No benefit of the doubt: intergroup bias in understanding causal explanation.

Conversational conventions predict that receivers weigh later information more heavily than earlier information because they presume that communicators add later information only when it is particularly relevant and important. Drawing on Pettigrew's observation of the ultimate attribution error, the present research predicted that intergroup bias could override this conversational convention when individuals received multiple explanations (one beneficial, one condemning) for acts committed by out-group members vs. in-group members. Specifically, subsequently presented mitigating explanations for negative acts should not temper impressions of out-group members, and subsequently presented crediting explanations for positive acts should not enhance impressions of out-group members. Results supported this pattern, and the discussion considers these findings in light of communication rules, and in-group/out-group definition.

The motivated tactician's juggling act: compatible vs. incompatible impression goals.

This study examines how perceivers negotiate multiple, and sometimes incompatible, impression formation goals. Previous research typically presents perceivers with a single impression goal (e.g. accuracy, supporting preferred beliefs), and does not consider how perceivers juggle multiple goals. The processes of perceivers with multiple compatible goals should show uncomplicated impression formation processes, that is, strategic use of particular target attributes (e.g. negative) that suit their purposes. Perceivers with incompatible goals, in contrast, should be less selective, and form more complex impressions that reflect all types of attributes. In this experiment, perceivers with compatible goals paid less attention to target attributes, systematically biased their interpretation of those attributes, and ultimately formed less complex impressions than individuals with incompatible goals. How multiple impression goals are prioritized is discussed.

The perception of an out-group after provocation by one of its members.

How provocation by a single out-group member exacerbates perceptions of out-group dissimilarity was examined. Male American college students provoked by a Latvian college student not only perceived him as dissimilar from their own group of American college students but also perceived other Latvians (but not Senegalans, an irrelevant out-group) as dissimilar from American college students. Drawing negative inferences about the Latvian provocateur was correlated with perceiving other Latvians as dissimilar.

Interpersonal competition can cause individuating processes.

Two experiments investigated whether competitors attend to and individuate opponents. Interdependence theories predict that people individuate others on whom their outcomes depend rather than stereotyping them; this has been tested for cooperative but not for competitive interdependence. Competition separates such phenomena as unit formation in cooperation from interdependence per se, posited to be the crucial variable. In two experiments, Ss expected to compete or not compete with a competent or incompetent fictitious subject. Ss commented into a tape recorder about the person's attributes, some inconsistent and some consistent with expectations. As predicted, competitors (a) increased attention to inconsistencies, (b) drew more dispositional inferences about inconsistencies, and (c) formed more varied impressions. The role of competition in undercutting expectancy-based impressions and intergroup vs. interpersonal competition are discussed.