psyg-09-01008 June 19, 2018 Time: 17:8 # 1
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
published: 21 June 2018
doi: 10.3389/ psyg.2018.01008
Edi ed by:
Ma k Hallahan,
College o he Holy C oss,
Uni ed S a es
Re iewed by:
Jill Ann Jacobson,
Queen’s Uni e si y, Canada
Claudia Vog incic-Haselbache ,
Uni e si y o G az, Aus ia
*Co espondence:
Maïka Telga
m elga@ug .es
Special y sec ion:
This a icle was submi ed o
Pe sonali y and Social Psychology,
a sec ion o he jou nal
F on ie s in Psychology
Recei ed: 05 Decembe 2017
Accep ed: 31 May 2018
Published: 21 June 2018
Ci a ion:
Telga M, de Lemus S, Cañadas E,
Rod íguez-Bailón R and Lupiáñez J
(2018) Ca ego y-Based Lea ning
Abou De ian Ou g oup Membe s
Hinde s Pe o mance in T us Decision
Making. F on . Psychol. 9:1008.
doi: 10.3389/ psyg.2018.01008
Ca ego y-Based Lea ning Abou
De ian Ou g oup Membe s Hinde s
Pe o mance in T us Decision
Making
Maïka Telga1*, Soledad de Lemus2, Elena Cañadas3, Rosa Rod íguez-Bailón2and
Juan Lupiáñez1
1Cogni i e Neu oscience Lab, Cen o de In es igación Men e, Ce eb o y Compo amien o, Depa men o Expe imen al
Psychology, Uni e sidad de G anada, G anada, Spain, 2Social Psychology Lab, Cen o de In es igación Men e, Ce eb o y
Compo amien o, Depa men o Social Psychology, Uni e sidad de G anada, G anada, Spain, 3Akili In e ac i e Labs,
Bos on, MA, Uni ed S a es
The p esen esea ch examines whe he indi idua ion and ca ego iza ion p ocesses
in luence us decisions abou s ange s a i s and ac oss epea ed in e ac ions.
In a pa ial eplica ion o he s udy epo ed by Cañadas e al. (2015), pa icipan s
played an adap a ion o he mul i- ound us game pa adigm and had o decide
whe he o no o coope a e wi h unknown pa ne s. Gende (S udy 1a) and e hnici y
(S udies 1b, 2, and 3) se ed o c ea e dis inc social ca ego ies among he game
pa ne s, whose ecip oca ion a es we e manipula ed a g oup and indi idual le els.
A he g oup le el, wo social g oups (i.e., ing oup s. ou g oup) we e associa ed wi h
opposi e ecip oca ion a es (i.e., high s. low ecip oca ion a e). A he indi idual
le el, consis ency was manipula ed by al e ing he ecip oca ion a e o one ou o
ou membe s o each social g oup. Tha is, he e was one inconsis en indi idual in
each g oup showing a pa e n o ecip oca ion opposi e o he g oup ecip oca ion a e.
Ou da a, con a y o Cañadas e al.’s (2015) indings, sugges ed ha ing oup pa ne s
we e indi idua ed gi en ha pa icipan s made hei decisions o coope a e wi h he
us ees acco ding o hei indi idual ecip oca ion a e and independen ly o he g oup
ecip oca ion a e. In con as , decisions abou ou g oup pa ne s (i.e., men in S udy
1a and Blacks in S udies 1b, 2, and 3) we e a ec ed by ca ego y-based hinking. A
he same ime, in compa ison wi h ing oup, g ea e coope a ion was obse ed wi h
e hnic ou g oups bu no wi h gende ou g oups. The consis ency o ou esul s wi h he
p e ious li e a u e on social ca ego iza ion and ac oss he h ee expe imen s seems o
indica e hey a e eliable, suppo ing he hypo hesis ha ca ego iza ion and indi idua ion
p ocesses guide us decision-making, p omo ing indi idua ion mainly o ing oup and
ca ego iza ion among ou g oup membe s.
Keywo ds: ca ego iza ion, indi idua ion, mo i a ion, us , ou g oup homogenei y
F on ie s in Psychology | www. on ie sin.o g 1June 2018 | Volume 9 | A icle 1008
psyg-09-01008 June 19, 2018 Time: 17:8 # 2
Telga e al. Ca ego y-Based Lea ning Abou Ou g oup
INTRODUCTION
In ou daily li e, plen y o si ua ions equi e us o make decisions
abou people we do no know, om helping a begga o hi ing
someone’s se ices. When we ge in ol ed in hese in e ac ions,
we su ely ha e a con iden posi i e expec a ion ega ding he
beha io o hese people, ha is, we us hem (Lewicki e al.,
1998). Bu , once we decide o in e ac wi h hem, we ha e
o deal wi h unce ain y since we ha e no u he con ol on
he ou comes. This is why us has o en been conside ed as
i a ional o inconsis en wi h sel -in e es ed decisions (Be g
e al., 1995). Indeed, us ing someone unknown is isky
gi en one exposes him/he sel o decep ion o exploi a ion. In
ac , us has also been de ined as an “in en ion o accep
ulne abili y” (Dunning e al., 2014, p. 123). Bu i is also
“an impo an lub ican o social sys em” (A ow, 1974, p. 23)
since us p omo es coope a ion be ween indi iduals (Ba na d,
1968;Deu sch, 1973), which in u n leads o ecip oci y in
addi ion o being ewa ding on i s own (Tomasello, 2009).
