5.20, p = .005, but not the barbarian out-group, F(3,92) = 2.34, p = .10.

The analysis of the dependent image scores revealed a signifi-

cant main effect for scenario, F(3, 92) = 5.66, p = .001, as well,reflecting the finding that dependent scores were greater for thedependent condition than for the ally, F(3, 92) = 7.00, p = .001;enemy, F(3, 92) = 9.93, p = .001; and barbarian conditions, F(3,92) = 5.56, p = .005.

Finally, analyses on the barbarian image scores also yielded asignificant main effect for scenario, F(3, 92) = 3.24, p = .03, withparticipants in the barbarian condition showing significantlyhigher barbarian scores than those in the ally, F(3, 92) = 3.65, p =.025, or enemy conditions, F(3, 92) = 2.02, p = .05, and margin-ally higher than those in the dependent condition, F(3, 92) = 1.91,p = .10.

Composite images. A second test of the relationship betweenintergroup scenario content and out-group images was providedthrough the analysis of participants' selections of overall, summarydescriptions of the out-group at the end of the image questionnaire.A 4 X 4 chi-square test revealed that the predicted associationbetween scenario and image category was significant, x*(9, N =93) = 39.80, p = .0001. A 3 X 4 chi-square was conductedseparately for negative scenarios only to determine whether thethree differed significantly in participants' selection of a compositeimage category, ^ ( 6 , N = 68) = 12.12, p = .05.

Proportions of category choices by scenario condition are pre-sented in Table 4. By examining the table, we found it clear thatparticipants were most likely to select the appropriate ally, enemy,and dependent image categories when given the respective inter-group relationship manipulation. The barbarian scenario, however,produced no coherent pattern of composite image selection. Al-though participants in the barbarian condition were more likely tochoose some barbarian component responses in the multiple-choice items (as indicated by image score analyses), these re-sponses did not cohere as well as components did for the otherthree images, and respondents did not appear to accept the barbar-ian image as a whole.

Correlations Among Measures

To examine the correspondence between the different measuresof image activation, we first computed a Cohen's kappa coefficientbetween response strategy and composite image category identi-fication. Across all participants, response strategy and categorychoice were positively related (K = .33, p = .05). The associationsbetween image component scores with image categorization andresponse strategy were calculated separately using Pearson corre-

Table 3Mean Image Scores by Image Scenario: Experiment 1

Image score


(n

M

2.421.161.000.32

Ally= 25)

SD

1.500.990.850.78

Scenario

Enemy(n = 24)

M

1.462.130.920.50

SD

1.611.231.020.66

Dependentin = 21)

M

1.001.242.150.50

SD

1.151.001.310.69

Barbarianin = 23)

M

1.141.551.221.04

SD

1.321.221.171.11

Note. Means in boldface indicate the average of correctly matched images selected for each scenario.


Table 4Proportion of Image Category Choices as a Function ofScenario: Experiment 1

Category choice


Ally

.84

.08

.08

.00

Enemy

.33

.42

.17

.08

Scenario

Dependent

.29

.14

.52

.05

Barbarian

.13

.39

.30

.18

Note. Values in boldface indicate the proportion of correctly matchedimage categories selected for each scenario.

lation coefficients.2 Ally, enemy, dependent, and barbarian imagecomponent scores strongly corresponded with category choice( r = .52, p = .01; r = .52, p = .01; r = .49, p = .01; and r = .32,p = .01, respectively), indicating that a higher image score wasassociated with greater likelihood of selecting the correspondingimage category. Most importantly, the ally, enemy, dependent, andbarbarian image scores were significantly correlated with responsestrategy (r = .29, p = .01; r = .35, p = .01; r = .25, p = .05; andr = .21, p = .05, respectively). Overall, these significant correla-tions lend support to the functional relationship between behaviorresponses and cognitive representations of the out-group.

Discussion of Experiment 1

Overall, the pattern of results indicates that the manipulatedintergroup relationships in Experiment 1 were effective in elicitingcognitive schemas consistent with the predicted generic out-groupimages. Behaviorally, in all scenarios, with the exception of thedependent condition, the dominant response strategy selection wasthat expected on the basis of the information provided in thescenario about the context of intergroup relationships. At thecognitive level, analyses of image scores suggest that the pattern ofimage coherence was strong overall and that image scores variedsystematically as a function of the content of the scenario pre-sented and the associated behavioral response.

Most importantly, analyses of both response strategies and im-age scores showed evidence of differentiation among the threenegative images. However, these differences were somewhat di-luted by the fact that the more socially desirable positive responsealternatives had higher base rates of selection than did componentsfrom the negative image sets (see Footnote 1); this was also truefor the cooperative behavioral response strategy (see Table 2).Further, the response options associated with the barbarian imagehad an especially low rate of endorsement.

One reason that the socially desirable positive response alterna-tives were selected frequently, even in the negative intergroupconditions, may be that the level of emotional arousal in thisscenario study was fairly low. Although the general scenarioconstructed for this first experiment was intended to be highlyinvolving to students on this campus, it was clearly hypothetical,and level of arousal was not systematically manipulated or con-trolled. Any emotional arousal created was integral to the inter-group situation and varied in unknown ways across individualparticipants and scenarios.

The level of arousal experienced could influence whether thescenario information produced the corresponding behavioral incli-nation. Behaviors such as attack or flight may depend on highlevels of arousal, whereas behaviors involving trust or sympathydo not require such intensity. The perception of threat underlyingthe barbarian image, in particular, may require a high level ofarousal associated with fear. To explore the role of physiologicalarousal more systematically, we designed a second experiment toexamine the effect of incidental arousal on image activation.

Experiment 2

In the second experiment, we manipulated the content of theintergroup scenario and arousal independently. Arousal was ma-nipulated prior to exposure to the content of the scenario so wecould create different levels of incidental affect (Bodenhausen,1993). Incidental affect was expected to influence the activation ofout-group images in two ways. First, in complex social situations,arousal increases selective attention to salient cues and producesgreater reliance on stereotypes (Kim & Baron, 1988). This effectof arousal would be expected to facilitate all images to the sameextent.

