are they really out to get us? examining interpersonal perceptions in an intergroup context
TRANSCRIPT
Are they really out to get us?
Examining Interpersonal Perceptions in an Intergroup
Context
Social Perceptions
Self-perception:Does Mr. Smoker think he
is smart?
Other perception:Is Mr. Smoker smart?
Metaperception: Does Dr. Nonsmoker think
that I am smart?
Usually predicted by self perception
Background Social Perceptions
What forms them? Are they accurate?
Intergroup perceptions Social identity differences
Why are intergroup perceptions special? In-group & out-group bias Social stigma Sources in perceptions
Who cares?
Mr. Smoker’s Metaperception
Dr. Nonsmoker’s Perception
?
Why SRM? Multiple sources in perceptions
Social context
Perceptions not independent Sources function at dyad and group level
Multiple Information Levels
Target
A B C D
Perceiver
A X X X
B X X X
C X X X
D X X X
Multiple Sources
Perceiver
Target
Relationship
Error
Social Category, Interpersonal Perception, & Interpersonal
Accuracy
Santuzzi (2007)
Smoking Stigma Stigma = negative evaluation
Identified by behavior
Relatively concealable
No history … yet
Research QuestionsDo smokers think nonsmokers see them
differently?
Do nonsmokers actually see smokers differently?
Are smokers accurate?
Social Category & SRM Smokers & Nonsmokers
4-person groups (g = 24) 3 group compositions Zero-acquaintance
Self-perception 9 evaluative adjectives 5-point response scale
10-minute interactions Evaluation & metaperception Round-robin
Social Interaction Structure
ADCBA
DCB
In-group Perceptions Out-group Perceptions
Data Structure
Target
A B C D
Perceiver
A Y Y Y
B X Y Y
C X X Y
D X X X
Target
A B C D
Perceiver
A - Y Y
B - Y Y
C X X -
D X X -
Asymmetric BlockRound-Robin
What I expected to see Perceiver and relationship variance
Evaluative ratings Zero-acquaintance
In-group v. out-group differences Biased perceptions & metaperceptions
Stigma is different
Smoking Attitudes
-0.44
-1.46
-2.9
-2.4
-1.9
-1.4
-0.9
-0.4
0.1
0.6
1.1
1.6Sm
okin
g A
ttit
ude
Smokers Nonsmokers
Variance Partitioning: In-group Perceptions
Nonsmokers Smokers
Perceiver Target Relationship Perceiver Target Relationship
Evaluation .18*(.16)
.02(.04)
.06*(.06)
.13*(.07)
.07(.10)
.06*(.05)
Metaperception
.17*(.10)
.00(.02)
.02(.03)
.16*(.14)
.01(.04)
.04*(.02)
Variance Partitioning: Out-group Perceptions
Mixed
Nonsmokers Smokers
Perceiver Target Relationship Perceiver Target Relationship
Evaluation .30*(.28)
.08(.25)
.11*(.19)
.16*(.49)
.03(.23)
.10*(.16)
Metaperception .28*(.18)
.05(.09)
.04(.09)
.06(.34)
.03(.17)
.04(.09)
Meta-Accuracy: Sans SRM
Smokers Nonsmokers
Smokers .95* .28
Nonsmokers .87* .86*
TARGET EVALUATION
PE
RC
EIV
ER
M
ETA
PE
RC
ETIO
N
Meta-Accuracy Correlations
egbaY
egbaY
SxNNSMetaSmo
NxSSNEvalNonsmo
ker_
ker_
Do Smokers know how Nonsmokers actually view them?
a = perceiver effect
b = target effect
g = relationship effect
e = error
Meta-Accuracy Correlations: Generalized Accuracy
Smokers Nonsmokers
Smokers .18 -.83
Nonsmokers 1.00 .44
TARGET EVALUATION
PE
RC
EIV
ER
M
ETA
PE
RC
EPTIO
N
Conclusions Source patterns
Individual & relationship sources in evaluation Differences in metaperception (smokers)
Bias or Accuracy? Smokers less accurate ONLY in mixed groups
Why different pattern? Identity differences motivate? Concern directed toward me? Did self-perception do it?
Design Considerations Population base rate
Fewer (self-identified) smokers
Order of interactions
Shared v. unshared contexts
Inferences from mixed contexts Compare to homogeneous situations
Thanks!Janet Ruscher
Ron LandisEd O’Neal
David KennyNyla Branscombe
Reviewer 1Reviewer 2& the APA