Mos heo ies conside ha people engage in us beha io s
when hei ole ance o isk has no been espassed (Dunning
e al., 2014). Howe e , o en people us s ange s wi h whom
hey ha e no p io expe ience hus bea ing a e y high isk
o decep ion (Johnson and Mislin, 2011;Wilson and Eckel,
2011). This pa adox has been in es iga ed in psychology (e.g.,
Ballie and Van Lange, 2013), sociology (e.g., Pax on, 2001)
o poli ical science (e.g., Wilson and Eckel, 2011). Bu he
opic pa icula ly caugh a en ion among economis s who
ha e p o ided heo ies and p ocedu es o examine how we
engage in in e ac ions in ol ing us (Johnson and Mislin,
2011).
The us game (Be g e al., 1995) is a use ul pa adigm o
in es iga e unde which ci cums ances people place hei us
in someone else’s hands. In i s classical e sion, pa icipan s a e
endowed wi h 10$ and ha e o decide how much o his ini ial
amoun hey will send o an anonymous pa ne . In a second
s age, he amoun sen is ipled and pa icipan s’ pa ne can
decide how much o he ecei ed money, i any, hey would
send back o he pa icipan . Thus, pa icipan s a e “ us o s,”
whe eas he pa ne is he “ us ee” who has he powe o make
a decision ha a ec s bo h he us o s and hemsel es. F om
he pa icipan s’ pe spec i e, he mos a ional decision is o send
no hing since hey ha e no gua an ee o ecei e some hing back.
Bu esea ch has shown ha pa icipan s do us s ange s who,
in u n, ecip oca e (Johnson and Mislin, 2011;Wilson and Eckel,
2011;Ballie and Van Lange, 2013). The e o e, a ional decision-
making based on isk a i udes is no su icien o explain how we
decide o place ou us in someone. Indeed, se e al social ac o s
such as socioeconomic s a us (e.g., Blue e al., 2018;Bogliacino
e al., 2018), emo ion (e.g., To osa e al., 2013b;Alguacil
e al., 2017), o ace appea ance (e.g., an ’ Wou and San ey,
2008;Li e al., 2017) ha e been shown o a ec us decision-
making a ze o acquain ance. All he social a iables (e.g., acial
exp ession, gaze di ec ion, gende , e hnici y, a ac i eness) ha
migh in luence he imp ession o ma ion p ocess (Uleman and
K essel, 2013;S olie and F eeman, 2016) can in u n a ec he
decisions being made. Unde s anding p ocesses unde lying us
decisions equi es unde s anding wha ac o s in luence social
pe cep ion and imp ession o ma ion.
Social s imuli a e complex and con ain conside able
in o ma ion. Body language (e.g., Tiedens and F agale, 2003;
de Lemus e al., 2012), acial exp ession (e.g., Cañadas e al.,
2016), gaze di ec ion (e.g., Mac ae e al., 2002), skin colo
(e.g., Somme s, 2006), gende and a ac i eness (Solnick and
Schwei ze , 1999) a e some o he nume ous cues which in luence
ou pe cep ion and expec a ions abou s ange s. P ocessing
social in o ma ion is cogni i ely demanding so we need o
deal wi h his in o ma ion e icien ly. Social ca ego iza ion
allows us o make sense o ou social wo ld e o lessly (e.g.,
Fiske and Neube g, 1990) by using no iceable in o ma ion o
classi y o he s on he basis o he diagnos ic cha ac e is ics
o he social g oups o which hey belong. Ca ego iza ion is a
p ominen s a egy when we pe cei e social s imuli (B ewe ,
1988;Fiske and Neube g, 1990;Fiske e al., 1999;Mac ae and
Bodenhausen, 2000;Cuddy e al., 2004), bu his basic endency
o a end o social in o ma ion can be o e come by ac i a ing
ins ead he mo i a ion o ocus on indi idua ing cha ac e is ics.
Indeed, se e al ac o s such as p ejudice le el (Lepo e and
B own, 1997), pe sonal ele ance (Fiske and Neube g, 1990),
ins uc ions (Cañadas e al., 2013), powe (Goodwin e al., 2000;
Rod íguez-Bailón e al., 2000), in e dependence (Bukowski e al.,
2009) o some con ex ual a iables (Blai , 2002) can selec i ely
di ec a en ion owa d indi idual-based ea u es, hus allowing
o disc imina e among indi iduals wi hin a social g oup. Gi en
he po en ial nega i e consequences o misa ibu ion o ai s,
being able o lexibly adop indi idua ion o ca ego iza ion based
s a egies is c ucial o unde s anding ou social wo ld.
