Afficher la notice abrégée

dc.rights.licenseopenen_US
dc.contributor.authorYZERBYT, Vincent
dc.contributor.authorBARBEDOR, Julien
hal.structure.identifierLaboratoire de psychologie [LabPsy]
dc.contributor.authorCARRIER, Antonin
ORCID: 0000-0001-5921-0887
IDREF: 185197124
dc.contributor.authorROHMER, Odile
dc.date.accessioned2023-01-23T10:57:29Z
dc.date.available2023-01-23T10:57:29Z
dc.date.issued2022-10-03
dc.identifier.issn2397-8570en_US
dc.identifier.urioai:crossref.org:10.5334/irsp.695
dc.identifier.urihttps://oskar-bordeaux.fr/handle/20.500.12278/171744
dc.description.abstractEnContemporary approaches of impression formation and stereotypes celebrate the role of the Big Two in social evaluation: the horizontal and vertical dimensions (Abele et al., 2021). Recently, interest has grown in making further distinctions within each of these dimensions (Abele et al., 2008). Here, we focused on the vertical facets, namely, assertiveness and ability. Research found that assertiveness is more strongly related to a target’s status than ability. Arguably, this pattern emerges because assertiveness comes across as less negotiable, whereas ability leaves more room for appreciation. Building on this assumption, we reasoned that judgments of ability provide more opportunity to justify or to reclaim positive identity, depending on one’s position in the hierarchy. Specifically, we hypothesized that the legitimacy beliefs and status of the judges are key factors to consider in that they moderate the perceived overlap between the vertical facets. Using a novel paradigm based on Goodman et al.’s (2001) social ladder, Studies 1a and 1b relied on judges’ legitimacy beliefs as a proxy for status, whereas Studies 2 and 3 directly examined the judges’ relative status. As predicted, we consistently found more overlap between assertiveness and ability among highlegitimacy/status judges than among low-legitimacy/status judges. We discuss the importance of taking into account the more specific meaning of the facets.
dc.language.isoENen_US
dc.rightsAttribution 3.0 United States*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/*
dc.sourcecrossref
dc.subject.enBig Two
dc.subject.enFacets
dc.subject.enSocial evaluation
dc.subject.enStereotypes
dc.subject.enStatus
dc.subject.enHierarchy
dc.title.enThe Facets of Social Hierarchy: How Judges’ Legitimacy Beliefs and Relative Status Shape Their Evaluation of Assertiveness and Ability
dc.typeArticle de revueen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.5334/irsp.695en_US
dc.subject.halSciences de l'Homme et Société/Psychologieen_US
bordeaux.journalInternational Review of Social Psychologyen_US
bordeaux.page1-13en_US
bordeaux.volume35(1)en_US
bordeaux.hal.laboratoriesLaboratoire de psychologie (LabPsy) - EA4139en_US
bordeaux.issue18en_US
bordeaux.institutionUniversité de Bordeauxen_US
bordeaux.peerReviewedouien_US
bordeaux.inpressnonen_US
bordeaux.import.sourcedissemin
hal.identifierhal-03951829
hal.version1
hal.date.transferred2023-01-23T10:57:32Z
hal.exporttrue
workflow.import.sourcedissemin
dc.rights.ccCC BY-SAen_US
bordeaux.COinSctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.jtitle=International%20Review%20of%20Social%20Psychology&rft.date=2022-10-03&rft.volume=35(1)&rft.issue=18&rft.spage=1-13&rft.epage=1-13&rft.eissn=2397-8570&rft.issn=2397-8570&rft.au=YZERBYT,%20Vincent&BARBEDOR,%20Julien&CARRIER,%20Antonin&ROHMER,%20Odile&rft.genre=article


Fichier(s) constituant ce document

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

Ce document figure dans la(les) collection(s) suivante(s)

Afficher la notice abrégée