Accentuation effect

Last updated

Accentuation effect occurs when something (be it a person, place or thing) is placed into a category. The differences between the categories are then exaggerated, and differences within the categories themselves are minimised. Memory of anything that can be categorized is subject to an accentuation effect in which the memory is distorted toward typical examples.

Contents

In the case of people, the accentuation effect is similar to stereotyping and social categorization in that when classified as part of a group, people's features seem to more closely match their classification rather than any individual differences they have.

The effect was first identified by Henri Tajfel in the late 1950s. [1]

Judgement

The accentuation effect often works to create more polarized judgements within individuals. A study conducted by Eiser, 1971, [2] showed this through people’s judgements of different attitude statements. Those who were judging were asked to rate a variety of statements regarding the non-medical use of drugs from being ‘extremely permissive’ to ‘extremely restrictive’. The group which received the statements already categorized into two distinct groups, one being from anti-drug newspapers and the other being from pro-drug newspapers, accentuated the differences between these two groups as opposed to those from the control condition. This resulted in the polarization of their judgements regarding the statements and where they belong on the scale. Once judgements are grouped into different categories, people often accentuate the subjective differences between them. [3]

Another way in which this occurs is when the response language of questions is manipulated. In another study, [3] that was testing people’s response to statements as being pro or anti, when the pro was at the positive end of the scale and anti was at the negative end of the scale, those that agree with the statement accentuate their judgement and label them in a more polarized ways, whereas those that disagreed with the statement labelled them in less polarized ways. The opposite effect is seen when the scale is switched. This ultimately means that the most polarized labels are given when the judge’s end of the scale is positively labelled.

Intergroup accentuation

The accentuation effect is often found in group interactions, with group members exaggerating the differences between their ingroup and outgroup. For those in the ingroup, the accentuation of characteristics were less for the ingroup than the outgroup, suggesting that this effect may be due to distancing the outgroup from the ingroup. However, this accentuation effect didn’t just depend on the categorization of different groups, but the perceived stereotypical differences between the groups themselves. Rothbart and Lewis, 2006, [4] demonstrated this using the perceived differences of temperament between three groups of a university marching band. The differences that were accentuated between the groups relied on how much the groups were expected to be different, despite the temperament of all three groups being close to the same. This means that groups that were stereotypically different accentuated the differences between them more so than groups that were stereotypically similar. The exaggeration took place due to the expectations as opposed to the actual group differences present.

This effect between the ingroup and the outgroup is due to a number of reasons. Those in the ingroup encode outgroup characteristics, leading to the perceived differences between the two groups, but especially from the perspective of the ingroup. Furthermore, people focus on features that are typical as opposed to atypical in groups, and when there are two clear categories in place, this information works to polarize the groups, resulting in greater differences between them. The contact between ingroups and outgroups, however, didn’t work to reduce this effect. Instead, it increased. The longer the groups spent with each other (and in the case of the study the longer people in the different groups spent in marching bands), the more they perceived that there were differences between them. The preference for the ingroup over the outgroup in the study also did not result in a correlation with the accentuation of differences, suggesting it did not play a role. However, the groups observed in the study were not hostile towards each other, as previous research has reported strong accentuation with groups that are ideologically opposed, meaning that hostility between the ingroup and outgroup as opposed to preference may result in an increased attenuation effect. The understanding of intergroup accentuation is important as it could lead to the understanding of conflict between different groups.

Within ethnicity and faces

Researchers Corneille, Huart, Becquart, and Bredart found that, when participants looked at ethnically ambiguous faces, certain ethnic features that stood out caused participants to falsely remember the person more toward an ethnic category than they actually were. Researchers used Caucasian or North African faces, and morphed them to be either low, moderate, or high on stereotypical features. The faces that were moderately stereotypical of either a Caucasian or North African person were falsely recollected in memory as more Caucasian or North African than they actually were. This is evidence for how distortions in memory are due to stereotypical conceptions that are held about certain ethnicities. ( Corneille et al. 2004 ).