Once social ca ego ies a e es ablished, one necessa ily ealizes
ha he/she alls in o some social g oups (i.e., ing oups), and
emains excluded om o he s (i.e., ou g oups) (Elleme s and
Haslam, 2012). These p ocesses o sel -ca ego iza ion a e c ucial
o sel -pe cep ion. Depending on he con ex , people can
ca ego ize hemsel es acco ding o di e en social iden i ies
(e.g., gende , e hnici y, e c.) which a e associa ed wi h di e en
emo ional signi icance (Tu ne e al., 1987;Elleme s and Haslam,
2012). The saliency o he social iden i y and he ele ance o he
ing oup o he sel will de e mine how much a e people willing o
use ce ain s a egies o enhance he g oup iden i y (Taj el, 1978),
b oadly esul ing in a mo e posi i e a i ude owa d ing oup han
ou g oup membe s (Taj el and Tu ne , 1979). Such ing oup bias
can be obse ed in a la ge ange o esponses, om esou ces
dis ibu ion (Taj el e al., 1971) o empa hy (Xu e al., 2009),
including us (Wilson and Kaya ani, 1968;Tanis and Pos mes,
2005;Romano e al., 2017). Thus, he mo i a ion o enhance o
main ain a posi i e social iden i y should lead people o coope a e
mo e wi h ing oup han wi h ou g oup membe s (B ewe , 2008).
Beyond g oup iden i y, coope a ion can lead o mo e
global posi i e ou comes such as humans’ su i al. F om an
e olu iona y app oach, g oup o ganiza ion allows o es ablish an
exchange ne wo k necessa y o su i al (Hen ich and Hen ich,
2007). Acco ding o he Bounded Gene alized Recip oci y heo y,
coope a i e indi iduals wi hin a g oup help o achie e his goal
and gain he epu a ion o being eliable coope a o s, which
enhances hei p obabili y o emain pa o he g oup (Yamagishi
F on ie s in Psychology | www. on ie sin.o g 2June 2018 | Volume 9 | A icle 1008
psyg-09-01008 June 19, 2018 Time: 17:8 # 3
Telga e al. Ca ego y-Based Lea ning Abou Ou g oup
e al., 1999). Impo an ly, when i comes o us decision-making
in in e g oup con ex s, bo h in e es s in achie ing a posi i e
social iden i y o maximizing he g oups’ ou comes con e ge in
p omo ing ing oup a o i ism and in e g oup disc imina ion.
As well as ing oup bias, a di e en consequence o social
ca ego iza ion is e lec ed in he ou g oup homogenei y e ec
(Taj el and Wilkes, 1963), ha is, a ca ego y-based pe cep ion o
he ou g oup esul ing in a g ea e pe cei ed simila i y among
ou g oup membe s han among ing oup membe s, o bo h
physical ea u es di ec ly obse able (see Meissne and B igham,
2001;Hugenbe g e al., 2010 o a e iew) and mo e complex
pe sonali y ai s (Lin ille e al., 1986, 1989;F eeman e al., 2010).
Fo example, same- ace aces a e be e ecognized (Hugenbe g
e al., 2010) and di e en ially a ended (Kawakami e al., 2014)
han o he - ace aces. The e o e, he use o social ca ego ies
o ex ac in o ma ion abou unknown people has impo an
consequences o ou judgmen , ou expec a ions om o he s,
and in gene al he way we in e ac wi h hem (Allpo , 1954;
Mac ae and Bodenhausen, 2000;Bodenhausen e al., 2012;
Kawakami e al., 2017). Al oge he , hese e ec s sugges ha
despi e hei cogni i e e iciency, social ca ego iza ion p ocesses
migh also lead us o biased pe cep ion and lawed decision-
making. Fo ins ance, he ou g oup homogenei y e ec can lead
o o e gene aliza ion, ailu e o dis inguish among he membe s
o he same ca ego y and s e eo yping (Allpo , 1954;Le in,
1996, 2000;S oessne , 1996;Blai e al., 2004). In coope a ion
se ings, indi idua ion should be a mo e e icien s a egy, leading
o mo e accu a e p edic ions o people’s coope a i e endency.
In his esea ch, we aim o deepen ou unde s anding o how
ca ego iza ion and indi idua ion p ocesses a e used in social
in e ac ions, and how hey modula e he way we lea n who is
us wo hy.