A second effect of incidental arousal would depend on excita-tion transfer and misattribution processes (Zillmann, 1971) inter-acting with the content of the scenario. More specifically, thepresence of arousal combined with goal incompatibility and dif-ferential strength should increase the likelihood of experiencingthe perceived threat that is necessary to elicit behaviors associatedwith barbarian and enemy images. This aspect of arousal wouldlead to an interaction between arousal level and scenario content indetermining degree of activation of associated images.

To test these effects, we designed a new scenario that placedparticipants in a hypothetical sales-team situation. Unlike the sce-nario used in Experiment 1, the second scenario did not containany self-relevant content that would elicit involvement or arousalon its own. To create different levels of arousal, we had partici-pants complete one of two incidental arousal-inducing tasks beforereading any scenarios.3 Four versions of the sales-team scenariowere created to produce a 2 (low arousal vs. high arousal) X 4 (allyvs. enemy vs. dependent vs. barbarian intergroup scenario) facto-rial design. Measures similar to those used in Experiment 1 toassess behavioral and cognitive image activation were again usedin Experiment 2.

2 For purposes of these analyses, category and response options wereassigned an ordinal score reflecting their similarity to the most appropriateresponse for the particular image. So, for correlations with the ally image,the cooperation response was scored as 4, appeasement as 3, exploitationas 2, and attack as 1, and the enemy image response scoring was thereverse. For the barbarian image, appeasement was scored as 4, attack as 3,cooperation as 2, and exploitation as 1, and the dependent image scoringwas the reverse.

3 A third arousal condition had been included to allow us to compare theeffects of different types of incidental arousal. This condition was notsuccessful in producing any evidence of physiological arousal, so it wasdropped from the experimental design.


Method

Participants

A total of 63 (41 female and 22 male) introductory psychology studentsat The Ohio State University-Mansfield participated in the experiment tofulfill a course requirement.

Procedure

Individual participants signed up for an investigation of activity and taskperformance. A female experimenter, blind to the hypotheses, greeted andread a description of the study to each participant, informing the participantthat the study would be conducted in two phases. After describing thepossible tasks to be completed in each phase (i.e., reading a short story orriding an exercise bicycle and responding to questionnaires), the experi-menter acquired the participant's consent and then measured the partici-pant's resting blood pressure and heart rate. In phase 1, participants wererandomly assigned to one of the two arousal conditions, and specificinstructions were given to the participant for completing the assigned task.Heart rate was taken every 2 min, and blood pressure and self-reports ofarousal were assessed immediately following completion of the arousaltask. Participants were then given the intergroup scenario and asked to readand imagine being a part of the situation described. They then answeredquestions based on the scenario they read. Following completion of theimage-activation measures, participants were debriefed and thanked fortheir participation.


Construction of intergroup scenarios. A generic intergroup scenariowas developed in which participants imagined being salespersons for acompany that produced baseball caps. Participants read that the companywas divided into two separate sales teams, their own and another, whosegoal was to sell as many caps as possible every year. As an incentive, theCEO of the company recently offered a 5-day trip to Hawaii for membersof the sales team that sells 10,000 more caps by the end of the year. As theleader of one of the sales teams, the participant's goal was to have thein-group team sell enough caps to win the trip. The participant's sales teamwas given some leverage to reach its goal. Specifically, their group was anexperienced, high-prestige sales force that had a strong history of produc-tive selling. The participant's sales group also had a large market size, andthey had already started working on strategies to increase their productivityto achieve the 10,000-cap selling goal. The competing sales team was alsodescribed as very interested in winning the trip.

As in the first experiment, this general scenario was tailored withspecific information to manipulate four patterns of intergroup relations.Information about the relative strength, prestige, and goals of the out-groupwas included in each scenario. The four scenarios generated for thisexperiment are presented in Appendix C.

Physiological arousal manipulation. Prior to reading scenarios, partic-ipants were exposed to one of two arousal conditions, low or high arousal.Both preliminary tasks took approximately 10 min to complete.

1. In the low arousal, or control, condition, minimal arousal was in-duced. Participants read a short story, "The Mark on the Wall" by VirginiaWoolfe (1921/1979). They were told to take their time and to read itthoroughly. Participants' average reading time for this short story was 10min 45 s.

2. In the high arousal condition, participants rode a Schwinn stationarybicycle for 10 min at a minimum of 20 mph (32 kph). The resistance levelon the bike was set at the same level for all participants. This manipulationhas been shown to produce reliable effects on blood pressure, heart rate,and self-reported arousal (cf. Kim & Baron, 1988; Cantor, Zillmann, &Bryant, 1975; Zillmann, Katcher, & Milavsky, 1972).

Arousal measures: Physiological. To ensure the arousal manipulationsworked as anticipated, we assessed heart rate and systolic and diastolicblood pressure. Participants' blood pressure was measured at rest andimmediately following the arousal task, using an Omron blood pressuremonitor (Omron Corporation, Kyoto, Japan), while the participant wasseated. Heart rate was measured using a Labtron digital pulse meter(Graham-Field, Bayshore, New York) attached to the index finger of thenondominant hand. Heart rate measures were taken during a baseline restperiod, every 2 min during the arousal task, and while reading the scenario.

Arousal measures: Self-report. Participants rated, on 5-point scalesranging from 1 {not at all) to 5 (extremely), the extent to which the task wasphysically arousing, stressful, and relaxing. Relaxing scores were reversed,and analyses were conducted on the aggregate of the three questions.