Research by Freeman & Ambady, 2011a, [5] found that when faces with neutral facial features or ambiguous facial features are placed in ethnically specific locations, individuals tend to associate the neutral facial features as belonging to the specific ethnicity of that particular location. A specific location might include a scene of the Great Wall of China with a neutral facial feature displayed across it or an image of the US Capital with neutral facial features flashed across the image. When a Chinese scene with a neutral facial feature is shown, the participant more quickly associate the neutral facial features as Asian and likewise, when an American scene appears, the participant more quickly categorize the neutral facial features as White. However, when a neutral facial picture is presented with a neutral scene, the results depend on the ethnicity of the person responding. This suggests that similarity and settings are directly related to an individual's ability to recall and associate, playing a vital role in social categorization and stereotyping.

Association and categorization of multiracial facial features are also impacted by specific locations or context, however achieved in a slightly differing manner, according to Pauker and Ambady. [6] Those categorizing individual's with multiracial features struggle with the ambiguity of their look, resulting in uncertainty and the need for further clarification from the multiracial individual. Those with multiracial features may, as a result, depend less on external cues and classification and more on their own individual concept of race and what it means.

Social categorization – the benefits and negative effects

Social categorization has its benefits as well as its obvious negatives.  First, it is important to understand that the categorization of individuals into different social groups is, for the most part, an unconscious and natural reaction. Research by Lee, Jussim, & McCauley, 1995, [7] suggests that categorizing things, including people, is helpful because with the multifaceted, intricate world in which we live, individuals categorize things and people in order to better process and understand information around them. However, there is also a danger with social categorization. For those that are categorized and stereotyped, it removes the person's individuality, their unique traits, beliefs and mannerisms and for those doing the categorization, it misrepresents their view of the groups or individuals and results in all within the categorized group being treated the same way.  This theory was tested through an experiment conducted by Tajfel & Wilkes, 1963. [8] Tajfel & Wilkes study highlighted how lines of differing lengths, when grouped together are perceived to be the same length, but when categorized (by color change) the lines are perceived to be different lengths.

Within temperature estimates

A study at Brown University found accentuation effects happened when participants were asked to estimate average temperatures in days throughout the year. Typically, four days in a month were used, i.e., September 2, 10, 18, and 28, and the average high and low temperatures were estimated for each day. Results of this study found that when estimating the temperature, there was more of a jump in temperature estimates between months as opposed to estimates within months. Even though the temperature rises and falls fairly steadily with each passing day through the year, participants assume there is more of a drop in temperature, for example, between August 25 and September 2 than there is between September 2 and September 10, based entirely on the idea that August is warmer than September. ( Krueger & Clement 1994 ).

Within money

Currency

In Tadeusz Tyszka and Krzysztof Przybyszewski's "Cognitive and Emotional Factors Affecting Currency Perception" they found that although money is known to have a nominal value, the perception of its value is often accentuated because of emotional connection. In other words, people who value a certain country's currency very highly may presume that something may have a higher value if say in US dollars versus as if it is expressed in Euros, even if the actual value does not reflect the same idea. If someone has strong emotional ties to a country they may see the value of something being greater than it really is, simply because it is expressed in their great country's currency. Likewise, they determined that people that have poor opinions about a country or culture may devalue their currency even if the rate is inaccurate. For example, if someone thinks a country is mostly poverty-stricken it may accentuate this idea of poverty and so they may value that currency lower than its nominal value. ( Tyszka & Przybyszewski 2006 ).

Monetary value

Powerlessness of individuals is observed to accentuate how they represent objects with monetary value physically. This physical representation of the objects related to its monetary value manifests itself through changes in size. This means that objects will be perceived as larger than they are the more monetary value they hold, unless the value is associated with its small size, where it will instead be perceived smaller. Researchers Dubois, Rucker, and Galinksy, 2010, [9] demonstrated this through an experiment that assigned participants three power rankings (high, low, and baseline), achieving this by providing an imaginary scenario encompassing one of these rankings. The participants were then asked to draw to different objects with monetary value. The individuals that were designated low power rankings, and had a sense of powerlessness, increased the size of objects that were associated with monetary value. This was not seen in participants with high or baseline power rankings. The more associated an object was with monetary value, the more that those who felt powerless distorted the size. Objects that didn’t hold monetary value, such as blank discs, were drawn the same size by all groups, suggesting that this effect is only observed to objects with value.

