Barbara David

Studies in self‐categorization and minority conversion: The in‐group minority in intragroup and intergroup contexts

The aim of the reported studies was to provide a self-categorization-based explanation of the unique temporal patterning of minority influence (David, 1994; David & Turner, 1992, 1996; Turner, 1991) as being based on changes in social context. Moderate feminist participants were exposed to an in-group minority (separatist feminist) message in no explicit context, an intragroup, or an intergroup context, and immediate and delayed measures of influence were taken. The explicit contexts were either stated once or repeated prior to the delayed measure of influence. Participants rejected the minority message when it was presented in a purely feminist context and accepted it in a context which included the salient out-group. When no explicit context was stated and when an intragroup context was stated prior to the immediate measure only, participants displayed the classic conversion pattern of no immediate influence followed by evidence of delayed influence. Discussed are implications of the results for the self-categorization claim that influence can only proceed from those categorized as similar to self, and the conflict of this proposal with conversion theory (Moscovici, 1980, 1985; Moscovici & Mugny, 1983; Moscovici & Personnaz, 1980) and conflict elaboration theory (Mugny, Butera, Sanchez-Mazas & Perez, 1994; Mugny & Perez, 1987, 1991), which we understand to explain minority conversion as a product of the essential difference from self of prospective sources of influence.

Who Cares? The Effect of Gender and Context on the Self and Moral Reasoning.

Theorists suggest that gender differences in moral reasoning are due to differences in the self-concept, with women feeling connected to others and using a care approach, whereas men feel separate from others and adopt a justice approach. Using a self-categorization analysis, the current research suggests that the nature of the self–other relationship, rather than gender, predicts moral reasoning. Study 1 found moral reasoning to be dependent upon the social distance between the self and others, with a care-based approach more likely when interacting with a friend than a stranger. Study 2 suggests that when individuals see others as ingroup members they are more likely to utilize care-based moral reasoning than when others are seen as outgroup members. Further, traditional gender differences in moral reasoning were found only when gender was made salient. These studies suggest that both the self and moral reasoning are better conceptualized as fluid and context dependent.

Gender differences in ways of knowing: The context dependence of the attitudes toward thinking and learning survey

In this article we challenge the notion of stable, gender-related differences in the way people acquire and process information, with men more likely to utilize separate knowing and women connected knowing. An alternative analysis highlights malleability and the importance of social context in determining knowing style. We examined the responses of 186 women and 81 men on the Attitudes Toward Thinking and Learning Survey (ATTLS; Galotti, Clinchy, Ainsworth, Lavin, & Mansfield, 1999) across 3 contexts. Results revealed that both men and women were more likely to use connected knowing in the context of similar in-groups compared to the context of dissimilar out-groups. Gender differences were only apparent where gender was made salient. Our data support an analysis of ways of knowing as flexible and context dependent and question the notion that knowing is intrinsically related to gender.