Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:10:31.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 18 - Group-Motivated Sampling

From Skewed Experiences to Biased Evaluations

from Part V - Sampling as a Tool in Social Environments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2023

Klaus Fiedler
Affiliation:
Universität Heidelberg
Peter Juslin
Affiliation:
Uppsala Universitet, Sweden
Jerker Denrell
Affiliation:
University of Warwick
Get access

Summary

Social interactions provide a large proportion of the information that people gather on a daily basis. The fundamental question guiding this chapter is whether and how social motivations influence the samples people gather, and how this drives downstream evaluative biases. We begin by highlighting how group-based motivations may influence three different stages of information processing: (1) where and how much information people gather, (2) how people interpret sampled information, and (3) how sampling strategies change recursively over time based on the congeniality of the environment. We then review recent empirical work that tests these possibilities using different social identities and contexts. Across seven studies we found that most participants began sampling from their own group, and that they sampled overall more information from their own group, giving rise to more variable ingroup (relative to outgroup) experiences. We also found that participants asymmetrically integrated their initial experiences into their evaluations based on congeniality: initial positive experiences were integrated into evaluations, whereas initial negative experiences were not. Lastly, we demonstrated that participants adopted different sampling strategies over time when the ingroup was de facto worse, obfuscating real-group differences. Together, we demonstrate that group-based motivations permeate each stage of information sampling, collectively giving rise to biased evaluations. These results unite extant research on sampling and interpretive sources of bias and provide a springboard for future research on sampling behavior across social motivations and contexts.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1993). Half a minute: Predicting teacher evaluations from thin slices of nonverbal behavior and physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(3), 431441. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.64.3.431Google Scholar
Anderson, C., & Putterman, L. (2003). Do non-strategic sanctions obey the law of demand? The demand for punishment in the voluntary contribution mechanism (p. 31). Working paper.Google Scholar
Bergh, R., & Lindskog, M. (2019). The group-motivated sampler. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(5), 845862. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000601Google Scholar
Bolsen, T., Druckman, J. N., & Cook, F. L. (2014). The influence of partisan motivated reasoning on public opinion. Political Behavior, 36(2), 235262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-013-9238-0Google Scholar
Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 429444. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00126Google Scholar
Brewer, M. B. (2001). The many faces of social identity: Implications for political psychology. Political Psychology, 22(1), 115125. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895x.00229Google Scholar
Brewer, M. B., & Pierce, K. P. (2005). Social identity complexity and outgroup tolerance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(3), 428437. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271710Google Scholar
Cikara, M., Van Bavel, J. J., Ingbretsen, Z. A., & Lau, T. (2017). Decoding “Us” and “Them”: Neural representations of generalized group concepts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146(5), 621631. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000287Google Scholar
Dalmaso, M., Pavan, G., Castelli, L., & Galfano, G. (2012). Social status gates social attention in humans. Biology Letters, 8(3), 450452. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2011.0881Google Scholar
Denrell, J. (2005). Why most people disapprove of me: Experience sampling in impression formation. Psychological Review, 112(4), 951978. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.4.951Google Scholar
Denrell, J., & Le Mens, G. (2017). Information sampling, belief synchronization, and collective illusions. Management Science, 63(2), 528547. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derreumaux, Y., Bergh, R., & Hughes, B. (2022). Partisan-motivated sampling: Re-examining politically motivated reasoning across the information processing stream. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 123(2), 316336. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000375CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ditto, P. H., & Lopez, D. F. (1992). Motivated skepticism: Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 568584. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everett, J. A. C., Faber, N. S., & Crockett, M. (2015). Preferences and beliefs in ingroup favoritism. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 9 (Feb.), 121. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00015Google Scholar
Fiedler, K. (2000). Beware of samples! A cognitive-ecological sampling approach to judgment biases. Psychological Review, 107(4), 659676. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.107.4.659CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flynn, D. J., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2017). The nature and origins of misperceptions: Understanding false and unsupported beliefs about politics. Political Psychology, 38, 127150. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gampa, A., Wojcik, S. P., Motyl, M., Nosek, B. A., & Ditto, P. H. (2019). (Ideo)logical reasoning: Ideology impairs sound reasoning. Social Psychological and Personality Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619829059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gramzow, R. H., Gaertner, L., & Sedikides, C. (2001, Feb). Memory for in-group and out-group information in a minimal group context: The self as an informational base. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 80(2), 188205. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.80.2.188. PMID: 11220440.Google Scholar
