Sandrine Redersdorff

Social Comparison, Self-Stereotyping, and Gender Differences in Self-Construals

Four studies examined gender differences in self-construals and the role of social comparison in generating these differences. Consistent with previous research, Study 1 (N=461) showed that women define themselves as higher in relational interdependence than men, and men define themselves as higher in independence/agency than women. Study 2 (N=301) showed that within-gender social comparison decreases gender differences in self-construals relative to a control condition, whereas between-genders comparison increases gender differences on both relational interdependence and independence/agency. Studies 3 (N=169) and 4 (N=278) confirmed these findings and showed that changing self-construal changes gender differences in social dominance orientation. Across the 4 studies, strong evidence for the role of in-group stereotyping as mediator of the effect of gender on self-construal was observed on the relational dimension but not on the agentic dimension.

Perceivers' Responses to In-Group and Out-Group Members Who Blame a Negative Outcome on Discrimination.

The authors extend recent research concerning the social costs of claiming discrimination by examining men’s and women’s responses to in-group and out-group targets who either blamed a failing grade on discrimination or answer quality. Although participants generally responded more negatively to targets who blamed discrimination, rather than answer quality, dislike was greatest and gender group identification was lowest when participants evaluated an in-group target. Moreover, an in-group target who claimed discrimination was perceived as avoiding personal responsibility for outcomes to a greater extent than was a similar out-group target. Perceptions that the target avoided outcome responsibility by claiming discrimination were shown to mediate the relationship between attribution type and dislike of the in-group target. The authors discuss their results in terms of intragroup processes and suggest that social costs may especially accrue for in-group members when claiming discrimination has implications for the in-group’s social identity.

Ingroup Versus Outgroup Comparisons and Self-Esteem: The Role of Group Status and Ingroup Identification

Prior research suggests that people can protect their self-esteem by construing upward comparisons with outgroup members as non-self-relevant. In the present experiments, the authors hypothesized that only dominant group members use such a self-protection strategy. This hypothesis was confirmed in three experiments (N = 293) comparing dominant and subordinate-status groups exposed to upward versus downward social comparisons with ingroup or outgroup members. The results also showed that dominant group members suffered from upward comparisons with ingroup members, whereas subordinate group members did not. For the latter, ingroup identification appeared to be a self-protection strategy. Group status may be a potential moderator of the tendency to adopt particular self-protection strategies against upward comparisons.

Being outperformed in an intergroup context: The relationship between group status and self-protective strategies

The present study examines the effects of group status on self-esteem when individuals are outperformed by an in-group target (Experiments 1 and 2) or an out-group (Experiment 2). The main aim was to examine different self-protective mechanisms when the current standing of the in-group vis-à-vis another group is either unfavourable (low status) or favourable (high status). Experiment 1 showed that when outperformed by an in-group target, the members of a low status group reported higher self-esteem than members of a high status group. Moreover, this effect was mediated by group identification. Experiment 2 replicated the previous results and gave rise to similar effects on investment in the group. The perceived relevance of the comparison group appeared to protect the self-esteem of high status group members. This research demonstrates the mediating role of self-protection mechanisms such as group identification and the perceived relevance of a comparison group.

Promoting social equality values to improve judgement of a woman reporting sexism / El fomento de valores relacionados con la igualdad social para mejorar la opinión sobre las mujeres que denuncian discriminación por sexismo

Abstract Previous research has shown that discriminated women blame themselves more than they blame discrimination when meritocracy values are salient. In two studies, we examined whether meritocracy values also influence female observers when they judge a female victim of sexism. Such values were expected to lead them to judge more positively a victim incriminating herself than a victim claiming discrimination. Conversely, social equality values should lead them to judge more positively a victim claiming discrimination. Women who were either feminists or non-feminists (Study 1) or who were exposed to either social equality values or personal merit values (Study 2) had to judge a female victim of sexism who ascribed what happened to discrimination or to her ability. Feminist women and women exposed to social equality judged the female victim more positively when she reported discrimination than when she incriminated herself. The reverse pattern of judgement was observed for non-feminist women and women exposed to meritocracy values. The importance of values is discussed to improve the image of women claiming sexism.

Minimizing a sexist act and derogating the female victim: To be or not to be in the same boat?

Les recherches passees sur les reactions de femmes envers une autre femme discriminee presentent des resultats inconsistants. Deux experiences examinent l’impact du sort commun sur les reactions de soutien ou de denigrement de femmes envers une autre femme victime de discrimination. Des participantes observent un acte sexiste ambigu (Experience 1) ou non ambigu (Experiences 1 et 2) emis envers une cible femme avec qui elles partagent ou ne partagent pas de sort commun. Les resultats mettent en evidence que lorsque les participantes partagent un sort commun avec la victime, elles minimisent plus la discrimination envers cette derniere, que la discrimination soit ou non ambigue, et la denigrent en la jugeant plus negativement si elle reconnait la discrimination. Ces comportements de denigrement envers la victime n’apparaissent pas dans un contexte ou les observatrices ne partagent pas de sort commun avec elle.