Image activation measures. Measures similar to those used in Exper-iment 1 were used in Experiment 2. The image-related response strategieswere modified to fit the cap-selling scenario. As in the first experiment,participants chose one from among four response strategies that their groupcould use in dealing with the out-group. The four strategies were written toreflect the behavioral orientations associated with each of the out-groupimages. The options provided were as follows:

1. Cooperating with the out-group and combining their resources bysharing their markets with the out-group (cooperation/ally)

2. Using their own market and best offense to actively go after theout-group's market (attack/enemy)

3. Entering the out-group's market and getting control over it to helptheir own in-group reach their quota (exploitation/dependent)

4. Protecting their corner of the market and selling as many caps aspossible, given what they have to work with (appeasement/barbarian)

The same image component questions and responses developed forExperiment 1 were also used in Experiment 2. The categorical measure wasnot included in this experiment.

Results

Arousal Manipulation Checks

Physiological measures. We conducted analyses on difference

scores between baseline and posttask measures of systolic blood

pressure. Analyses revealed the anticipated significant main effect,

F(l, 62) = 39.18, p = .0001. As expected, participants in the

bicycle condition (At = +14.62) had higher blood pressure in-

creases than those in the story condition (M = —5.06).

We computed heart rate difference scores by subtracting partic-

ipants' mean baseline responses from their aggregate heart rate

during the arousal task performance. One-way ANOVAs con-

ducted on heart rate difference scores yielded a significant main

effect for arousal condition, F(l, 62) = 100.07, p = .0001,

indicating that the stationary bicycle induced greater heart rate

increases (At = +51.21) than did the story (At = +.30). Com-

parisons with baseline were also made for heart rate measured

during the first 2 min of reading the scenario and were still

significantly different at that point, F(l, 62) = 56.81, p = .001

(Ms = +29.00 and —1.18 for high and low arousal conditions,

respectively).

Self-reported arousal. Participants' mean ratings of self-

perceived arousal were analyzed with a one-way ANOVA. Results

yielded the expected main effect between the arousal conditions,

F(l, 62) = 56.35, p = .0001, with participants in the exercise

bicycle condition reporting more arousal (At = 3.80) than partic-

ipants who read the story (At = 2.42).


Response Strategies

The frequency scores of participants' response selections wereanalyzed with a logit analysis. A three-way frequency analysis(Response Strategy X Scenario X Arousal Level) was performedto develop a logit model of response selection. Predictors werescenario (ally, enemy, dependent, or barbarian) and arousal level(high or low). A nonhierarchical logit analysis produced a modelwith two two-way associations (Scenario X Response Strategy andArousal X Response Strategy), the three-way association (Scenar-io X Arousal X Response Strategy), and the first-order effect ofthe dependent variable (Response Strategy). The model had anadequate fit between observed and expected frequencies with alikelihood ratio, G2(2) = 7.67, p = .10, and - 2 log x*(2, N =63) = 10.68, p = .001.

The three-way association of response strategy as a joint func-tion of scenario and arousal is presented in Table 5. In general,high arousal produced a closer fit between scenario and responsestrategy selection. The ally, enemy, and barbarian conditions wereclearly differentiated under high arousal. However, participants inthe dependent condition under high arousal tended to select thebarbarian strategy rather than the dependent (exploitation)response.

Looking at each scenario separately, we found the selection ofresponse strategies for the ally and enemy scenarios was notsignificantly affected by arousal: for ally, ^ ( 2 , N = 18) = 0.96,p = .62; for enemy, ^ ( 2 , N = 15) = 4.04, p = .13. For thebarbarian scenario, the likelihood of selecting the barbarian (ap-peasement) response strategy was significantly increased underhigh arousal compared with low arousal, as expected, x2(2, N =15) = 10.38, p = .005. By contrast, selection of the exploitationresponse strategy in association with the dependent scenario wassignificantly greater under low arousal than under high arousal,)f{2, N = 15) = 10.42, p = .005.

Image Scores

As in Experiment 1, we computed image scores by summing thenumber of component attributes of each image type the participant

Table 5Response Strategy as a Function of Scenario andArousal Conditions: Experiment 2

Responsestrategy



Ally

.60

.10

.20

.10

.88

.13

.00

.00

<

Enemy

Low arousal

.25

.38

.00

.38

High arousa

.14

.43

.14

.29

Scenario

Dependent

.13

.00

.63

.25

1

.29

.14

.14

.43

Barbarian

.25

.38

.25

.13

.00

.43

.00

.57

Note. Values in boldface indicate the proportion of correctly matchedresponse strategies selected for each scenario.

selected. To test whether mean image scores varied as a functionof out-group scenario and arousal condition, we conducted a 2(high arousal vs. low arousal) X 4 (ally scenario vs. enemyscenario vs. dependent scenario vs. barbarian scenario) X 4 (allyscore vs. enemy score vs. dependent score vs. barbarian score)mixed ANOVA, with the last factor nested within the other two.The two-way interaction between scenario and image score wassignificant, F(9, 62) = 5.90, p = .0001, qualified by the significantthree-way interaction with arousal, F(9, 62) = 2.85, p = .001,indicating that the image component scores were a joint functionof the intergroup manipulations and arousal (see Table 6). As inExperiment 1, a subanalysis was conducted for the negative sce-narios with the ally scenario removed. The results of a 2 X 3 X 4ANOVA revealed a significant three-way interaction betweenarousal, scenario, and image score, F(6, 44) = 3.03, p = .0001.

We conducted separate Arousal X Scenario ANOVAs on eachimage score. The interaction was not significant for the ally scores,F(3, 62) = 0.28, p = .80; the enemy scores, F(3, 62) = 0.11,/? =.97; or the dependent scores, F(3, 62) = 0.82, p = .50. TheScenario X Arousal interaction was significant for the barbarianscores, F(3, 62) = 2.02, p = .05. Apparently, the interactive effectof arousal was limited to activation of the barbarian image, whichwas greater under high arousal than under low arousal.