The researchers theorized that the lack in power led to participants compensating for this through changing the physical representation of objects associated with monetary value, as there is an increased need for them to restore the power that they’ve lost. The relationship with powerlessness and monetary value itself may be due to the nature of the restoration of power within people, as individuals will try to achieve this by obtaining high-status objects in order to increase their standing in the social hierarchy.

Real world examples

One example that researchers presented was that after an Italian colleague returned from a two-week vacation in Italy, his friends noticed that his hair and eyes were lighter than they had remembered. This happened because his categorization as Italian caused them to remember him with darker hair and eyes than he actually had. Thus, while there was no actual change in his hair and eye color, their memory of his features had been shifted to match what the stereotype of an Italian looks like, rather than his actual appearance.( Corneille et al. 2004 ).

See also

Related Research Articles

The out-group homogeneity effect is the perception of out-group members as more similar to one another than are in-group members, e.g. "they are alike; we are diverse". Perceivers tend to have impressions about the diversity or variability of group members around those central tendencies or typical attributes of those group members. Thus, outgroup stereotypicality judgments are overestimated, supporting the view that out-group stereotypes are overgeneralizations. The term "outgroup homogeneity effect", "outgroup homogeneity bias" or "relative outgroup homogeneity" have been explicitly contrasted with "outgroup homogeneity" in general, the latter referring to perceived outgroup variability unrelated to perceptions of the ingroup.

In-group favoritism, sometimes known as in-group–out-group bias, in-group bias, intergroup bias, or in-group preference, is a pattern of favoring members of one's in-group over out-group members. This can be expressed in evaluation of others, in allocation of resources, and in many other ways.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">In-group and out-group</span> Sociological notions

In sociology and social psychology, an in-group is a social group to which a person psychologically identifies as being a member. By contrast, an out-group is a social group with which an individual does not identify. People may for example identify with their peer group, family, community, sports team, political party, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or nation. It has been found that the psychological membership of social groups and categories is associated with a wide variety of phenomena.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Henri Tajfel</span> Polish-born British psychologist (1919–1982)

Henri Tajfel was a Polish social psychologist, best known for his pioneering work on the cognitive aspects of prejudice and social identity theory, as well as being one of the founders of the European Association of Experimental Social Psychology.


Social identity is the portion of an individual's self-concept derived from perceived membership in a relevant social group.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Black sheep</span> Idiom for oddness or disreputability

In the English language, black sheep is an idiom that describes a member of a group who is different from the rest, especially a family member who does not fit in. The term stems from sheep whose fleece is colored black rather than the more common white; these sheep stand out in the flock and their wool is worth less as it will not dye.

The cross-race effect is the tendency to more easily recognize faces that belong to one's own racial group. In social psychology, the cross-race effect is described as the "ingroup advantage," whereas in other fields, the effect can be seen as a specific form of the "ingroup advantage" since it is only applied in interracial or inter-ethnic situations. The cross-race effect is thought to contribute to difficulties in cross-race identification, as well as implicit racial bias.

Optimal distinctiveness is a social psychological theory seeking to understand ingroup–outgroup differences. It asserts that individuals desire to attain an optimal balance of inclusion and distinctiveness within and between social groups and situations These two motives are in constant opposition with each other; when there is too much of one motive, the other must increase in order to counterbalance it and vice versa. The theory of optimal distinctiveness was first proposed by Dr. Marilynn B. Brewer in 1991 and extensively reviewed in 2010 by Drs. Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Cynthia L. Pickett, and Marilynn Brewer.

The social identity model of deindividuation effects is a theory developed in social psychology and communication studies. SIDE explains the effects of anonymity and identifiability on group behavior. It has become one of several theories of technology that describe social effects of computer-mediated communication.

