Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Free Access - Register Here

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
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 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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Iedema, J.
Right arrow Articles by Poppe, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Iedema, J.
Right arrow Articles by Poppe, M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 25, No. 12, 1443-1450 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/01461672992510001

Expectations of Others’ Social Value Orientations in Specific and General Populations

Jurjen Iedema

University of Nijmegen, j.iedema{at}scp.nl

Matthijs Poppe

Tilburg University

This research focuses on the relation between participants’ social orientations and their expectations of others’ orientations. Participants were 145 adolescents who were classified according to a prosocial, individualistic, or competitive orientation. Participants were asked for their expectations of the occurrence of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive people in four populations, varying from specific to general (friends, classmates, schoolmates, peers, respectively). The triangle hypothesis, the structured assumed similarity bias, and the selective exposure and availability model could only partly explain the results. The decrease in consensus expectations from specific to general populations that was displayed by prosocials and competitors, but not by individualists, was best explained by the slightly extended uniqueness bias: The tendency to underestimate the proportion of people who will perform socially desirable actions is stronger for general than for specific populations.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Group Processes Intergroup RelationsHome page
C. K. W. De Dreu, E. S. Kluwer, and A. Nauta
The Structure and Management of Conflict: Fighting or Defending the Status Quo
Group Processes Intergroup Relations, July 1, 2008; 11(3): 331 - 353.
[Abstract] [PDF]