In an a emp o cla i y whe he ca ego iza ion and
indi idua ion p ocesses a ec he way we lea n whe he o
us unknown game pa ne s depending on hei e hnici y,
Cañadas e al. (2015) conduc ed an adap a ion o he us game
pa adigm. They used he mul i- ound e sion o he us game
(King-Casas e al., 2005) in which pa icipan s in e ac se e al
imes wi h he us ees. Because o hese epea ed in e ac ions,
pa icipan s’ bes s a egy is o indi idua e and lea n as as
as possible he ecip oca ion a e o each us ee. In Cañadas
e al.’s (2015) adap a ion, all pa icipan s we e whi e and played
wi h whi e and black us ees. Each e hnic g oup was associa ed
wi h ei he a high o a low p opo ion o ecip oca ion a e.
Fo ins ance, black us ees ecip oca ed in 75% o he ials
whe eas whi e us ees ecip oca ed only in 25% o he ials.
Fu he mo e, in each g oup, one indi idual was inconsis en wi h
espec o he o he membe s, ha is, his pe son was associa ed
wi h he ecip oca ion a e co esponding o he o he e hnic
g oup. Following he same example, one black pa ne ended
no o ecip oca e whe eas one whi e pa ne highly ecip oca ed.
Wi h his p ocedu e, pa icipan s’ coope a ion s a egies owa d
he inconsis en indi idual a e c i ical. I pa icipan s indi idua e
hei pa ne s, hey should coope a e wi h he inconsis en
indi idual acco ding o his o he own ecip oca ion a e and
independen ly o he g oup ecip oca ion a e. On he o he
hand, i pa icipan s ca ego ized hei pa ne s, hey should
apply he g oup ecip oca ion knowledge o he inconsis en
indi idual.
Pa icipan s we e expec ed o mos ly indi idua e hei game
pa ne s using he ial-by- ial eedback o guide hei decisions,
gi en his s a egy is he one ha maximizes p o i s. Mo eo e ,
and acco ding o p e ious esea ch, his pa e n was expec ed
mainly o ing oup membe s who a e gene ally pe cei ed along
wi h an iden i y-based diagnos ic a he han ca ego iza ion
p ocesses (Taj el and Wilkes, 1963). Con a y o his hypo hesis,
pa icipan s showed a pa e n o ca ego iza ion o ing oup
membe s (whi e us ees) and a pa e n o indi idua ion o
ou g oup membe s (black us ees). Cañadas e al. (2015) a gued
ha despi e he manipula ion o ecip oca ion a es acco ding
o us ees’ e hnici y, a di e en social dimension may ha e
been salien and con used pa icipan s as men and women we e
included wi hin each e hnic g oup. The e o e, pa icipan s may
ha e elied on gende o e e hnici y o iden i y and ca ego ize
hei game pa ne s, so ha e hnici y did no ha e he ele ance
expec ed in hei expe imen . In he cu en esea ch, we go
beyond he p e ious s udy epo ed by Cañadas e al. (2015)
by expe imen ally dis inguishing he e ec s o ace and gende
on us decision-making. We adap ed and eplica ed Cañadas
e al.’s (2015) p ocedu e ac oss h ee expe imen s in which we
also in es iga ed a possible e ec o expe imen e ’s e hnici y on
pa icipan s’ decisions.
One o he main goals o he p esen esea ch was o cla i y
he esul s epo ed by Cañadas e al. (2015) by disen angling
he e ec s o gende and e hnici y in a mul i- ound us game
ask. In o de o achie e his goal, we manipula ed be ween
expe imen s us ees’ g oup membe ship o pa icipan s o use
jus one social dimension, while he o he s emained cons an
ac oss all us ees. Tha is, we p esen ed pa icipan s wi h men
and women, all belonging o he pa icipan s’ e hnic g oup
(whi e; S udy 1a), o wi h blacks and whi es, all belonging
o he pa icipan s’ same gende ca ego y (women; S udy 1b).
In S udy 2, we ocused on he e hnic ca ego y and epea ed
he same expe imen al p ocedu e as in S udy 1b in oducing
a be ween-g oup manipula ion o he expe imen e ’s e hnici y.
This allowed us o explo e a possible e ec o social desi abili y
boos ed by he p esence o an ou g oup expe imen e , which
may ha e in luenced pa icipan s’ esponses. Finally, in S udy 3,
we di ec ly eplica ed he expe imen epo ed by Cañadas e al.
(2015) including men and women in each e hnic g oup, while we
main ained he be ween-g oup manipula ion o expe imen e ’s
e hnici y.
In line wi h Cañadas e al.’s (2015) gene al p edic ion, we
expec ed pa icipan s o mos ly indi idua e hei pa ne s since
hey we e p o ided wi h bo h he mo i a ion (i.e., economic
ou comes) and he means (i.e., eedback a e each ial) o do
so. Mo eo e , since he saliency o gende may ha e con ounded
he iden i ica ion o e hnici y as he ele an social dimension
in Cañadas e al.’s (2015) s udy, we had no s ong heo e ical
mo i es o expec a eplica ion o he da a hey epo ed.