Correlations Among Measures

We again computed correlations across conditions to examinethe correspondence between image component scores and re-sponse choices. Collapsing across arousal conditions, we foundthat ally, enemy, dependent, and barbarian image componentscores were significantly correlated with the response strategyselected (r = 36, p = .01; r = .43,/? = .05; r = .27,p = .05; andr = .43, p = .01, respectively).

Discussion of Experiment 2

By separating the cognitive and arousal mechanisms of thegeneric out-group stereotypes examined here, we could study theeffects of incidental arousal on generic images. Under low arousalconditions, the image score results from Experiment 2 essentiallyreplicated the patterns found in Experiment 1. Images were sys-tematically related to the scenario information for the ally, enemy,and dependent conditions, but this was less so for the barbarianimage. The relationships between ally, enemy, and dependentscenarios and corresponding images were not altered under thehigh arousal condition. However, high arousal was a significantfactor in eliciting the barbarian image. Apparently, informationabout having goals incompatible with those of a high power andlow status out-group was not sufficient alone to evoke the barbar-ian image strongly. Some level of arousal was required to inducethe level of defensive fear associated with the barbarian image.The effect of arousal in this experiment, then, matched expecta-tions based on excitation transfer effects interacting with specificinformation content.

As expected from image theory, the activation of specific im-ages correlated with the response orientation elicited by the sce-nario information. In general, the effects of arousal on responsestrategy selection mirrored the effects on image scores. In partic-ular, the barbarian scenario was more effective in eliciting the


Table 6Mean Image Scores by Scenario and Arousal: Experiment 2

Image score



M

2.101.701.000.20

2.631.750.630.00

Ally

SD

1.441.150.890.42

1.681.030.740.00

M

Scenario

Enemy

SD

Low arousala

1.632.500.250.63

]

1.292.710.001.00

1.511.410.460.51

riigh arousal13

1.381.110.000.32

Dependent

M

1.880.772.250.13

1.860.572.000.57

SD

1.800.661.580.39

1.580.531.290.53

Barbarian

M

1.381.001.710.88

0.861.140.862.14

SD

1.760.921.381.71

0.890.691.161.77

Note. Means in boldface indicate the average of correctly matched images selected for each scenario.a The number of participants in each scenario condition was as follows: ally, n = 10; enemy, n = 8; dependent,n = 8; barbarian, n = 8. b The number of participants in each scenario condition was as follows: ally, n = 8;enemy, n = 7; dependent, n = 7; barbarian, n = 1.

appeasement response strategy under high arousal compared withlow arousal, and the same was true for image scores. The oneexception to this pattern was the response strategy selection for thedependent scenario. The exploitation strategy was not systemati-cally selected in the high arousal condition even though it was byfar the response of choice under low arousal. Nonetheless, thedependent image activation was strong for the dependent scenarioregardless of arousal. Thus, the response strategy results for thedependent scenario in the high arousal condition are something ofan anomaly.

The results from these first two experiments effectively dem-onstrate that rather richly detailed cognitive representations ofout-groups can be generated from relatively minimal informa-tion about the structural relationships between in-groups andout-groups. Given the forced-choice measures used in thesestudies, however, we cannot say that these images were spon-taneously activated by the intergroup context. Components ofthe images were provided by the experimenter for endorsementrather than freely generated. However, we can conclude fromthis methodology that specific intergroup situations lead par-ticipants to be ready to believe particular allegations aboutout-group characteristics and to make attributions about inten-tions and motivations. Further, the characterizations of theout-group that were endorsed were consistent with the preferredbehavioral response toward that out-group, implicating thefunctional role that such images play in explaining and justify-ing intergroup behavior on the part of the in-group. We areaware, however, that the evidence for generic out-group imagesis limited without examining the spontaneous activation of thestereotypes. To further substantiate our proposed generic ste-reotypes, we conducted a third experiment that measured spon-taneous endorsement of the stereotypes examined in Experi-ments 1 and 2.

Experiment 3

An implicit measure of stereotype activation was designed andused to assess participants' activation of the four images measuredin the preceding experiments. The same campus intergroup sce-narios that were used in Experiment 1 were given to participants inthe third experiment. After reading one of the four scenarios,participants completed what they believed was a questionnaire fora separate study involving open-ended responses to 19 sentences.This task provided the implicit measure of image activation.

Method

Participants

Ninety-four (53 female and 41 male) undergraduate students from TheOhio State University-Mansfield participated in this study as partial ful-fillment for a requirement in their introductory psychology course.

Procedure

As in Experiment 1, participants believed that the study was designed toassess person perception and cognition. Individuals were run in groups ofapproximately 4, and each participant was randomly assigned one of thefour intergroup relationship scenarios as the materials were distributed.Participants were told that they were to read a hypothetical scenario,imagine being in the scenario, and think about how they would respond tothe other group in the scenario. Participants were also asked to imaginebeing the leader of their student group and to think about how they wouldjustify their response to the other members of their in-group, who werethose other participants being run in the same session. To enhance the levelof involvement and potential arousal further, participants expected thatthere would be a discussion later in the session during which each wouldexplain his or her responses to the scenario to other group members.

After all participants finished reading the scenario, the experimenterexplained that another professor had requested time during this experimen-tal session for participants to complete a brief questionnaire on impression

ALEXANDER. BREWER. AND HERRMANN

formation. They were further told that to avoid interfering with laterdiscussion, the questionnaire would be completed at this point in thesession, prior to the group discussion. Participants were then given thesentence completion measure. After completing this task, participantsresponded to manipulation checks and the response selection items used inExperiment 1. Participants were then told they would not have the groupdiscussion after all; they were debriefed and then excused.


The same four scenarios used in Experiment 1 were used in Experi-ment 3 (see Appendix A).

