Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to submit your manuscript to SPPS

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (10)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lambert, A. J.
Right arrow Articles by Wells, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Lambert, A. J.
Right arrow Articles by Wells, J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

The Influence of Group Variability and Processing Goals on the Ease of Making Judgments about Social Categories

Alan J. Lambert

Washington University-St. Louis, alambert{at}artsci.wustl.edu

Lauren R. Barton

Washington University-St. Louis

Brian Lickel

Washington University-St. Louis

Jennifer Wells

Washington University-St. Louis

This article examined the effects of group variability and processing goals on the ease of making judgments about social groups. Participants were presented with a heterogeneous or homogeneous category and were instructed either to form an impression of the group (impression set) or to attend to the similarities among, and the differences between, group members (integration set). Under impression sets, we predicted that participants would find it harder to judge heterogeneous groups as compared to homogeneous groups. Under integration sets, however, judgments were predicted to be relatively easy, regardless of group variability. These predictions were supported, regardless of whether judgment ease was operationalized via response latencies (Experiment 1) or through subjective reports (Experiment 2). Experiment 2 suggested that these effects were driven by the effects of group variability and instructional set on the importance of subtypes formed at the subordinate level. Implications of these results for research on the consequences of group variability are discussed.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 24, No. 8, 807-820 (1998)
DOI: 10.1177/0146167298248003
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Behav ModifHome page
C. S. Ryan, D. R. Robinson, and L. R. M. Hausmann
Stereotyping among Providers and Consumers of Public Mental Health Services: The Role of Perceived Group Variability
Behav Modif, July 1, 2001; 25(3): 406 - 442.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Pers Soc Psychol RevHome page
Z. Richards and M. Hewstone
Subtyping and Subgrouping: Processes for the Prevention and Promotion of Stereotype Change
Personality and Social Psychology Review, February 1, 2001; 5(1): 52 - 73.
[Abstract] [PDF]