Thus, in S udies 1 and 2, we p edic ed on bo h gende and
e hnici y dimensions a s onge pa e n o indi idua ion o
ing oup membe s han o ou g oup membe s as sugges ed by
he p e ious li e a u e (Taj el and Wilkes, 1963), in con as o
F on ie s in Psychology | www. on ie sin.o g 3June 2018 | Volume 9 | A icle 1008
psyg-09-01008 June 19, 2018 Time: 17:8 # 4
Telga e al. Ca ego y-Based Lea ning Abou Ou g oup
he pa e n obse ed by Cañadas e al. (2015). Finally, in S udy 3,
we di ec ly eplica ed he expe imen al design o Cañadas e al.
(2015) while es ing o a possible expe imen e e ec .
STUDY 1
The goal o S udy 1 was o dis inguish be ween he e ec s o
gende and e hnici y in a us game pa adigm. In o de o achie e
his, pa icipan s (all whi e emale) we e andomly assigned o
one o wo expe imen s: in S udy 1a gende was manipula ed
while e hnici y emained cons an ac oss all us ees (all whi e)
whe eas in S udy 1b e hnici y was manipula ed while gende was
iden ical ac oss all us ees (all women).
Me hod
Pa icipan s
S udies 1a and 1b we e conduc ed concu en ly and pa icipan s
we e andomly assigned o one o he wo condi ions1. Fo y2
Caucasian emale s uden s (mean age: 20.48 yea s, ange: 18–26
yea s) pa icipa ed in S udy 1a and 41 Caucasian emale s uden s
(mean age: 20.11 yea s, ange: 18–27 yea s) pa icipa ed in S udy
1b. All he pa icipan s we e olun ee s om he local uni e si y
who ook pa in exchange o inancial compensa ion acco ding
o hei pe o mance in he ask (5.82€ on a e age). In hese
expe imen s and he ollowing ones, all pa icipan s had no mal
o co ec ed o no mal ision and we e naï e as o he pu pose
o he s udy. W i en in o med consen was ob ained om all
pa icipan s and he expe imen s we e conduc ed acco ding o
he guidelines se o h by he local uni e si y on he use o
human pa icipan s in esea ch.
Appa a us and S imuli
PCs wi h E-P ime 2.0 so wa e package (Schneide e al., 2002)
we e used o s imuli p esen a ion and da a acquisi ion. S imuli
we e p esen ed on a 17-in. compu e sc een and consis ed
o ull colo pho og aphs o an emo ionally neu al ace wi h
a di ec gaze on a g ay backg ound. The pho og aphs we e
aken om he NimS im Se o Spa ial Exp essions (To enham
e al., 2009) as Cañadas e al. (2015). Howe e , gi en ha we
needed o in oduce mo e aces o whi e (S udy 1) o black
us ees (S udy 1b), some o he s imuli we e aken om a
di e en da abase3. O e all, 24 di e en pho og aphs we e used
o ep esen he us ees, co esponding o eigh whi e women
(S udies 1a and 1b), eigh whi e men (S udy 1a), and eigh black
women (S udy 1b).
1A e da a collec ion, we ealized he e was a mis ake in he gende manipula ion
condi ion. One pho og aph o a male us ee was epea ed, such ha pa icipan s
played wi h h ee ins ead o ou us ees. This condi ion was eplica ed wi h o y
new pa icipan s. He e, we p esen he da a o he co ec ed new expe imen . As
a consequence, he o iginal be ween-g oup manipula ion is he e o e p esen ed as
wo di e en expe imen s: S udy 1a and S udy 1b.
2A he ime his expe imen was ca ied ou , i was no usual in ou lab o pe o m
powe analyses o es ima e sample size. Howe e , a sensi i i y powe analysis
assuming an alpha c i e ion o 0.05 and a powe c i e ion o 0.80 e ealed ha wi h
ou sample o 40 and 41 pa icipan s, espec i ely, in S udies 1a and 1b, he smalles
e ec size ha could ha e been de ec ed o he c i ical T us ee G oup ×G oup
Recip oca ion ×Indi idual Consis ency in e ac ion was 0.23.
3The pho og aphs we e ceded by he Social Cogni ion Lab o Yo k Uni e si y.
P ocedu e
As a co e s o y, he expe imen e explained o pa icipan s
ha hey would ake pa in a s udy abou economic decision-
making. Pa icipan s we e mo i a ed o be as accu a e as possible
as hey would be economically ewa ded p opo ionally o hei
pe o mance in he ask.