Implicit image activation measure. To assess whether the intergroupscenarios had primed the respective images, we devised an indirect measure ofactivation.4 To construct this measure, we wrote 19 ambiguous sentence stems.Each sentence described a social interaction of some kind involving thebehavior of one actor toward some other person or persons.5 Participants wereasked to complete each sentence by providing a brief reason that describedwhy the main actor behaved the way he or she did. They were asked to writethe first description that came to mind for each sentence.

The sentences were sufficiently ambiguous as to the motive or intentionof the actor that respondents had to project an explanation for the behavior.Each sentence allowed for at least two different interpretations, dependingon what assumptions were made about the actor's character. More specif-ically, character attributions could have been generated that correspondedto the stereotype content associated with one or more of the generic images.For example, the sentence "Mike ran up to a resident in his dorm andtackled him to the floor because . . . " could have generated an attributionthat Mike was crude and aggressive (barbarian image), that Mike and hisdormmate were engaged in a physical fight (enemy image), that Mike wasacting immature and childish (dependent), or that he was simply beingfriendly and playful (ally image). Not all of the 19 sentences could havegenerated logical responses corresponding to each of the four images, butevery sentence had at least two possible negative interpretations as well aseither positive or neutral explanations. Collectively, the set of 19 sentencesprovided equal opportunity for all of the images to be expressed.

Coding of sentence completions. Two judges, blind to the hypothesesand conditions, coded respondents' explanations for each of the sentences.We developed coding instructions to specify categories of characterolog-ical responses that were deemed to be representative of the ally, enemy,dependent, and barbarian images. Coders were trained to evaluate theentire description generated for each sentence and to place it in one andonly one of the response categories provided.

Four of the coding categories were defined by motivational and disposi-tional characteristics uniquely associated with the four images under study. Toavoid any effects of category labels, we arranged for the response categories tobe identified by a symbol rather than a category name.6 Coders were instructedto classify a response as N; if it conveyed a character judgment of the actor ascrude, uncontrolled, ruthless, aggressive, irrational, destructive, or thought-lessly careless. The N2 category was to be used for responses that implied acharacter assessment consisting of competitive, controlled but hostile, calcu-lating, or deceitful traits. The N3 category was for descriptions implying theactor was naive, dependent, needy, indecisive, or childlike. Category P wasused for positive descriptors that conveyed the idea that the actor was coop-erative, trustworthy, dependable, considerate, helpful, friendly, or morallyprincipled. Finally, a neutral category (X) was used to classify explanationsthat had no characterological importance (such as situational explanations orbenign attributions).

Ratings of all sentences were done by both judges independently, andtheir codings were compared for interjudge reliability. The codings provedto be reasonably consistent (KS = .74, .71, .76, .70, and .69, ps = .01, forally, enemy, dependent, barbarian, and neutral descriptions, respectively).Cases in which the judges disagreed were examined and reconciled so thatonly one code was assigned to every sentence description. We computed

four image scores for each respondent by summing the number of ally,enemy, barbarian, and dependent descriptors given by the respondentacross the 19 sentences.7

Results

Responses to the manipulation check and the response strategymeasures replicated the findings from Experiment 1, indicatingthat the scenarios were interpreted as intended.

We analyzed image scores from the implicit measure in a 4 (allyscenario vs. enemy scenario vs. dependent scenario vs. barbarianscenario) X 4 (ally score vs. enemy score vs. dependent score vs.barbarian score) ANOVA, with score nested in scenario. A signif-icant overall interaction emerged, F(9, 93) = 19.58, p = .0001,indicating that respondents' sentence completions were systemat-ically affected by the intergroup manipulations represented in thedifferent scenarios. We conducted a significant 3 X 4 mixedANOVA with the ally scenario removed, F(6, 73) = 19.26, p =.0001, and confirmed that the three negative scenarios were sig-nificantly differentiated. The mean implicit image scores by sce-nario are presented in Table 7.

We conducted one-way ANOVAs on each Image Score XScenario using the omnibus interaction error term to determine ifthe mean score varied by scenario in the predicted pattern. TheANOVA conducted on the ally image scores revealed a maineffect for scenario, F(3,93) = 9.60, p = .0001. Simple effects testsindicated that ally scores were greatest for those participantsexposed to an ally scenario, compared with those in the enemycondition, F(3, 93) = 21.61, p = .0001; the dependent condition,F(3, 93) = 24.72, p = .0001; or the barbarian condition, F(3,93) = 25.85, p = .0001.

The ANOVA conducted on the enemy image scores also yieldeda main effect for scenario, F(3, 93) = 17.97, p = .0001. Simpleeffects tests indicated that those exposed to the enemy scenario hadsignificantly higher scores than those exposed to the ally, F(3,93) = 42.82, p = .0001; dependent, F(3, 93) = 27.55, p = .0001;and barbarian scenarios, F(3, 93) = 46.42, p = .0001.

The analysis of the dependent image scores revealed a signifi-cant main effect for scenario, F(3, 93) = 13.68, p = .0001, as well,

4 The test of priming we used here was a conservative one because thecontent of the priming stimuli (intergroup scenarios) and the content of theimplicit measures were not commensurate. Experiments reported by Abel-son, Dasgupta, Park, and Banaji (1998) indicate that priming effects areweaker when the prime and the judgment task are not matched with respectto group versus individual level of representation. Nonetheless, we chose tohave an implicit measure based on forming impressions of individualpersons to avoid any likely demand characteristics or suspicion about therelationship between the two tasks.

5 Sample sentences used were, "Carla makes dinner for her best friend'sboyfriend when her friend is out of town because . . . ," "Jeff called hisparents from college because . . . ," "Spence bought a gun at the local pawnshop because . . . "

6 N l corresponded to the barbarian category, N2 to the enemy category,and N3 to the dependent category. P was used to refer to the ally category,and X was used for the neutral category.

7 Because both positive and neutral responses implied putting the bestpossible construction on the actor's behavior, neutral ratings were aggre-gated with ratings of positive responses indicative of the ally image.Therefore, respondents' ally scores on this measure include neutral re-sponses.


