Intergroup Perception of Men and Women with Different Levels of Negative Traits

Objectives. The study of male and female intergroup perception in terms of categorization by personal similarity and attractive / repulsive personal traits. Background. Today, the question of the basic factor in the attitudes formation remains highly relevant. Two of the strongest “competitors” claim to this role — homophilia and prosocial traits. Knowing the specific gravity of factors forming the relationship to the Other can help in the developing of effective forecasts for psychological compatibility and impression effects. Study design. A quasi-experimental design was used. Indicators of objective and subjective personal similarity of respondents with the object of perception (in consideration of gender) were regarded as independent variables. The relation to the object (including cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components) was measured as a dependent variable. Participants. 414 students 18—24 years old, 86 male and 328 female. Measurements. Short Dark Triad; Attitude Scale. Stimulus material — video interview with a young man or young woman. Results. The effect of depolarization of the “good” and “bad” objects of the opposite sex was revealed for respondents with a high level of Dark Triad. This regularity is determined by gender specificity, and also “works” differently in the case of different Dark Triad traits and attitude components. Subjective awareness of similarities with the “bad” object leads to the most radical revision of his personal valence. Conclusions. Personal valence of the perceived object plays the key role in attitudes towards the Other. The factor of homophilia plays the secondary role, but in the case of inter-sexual perception it can lead to leveling and even inversion of the “good” and “bad” Other assessments.

 