Pa icipan s played a mul i- ound us game adap ed om
King-Casas e al. (2005). Each ial consis ed o a game wi h a
i ual pa ne ep esen ed by one o he 24 aces ha se ed
as s imuli. A he beginning o he ial, pa icipan s we e
p esen ed o 190 ms wi h a eu o symbol (i.e., “€”) indica ing he
endowmen o 1€. Then, a ixa ion c oss was p esen ed du ing
500 ms ollowed by he pho og aph o he game pa ne o
1,500 ms. Pa icipan s we e asked o indica e whe he o no hey
decided o coope a e wi h he co esponding us ee by p essing
he ‘1’ key in case o coope a ing and he ‘0’ key in he con a y
case. In case o coope a ing, hei game pa ne would ecei e
he ini ial 1€ mul iplied by 5 (i.e., 5€) wi h he possibili y o
ei he keep he whole money o hei own, o o ecip oca e
by sending back hal o he amoun (i.e., 2.5€). In case o no
coope a ing, pa icipan s would keep he ini ial 1€ o hemsel es
and hei pa ne would ecei e no hing. Once hey esponded
(o a e 1,500 ms), a second ixa ion c oss was p esen ed o
500 ms ollowed by isual eedback displayed o 1,000 ms. In
o de o display eedback, we used h ee symbols (i.e., “o,” “∗,”
and “#”) in h ee di e en colo s (i.e., blue, b own, and g een).
Each o hem was associa ed wi h he ollowing meanings: “You
ha e kep he money,” “You ha e coope a ed and you pa ne
has ecip oca ed,” and “You ha e coope a ed and you pa ne
has no ecip oca ed.” The associa ion be ween symbols, colo s
and hei meanings was coun e balanced ac oss pa icipan s. The
message “You did no answe ” was displayed when pa icipan s
did no answe a e 1,500 ms. Feedback was displayed a e each
ial all along he ask.
We manipula ed us ees ecip oca ion on he basis o he
p ocedu e de eloped by Cañadas e al. (2015), as seen in Figu e 1.
Conc e ely, us ees’ ecip oca ion was manipula ed a he g oup
and he indi idual le el. A he g oup le el, he a o emen ioned
ing oup-ou g oup dis inc ions (S udy 1a: women s. men; S udy
1b: blacks s. whi es) we e used o c ea e an associa ion be ween
social ca ego ies and a pa icula ecip oca ion a e. Ing oup
and ou g oup displayed opposi e pa e ns o ecip oca ion,
ha is, when one g oup (e.g., he ing oup) was associa ed
wi h a high p opo ion o ecip oca ion (i.e., ecip oca ing
in 75% o he ials), he o he one (e.g., ou g oup) was
associa ed wi h a low ecip oca ion a e (i.e., ecip oca ing
in 25% o he ials). A he same ime, ecip oca ion a e
was manipula ed a he indi idual le el: consis en indi iduals
( h ee ou o ou membe s) displayed he same ecip oca ion
a e as he ca ego y hey belonged o, whe eas inconsis en
indi iduals (one ou o ou membe s) we e associa ed wi h
he opposi e pa e n o ecip ocal coope a ion. Faces associa ed
wi h consis en o inconsis en condi ions we e coun e balanced
ac oss pa icipan s.
Al oge he , pa icipan s played 40 imes wi h each o he
16 us ees, esul ing in 640 ials. The ask was di ided in
wo phases o i e blocks each (Figu e 1). In he i s phase,
F on ie s in Psychology | www. on ie sin.o g 4June 2018 | Volume 9 | A icle 1008
psyg-09-01008 June 19, 2018 Time: 17:8 # 5
Telga e al. Ca ego y-Based Lea ning Abou Ou g oup
FIGURE 1 | Example o ecip oca ion a es in S udy 1a, adap ed om Cañadas e al. (2013).
in Block 1, all us ees ecip oca ed a 50%. This block was
in oduced in o de o e i y whe he pa icipan s p esen ed a
p io bias in hei decision-making, which would be e lec ed in
a highe coope a ion a e wi h one o he wo g oups. Fu he , in
Blocks 2–5, we implemen ed he coope a ion manipula ions, i.e.,
g oup ecip oca ion and indi idual consis ency, by associa ing
membe s o each g oup wi h a pa icula ecip oca ion a e, as
desc ibed abo e. In he second phase, in Block 1 we in oduced
eigh new aces ( ou om each social ca ego y) wi h which
pa icipan s had no p io expe ience and belonging o he wo
social ca ego ies used. Again, us ees s a ed coope a ing a 50%,
which allowed us o analyze whe he he lea ning om he
i s phase gene alized o new indi iduals in he second phase.
This would be e lec ed in a biased coope a ion a e owa d
one g oup depending on which g oup s a ed ecip oca ing in
a highe o lowe p opo ion o ials du ing he i s phase.
Finally, in Blocks 2–5 o he second phase, we e e sed he
associa ion be ween he g oups and hei ecip oca ion a e.