Table 7Mean Implicit Image Activation Scores by Scenario: Experiment 3

Image score


(n

M

10.812.384.291.52

Ally= 21)

SD

3.221.771.681.40

Scenario

EnemyO = 26)

M

7.317.313.341.77

SD

2.923.452.153.02

Dependent(n = 24)

M

7.003.507.171.33

SD

2.592.652.761.37

Barbarian{n = 23)

M

6.872.303.965.87

SD

2.582.672.273.18

Note. Means in boldface indicate the average matching images generated for each scenario.

reflecting the finding that dependent scores were greater for thedependent condition than for the ally, F(3, 93) = 13.88,p = .0001,enemy, F(3, 93) = 27.54, p = .0001, and barbarian conditions,F(3, 93) = 18.16, p = .0001.

Finally, analyses on the barbarian image scores also yielded asignificant main effect for scenario, F(3, 93) = 18.36, p = .0001,with participants in the barbarian condition showing significantlyhigher barbarian scores than those in the ally, F(3, 93) = 31.50,p = .0001; enemy, F(3, 93) = 31.13, p = .0001; and dependentconditions, F(3, 93) = 35.40, p = .0001.

In sum, results from this implicit measure of spontaneous imageactivation proved sensitive to the implications of the intergroupscenarios in all cases. Despite the fact that the differences betweenresponse codings classified as enemy or barbarian were quitesubtle, the differentiation between enemy and barbarian conditionswas highly significant. If anything, these results were even stron-ger than when image activation was assessed with responsesprovided by the experimenters. These findings provide strongevidence that the predicted images are spontaneously generatedwhen participants are asked to think about how they would re-spond to specific intergroup situations.

General Discussion

The results of all three experiments strongly support a functionaltheory of stereotype formation. Participants generating mentalrepresentations of an out-group were responsive to some basicstructural characteristics of the given intergroup context in a man-ner consistent with the self-justification hypotheses underlyingimage theory. It is also important to note that the components ofthe group images studied here involve beliefs about the motiva-tions, intentions, and internal structure of a group qua group. Thisis consistent with the idea that collectives can be represented asactive entities (e.g., Abelson et al., 1998) and reflects the origin ofimage theory in the study of international relations, where nation-states are treated as actors. It is not difficult to imagine, however,that representations of the traits and dispositions of individualgroup members could also be derived from the image of the groupas a whole. Thus, the content of social stereotypes may reflect theintergroup context in which they are initially formed.

The findings from these studies are particularly important indemonstrating systematic differentiation among negative imagesof the out-group. Although three of the four intergroup scenarios

used in these experiments were expected to induce negative atti-tudes and evaluations of the out-group, it is clear that the associ-ated representations were not indiscriminately negative but differ-entiated as a function of out-group power and status. These resultsreinforce the suggestion that we ought to pay more attention toprejudice as a product of social emotions and to the extent to whichstereotypes reflect the emotions that are evoked in particularintergroup situations (E. R. Smith, 1993; Vanman & Miller, 1993).Just as the different negative emotions of fear, disgust, and angergive rise to different action tendencies, they also give rise todifferent stereotypic representations of the out-group that evokethat particular emotional response.

The primary purpose of the research reported here was todemonstrate that the theory of images developed in the context ofinternational relations can be generalized to other intergroup con-texts as well. Further, we wanted to test the idea that these imageshave the properties of generic schemas that can be activated by afew relational cues—an idea that has never before been testedexperimentally. For these purposes, we focused on four specificimages among the many that have been identified in the interna-tional relations literature. These particular four images were se-lected to represent both symmetric (ally and enemy) and asym-metric (dependent and barbarian) intergroup relationships. Further,these images represent pairs of intergroup contexts in which onlyone relational dimension is changed (i.e., the ally and enemyrelationships are the same except for the goal compatibility dimen-sion; the barbarian and dependent situations vary only on therelative strength dimension). In most cases, changing only one cueresulted in significant differences in image scores.

The asymmetric relationships that give rise to the dependent andbarbarian images have complementary images (imperialist and de-generate) that were not studied here but would be of interest in theirown right. Further understanding of these generic images could makesense of the divergent stereotypes that members of dominant andminority groups in a particular society hold of each other (e.g., Judd,Park, Ryan, Brauer, & Kraus, 1995). Whether White Americansperceive African Americans in terms of the dependent or the barbar-ian image would be expected to reflect the degree of perceived threatfrom the out-group, and perceptions of an out-group as enemy orimperialist reflect beliefs about relative status and power. A functionalperspective on intergroup stereotypes can both elucidate the implicit


relationships that underlie the content of group beliefs and suggest theconditions under which stereotypes can be changed.

References

Abelson, R., Dasgupta. N., Park, J., & Banaji, M. (1998). Perceptions ofthe collective other. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2,243-250.

Bodenhausen, G. V. (1993). Emotions, arousal, and stereotypic judgments:A heuristic model of affect and stereotyping. In D. M. Mackie & D. L.Hamilton (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and stereotyping: Interactive pro-cesses in group perception (pp. 13-37). San Diego, CA: AcademicPress.

Boulding, K. (1956). The image. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Boulding, K. (1959). National images and international systems. Journal of

Conflict Resolution, 3, 120-131.Bouris, R. Y., Turner, J. C, & Gagnon, A. (1997). Interdependence, social

identity, and discrimination. In R. Spears, P. Oakes, N. Ellemers, & S. A.Haslam (Eds.), The social psychology of stereotyping and group life (pp.273-295). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1961). The mirror image in Soviet-American rela-tions: A social psychologist's report. Journal of Social Issues, 17, 45-56.

Campbell, D. T. (1967). Stereotypes and the perception of out-groupdifferences. American Psychologist, 22, 812-829.

Cantor, J. R., Zillmann, D., & Bryant, J. (1975). Enhancement of experi-enced sexual arousal in response to erotic stimuli through misattributionof unrelated residual excitation. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 35, 69-75.

