The double negative effect: The (almost) paradoxical role of the individual self in minority and majority members' information processing
Identifieur interne : 000029 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 000028; suivant : 000030The double negative effect: The (almost) paradoxical role of the individual self in minority and majority members' information processing
Auteurs : Rainer Simon ; Birgit Aufderheide ; Claudia HastedtSource :
- British Journal of Social Psychology [ 0144-6665 ] ; 2000-03.
English descriptors
- Teeft :
- Abstract information, Accessibility, Accessibility conditions, Accessibility interaction, Additional data, Anova, Bernd, Bernd simon, Brewer, British journal, Categorization, Chichester wiley, Collective self, Computer screen, Critical categorization dimension, Critical interaction, Dependent measure, Dependent measures, Ecological psychology, European review, Experimental conditions, Expt, Group cohesiveness, Group level, Group members, Group membership, Hastedt, High accessibility, Higher scores, Independent variables, Individual self, Individual self figure, Individual task, Information processing, Ingroup, Interchangeable group member, Intergroup, Intergroup errors, Intragroup, Intragroup errors, Ller, Ller statements, Majority members, Majority membership, Median split, Memory task, Minimal group paradigm, Minority ingroup majority ingroup, Minority members, Minority position, Modern society, Nding, Numerical distribution, Numerical information, Other words, Overall measure, Participant, Preference, Present experiment, Range scores, Relative size, Research participants, Rural life, Same preference, Simon, Simon hastedt, Social categorization, Social cognition, Social psychology, Target group, Typical group member, Typical group members, Unique individuals, Urban life.
Abstract
The authors examined the interactive influence of accessibility of the individual self and relative in‐group size on group‐level as opposed to individual‐level information processing. In Expt 1, the authors predicted and found that, when accessibility of the individual self was low, minority members tended more towards group‐level information processing than did majority members. This was not true when accessibility of the individual self was high. Contrary to the authors hypothesis, however, the disappearance of the minority‐majority effect in the high‐accessibility condition did not result from a decrease in group‐level information processing among minority members, but from an increase among majority members. Experiment 2 replicated this unexpected effect using two different measures of group‐level information processing. It also provided additional data on the dynamic interplay of the individual self and the collective self which seems to be responsible for the observed effects.
Url:
DOI: 10.1348/014466600164345
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:02BE6EB8F208341A620B79CF47019175BA05E82ALe document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">The double negative effect: The (almost) paradoxical role of the individual self in minority and majority members' information processing</title><author><name sortKey="Simon, Rainer" sort="Simon, Rainer" uniqKey="Simon R" first="Rainer" last="Simon">Rainer Simon</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University of Kiel, Germany</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: simon@psychologie.uni‐kiel.de</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Aufderheide, Birgit" sort="Aufderheide, Birgit" uniqKey="Aufderheide B" first="Birgit" last="Aufderheide">Birgit Aufderheide</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University of Kiel, Germany</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Hastedt, Claudia" sort="Hastedt, Claudia" uniqKey="Hastedt C" first="Claudia" last="Hastedt">Claudia Hastedt</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University of Kiel, Germany</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:02BE6EB8F208341A620B79CF47019175BA05E82A</idno><date when="2000" year="2000">2000</date><idno type="doi">10.1348/014466600164345</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/02BE6EB8F208341A620B79CF47019175BA05E82A/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">000029</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">000029</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">The double negative effect: The (almost) paradoxical role of the individual self in minority and majority members' information processing</title><author><name sortKey="Simon, Rainer" sort="Simon, Rainer" uniqKey="Simon R" first="Rainer" last="Simon">Rainer Simon</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University of Kiel, Germany</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: simon@psychologie.uni‐kiel.de</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Aufderheide, Birgit" sort="Aufderheide, Birgit" uniqKey="Aufderheide B" first="Birgit" last="Aufderheide">Birgit Aufderheide</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University of Kiel, Germany</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Hastedt, Claudia" sort="Hastedt, Claudia" uniqKey="Hastedt C" first="Claudia" last="Hastedt">Claudia Hastedt</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University of Kiel, Germany</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">British Journal of Social Psychology</title><idno type="ISSN">0144-6665</idno><idno type="eISSN">2044-8309</idno><imprint><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2000-03">2000-03</date><biblScope unit="volume">39</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">1</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="73">73</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="93">93</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0144-6665</idno></series><idno type="istex">02BE6EB8F208341A620B79CF47019175BA05E82A</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1348/014466600164345</idno><idno type="ArticleID">BJSO34</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0144-6665</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Abstract information</term><term>Accessibility</term><term>Accessibility conditions</term><term>Accessibility interaction</term><term>Additional data</term><term>Anova</term><term>Bernd</term><term>Bernd simon</term><term>Brewer</term><term>British journal</term><term>Categorization</term><term>Chichester wiley</term><term>Collective self</term><term>Computer screen</term><term>Critical categorization dimension</term><term>Critical interaction</term><term>Dependent measure</term><term>Dependent measures</term><term>Ecological psychology</term><term>European review</term><term>Experimental conditions</term><term>Expt</term><term>Group cohesiveness</term><term>Group level</term><term>Group members</term><term>Group membership</term><term>Hastedt</term><term>High