Why Can't We Be Friends? The Failure of Group-Affirmation as a Means of Buffering External Threat

dc.contributor.advisorPillow, David
dc.contributor.authorMohammed, Zainab A.
dc.contributor.committeeMemberWeston, Rebecca
dc.contributor.committeeMemberMcNaughton-Cassill, Mary
dc.contributor.committeeMemberHale, Willie
dc.date.accessioned2024-02-12T15:39:59Z
dc.date.available2024-02-12T15:39:59Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.descriptionThis item is available only to currently enrolled UTSA students, faculty or staff. To download, navigate to Log In in the top right-hand corner of this screen, then select Log in with my UTSA ID.
dc.description.abstractAn issue of growing concern in the US is group-polarization. One means of reducing external threat is the use of a values affirmation. Both self- and group-affirmation have been used as a means of intervention to alleviate out-group threat but the latter has not been as successful. The current research aims to unearth the reasons why group-affirmations have had mixed results in the past by testing two hypotheses. First, the primacy hypothesis posits that self-affirmations enhance aspects of the self that are more primary than group-affirmations, thus providing more potency. Second, the alternate domain hypothesis argues that self-affirmations work better than group affirmations because it easier to affirm aspects of the personal self (vs. the collective self) that are separate from the threatened aspect of the self, and thus serve as a resource. Both of these hypotheses have implications for linguistic patterns of affirmations and were generated partly by Study 1 that examined the writings of previous affirmations gathered by our lab and found significant differences in pronoun use. Study 2 aimed to explore the primacy hypothesis by utilizing previous methodology by Gaertner et al. (2012) in which a mixed design was used to discover where participants that both self- and group-affirm real self lies (individual vs collective). Finally, study 3 provides potential comparative tests of the two hypotheses against one another, but found little evidence to fully support one over the other. Both study 2 and study 3 further examined linguistic patterns for cues regarding their differential effects.
dc.description.departmentPsychology
dc.format.extent152 pages
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.identifier.isbn9798379575595
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12588/4546
dc.languageen
dc.subjectalternate domain
dc.subjectgroup affirmation
dc.subjecthierarchy of the self
dc.subjectlanguage
dc.subjectprimacy
dc.subjectself affirmation
dc.subject.classificationSocial psychology
dc.subject.classificationPersonality psychology
dc.subject.classificationExperimental psychology
dc.titleWhy Can't We Be Friends? The Failure of Group-Affirmation as a Means of Buffering External Threat
dc.typeThesis
dc.type.dcmiText
dcterms.accessRightspq_closed
thesis.degree.departmentPsychology
thesis.degree.grantorUniversity of Texas at San Antonio
thesis.degree.levelDoctoral
thesis.degree.nameDoctor of Philosophy

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
Mohammed_utsa_1283D_13935.pdf
Size:
1.21 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format