The impact of positive mood and category importance on crossed categorization effects
Abstract
Four studies examined the effect of positive versus neutral affect on preference among potential discussion partners who were members of two in-groups, two out-groups, or both an in-group and an out-group (crossed targets). The importance of targets' category memberships was manipulated by idiographically based selection. Positive affect elevated evaluation of crossed targets with a dominant (differentially important) in-group (Study 1). When categories were made equally important, positive affect had no impact (Studies 2 and 3). Study 4 presented crossed targets with both equally and differentially important group memberships and showed that differential category importance (dominance) is necessary for positive affect to influence judgments about them. These results are explained by the broadened categorization induced by positive affect.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Being in a positive emotional state does not lead to blind acceptance of out-group members; out-group members are accepted when they possess relevant socially desirable qualities, while irrelevant qualities have little influence on inclusion decisions.
“For instance, being in a positive emotional state does not lead to blind acceptance of out-group members to work with or form a relationship, instead out-group members are accepted when they possess relevant socially desirable qualities, while irrelevant qualities have little influence on inclusion decisions (Urada & Miller, 2000).”
From Psychological flexibility as a fundamental aspect of health (2010) · cites this paper as Urada & Miller, 2000
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success?
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.803 · Cited by 7,143 · see citing works
Psychological flexibility as a fundamental aspect of health
Kashdan, T. B., & Rottenberg, J. (2010) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2010.03.001 · Cited by 3,054 · see citing works
Hofmann, S. G., Sawyer, A. T., Fang, A., & Asnaani, A. (2012) · Depression and Anxiety · doi:10.1002/da.21888 · Cited by 630 · see citing works
- Authors
- Urada, D. I., & Miller, N.
- Affiliations
- University of Southern California (US)
- ORCID
- Urada, Darren I.
- Venue
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
- Published
- 2000
- Volume
- 78
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 417-433
- ISSN
- 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1315
- OpenAlex
- W1984362032
- Cited by
- 59
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 11.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
- Keywords
- positive affect, in-group favoritism, intergroup preference, social categorization, group dominance
- MeSH terms
- Affect, Analysis of Variance, California, Cues, Female, Group Processes, Humans, Male, Psychological Theory, Social Identification, Social Perception
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