accessibility</term><term>Higher scores</term><term>Independent variables</term><term>Individual self</term><term>Individual self figure</term><term>Individual task</term><term>Information processing</term><term>Ingroup</term><term>Interchangeable group member</term><term>Intergroup</term><term>Intergroup errors</term><term>Intragroup</term><term>Intragroup errors</term><term>Ller</term><term>Ller statements</term><term>Majority members</term><term>Majority membership</term><term>Median split</term><term>Memory task</term><term>Minimal group paradigm</term><term>Minority ingroup majority ingroup</term><term>Minority members</term><term>Minority position</term><term>Modern society</term><term>Nding</term><term>Numerical distribution</term><term>Numerical information</term><term>Other words</term><term>Overall measure</term><term>Participant</term><term>Preference</term><term>Present experiment</term><term>Range scores</term><term>Relative size</term><term>Research participants</term><term>Rural life</term><term>Same preference</term><term>Simon</term><term>Simon hastedt</term><term>Social categorization</term><term>Social cognition</term><term>Social psychology</term><term>Target group</term><term>Typical group member</term><term>Typical group members</term><term>Unique individuals</term><term>Urban life</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">The authors examined the interactive influence of accessibility of the individual self and relative in‐group size on group‐level as opposed to individual‐level information processing. In Expt 1, the authors predicted and found that, when accessibility of the individual self was low, minority members tended more towards group‐level information processing than did majority members. This was not true when accessibility of the individual self was high. Contrary to the authors hypothesis, however, the disappearance of the minority‐majority effect in the high‐accessibility condition did not result from a decrease in group‐level information processing among minority members, but from an increase among majority members. Experiment 2 replicated this unexpected effect using two different measures of group‐level information processing. It also provided additional data on the dynamic interplay of the individual self and the collective self which seems to be responsible for the observed effects.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>individual self</json:string><json:string>information processing</json:string><json:string>majority members</json:string><json:string>minority members</json:string><json:string>relative size</json:string><json:string>accessibility</json:string><json:string>social psychology</json:string><json:string>rural life</json:string><json:string>categorization</json:string><json:string>ingroup</json:string><json:string>expt</json:string><json:string>anova</json:string><json:string>group membership</json:string><json:string>collective self</json:string><json:string>bernd</json:string><json:string>accessibility conditions</json:string><json:string>bernd simon</json:string><json:string>urban life</json:string><json:string>intragroup</json:string><json:string>hastedt</json:string><json:string>participant</json:string><json:string>unique individuals</json:string><json:string>high accessibility</json:string><json:string>intergroup errors</json:string><json:string>ller</json:string><json:string>nding</json:string><json:string>independent variables</json:string><json:string>present experiment</json:string><json:string>memory task</json:string><json:string>research participants</json:string><json:string>abstract information</json:string><json:string>brewer</json:string><json:string>group members</json:string><json:string>higher scores</json:string><json:string>simon hastedt</json:string><json:string>modern society</json:string><json:string>numerical information</json:string><json:string>accessibility interaction</json:string><json:string>simon</json:string><json:string>critical categorization dimension</json:string><json:string>other words</json:string><json:string>social categorization</json:string><json:string>minority position</json:string><json:string>target group</json:string><json:string>european review</json:string><json:string>majority membership</json:string><json:string>minority ingroup majority ingroup</json:string><json:string>chichester wiley</json:string><json:string>ecological psychology</json:string><json:string>individual task</json:string><json:string>dependent measure</json:string><json:string>range scores</json:string><json:string>interchangeable group member</json:string><json:string>overall measure</json:string><json:string>intragroup errors</json:string><json:string>numerical distribution</json:string><json:string>typical group members</json:string><json:string>individual self figure</json:string><json:string>additional data</json:string><json:string>typical group member</json:string><json:string>computer screen</json:string><json:string>dependent measures</json:string><json:string>social cognition</json:string><json:string>ller statements</json:string><json:string>same preference</json:string><json:string>group cohesiveness</json:string><json:string>median split</json:string><json:string>critical interaction</json:string><json:string>british journal</json:string><json:string>group level</json:string><json:string>minimal group paradigm</json:string><json:string>experimental conditions</json:string><json:string>intergroup</json:string><json:string>preference</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>Dr Simon</name><affiliations><json:string>University of Kiel, Germany</json:string><json:string>E-mail: simon@psychologie.uni‐kiel.de</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Birgit Aufderheide</name><affiliations><json:string>University of Kiel, Germany</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Claudia Hastedt</name><affiliations><json:string>University of Kiel, Germany</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><articleId><json:string>BJSO34</json:string></articleId><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>The authors examined the interactive influence of accessibility of the individual self and relative in‐group size on group‐level as opposed to individual‐level information processing. In Expt 1, the authors predicted and found that, when accessibility of the individual self was low, minority members tended more towards group‐level information processing than did majority members. This was not true when accessibility of the individual self was high. Contrary to the authors hypothesis, however, the disappearance of the minority‐majority effect in the high‐accessibility condition did not result from a decrease in group‐level information processing among minority members, but from an increase among majority members. Experiment 2 replicated this unexpected effect using two different measures of group‐level information processing. It also provided additional data on the dynamic interplay of the individual self and the collective self which seems to be responsible for the observed effects.