Cited by 349Leadership, Human Resources, Global AffairsInternational Relations and Foreign PolicySocial and Intergroup Psychology

Us Against Them: Ethnocentric Foundations of American Opinion

Kinder, Donald R., Kam, Cindy D.·2009·University of Chicago Press eBooks

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7208/chicago/9780226435725.001.0001

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?

  • Once categorical boundaries between 'us and them' are drawn, destructive social psychological processes may kick in, including stereotyping, prejudice, in-group favouritism, out-group derogation and even dehumanization.

    “Once categorical boundaries between ‘us and them’ are drawn, a whole host of destructive social psychological processes may kick in, including stereotyping, prejudice, in-group favouritism, out-group derogation and even dehumanization3,55,93–95.”

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kinder, D. R., & Kam, C. D.
Venue
University of Chicago Press eBooks
Published
2009
OpenAlex
W4255413972
Cited by
349
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 66 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 12
FWCI
16.54
Type
book
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
University of Chicago Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Leadership, Human Resources, Global Affairs
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Relations and Foreign Policy
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology

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