Hart, W., Albarracín, D., & Eagly, A. H., et al. (2009). Feeling validated versus being correct: A meta-analysis of selective exposure to information. Psychological Bulletin, 135(4), 555588. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015701Google Scholar
Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(February), 575604. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135109CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hogg, M. a., Terry, D. J., & White, K. M. (1995). A tale of two theories: A critical comparison of identity theory with social identity theory. Social Psychology, 58(4), 255269. http://www.jstor.org/stabl.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, J. W., & Rothbart, M. (1980). Social categorization and memory for in-group and out-group behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 301310.Google Scholar
Hughes, B. L., Zaki, J., & Ambady, N. (2017). Motivation alters impression formation and related neural systems. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 12(1), 4960. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsw147Google Scholar
Iyengar, S., & Krupenkin, M. (2018). The strengthening of partisan affect. Political Psychology, 39, 201218. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12487Google Scholar
Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., & Levendusky, M., et al. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22(1), 129146. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 690707. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12152Google Scholar
Kahan, D. M. (2013). Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgment and Decision Making, 8(4), 407424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Gastil, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. K. (2013). Culture and identity-protective cognition: Explaining the white-male effect in risk perception. The Feeling of Risk: New Perspectives on Risk Perception, 4(3), 163182. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849776677Google Scholar
King, J. S., & Bee, C. C. (2020). Better in the (near) future: Group-based differences in forecasting biases. European Journal of Social Psychology, 50(4), 749765. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2634Google Scholar
Konovalova, E., & Le Mens, G. (2020). An information sampling explanation for the in-group heterogeneity effect. Psychological Review. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000160Google Scholar
Kraft, P. W., Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2015). Why people “don’t trust the evidence”: Motivated reasoning and scientific beliefs. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658(1), 121133. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214554758Google Scholar
Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480498. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480Google Scholar
Le Mens, G., & Denrell, J. (2011). Rational learning and information sampling: On the “naivety” assumption in sampling explanations of judgment biases. Psychological Review, 118(2), 379392. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023010Google Scholar
Lindskog, M., & Winman, A. (2014). Are all data created equal? Exploring some boundary conditions for a lazy intuitive statistician. PLoS ONE, 9(5). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0097686Google Scholar
Lindskog, M., Winman, A., & Juslin, P. (2013). Naïve point estimation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 39(3), 782800. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029670Google Scholar
Miller, K. P., Brewer, M. B., & Arbuckle, N. L. (2009). Social identity complexity: Its correlates and antecedents. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 12(1), 7994. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430208098778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullen, B., Brown, R., & Smith, C. (1992). Ingroup bias as a function of salience, relevance, and status: An integration. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22(2), 103122. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420220202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mummendey, A., Simon, B., & Dietze, C., et al. S. (1992). Categorization is not enough: Intergroup discrimination in negative outcome allocation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28(2), 125144. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(92)90035-IGoogle Scholar
Onorato, R., & Turner, J. (2004). Fluidity in the self concept: The shift from personal to social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34(3), 257278. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.195Google Scholar
Paulhus, D. L., & Reid, D. B. (1991). Enhancement and denial in socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(2), 307317. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.2.307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Susskind, J., Maurer, K., Thakkar, V., Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, J. W. (1999). Perceiving individuals and groups: Expectancies, dispositional inferences, and causal attributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(2), 181191. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.2.181Google Scholar
Taber, C. S., Cann, D. M., & Kucsova, S. (2011). The motivated processing of political arguments. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1274028Google Scholar
Tajfel, H., & Billig, M. (1973). Social categorization and similarity in intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 3(1), 2752.Google Scholar
Tamir, D. I., & Hughes, B. L. (2018). Social rewards: From basic social building blocks to complex social behavior. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(6), 700717. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691618776263Google Scholar
US Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2003).Google Scholar
Willer, D., Turner, J. C., & Hogg, M. A., et al. (1989). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Contemporary Sociology, 18(4), 645. https://doi.org/10.2307/2073157Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×