Fo ins ance, i he membe s o he ing oup “women” we e
associa ed wi h a high ecip oca ion a e in he i s phase,
he new aces o women we e la e associa ed wi h a low
ecip oca ion a e in he second phase. The o de in which
ing oup o ou g oup s a ed wi h a high ecip oca ion a e was
coun e balanced ac oss pa icipan s. This p ocedu e was used
in o de o ha e a ull wi hin-pa icipan s design ega ding he
a iables o in e es .
A he end o he expe imen , pa icipan s we e endowed along
wi h hei pe cen age o accu acy4in he ask.
Design
In his s udy and he ollowing ones, we manipula ed ou
wi hin-pa icipan s independen a iables (IVs) co esponding
o us ees’ social g oup membe ship (i.e., us ee g oup: ing oup
s. ou g oup), us ees’ g oup ecip oca ion end (i.e., g oup
ecip oca ion: high s. low), us ees’ consis ency wi h espec
o he ecip oca ion end o he o he membe s o hei
g oup (i.e., indi idual consis ency: consis en s. inconsis en ),
and he block o ials numbe ed om he i s p esen a ion
o unknown aces (i.e., blocks: 1–5 om bo h phases).
The dependen a iable (DV) was pa icipan s’ coope a ion
a e.
4Accu a e ials we e hose in which pa icipan s’ decision ma ched us ees’
ecip oca ion o decep ion.
Resul s
Th ee pa icipan s (all om S udy 1b) we e excluded om he
analyses o ha ing a mean RT sho e han 200 ms in mo e
han 50% o he ials (which was conside ed as a signal ha
pa icipan s did no ho oughly espond o aces). Fu he mo e,
we applied he same c i e ion as To osa e al. (2013a) and
excluded ials wi h RTs sho e han 200 ms om he analyses
(4% in S udy 1a and 5 % in S udy 1b).
Fi s , he coope a ion a es o Blocks 1 o each phase (in
which pa icipan s we e exposed o unknown aces) will be
p esen ed, ollowed by he analyses o coope a ion a es ac oss
Blocks 2–5 o bo h phases, om which i can be deduced whe he
pa icipan s lea ned abou us ees as indi iduals o as membe s
o hei g oup.
Coope a ion Ra es P io o Lea ning: Block 1 o Each
Phase
In o de o e i y whe he pa icipan s’ decision o coope a e
was biased owa d one o he o he social g oup, we analyzed
hei coope a ion a e in Block 1 o he i s phase (in which
ecip oca ion a e was a 50%) as a unc ion o he us ees’ g oup
membe ship (i.e., us ee g oup). Thus, we conduc ed a epea ed-
measu es Analysis o Va iance (ANOVA) on coope a ion a es
wi h us ee g oup as a wi hin-pa icipan s ac o . In S udy
1a, when he ou g oup was manipula ed on gende dimension,
we obse ed a signi ican e ec o he us ee g oup ac o ,
F(1,39) = 4.63, p= 0.04, η2
p= 0.11, showing ha pa icipan s
coope a ed mo e wi h women ( he ing oup, M= 0.68, SD = 0.16,
CI: 0.63–0.73) han wi h men ( he ou g oup, M= 0.61, SD = 0.19,
CI: 0.54–0.66), hus showing an ing oup a o i ism. In S udy
1b, in which pa icipan s played wi h black and whi e emale
us ees, we also obse ed a signi ican e ec o he us ee g oup
ac o , F(1,37) = 7.58, p= 0.01, η2
p= 0.17. Howe e , he esul s
indica ed ha pa icipan s coope a ed mo e wi h black us ees
( he ou g oup, M= 0.70, SD = 0.18, CI: 0.64–0.76) han wi h
whi e ones ( he ing oup, M= 0.60, SD = 0.22, CI: 0.53–0.67), hus
showing an ou g oup a o i ism.
On he o he hand, in o de o e i y whe he he expe ience
wi h us ees in he i s pa o he expe imen (Blocks 2–5 o he
i s phase) had in luenced he in e ac ion wi h new indi iduals
om he same social ca ego ies, we analyzed pa icipan s’
coope a ion a es in Block 1 o he second phase depending on
he us ees’ g oup membe ship (i.e., us ee g oup) and mo e
c i ically, on which g oup highly coope a ed in Blocks 2–5 o he
F on ie s in Psychology | www. on ie sin.o g 5June 2018 | Volume 9 | A icle 1008

psyg-09-01008 June 19, 2018 Time: 17:8 # 6
Telga e al. Ca ego y-Based Lea ning Abou Ou g oup
i s phase (i.e., i s coope a o ). We conduc ed a mixed-design
ANOVA wi h us ee g oup (ing oup s. ou g oup) as a wi hin-
pa icipan a iable and i s coope a o (ing oup s. ou g oup)
as a be ween-g oup a iable on coope a ion a e in Block 1 o he
second phase. We obse ed no signi ican e ec s, all Fs<1.4,
ps>0.24.
