Abstract
Eighty-eight male college students evaluated a Vietnam War peace proposal that was attributed to one of four sources (United States, South Vietnam, North Vietnam, Viet Cong) or to no source. The proposal attributed to the United States was evaluated significantly higher than the same proposal attributed to North Vietnam. Enhancement of the United States' proposal contributed most to this double standard effect (i.e., the proposal attributed to the United States was judged significantly more positively than in the no source condition), but derogation of a proposal by the “enemy” was also a factor (i.e., the North Vietnam—no source differential approached statistical significance). Consistency theory predictions were partially supported. When attributed to the United States' ally, South Vietnam, the peace proposal was evaluated significantly more positively than it was in the North Vietnam condition, but the South Vietnam—Viet Cong comparison was not significant.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