Cottam, M. L. (1986). Foreign policy decision making: The influence ofcognition. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Cottam, M. L. (1994). Images and intervention: U.S. policies in LatinAmerica. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Cottam, R. (1977). Foreign policy motivation: A general theory and a casestudy. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-roleinterpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Fiske, S. T. (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In D. T.Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of socialpsychology. (Vol. 2, 4th ed., pp. 357-411). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Fiske, S. T., Xu, J., Cuddy, A., & Glick, P. (in press). Respect versusliking: Status and interdependence underlie ambivalent stereotypes.Journal of Social Issues.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York:Wiley.

Herrmann, R. K. (1985). Perceptions and behavior in Soviet foreign policy.Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Herrmann, R. K., & Fischerkeller, M. (1995). Beyond the enemy imageand spiral model: Cognitive-strategic research after the cold war. Inter-national Organization, 49, 415-450.

Herrmann, R. K., Voss, J., Schooler, T., & Ciarrochi, J. (1997). Images ininternational relations: An experimental test of cognitive schemata.International Studies Quarterly, 41, 403-433.

Holsti, O. (1967). Cognitive dynamics and images of the enemy. In D.Finley, O. Holsti, & R. Fagen (Eds.), Enemies in politics (pp. 25-96).Chicago: Rand McNally.

Insko, C. A., & Schopler, J. (1987). Categorization, competition, and collec-tivity. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Group processes: Review of personality andsocial psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 213-251). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Jervis, R. (1976). Perception and misperception in international politics.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Jervis, R., & Snyder, J. (1991). Dominoes and bandwagons: Strategicbeliefs and great power competition in the Eurasian rimland. Oxford.UK: Oxford University Press.

Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal ofSocial Psychology, 33, 1-27.

Judd, C. M., Park, B., Ryan, C. S., Brauer. M., & Kraus, S. (1995).Stereotypes and ethnocentrism: Diverging interethnic perceptions ofAfrican American and White American youth. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 69, 460-481.

Kim, H. S., & Baron. R. S. (1988). Exercise and the illusory correlation:Does arousal heighten stereotypic processing? Journal of ExperimentalSocial Psychology, 24, 366-380.

Osgood, C. (1962). An alternative to war or surrender. Urbana: Universityof Illinois Press.

Sande, G. N., Goethals, G. R., Ferrari, L., & Worth, L. T. (1989). Value-guided attributions: Maintaining the moral self-image and the diabolicalenemy-image. Journal of Social Issues, 45, 91-118.

Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W.(1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave exper-iment. Norman: University of Oklahoma, Institute of Intergroup Rela-tions.

Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (1953). Groups in harmony and tension: Anintegration of studies on intergroup relations. New York: Harper.

Shimko, K. (1991). Images and arms control: Perceptions of the SovietUnion in the Reagan administration. Ann Arbor: University of MichiganPress.

Silverstein, B. (1989). Enemy images: The psychology of U.S. attitudesand cognition regarding the Soviet Union. American Psychologist, 44,903-913.

Smith, E. R. (1993). Social identity and social emotions: Toward newconceptualizations of prejudice. In D. M. Mackie & D. L. Hamilton(Eds.), Affect, cognition, and stereotyping: Interactive processes ingroup perception (pp. 297-325). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Smith, M. B., Bruner, J. S., & White, R. W. (1956). Opinions andpersonality. New York: Wiley.

Stuart, D., & Starr, H. (1982). Inherent bad faith reconsidered: Dulles,Kennedy, and Kissinger. Political Psychology. 3, 1-33.

Tajfel, H. (1981). Social stereotypes and social groups. In J. C. Turner &H. Giles (Eds.), Intergroup behavior (pp. 144-162). Oxford, UK: BasilBlackwell.

Vanman, E. J., & Miller, N. (1993). Applications of emotion theory andresearch to stereotyping and intergroup relations. In D. M. Mackie & D. L.Hamilton (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and stereotyping: Interactive processesin group perception (pp. 213-238). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

White, R. K. (1965). Images in the context of international conflict. InH. C. Kelman (Ed.), International behavior: A social-psychologicalanalysis (pp. 236-276). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

White, R. K. (1968). Nobody wanted war: Misperception in Vietnam andother wars. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Woolfe, V. (1979). The mark on the wall. In M. Abrams (Ed.), Nortonanthology of English literature (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 2025-2031). NewYork: Norton. (Original work published 1921)

Zillmann, D. (1971). Excitation transfer in communication-mediated aggres-sive behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 419-434.

Zillmann, D., Katcher, A. H., & Milavsky, B. (1972). Excitation transferfrom physical exercise to subsequent aggressive behavior. Journal ofExperimental Social Psychology, 8, 247-259.


-gm

"S

so

Q

c<DOH

<O

p

Sic

Hsiil:

; ~ "S 8 CJ ^ i

• ; ; l lOJ T3 CJ

•== o

*""" D. S ,_,

1 5 1 1 8• •£ S ° £ • • £ 5 = 3

- D o •« u '^ o •? o

§ S S S

* ! E o

lipo '3 a &

oc

Qco

5 5

z;GQJtoo

Ho

ard

o

o

lou

"re

litic

o

4)CJ

han

CJ

CJ

•1

V3

noi

4>

re

ere

H

rej =

o

oab

o

wn.

o.n

<u_ c

co

-2 E

w O •£ M 0>4) C ^j _, c«

, 73 U t

tL 3 ~ £ §4> >. ^O W "£

oOH

O

rces

ers

mem

bso

mai

nve

obt

cc

and

1

55 g c «a 5 « -

s as «* = "s "I

tillo re o P,4) .y " 53

t« re 4)CD - aK= 4J

o ^ uCJ ^-. >-.

