Self-esteem and outcome fairness: differential importance of procedural and outcome considerations.

Results of a survey of 222 detainees in Dutch jails and police stations showed that outcome-fairness judgments of individuals with high self-esteem were more strongly related to outcome considerations than to procedural considerations, whereas outcome-fairness judgments of individuals with low self-esteem were more strongly related to procedural considerations than to outcome considerations. It was proposed that these differences were due to the fact that (a) procedures more strongly express a social evaluation than outcomes and (b) individuals with low self-esteem are more concerned with social evaluations than individuals with high self-esteem. The implications of the results for other individual-differences factors and other populations than detainees are discussed.

Who Takes the Lead in Risky Decision Making? Effects of Group Members' Risk Preferences and Prototypicality.

In two experiments, we studied the effects of (a) the extent to which group members are risk seeking in comparison with others in the group and (b) group member prototypicality (the extent to which individuals hold group-typical risk preferences) on the likelihood that group members will take the lead in risky decision making. Participants were led to believe that they engaged in a four-person group discussion and received bogus feedback about their own risk preferences, the risk preferences of the other group members, and the risk preferences of their group as a whole. In Experiment 2, we also manipulated the framing of the decision problem (gain vs. loss frame). Results supported the hypotheses that (a) more risk seeking members are more likely to take the lead and (b) prototypical members are more likely to take the lead when the problem facing the group is ambiguous (i.e., when group risk preferences and decision framing are incongruent), whereas nonprototypical members are more likely to take the lead when the problem facing the group is relatively clear-cut (i.e., when group risk preferences and decision framing are congruent). Copyright 2000 Academic Press.

Processing goal as moderator of in-group-serving illusory correlations.

This study tested the hypothesis that the effect of in-group-serving expectancy biases on memory and judgement is moderated by processing goal. In-group-serving biases in both recall and judgements (estimated frequencies of desirable and undesirable in-group and out-group behaviour, evaluative ratings) were hypothesized to be stronger when processing goal interfered with online impression formation compared with when attention is focused on the formation of group impressions. This hypothesis was tested in an illusory correlation experiment in which in-group-serving expectancy bias and infrequency bias (Hamilton & Gifford, 1976) could be studied simultaneously. Participants read statements describing desirable and undesirable behaviour of members of the in-group and out-group, while the in-group held either minority or majority status, while participants were instructed either to form group impressions or to memorize the information. As predicted, memorizing compared with impression formation resulted in in-group-serving illusory correlations in recall and frequency estimates and in in-group bias in group evaluations. Infrequency of occurrence affected recall and judgments irrespective of processing goal. The implications of these results for social stereotyping are discussed.