1. Baleva M.V. Kognitivno-stilevye i kontekstnye faktory ingruppovoi predvzyatosti i autgruppovoi stereotipizatsii pri vospriyatii iskusstvennykh sotsial’nykh grupp [Cognitive styles and contextual variables as the factors of ingroup bias and outgroup stereotyping in the perception of artificial social groups]. Sotsial’naya psikhologiya i obshchestvo [Social Psychology and Society], 2017. Vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 67—84. DOI:10.17759/sps.2017080205 (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.).
2. Garanjan N.G. Teorija social’nogo sravnenija v klinicheskoj psihologii [Theory of social comparison in clinical psychology]. Psihologicheskij zhurnal [Psychological journal], 2015. Vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 36—49. (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.).
3. Egorova M.S., Sitnikova M.A., Parshikova O.V. Adaptacija Korotkogo oprosnika Temnoj triady [Adaptation of the Short Dark Triad]. Psihologicheskie issledovanija [Psychological research], 2015. Vol. 8, no. 43, pp. 1. URL: http://psystudy.ru/index.php/ num/2015v8n43/1181-egorova43.html (Accessed: 19.12.2018). (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.).
4. Kornienko D.S., Baleva M.V., Rudnova N.A. Horoshij i prostoj, plohoj i slozhnyj: kak vosprinimaetsja obraz drugogo pri raznyh urovnjah Temnoj triady [“Good and simple, bad and complex”: the perceived image of another and the Dark triad]. Psihologicheskie issledovanija [Psychological research], 2018. Vol. 11, no. 62, pp. 2. URL: http://psystudy. ru/index.php/num/2018v11n62/1644-kornienko62.html (Accessed: 22.12.2018). (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.).
5. Rean A.A., Konovalov I.A. Social’no-perceptivnyj obraz razlichnyh social’nyh grupp v soznanii podrostkov [Adolescent’s socio-cognitive representations (images) of different social groups]. Social’naja psihologija i obshhestvo [Social Psychology and Society], 2018. Vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 60—80. DOI:10.17759/sps.2018090205 (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.).
6. Folomeeva T.V., Fedotova S.V. Differenciacija obrazov vysokostatusnogo i nizkostatusnogo cheloveka u molodezhi [Images differentiation of high status and low status person among young people]. Social’naja psihologija i obshhestvo [Social Psychology and Society], 2018. Vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 197—207. DOI:10.17759/sps.2018090319 (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.).
7. Shhebetenko S.A., Baleva M.V., Kornienko D.S. Stereotip i social’naja ugroza kak faktory vosprijatija immigrantov russkimi [Stereotype and social threat as factors of perception of immigrants by Russians]. Vestnik Permskogo gosudarstvennogo instituta iskusstva i kul’tury [Bulletin of the Perm State Institute of Art and Culture], 2007. Vol. 3, no 1, pp. 57—69.
8. Bagwell C.L., Coie J.D. The best friendship of aggressive boys: Relationship quality, conflict management and rule-breaking behavior. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 2004. Vol. 88, pp. 5—24. DOI:10.1016/j.jecp.2003.11.004
9. Byrne D. The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press, 1971. 474 р.
10. Dijkstra J.K., Lindenberg, S., Veenstra, R. Same-gender and cross-gender peer acceptance and peer rejection and their relation to bullying and helping among preadolescents: Comparing predictions from gender-homophily and goal-framing approaches. Developmental Psychology, 2007. Vol. 43(6), pp. 1377—1389. DOI:10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1377
11. Jones D.N., Paulhus D.L. Introducing the Short Dark Triad (SD3): A Brief Measure of Dark Personality Traits. Assessment, 2014. Vol. 21(1), pp. 28—41. DOI:10.1177/1073191113514105
12. Lundy B., Field T., McBride C., Largie S. Same-sex and opposite-sex best friend interactions among high school juniors and seniors. Adolescence, 1998. Vol. 33, pp. 279—289.
13. Maccoby E.E. The two sexes: Growing up apart, coming together. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998. 384 p.
14. Martin C.L., Fabes R.A. The stability and consequences of young children’s same-sex peer interactions. Developmental Psychology, 2001. Vol. 37, pp. 431—446. DOI:10.1037/0012-1649.37.3.431
15. Mazumdar S. How birds of a feather flock together in organizations: the phenomena of socio-physical congregation and distancing. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 1995. Vol. 12(1), pp. 1—18.
16. McPherson M., Smith-Lovin L., Cook J.M. Birds of a Feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 2001. Vol. 27 (1), pp. 415—444. DOI:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415
17. Nangle D.W., Erdlay L.A., Zeff K.R., Stanchfield L.L., Gold J.A. Opposites do not attract: Social status and behavioral-style concordance and discordance among children and peers who like or dislike them. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 2004. Vol. 32, pp. 425—434. DOI:10.1023/B:JACP.0000030295.43586.32
18. Newcomb A.F., Bukowski W.M., Pattee L. Children’s peer relations: A meta-analytic review of popular, rejected, neglected, controversial, and average sociometric status. Psychological Bulletin, 1993. Vol. 113, pp. 99—128. DOI:10.1037/0033-2909.113.1.99
19. North M.S., Fiske S.T. A prescriptive intergenerational-tension ageism scale: Succession, identity, and consumption (SIC). Psychological Assessment, 2013. Vol. 25 (3), pp. 706—713. DOI:10.1037/a0032367
20. Nosek B., Banaji M.B. The go/no-go association task. Social Cognition, 2002. Vol. 19, pp. 625—664. DOI:10.1521/soco.19.6.625.20886
21. Phills C.E., Kawakami K., Tabi E., Nadolny D., Inzlicht M. Mind the gap: Increasing associations between the self and blacks with approach behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2011. Vol. 100(2), pp. 197—210. DOI:10.1037/a0022159
22. Richeson J.A., Ambady N. Who’s in charge? Effects of situational roles on automatic gender bias. Sex Roles, 2001. Vol. 44, pp. 493—512.
23. Rosenbaum M.E. The repulsion hypothesis: On the non-development of relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1986. Vol. 51, pp. 1156—1166. DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1156
24. Rudman L.A., Goodwin S.A. Gender Differences in Automatic In-Group Bias: Why Do Women Like Women More Than Men Like Men? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2004. Vol. 87(4), pp. 494—509. DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.87.4.494
25. Rudman L.A., Greenwald A.G., McGhee D.E. Implicit self-concept and evaluative implicit gender stereotypes: Self and ingroup share desirable traits. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2001. Vol. 27, pp. 1164—1178. DOI:10.1177/0146167201279009
26. Rudman L. A., Heppen J. Implicit romantic fantasies and women’s interest in personal power: A glass slipper effect? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2003. Vol. 29, pp. 1357—1370. DOI:10.1177/0146167203256906
27. Rudman L.A., Kilianski S.E. Implicit and explicit attitudes toward female authority. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2000. Vol. 26, pp. 1315—1328. DOI:10.1177/0146167200263001
28. Stevens S.T., Jussim L., Anglin S.M., Contrada R., Welch C.A., LaBrecque J.S., Motyl M., Duarte J., Terbeck S., Sowden W., Edlund J., Campbell W.K. Political exclusion and discrimination in social psychology: Lived experiences and solutions. In Crawford J.T., Jussim L.J. (eds.). The politics of social psychology, 2017. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 210—244. DOI:10.4324/9781315112619
29. Strough J., Covatto A.M. Context and age differences in same- and other-gender peer preferences. Social Development, 2002. Vol. 1, pp. 346—361. DOI:10.1111/1467- 9507.00204
30. Strough J., Meegan S.P. Friendship and gender differences in task and social interpretations of peer collaborative problem solving. Social Development, 2001. Vol. 10, pp. 1—22. DOI:10.1111/1467-9507.00145