Abstract
This experiment investigated the differential effects of dispositional (gender) and situational (armband) group membership on in-group favoritism. Subjects met a confederate either similar or dissimilar in disposition and/or situation in an interpersonal setting. The proximity between the subject and the confederate, as well as the subject’s memory about the confederate, were the dependent measures. In addition, the ecological validity of studies that employ hypothetical situations in their methodology was examined. The results indicated that similarity of both disposition and situation resulted in the highest levels of favoritism. Memberships based on disposition, as compared with situation, resulted in greater favoritism. The results also demonstrated the need for ecological validity in research, as significant differences were found between actual and hypothetical settings.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Allen, V., & Wilder, D. A. (1975). Categorization, belief similarity, and intergroup discrimination. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 32, 971–977.
Aronson, E., Brewer, M., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1985). Experimentation in social psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 441–486). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Becker, F. D., Gield, B., & Froggatt, C. C. (1983). Seating position and impression formation in an office setting. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 253–261.
Berger, C. R., Gardner, R. R., Parks, M. R., Schulman, L., & Miller, G. R. (1976). Interpersonal epistemology and interpersonal communication. In G. R. Miller (Ed.), Explorations in interpersonal communication (pp. 149–171). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Gerald, H. B., & Hoyt, M. F. (1974). Distinctiveness of social categorization and attitudes toward in-group members. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 29, 836–842.
Gruneberg, M. M., Morris, P. E., & Sykes, R. N. (1991). The obituary on everyday memory and its practical applications is premature. American Psychologist, 46, 74–76.
Hare, A. P. (1962). Handbook of small group research. Glencoe, NY: Free Press.
Hayduk, L. A. (1983). Personal space: Where we now stand. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 293–335.
Howard, J. W., & Rothbart, M. (1980). Social categorization and memory for in-group and out-group behaviors. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 38, 301–310.
Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and reality. San Francisco: Freeman.
Noffsinger, E. B., Pellegrini, R. J., & Burnell, G. M. (1983). The effect of associated persons upon the formation and modifiability of first impressions. Journal of Social Psychology, 120, 183–195.
Piliavin, J. A., Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Clark, R. D.,III (1981). Emergency intervention. NewYork: Academic Press.
Rosenfeld, H. M. (1965). Effect of an approval-seeking induction on interpersonal proximity. Psychological Reports, 17, 120–122.
Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attributional process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 173–220). New York: Academic Press.
Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149–178.
Yener, B. A. (1982). The influence of color on attraction and impression formation. Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 1809B.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
The authors wish to thank Loren D. Tompkins and William E. Thompson for their valuable input during the execution of this research.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wann, D.L., Weaver, K.A. & Davis, S.F. The effects of disposition, situation, and setting on in-group favoritism. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 30, 268–270 (1992). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03330461
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03330461