4>

§ g » l. 3 re en

^ re "i

a | s i

ao S o - S

^ 7 WJo "3 o«> u — .

o u

>> 3

2 S

C o

3 -a

o

kir

wor

S

1

«•o

s0 1

oo-a

o

the

o

1

or'

1

bac

._

-yea

o00

3A31

ichi

&

o

o

ours

wot

are

CL3O

ut-g

re

re«i

egre

e

•a

goa

this

ieve

iac

h

g a.

2 '- vin

o g a3am

i

oCJa)

:ial

C4)

moi

>3

S3:

SO

U!

13

u

stat

00

col

tyt

G

£oCJ

the

re-o4)oa

pus

£C3

ale

ion

reg:

W)

3O>-,

_ r

8CJw5

CO

If t

l

Cre

c

o

"2CO

3

n ,

reQ

ege

oil

cal

1

unit

S

3

:hat

3O

Dd

>nly

i .

re

O

-a4)

?J 61. 3 (Du S tS S

o j W ) c 3 i - ' O j 4 > a j c / ; C-is -Q •— aj •*—• ^* OJ o*3 4J £ * O ' : - _ c ^ o o

S *- 3 O O 4J ^ 4) 4>

3 -S •- o"J ^ "2 1? '

E -S 2 S 4 < 8

™ 3 <°

o

3O

4J

sreO H

£ooreoD

UIO

<D

CD

ourc

! "

c3

reJZ

CJre

1reCD&04)

coll

>\

'2£go

op OJ - '3 ^

a S— 5 «rt 0> CO ^

J 3 J 3 <U ^

o^ 3

5 <S <H c

— - *^ o

O s —

•3 o a

1 ^

11

a 3

I °


Appendix B

Components of Each Out-Group Image

Ally

The group values cooperative solutions to problems and tries to avoidconflict.

The group will not exploit our trust in them but instead reciprocate andcontribute their fair share.

The group is motivated by legitimate and reasonable concerns andaspirations.

Members in the group like their leaders because they think of them as noblepeople.

The group has an effective democratic decision-making structure.

Enemy

The group's objectives are self-centered and harmful to others.The group would take advantage of any efforts on our part to cooperate,

and they would even try to exploit us.The group is extremely competitive and wants to dominate but will play by

the rules.Most people in the group don't question their leaders, not because they like

them, but because they assume they are strong and intelligent.The group has a strict, well-organized authority structure for decision

makin?.

Dependent

In the other group, people who are interested in the group's welfare, asopposed to interested in only their own personal gain, will cooperatewith our group.

People in the group are quite naive; they mean well but need guidance andleadership from outside their group.

Most people in the group want to have things better for the group, but theylack discipline and are not likely to work very hard.

Moderate and responsible leaders in the group are struggling to prevailover potential radical leaders in the group.

Those making decisions for the group are weak and inefficient.

Barbarian

The group enjoys getting its way even if it spoils things for others.The group takes whatever it wants from other groups.The group is crude, unsophisticated, and willing to cheat to get its way.The leaders of the group are ruthless and stay in power only as long as they

are the biggest and the strongest.There is no clear decision-making structure within the group, so the leaders

can get away with anything they want.


u•3c

C

Ia.xffl

o

3

O

0>Pi

2

3a

&

00CU

> . , . H o i

S " 3 =^"g |g | § ,5 g » o

» « £ u 5 3 s

£ ra u- S O "S Q,03 O ° ^ rt £ 3

J 8 £ u u t g

"5 o c« •- o

•= "c •" 1

si l l0)

1 S1 i

Iflif! JS >> ~ O! - _ C —

u JS * cu

3 HI

*'C *re* • " CO

! » > N U

CU 2

> w CQ U

I § I a

c

re

cu

reCO

C

team

n*

j _

co<u

re

1?H

S

r te

a

3

s as

yo

8

sour

caO

CO

4)

C9

and

ac«CU

(D00

t.re

CU

cre

> ,

xi

on, t

In a

ddi

arke

£

.a

oreao

:ary

,if

nece

;ar

ke

a

o

it:pe

t

Q

rong

ey a

re

J:

«T

Ere

s S "2 " >;

« a JS E

oo£ S ^ =• 2 g , » . 2 :

« s > « «1 «-s 1 gA w _ -f- !:t i . re y ^* oo

S ^ 2 " u^ <u ,43 x ; c

8 « §• w 'Z •

Si a

o E o o03

S

65b

111 I

o o= s« Mo S o

7 ) 1 « :ro

u

00

3O

1o

0)o<D

peo

les

re

(U0U9JJ

inex

pe:

ige

"S

exXJ

1

have

a:

o

oc_o

roup

your

gi

npo

a.

o>,

S

stro

ng

p ar

e

3200

"re- a

•go00re

oo

rong

:

re

Eo

the

c

II SiO CO *- - n^ —I <u re1 g a.E

oO

.£ P •£ e g

S : 3 o S •« ,

« S « £ •

U 00

i S S d !

•S< a. I

P •§ jaS -5 -S 2

o 3o a

o l• - cu.S -

g '^ > ure ** ^ 3oj U . 2 efl- > 4J X)<D H ^ 2

"3 8 I t

— ra

,S • -

1 1 1 .sVH § 3 §" S o 1 "•S o c oS §-8 =§ £ • § !

s a g s00 cu 00 2:

3 O 3 S

.5 -S 3 2 8 UJ ^ ^^ ^^

.•2 H

"S S E |S O ca «

ja i lre _-« o - re

fillw e c - '

Jill

8 ti

re *

•S ^

E ^

>^:= _ = o «

3 3 3 _2 ?i O

rtlll.£. " S" u

' S S ? 5' 5 O— .*Z Q, £,

^ _g =O — £

1 <y ODC 4J '

00 00ON ONON ON

gCO

CD

Q

•8oCD

0>

1CJ

uQ

1s.uo

alexander, brewer & herrmann, 1999.pdf

Documents