Cited by 153Social and Intergroup PsychologyPersonality Traits and PsychologyCultural Differences and Values

Selective self-stereotyping.

Biernat, Monica, Vescio, Theresa K., Green, Michelle L.·1996·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Abstract

In an examination of group members' responses to the threat of negative in-group characterizations, sorority/fraternity members were asked to rate themselves, their own sorority/fraternity, sororities/ fraternities in general, and students in general on attributes that were stereotypic of sororities/ fraternities. Results showed that individuals selectively self-stereotyped-they embraced positive stereotypes as highly descriptive of themselves and their closest in-groups but rejected negative stereotypes. They did not, however, deny that negative stereotypes were accurate or valid-they continued to accept them as typical of sororities/fraternities in general. This represents a protective, creative response to the threat posed by exposure to negative group attributes, in which self-stereotyping as a result of self-categorization is selective rather than complete.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0022-3514.71.6.1194

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Other input characteristics of fraternity and sorority members can be classified as related to privilege, including greater affluence, more conservative political and social attitudes, and higher grades on entry than nonaffiliated peers.

    “Other input characteristics of fraternity and sorority members can be classified as related to privilege (Biernat, Vescio, & Green, 1996;Yeung & Stombler, 2000).These can include salient input characteristics, such as greater affluence, more conservative political and social attitudes, and higher grades (on entry) than their nonaffiliated peers.”

    From The Influence of Fraternity and Sorority Involvement: A Critical Analysis of Research (1996–2013) (2014) · cites this paper as Biernat, Vescio, & Green, 1996

  • This selection bias, documented consistently during the past 30 years, illustrates a difference in worldview that shapes how students experience and perceive these activities.

    “This selection bias, documented consistently during the past 30 years, illustrates a difference in worldview that shapes how students experience and perceive these activities (Biernat et al., 1996).”

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Biernat, M., Vescio, T. K., & Green, M. L.
Affiliations
University of Kansas (US)
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Published
1996
Volume
71
Issue
6
Pages
1194-1209
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
OpenAlex
W4239926038
Cited by
153
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 8
FWCI
6.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r29mh048844-05)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R29MH48844)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Cultural Differences and Values
Keywords
self-stereotyping, self-concept, stereotypes, self-perception
MeSH terms
Analysis of Variance, Female, Humans, Male, Peer Group, Self-Assessment, Self Concept, Social Conformity, Social Identification, Stereotyping, Cognitive Science

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review