Leach Colin Wayne, Ellemers Naomi, Barreto Manuela
Department of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton, England, UK.
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2007 Aug;93(2):234-49. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.2.234.
Although previous research has focused on competence and sociability as the characteristics most important to positive group evaluation, the authors suggest that morality is more important. Studies with preexisting and experimentally created in-groups showed that a set of positive traits constituted distinct factors of morality, competence, and sociability. When asked directly, Study 1 participants reported that their in-group's morality was more important than its competence or sociability. An unobtrusive factor analytic method also showed morality to be a more important explanation of positive in-group evaluation than competence or sociability. Experimental manipulations of morality and competence (Study 4) and morality and sociability (Study 5) showed that only in-group morality affected aspects of the group-level self-concept related to positive evaluation (i.e., pride in, or distancing from, the in-group). Consistent with this finding, identification with experimentally created (Study 2b) and preexisting (Studies 4 and 5) in-groups predicted the ascription of morality, but not competence or sociability, to the in-group.
尽管先前的研究一直将能力和社交能力视为对积极群体评价最为重要的特征，但作者认为道德更为重要。对既存内群体和通过实验创建的内群体的研究表明，一组积极特质构成了道德、能力和社交能力的不同因素。在直接询问时，研究1的参与者报告称，他们内群体的道德比其能力或社交能力更为重要。一种不显眼的因素分析方法也表明，与能力或社交能力相比，道德是对积极内群体评价的更重要解释。对道德和能力（研究4）以及道德和社交能力（研究5）的实验性操纵表明，只有内群体道德会影响与积极评价相关的群体层面自我概念的各个方面（即对内群体的自豪感或与内群体的距离感）。与这一发现一致的是，对通过实验创建的内群体（研究2b）和既存内群体（研究4和5）的认同预测了对内群体的道德归因，而非能力或社交能力归因。
