Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Briefly studying names of four members of a hypothetical group produces identification with and attraction to that group, a finding labeled implicit partisanship (IP; Greenwald, Pickrell, & Farnham, 2002). The original demonstration of IP used human groups in a competitive context. Experiments I and 2 varied these procedures by using, respectively, a cooperative intergroup context and non-human group members (fictitious car brands). Neither of these variations eliminated the IP effect, indicating unanticipated robustness. Experiment 3 revealed a substantial reduction of the IP effect's magnitude when the studied names represented a rival university. The reduction of IP through identity opposition supports the interpretation that spontaneous group identification effects carry psychological significance that is comparable to that of more ordinary group identifications.

Keywords

group attraction group identification Implicit Association Test implicit partisanship

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aiken, L. S. , & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .

Bargh,J. A. , Chen, M. , & Burrows, L. (1996). Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71 230-244 .

Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis . Psychological Bulletin, 86 307-324 .

Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17 475-482 .

Cartwright, D. (1973). Determinants of scientific progress: The case of research on the risky shift . American Psychologist, 28 222-231 .

Fleischmann, M. , Pons, S. , & Hawkins, M. (1989). Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium . Journal of Electroanalysis Chemistry Inteiface, 261 301-308 .

Gaeirtner. S. L. . & Dovidio. J. F. (2000). Redticivcng intelgroup bias: The common ingroup identity model Philadelphia: Psychology Press .

Gaertner. L. . & Ilsko, C. A. (2000). Intergroup discriimination in the minimal group paradigm: Categorization, reciprocation, or fear? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 77-94 .

Greenwald, A. G. , McGhee, D. E. , & Schwartz,J. L. K (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Cognition Test Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 1464-1480 .

10.

Greenwald, A. G. , Nosek, B. , & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85 197-216 .

11.

Greenwald, A. G. , Pickrell,J. E. , & Farnham, S. D. (2002). Implicit partisanship: Taking sides for no reason . Journal of Personality and Social Pssychology, 83, 367-379 .

12.

Greenwald, A. G. , Pratkanis, A. R. , Leippe. M. R. , & Bauimgardner. M. H. (1986). LTnder what conditions does theor v obstiuct research progress? Psychological Review. 93 216-229 .

13.

Hogg, M. A. , & Abrams. D. (1993). Towards a singleprocess uncertainty-reduction model of social motivation in groups. In M. A. Hogg & D. Abrams (Eds.), Group Mlotivation: Social psychological pe-rspectifefs (pp. 173-190). New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf .

14.

Jones, J. T. , Pelham, B. W. . Mirenberg, M. C. . & Hetts, J. J. (2002). Name letter preferences are not merely mere exposure: Implicit egotism as selfregulation . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 170-177 .

15.

McGarty, C. (1999). Categorization in socialpsychology London: Sage .

16.

Mostert, M. P. (2001). Facilitated communication since 1995: A review of published studies . Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31 287-313 .

17.

Rabbie,J. M. , & Horwitz, M. (1969). Arousal of ingroup-outgroup bias by chance win or loss . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13 269-277 .

18.

Smith, E. R. , & Henry, S. (1996). An in-group becomes part of the self: Response time evidence . Personalilt and Social Psychology, 22 635-642 .

19.

Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination . Scientific American, 223 96-102 .

20.

Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations London: Academic Press .

21.

Tajfel, H. , Billig, K , Bundy, R. . & Flament. C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behavior . European Joiirnal of Social Psychology. 1 149-175 .

22.

Tajfel, H. . & Turner. J.C. (1986). An integrative theory of intergroup relation. In S. Woorchel & W. G. Austin (Ed.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall .

23.

Turner, J. C. , Hogg, M. A. , Oakes, P. J. , Reicher, S. D. , & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory Oxford and New York: Basil Blackwell .

24.

Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9. 1-27 .

25.

Zajonc, R. B. (2001). Mere exposure: A gateway to the subliminal . Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10 224-228 .

Exploring Implicit Partisanship: Enigmatic (But Genuine) Group Identification and Attraction

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References