Self-categorization theory is a theory in social psychology that describes the circumstances under which a person will perceive collections of people as a group, as well as the consequences of perceiving people in group terms. Although the theory is often introduced as an explanation of psychological group formation, it is more accurately thought of as general analysis of the functioning of categorization processes in social perception and interaction that speaks to issues of individual identity as much as group phenomena. It was developed by John Turner and colleagues, and along with social identity theory it is a constituent part of the social identity approach. It was in part developed to address questions that arose in response to social identity theory about the mechanistic underpinnings of social identification.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stereotype</span> Generalized but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing

In social psychology, a stereotype is a generalized belief about a particular category of people. It is an expectation that people might have about every person of a particular group. The type of expectation can vary; it can be, for example, an expectation about the group's personality, preferences, appearance or ability. Stereotypes are sometimes overgeneralized, inaccurate, and resistant to new information, but can sometimes be accurate.

The ultimate attribution error is a type of attribution error which proposed to explain why attributions of outgroup behavior is more negative than ingroup behavior. Ultimate attribution error itself described as a cognitive bias where negative outgroup behavior is more likely attributed to factors internal and specific to the actor, such as personality. The second component of the bias is a higher chance of attributing negative ingroup behavior to external factors such as luck or circumstance. This bias is said to reinforce a negative stereotype and prejudice about the outgroup, and favouritism of the ingroup through positive stereotypes. The theory was later extended to the bias that positive acts performed by ingroup members are more likely a result of their personality, whereas, if an ingroup member behaves negatively, it is more likely a result of situational factors.

The common ingroup identity model is a theoretical model proposed by Samuel L. Gaertner and John F. Dovidio that outlines the processes through which intergroup bias may be reduced. Intergroup bias is a preference for one's in-group over the out-group. Derived from the social identity approach to intergroup behaviour, the common ingroup identity model is rooted in the process of social categorization, or how people conceive of group boundaries. The model describes how intergroup bias can be reduced if members of different groups can be induced to conceive of themselves to be part of the same group, then they would develop more positive attitudes of the former outgroup members. An individual will change the way they view the out-group through a social categorization process called recategorization where former out-group members become incorporated into individual's representations of the in-group.

There is a great deal of research on the factors that lead to the formation of prejudiced attitudes and beliefs. There is also a lot of research on the consequences of holding prejudiced beliefs and being the target of such beliefs. It is true that advances have been made in understanding the nature of prejudice. A consensus on how to end prejudice has yet to be established, but there are a number of scientifically examined strategies that have been developed in attempt to solve this social issue.

Integrated threat theory, also known as intergroup threat theory is a theory in psychology and sociology which attempts to describe the components of perceived threat that lead to prejudice between social groups. The theory applies to any social group that may feel threatened in some way, whether or not that social group is a majority or minority group in their society. This theory deals with perceived threat rather than actual threat. Perceived threat includes all of the threats that members of group believe they are experiencing, regardless of whether those threats actually exist. For example, people may feel their economic well-being is threatened by an outgroup stealing their jobs even if, in reality, the outgroup has no effect on their job opportunities. Still, their perception that their job security is under threat can increase their levels of prejudice against the outgroup. Thus, even false alarms about threat still have “real consequence” for prejudice between groups.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Male warrior hypothesis</span>

The male warrior hypothesis (MWH) is an evolutionary psychology hypothesis by Professor Mark van Vugt which argues that human psychology has been shaped by between-group competition and conflict. Specifically, the evolutionary history of coalitional aggression between groups of men may have resulted in sex-specific differences in the way outgroups are perceived, creating ingroup vs. outgroup tendencies that are still observable today.

In social psychology, a metastereotype is a stereotype that members of one group have about the way in which they are stereotypically viewed by members of another group. In other words, it is a stereotype about a stereotype. They have been shown to have adverse effects on individuals that hold them, including on their levels of anxiety in interracial conversations. Meta-stereotypes held by African Americans regarding the stereotypes White Americans have about them have been found to be largely both negative and accurate. People portray meta-stereotypes of their ingroup more positively when talking to a member of an outgroup than to a fellow member of their ingroup.

