| 1a |
“…we begin by examining whether lay individuals infer the prototypicality of members of groups from knowledge of the extent to which a member is respected by other ingroup members… |
2 (respected vs. disrespected) x 2 (voluntary vs. compulsory group) |
Simple Effect |
“There was a statistically significant and large effect of target on inferred prototypicality, F (1, 76) = 44.83, p < .001, g = 1.52. Participants inferred higher prototypicality of the target when the target was framed as a respected member of his group (M = 4.78, SD = 1.35) rather than a disrespected member of his group (M = 2.80, SD = 1.26).” |
F (1, 76) = 44.83 |
| 1b |
“…and infer intragroup respect of members of groups from knowledge of how prototypical a group member is…” |
2 (prototypical vs. non-prototypical) x 2 (voluntary vs. compulsory group) |
Simple Effect |
“There was a statistically significant and large effect of target on respect ratings, F (1, 74) = 40.69, p < .001, g = 1.46. Participants inferred the target to be more respected when the target was framed as a prototypical member of his group (M = 5.28, SD = 1.12) rather than an unprototypical member of his group (M = 3.74, SD = .99).” |
F (1, 74) = 40.69 |
| 2a |
“…inferences about prototypicality from intragroup respect…should be stronger within highly cohesive versus incohesive groups.” |
2 (respected vs. disrespected) x 2 (cohesive vs. incohesive) (attenuated interaction) |
Two-way interaction |
“…an interaction between target respect and group cohesion, F (1, 122) = 4.43, p = .04. Participants expected the target to be more prototypical when the target was framed as a respected member of his group (M = 3.41, SD = .56) rather than a disrespected member of his group (M = 2.44, SD = .56), g = 1.73. This effect was larger when the group was framed as cohesive (g = 2.41) than when the group was framed as incohesive (g = 1.27).” |
F (1, 122) = 4.43 |
| 2b |
“…inferences about…intragroup respect from prototypicality should be stronger within highly cohesive versus incohesive groups.” |
2 (prototypical vs. non-prototypical) x 2 (cohesive vs. incohesive) (attenuated interaction) |
Two-way interaction |
“…an interaction between target prototypicality and group cohesion, F (1, 124) = 9.03, p = .003. Only in the cohesive group condition did participants infer the target to be more respected when the target was framed as a prototypical member of his group (M = 3.59, SD = .47) rather than an unprototypical member of his group (M = 3.03, SD = .47), g = 1.19, t (60) = 4.65, p < .001. In the incohesive group condition, target prototypicality did not alter inferences about intragroup respect of the target, t (64) = .41, p = .69.” |
F (1, 124) = 9.03 |
| 2c |
“…inferences about prototypicality from intragroup respect…should be stronger within highly cohesive versus incohesive groups.” |
2 (respected vs. disrespected) x 2 (cohesive vs. incohesive) (attenuated interaction) |
Two-way interaction |
“an interaction between target respect and group cohesion, F (1, 418) = 17.46, p < .001. Participants expected the target to be more prototypical when the target was framed as a respected member of his group (M = 3.32, SD = .69) rather than a disrespected member of his group (M = 2.65, SD = .71), g = 0.96. This effect was larger when the group was framed as cohesive (g = 1.30) than when the group was framed as incohesive (g = .61).” |
F (1, 418) = 17.46 |
| 2d |
“…inferences about…intragroup respect from prototypicality should be stronger within highly cohesive versus incohesive groups.” |
2 (prototypical vs. non-prototypical) x 2 (cohesive vs. incohesive) (attenuated interaction) |
Two-way interaction |
“These main effects were not qualified by an interaction, F (1, 423) = 0.035, p = .85.” |
F (1, 423) = 0.035 |
| 3 |
“…examining whether individuals make inferences about group cohesiveness based upon the perceived relationship between respect and prototypicality, which is postulated under our theoretical balance triangle depicted in Fig 1.” |
3-cell (positive correlation, no correlation, negative correlation) |
Positive vs. No correlation |
“Group A was seen as significantly more cohesive in the positive condition (M = 4.25, SD = .84) compared to the neutral condition (M = 3.64, SD = .99), t (44) = 2.21, p = .03, g = .66.” |
t (44) = 2.21 |
| 4a |
“In Study 4 we conducted a replication of Study 3 with an increased sample size. Because of the ambiguity in making inferences of group cohesion in the negative condition in Study 3, in Study 4 we chose to focus on the positive condition, which clearly reflects the case of perceptual harmony.” |
2-cell (positive vs. no correlation) |
Difference of means |
“Results revealed that participants in the positive condition (n = 55) inferred greater group cohesion (M = 4.48, SD = .73) than participants in the neutral condition (n = 57, M = 3.97, SD = .96), t (110) = 3.14, p = .002, g = .60.” |
t (110) = 3.14 |
| 4b |
“In Study 4b we conducted a high-powered and preregistered replication of Study 4a.” |
2-cell (positive vs. no correlation) |
Difference of means |
“Results revealed that participants in the positive condition (n = 108) inferred greater group cohesion (M = 5.29, SD = .82) than participants in the neutral condition (n = 105, M = 4.94, SD = 1.17), t (210) = 2.58, p = .01, g = 0.35.” |
t (210) = 2.58 |
