Positive-Negative Asymmetry in Social Discrimination: Valence of Evaluation and Salience of Categorization

By A. Mummendey, S. Otten, U. Berger, Thomas Kessler. 2000

102 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0a7074b950b33fb8898fa25f36ae96bd83a106b9

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Young children's evaluations of the ingroup and of outgroups: A multi -national study (2004, background): “Additionally, as Mummendey et al. (2000) have claimed, intergroup differentiation appears to be more widely sought in the context of positive than negative attributes.”
Self-Anchoring and In-Group Favoritism: An Individual Profiles Analysis (2001, background): “This feature might have increased the salience of the intergroup distinction and, correspondingly, the probability of intergroup differentiation ( Mummendey, Otten, Berger, & Kessler, 2000 ).”
The Minimal Group Paradigm and its maximal impact in research on social categorization (2016, background): “In addition, research on the positive-negative asymmetry in social discrimination [18,19] revealed that ingroup-bias within the MGP is mostly restricted to allocations of positive resources and evaluations regarding positive traits; when punishment and assigning negative characteristics are at stake”
Loyalty-Based Portfolio Choice (2009, background): “Almost uniformly, subjects associate positive valence characteristics with their group (in-group), and negative valence characteristics with the out-group ( Mummendey et al., 2000 ).”
Intergroup bias. (2002, background): “…favoritism is generally not found when participants are forced to rate target groups on negative as opposed to positive scales or to make negative rather than positive allocations to in-group and out-group members (e.g., Mummendey et al. 1992, Mummendey & Otten 1998, Otten & Mummendey 2000).”
THE GO/NO-GO ASSOCIATION TASK (2001, unknown): “For example, Mummendey, Otten and colleagues have demonstrated that discrimination toward outgroups is more likely to be observed in allocation of positive but not negative outcomes ( Mummendey, Otten, Berger, & Kessler, 2000; Otten & Mummendey, 1996).”