Plausible or not plausible: How participants assess the experimental interventions as a result of motivated reasoning
Конференцијски прилог (Објављена верзија)
Метаподаци
Приказ свих података о документуАпстракт
In experimental research, we often prime participants with an idea about their ingroup (IG) or outgroup (OG): e.g., IG members accept/empathize with OG, or OG members are willing to share disputed territory/have an inclusive sense of victimhood. As a part of a manipulation check, we ask participants to assess plausibility of the given content; those who assessed it as implausible are excluded from the analyses. By the motivated reasoning account, participants’ prior beliefs should affect the success of priming: participants find the intervention less plausible if it goes against their initial attitudes. In two experiments, we explored how individual differences in IG identification, perceived OG threat, political orientation, and ethnocultural empathy affect the plausibility assessment of two dual identity interventions: a) exposing participants to a descriptive norm by IG (majority accepts that minority identifies dually, both with ethnic and national group), or b) exposing them to a...n OG experience (minority members claim to identify dually). In study 1 (N = 184, university students), those who perceived OG as a threat assessed the intervention as less plausible, but only if it was framed from the OG perspective. We replicated this effect in study 2 (N = 329, general population). It shows that exclusion practices based on plausibility assessment lead us to omit the most prejudiced respondents from analyses, which impacts intervention effect size and its generalizability.
Кључне речи:
intergroup bias / experimental interventions / perceived outgroup threat / dual identityИзвор:
Book of abstracts, 19th General Meeting of the European Association of Social Psychology, Krakow, 2023Издавач:
- European Association of Social Psychology
Финансирање / пројекти:
- Министарство науке, технолошког развоја и иновација Републике Србије, институционално финансирање - 200163 (Универзитет у Београду, Филозофски факултет) (RS-MESTD-inst-2020-200163)
Институција/група
Psihologija / PsychologyTY - CONF AU - Ninković, Milica AU - Žeželj, Iris Lav PY - 2023 UR - http://reff.f.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/5880 AB - In experimental research, we often prime participants with an idea about their ingroup (IG) or outgroup (OG): e.g., IG members accept/empathize with OG, or OG members are willing to share disputed territory/have an inclusive sense of victimhood. As a part of a manipulation check, we ask participants to assess plausibility of the given content; those who assessed it as implausible are excluded from the analyses. By the motivated reasoning account, participants’ prior beliefs should affect the success of priming: participants find the intervention less plausible if it goes against their initial attitudes. In two experiments, we explored how individual differences in IG identification, perceived OG threat, political orientation, and ethnocultural empathy affect the plausibility assessment of two dual identity interventions: a) exposing participants to a descriptive norm by IG (majority accepts that minority identifies dually, both with ethnic and national group), or b) exposing them to an OG experience (minority members claim to identify dually). In study 1 (N = 184, university students), those who perceived OG as a threat assessed the intervention as less plausible, but only if it was framed from the OG perspective. We replicated this effect in study 2 (N = 329, general population). It shows that exclusion practices based on plausibility assessment lead us to omit the most prejudiced respondents from analyses, which impacts intervention effect size and its generalizability. PB - European Association of Social Psychology C3 - Book of abstracts, 19th General Meeting of the European Association of Social Psychology, Krakow T1 - Plausible or not plausible: How participants assess the experimental interventions as a result of motivated reasoning UR - https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_reff_5880 ER -
@conference{ author = "Ninković, Milica and Žeželj, Iris Lav", year = "2023", abstract = "In experimental research, we often prime participants with an idea about their ingroup (IG) or outgroup (OG): e.g., IG members accept/empathize with OG, or OG members are willing to share disputed territory/have an inclusive sense of victimhood. As a part of a manipulation check, we ask participants to assess plausibility of the given content; those who assessed it as implausible are excluded from the analyses. By the motivated reasoning account, participants’ prior beliefs should affect the success of priming: participants find the intervention less plausible if it goes against their initial attitudes. In two experiments, we explored how individual differences in IG identification, perceived OG threat, political orientation, and ethnocultural empathy affect the plausibility assessment of two dual identity interventions: a) exposing participants to a descriptive norm by IG (majority accepts that minority identifies dually, both with ethnic and national group), or b) exposing them to an OG experience (minority members claim to identify dually). In study 1 (N = 184, university students), those who perceived OG as a threat assessed the intervention as less plausible, but only if it was framed from the OG perspective. We replicated this effect in study 2 (N = 329, general population). It shows that exclusion practices based on plausibility assessment lead us to omit the most prejudiced respondents from analyses, which impacts intervention effect size and its generalizability.", publisher = "European Association of Social Psychology", journal = "Book of abstracts, 19th General Meeting of the European Association of Social Psychology, Krakow", title = "Plausible or not plausible: How participants assess the experimental interventions as a result of motivated reasoning", url = "https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_reff_5880" }
Ninković, M.,& Žeželj, I. L.. (2023). Plausible or not plausible: How participants assess the experimental interventions as a result of motivated reasoning. in Book of abstracts, 19th General Meeting of the European Association of Social Psychology, Krakow European Association of Social Psychology.. https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_reff_5880
Ninković M, Žeželj IL. Plausible or not plausible: How participants assess the experimental interventions as a result of motivated reasoning. in Book of abstracts, 19th General Meeting of the European Association of Social Psychology, Krakow. 2023;. https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_reff_5880 .
Ninković, Milica, Žeželj, Iris Lav, "Plausible or not plausible: How participants assess the experimental interventions as a result of motivated reasoning" in Book of abstracts, 19th General Meeting of the European Association of Social Psychology, Krakow (2023), https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_reff_5880 .