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>6.692</score><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>433.134 x 635.244 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>false</refBibsNative><abstractCharCount>997</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>9846</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>61783</pdfCharCount><pdfPageCount>21</pdfPageCount><abstractWordCount>141</abstractWordCount></qualityIndicators><title>The double negative effect: The (almost) paradoxical role of the individual self in minority and majority members' information processing</title><genre><json:string>article</json:string></genre><host><title>British Journal of Social Psychology</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)2044-8309</json:string></doi><issn><json:string>0144-6665</json:string></issn><eissn><json:string>2044-8309</json:string></eissn><publisherId><json:string>BJSO</json:string></publisherId><volume>39</volume><issue>1</issue><pages><first>73</first><last>93</last><total>21</total></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><categories><wos><json:string>social science</json:string><json:string>psychology, social</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>health sciences</json:string><json:string>psychology & cognitive sciences</json:string><json:string>social psychology</json:string></scienceMetrix><inist><json:string>sciences humaines et sociales</json:string></inist></categories><publicationDate>2000</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2000</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1348/014466600164345</json:string></doi><id>02BE6EB8F208341A620B79CF47019175BA05E82A</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/02BE6EB8F208341A620B79CF47019175BA05E82A/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/02BE6EB8F208341A620B79CF47019175BA05E82A/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/02BE6EB8F208341A620B79CF47019175BA05E82A/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">The double negative effect: The (almost) paradoxical role of the individual self in minority and majority members' information processing</title><respStmt><resp>Références bibliographiques récupérées via GROBID</resp><name resp="ISTEX-API">ISTEX-API (INIST-CNRS)</name></respStmt><respStmt><resp>Références bibliographiques récupérées via GROBID</resp><name resp="ISTEX-API">ISTEX-API (INIST-CNRS)</name></respStmt></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><availability><p>2000 The British Psychological Society</p></availability><date>2000</date></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">The double negative effect: The (almost) paradoxical role of the individual self in minority and majority members' information processing</title><author xml:id="author-1"><persName><surname>Simon</surname></persName><roleName type="degree">Dr</roleName><email>simon@psychologie.uni‐kiel.de</email><affiliation>University of Kiel, Germany</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-2"><persName><forename type="first">Birgit</forename><surname>Aufderheide</surname></persName><affiliation>University of Kiel, Germany</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-3"><persName><forename type="first">Claudia</forename><surname>Hastedt</surname></persName><affiliation>University of Kiel, Germany</affiliation></author></analytic><monogr><title level="j">British Journal of Social Psychology</title><idno type="pISSN">0144-6665</idno><idno type="eISSN">2044-8309</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)2044-8309</idno><imprint><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2000-03"></date><biblScope unit="volume">39</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">1</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="73">73</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="93">93</biblScope></imprint></monogr><idno type="istex">02BE6EB8F208341A620B79CF47019175BA05E82A</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1348/014466600164345</idno><idno type="ArticleID">BJSO34</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>2000</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract xml:lang="en"><p>The authors examined the interactive influence of accessibility of the individual self and relative in‐group size on group‐level as opposed to individual‐level information processing. In Expt 1, the authors predicted and found that, when accessibility of the individual self was low, minority members tended more towards group‐level information processing than did majority members. This was not true when accessibility of the individual self was high. Contrary to the authors hypothesis, however, the disappearance of the minority‐majority effect in the high‐accessibility condition did not result from a decrease in group‐level information processing among minority members, but from an increase among majority members. Experiment 2 replicated this unexpected effect using two different measures of group‐level information processing. It also provided additional data on the dynamic interplay of the individual self and the collective self which seems to be responsible for the observed effects.</p></abstract></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="2000-03">Published</change><change xml:id="refBibs-istex" who="#ISTEX-API" when="2016-12-12">References added</change><change xml:id="refBibs-istex" who="#ISTEX-API" when="2017-02-8">References added</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/02BE6EB8F208341A620B79CF47019175BA05E82A/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley component found"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component version="2.0" type="serialArticle" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><publisherInfo><publisherName>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisherName><publisherLoc>Oxford, UK</publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1111/(ISSN)2044-8309</doi><issn type="print">0144-6665</issn><issn type="electronic">2044-8309</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="BJSO"></id><id type="publisherDivision" value="ST"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" sort="BRITISH JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY">British Journal of Social Psychology</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="03101"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/bjso.2000.39.issue-1</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="39">39</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="1">1</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2000-03">March 2000</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="5" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1348/014466600164345</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="BJSO34"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="21"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">Original Article</title></titleGroup><copyright>2000 The British Psychological Society</copyright><eventGroup><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:2.4 mode:FullText" date="2010-12-16"></event><event type="firstOnline" date="2010-12-16"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2010-12-16"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:3.8.8" date="2014-01-07"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.1.7 mode:FullText,remove_FC" date="2014-10-15"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst" number="73">73</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="93">93</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo>Institute of Psychology, Christian‐Albrechts‐University, Olshausenstr. 