Abstract
Response instructions—inviting participants to respond from a certain perspective—can significantly influence the performance and construct validity of psychological measures. Stereotype Content Model (SCM) and then the BIAS map (“behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes”) were originally developed as universal measures of shared cultural stereotypes—participants’ perceptions of what most of the people in a society think about the target group—and their related social-structural antecedents, emotions and behavioral tendencies. Yet a number of studies have adopted a different response instruction focusing on individual stereotypes—what the participants personally think about the target group. So far, there is little evidence to suggest how these two different response instructions (individual vs. shared cultural perspective) might influence the performance of the BIAS map, especially when applied to target groups that elicit different normative and social desirability concerns. To provide novel evidence, we conducted an experiment with a representative sample of ethnic Slovaks (N = 1269). In a 2 × 2 factorial design, we found response instruction (individual vs. shared cultural perspective) and target group [stigmatized ethnic minority (the Roma) vs. non-stigmatized ethnic minority (the Hungarians)] had significant effects on the BIAS map and their interaction had significant effects on the social structure and behavioral tendencies (but not on stereotypes and emotions) scales. Exploratory analysis also points to partial influence on the mediation hypothesis underlying the BIAS map and minor effects on its scale properties. Our evidence suggests that the difference between individual stereotypes and shared cultural stereotypes partially depends on the target group in question and that they should be treated as two potentially separate constructs.
Highlights
Response instructions—asking participants to answer from a certain perspective—can have a significant impact on the performance and construct validity of psychological measures (Ployhart and Ehrhart, 2003; Pauls and Crost, 2005; McDaniel et al, 2007)
We explore the potential impact of response instruction and target group on scale properties and the mediation hypothesis underlying the BIAS map
We firstly report the descriptive statistics of the BIAS map subscales, focusing on the differences between the scores obtained in the experimental groups
Summary
Response instructions—asking participants to answer from a certain perspective—can have a significant impact on the performance and construct validity of psychological measures (Ployhart and Ehrhart, 2003; Pauls and Crost, 2005; McDaniel et al, 2007). Despite recent concerns about this practice (Bye and Herrebrøden, 2018; Kotzur et al, 2019a) and emerging evidence about the impact of response instruction format on the warmth and competence scales of the SCM (Popper and Kollárová, 2018; Kotzur et al, 2020), little is known about whether instructions inviting responses from individual and shared cultural perspectives influence the BIAS map (including the SCM), especially when applied to target groups that elicit different normative and social desirability concerns, as in Slovakia’s intergroup relations context (the Roma—a stigmatized ethnic minority vs the Hungarians—a non-stigmatized ethnic minority). We explore the potential impact of these two factors on scale properties and the mediation hypothesis underlying the BIAS map
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: 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.