Perceivers bias group differences to favor their ingroup across attribute dimensions

Evidence

With social groups, it is likely that actual group differences along these valenced dimensions (as portrayed in figure 8.1) tend to cancel one another out across multiple attribute dimensions. That is, social groups on average are probably more or less evaluatively equivalent. Consider two social groups, A and B. On some valenced attribute dimensions A is likely to be higher than B, while on others the group difference would be reversed. Nevertheless, social perceivers may be biased in reporting these valenced group differences, such that they may tend to see systematically larger group differences on dimensions that favor one group over the other (say A over B) and smaller group differences on dimensions that favor the other group (say B over A). We use the term valence inaccuracy to refer to the systematic tendency to overestimate the evaluative difference between groups across multiple valenced attribute dimensions. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 862

The most obvious effect of intergroup hostilities should be on valence inaccuracy, with actual group differences between the ingroup and the outgroup overestimated on dimensions that favor the ingroup and underestimated on dimensions that favor the outgroup. It may also be the case that more prejudiced social perceivers see larger group differences in general than actually exist, regardless of the valence of the attribute dimensions. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 863

Categorization

• XREF: This valence-accuracy mechanism is an empirical reformulation bearing on the vault’s accuracy-in-prejudice thread and on ingroup-favoring bias debates.
• QUESTION: Is social groups being roughly evaluatively equivalent an empirically tested claim or an assumption?
• corroborated: 4 independent passages support this claim — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 862; , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 863