Diversity ideology refers to individual beliefs regarding the nature of intergroup relations and how to improve them in culturally diverse societies. A large amount of scientific literature in social psychology studies diversity ideologies as prejudice reduction strategies, most commonly in the context of racial groups and interracial interactions. In research studies on the effects of diversity ideology, social psychologists have either examined endorsement of a diversity ideology as individual difference or used situational priming designs to activate the mindset of a particular diversity ideology. It is consistently shown that diversity ideologies influence how individuals perceive, judge and treat cultural outgroup members. Different diversity ideologies are associated with distinct effects on intergroup relations, such as stereotyping and prejudice, intergroup equality, and intergroup interactions from the perspectives of both majority and minority group members. Beyond intergroup consequences, diversity ideology also has implications on individual outcomes, such as whether people are open to cultural fusion and foreign ideas, which in turn predict creativity.

In social psychology, social projection is the psychological process through which an individual expects behaviors or attitudes of others to be similar to their own. Social projection occurs between individuals as well as across ingroup and outgroup contexts in a variety of domains. Research has shown that aspects of social categorization affect the extent to which social projection occurs. Cognitive and motivational approaches have been used to understand the psychological underpinnings of social projection as a phenomenon. Cognitive approaches emphasize social projection as a heuristic, while motivational approaches contextualize social projection as a means to feel connected to others. In contemporary research on social projection, researchers work to further distinguish between the effects of social projection and self-stereotyping on the individual’s perception of others.

An empathy gap, sometimes referred to as an empathy bias, is a breakdown or reduction in empathy where it might otherwise be expected to occur. Empathy gaps may occur due to a failure in the process of empathizing or as a consequence of stable personality characteristics, and may reflect either a lack of ability or motivation to empathize.

References

  1. ↑ APA Dictionary of Psychology 2015.
  2. ↑ "APA PsycNet". psycnet.apa.org. Retrieved 2020-04-13.
  3. 1 2 Eiser, J. Richard; Pligt, Joop van der (2015-08-20). Attitudes and Decisions. Psychology Press. ISBN   978-1-317-36047-6.
  4. ↑ Rothbart, Myron; Lewis, Tiffany Li (2006). "Attitudes and beliefs in a marching band: stereotyping and accentuation in a favorable intergroup context". European Journal of Social Psychology. 36 (5): 699–719. doi:10.1002/ejsp.312. ISSN   1099-0992.
  5. ↑ Freeman, Jonathan B.; Ma, Yina; Han, Shihui; Ambady, Nalini (2013-03-01). "Influences of culture and visual context on real-time social categorization". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 49 (2): 206–210. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.10.015. ISSN   0022-1031. PMC   3551594 . PMID   23355750.
  6. ↑ Pauker, Kristin; Ambady, Nalini (2009-03-01). "Multiracial faces: How categorization affects memory at the boundaries of race". The Journal of Social Issues. 65 (1): 69–86. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2008.01588.x. ISSN   0022-4537. PMC   3849032 . PMID   24311822.
  7. ↑ "Social Categorization and Stereotyping". Social Categorization and Stereotyping – Principles of Social Psychology – 1st International Edition. opentextbc.ca. BCcampus. 2014-09-26. Retrieved 2019-12-09.
  8. ↑ Sherman, Jeffrey W.; Kruschke, John K.; Sherman, Steven J.; Percy, Elise J.; Petrocelli, John V.; Conrey, Frederica R. (2009). "Attentional processes in stereotype formation: A common model for category accentuation and illusory correlation". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 96 (2): 305–323. doi:10.1037/a0013778. PMID   19159134.
  9. ↑ Dubois, David; Rucker, Derek D.; Galinsky, Adam D. (2010-04-26). "The Accentuation Bias". Social Psychological and Personality Science. 1 (3): 199–205. doi:10.1177/1948550610365170. ISSN   1948-5506. S2CID   145674663.
Bibliography
Reference works

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.