排斥者的耻辱印记:社会排斥增加了行为者与观察者之间的差异

IF 2.8 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL European Journal of Social Psychology Pub Date : 2024-01-30 DOI:10.1002/ejsp.3030
Elianne A. Albath, Elena Stephan, Rainer Greifeneder
{"title":"排斥者的耻辱印记:社会排斥增加了行为者与观察者之间的差异","authors":"Elianne A. Albath,&nbsp;Elena Stephan,&nbsp;Rainer Greifeneder","doi":"10.1002/ejsp.3030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The actor–observer difference describes the tendency to explain own actions with variable and external aspects, but others’ actions with stable and internal characteristics. We test two opposing predictions of how changes in attribution vary as a function of being ignored and excluded. On the one hand, individuals may cope by psychologically distancing themselves from sources of exclusion, potentially producing stable and internal representations of them. On the other hand, excluded individuals are particularly sensitive to social cues, which may foster a more variable and externally motivated representation of sources’ behaviours. Consistent with the first prediction, excluded (vs. included) individuals (total <i>N</i> = 1,052 in four studies) perceived causes for negative hypothetical outcomes as more internal and, to a somewhat lesser extent, more stable for others involved in the interaction. The use of different methodological approaches across studies attests to this conclusion's robustness and addresses alternative explanations.</p>","PeriodicalId":48377,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Social Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ostracizers’ mark of disgrace: Social exclusion increases the actor–observer difference\",\"authors\":\"Elianne A. Albath,&nbsp;Elena Stephan,&nbsp;Rainer Greifeneder\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ejsp.3030\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The actor–observer difference describes the tendency to explain own actions with variable and external aspects, but others’ actions with stable and internal characteristics. We test two opposing predictions of how changes in attribution vary as a function of being ignored and excluded. On the one hand, individuals may cope by psychologically distancing themselves from sources of exclusion, potentially producing stable and internal representations of them. On the other hand, excluded individuals are particularly sensitive to social cues, which may foster a more variable and externally motivated representation of sources’ behaviours. Consistent with the first prediction, excluded (vs. included) individuals (total <i>N</i> = 1,052 in four studies) perceived causes for negative hypothetical outcomes as more internal and, to a somewhat lesser extent, more stable for others involved in the interaction. The use of different methodological approaches across studies attests to this conclusion's robustness and addresses alternative explanations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48377,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Social Psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Social Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.3030\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.3030","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

行为者与观察者之间的差异描述了一种倾向,即行为者倾向于用可变的外部因素来解释自己的行为,而用稳定的内部特征来解释他人的行为。对于归因的变化如何随被忽视和被排斥而变化,我们检验了两种截然相反的预测。一方面,个体可能会通过在心理上拉开与排斥源的距离来应对,从而对排斥源产生稳定的内在表征。另一方面,被排斥的个体对社会线索特别敏感,这可能会促使他们对排斥源的行为产生更多变和外部动机的表征。与第一种预测相一致的是,被排除(与被纳入)的个体(四项研究中的总人数=1,052)认为负面假设结果的原因更多是内部原因,其次是参与互动的其他人的原因更稳定。不同研究采用不同的方法证明了这一结论的稳健性,并解决了其他解释的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Ostracizers’ mark of disgrace: Social exclusion increases the actor–observer difference

The actor–observer difference describes the tendency to explain own actions with variable and external aspects, but others’ actions with stable and internal characteristics. We test two opposing predictions of how changes in attribution vary as a function of being ignored and excluded. On the one hand, individuals may cope by psychologically distancing themselves from sources of exclusion, potentially producing stable and internal representations of them. On the other hand, excluded individuals are particularly sensitive to social cues, which may foster a more variable and externally motivated representation of sources’ behaviours. Consistent with the first prediction, excluded (vs. included) individuals (total N = 1,052 in four studies) perceived causes for negative hypothetical outcomes as more internal and, to a somewhat lesser extent, more stable for others involved in the interaction. The use of different methodological approaches across studies attests to this conclusion's robustness and addresses alternative explanations.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
7.70%
发文量
84
期刊介绍: Topics covered include, among others, intergroup relations, group processes, social cognition, attitudes, social influence and persuasion, self and identity, verbal and nonverbal communication, language and thought, affect and emotion, embodied and situated cognition and individual differences of social-psychological relevance. Together with original research articles, the European Journal of Social Psychology"s innovative and inclusive style is reflected in the variety of articles published: Research Article: Original articles that provide a significant contribution to the understanding of social phenomena, up to a maximum of 12,000 words in length.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information ‘(N)One of us but all of them!’ Ingroup favouritism on individual and group levels in the context of deviant behaviour Never again: Lessons of genocide in survivor testimonies from the Holocaust, Nanjing massacre and Rwandan genocide Age of the examiner and older people's memory performances: A test of the stereotype threat theory using variations on negative age stereotypes across 18 European countries Do women only apply when they are 100% qualified, whereas men already apply when they are 60% qualified?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1