Measuring the Measures

We meta-analytically synthesized the intergroup variability literature (177 effect sizes, from 173 independent samples, and 12,078 participants) to test the potential moderating effect of 11 measures of perceived variability. Aggregating across the measures, we detected a small but reliable tendency...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Group processes & intergroup relations 2007-04, Vol.10 (2), p.157-178
Main Authors: Boldry, Jennifer G., Gaertner, Lowell, Quinn, Jeff
Format: Article
Language:English
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:We meta-analytically synthesized the intergroup variability literature (177 effect sizes, from 173 independent samples, and 12,078 participants) to test the potential moderating effect of 11 measures of perceived variability. Aggregating across the measures, we detected a small but reliable tendency to perceive more variability among ingroup than outgroup members and such outgroup homogeneity was stronger among non-minimal than minimal groups. Furthermore, analyses that distinguished among the 11 measures revealed systematic discrepancies among the patterns of perception detected by those measures. Those systematic discrepancies further varied across social contexts defined by relative group status, with some measures yielding ingroup homogeneity and others outgroup homogeneity. We discuss the possibility that the measures of variability require different mental activities that interact with contextually induced cognitive and motivational processes to yield disparate intergroup perceptions.
ISSN:1368-4302
1461-7188
DOI:10.1177/1368430207075153