40, 24098 Kiel, Germany (e‐mail: <email normalForm="simon@psychologie.uni-kiel.de">simon@psychologie.uni‐kiel.de</email>).</correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:BJSO.BJSO34.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><countGroup><count type="referenceTotal" number="0"></count><count type="linksCrossRef" number="4"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">The double negative effect: The (almost) paradoxical role of the individual self in minority and majority members' information processing</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1" corresponding="yes"><personName><honorifics>Dr</honorifics><givenNames>Bernd</givenNames><familyName>Simon</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Birgit</givenNames><familyName>Aufderheide</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr3" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Claudia</givenNames><familyName>Hastedt</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1" countryCode="DE"><unparsedAffiliation>University of Kiel, Germany</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><p>The authors examined the interactive influence of accessibility of the individual self and relative in‐group size on group‐level as opposed to individual‐level information processing. In Expt 1, the authors predicted and found that, when accessibility of the individual self was low, minority members tended more towards group‐level information processing than did majority members. This was not true when accessibility of the individual self was high. Contrary to the authors hypothesis, however, the disappearance of the minority‐majority effect in the high‐accessibility condition did not result from a decrease in group‐level information processing among minority members, but from an increase among majority members. Experiment 2 replicated this unexpected effect using two different measures of group‐level information processing. It also provided additional data on the dynamic interplay of the individual self and the collective self which seems to be responsible for the observed effects.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>The double negative effect: The (almost) paradoxical role of the individual self in minority and majority members' information processing</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>The double negative effect: The (almost) paradoxical role of the individual self in minority and majority members' information processing</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="termsOfAddress">Dr</namePart><namePart type="family">Simon</namePart><affiliation>University of Kiel, Germany</affiliation><affiliation>E-mail: simon@psychologie.uni‐kiel.de</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Birgit</namePart><namePart type="family">Aufderheide</namePart><affiliation>University of Kiel, Germany</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Claudia</namePart><namePart type="family">Hastedt</namePart><affiliation>University of Kiel, Germany</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="article" displayLabel="article"></genre><originInfo><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Oxford, UK</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2000-03</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2000</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType></physicalDescription><abstract lang="en">The authors examined the interactive influence of accessibility of the individual self and relative in‐group size on group‐level as opposed to individual‐level information processing. In Expt 1, the authors predicted and found that, when accessibility of the individual self was low, minority members tended more towards group‐level information processing than did majority members. This was not true when accessibility of the individual self was high. Contrary to the authors hypothesis, however, the disappearance of the minority‐majority effect in the high‐accessibility condition did not result from a decrease in group‐level information processing among minority members, but from an increase among majority members. Experiment 2 replicated this unexpected effect using two different measures of group‐level information processing. It also provided additional data on the dynamic interplay of the individual self and the collective self which seems to be responsible for the observed effects.</abstract><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>British Journal of Social Psychology</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">0144-6665</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">2044-8309</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)2044-8309</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">BJSO</identifier><part><date>2000</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>39</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>1</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>73</start><end>93</end><total>21</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">02BE6EB8F208341A620B79CF47019175BA05E82A</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1348/014466600164345</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">BJSO34</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">2000 The British Psychological Society</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource>WILEY</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Sarre/explor/MusicSarreV3/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000029 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000029 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Sarre
|area= MusicSarreV3
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:02BE6EB8F208341A620B79CF47019175BA05E82A
|texte= The double negative effect: The (almost) paradoxical role of the individual self in minority and majority members' information processing
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.33. |  |