Coope a ion Ra es as a Resul o Lea ning: Blocks
2–5 o Bo h Phases
S udy 1a. (Whi e) women s. men us ees
In o de o e i y how gende ca ego iza ion o indi idua ion
s a egies had been used wi hin his ask, we analyzed
pa icipan s’ coope a ion a es wi h us ees acco ding o hei
g oup membe ship (i.e., us ee g oup), he ecip oca ion end
displayed by he g oup (i.e., g oup ecip oca ion), he consis ency
o each us ee espec ing he o he membe s o hei g oup
(i.e., indi idual consis ency) and he block o ials (i.e.,
blocks). I pa icipan s ca ego ized, his should be e lec ed
in a main e ec o g oup ecip oca ion (and he absence o
G oup Recip oca ion ×Indi idual Consis ency in e ac ion),
such ha pa icipan s coope a e in he same way wi h bo h
consis en and inconsis en indi iduals wi hin a social ca ego y.
In con as , i pa icipan s indi idua ed, he e ec o g oup
ecip oca ion should in e ac wi h he indi idual consis ency
a iable, ha is, pa icipan s should e e se hei ecip oca ion
a es wi h inconsis en us ees. The e o e, we conduc ed a
epea ed-measu es ANOVA on coope a ion a e wi h us ee
g oup (ing oup s. ou g oup), g oup ecip oca ion (high s. low),
indi idual consis ency (consis en s. inconsis en ) and blocks
(2–5) as wi hin-pa icipan s ac o s.
We ound a signi ican G oup Recip oca ion ×Indi idual
Consis ency in e ac ion, F(1,39) = 42.31, p<0.001, η2
p= 0.52
indica ing ha pa icipan s’ decision o coope a e was no
solely led by us ees’ g oup bu also by indi idual ea u es.
Indeed, he e ec o indi idual consis ency (an opposi e
pa e n o coope a ion a es o inconsis en and consis en
indi iduals) indica ed ha wi hin each g oup, pa icipan s
iden i ied inconsis en indi iduals and e icien ly adjus ed hei
coope a ion a es wi h hem. Mo eo e , his in e ac ion was
mode a ed by blocks, F(3,117) = 18.67, p<0.001, η2
p= 0.32,
sugges ing ha his pa e n o indi idua ion eme ged all along he
ask as a esul o lea ning, as shown in Figu e 2. We also ound a
signi ican T us ee G oup ×G oup Recip oca ion ×Indi idual
Consis ency in e ac ion, F(1,39) = 4.43, p= 0.04, η2
p= 0.10,
sugges ing ha despi e pa icipan s lea n o indi idua e all along
he ask, o bo h ing oup, F(1,39) = 54.59, p<0.001, η2
p= 0.58,
and ou g oup membe s, F(1,39) = 21.54, p<0.001, η2
p= 0.37, he
pa e n o indi idua ion was s onge o he ing oup, as shown
in Figu e 2.
S udy 1b. emale black s. whi e us ees
The same analysis was conduc ed in S udy 1b, in which
e hnici y se ed o dis inguish be ween ing oup (whi e) and
ou g oup (black) membe s. Again, we ound a signi ican
G oup Recip oca ion ×Indi idual Consis ency ×Blocks
in e ac ion, F(3,111) = 19.27, p<0.001, η2
p= 0.34, showing
ha pa icipan s mainly indi idua ed hei game pa ne s
and his endency inc eased all along he blocks o ials.
The T us ee G oup ×G oup Recip oca ion ×Indi idual
Consis ency in e ac ion was ma ginal, F(1,37) = 2.97, p= 0.09,
η2
p= 0.07), e lec ing a pa e n o indi idua ion o bo h ing oup,
F(1,7) = 43.35, p<0.001, η2
p= 0.54, and ou g oup membe s,
F(1,37) = 34.78, p<0.001, η2
p= 0.49, al hough also in his case
he pa e n o indi idua ion ended o be s onge o he ing oup
(Figu e 2).
Discussion
S udy 1 aimed a explo ing he e ec s o gende and e hnici y
on pa icipan s’ decisions o us unknown game pa ne s in a
mul i- ound us game ask. P io o expe ience, we expec ed
pa icipan s o iden i y and use social ca ego ies o guide hei
decisions, such ha hey would us mo e ing oup (i.e., women
in S udy 1a and Whi es in S udy 1b) han ou g oup membe s
(i.e., men in S udy 1a and Blacks in S udy 1b). Ou da a
we e consis en wi h his hypo hesis in S udy 1a since ou
sample o women coope a ed mo e wi h women han wi h men.
None heless, we ound he opposi e pa e n in S udy 1b, when
he ing oup-ou g oup dis inc ion was manipula ed based on
e hnici y. Tha is, ou whi e pa icipan s coope a ed mo e wi h
black han wi h whi e pa ne s.
While inqui ing ou sel es abou his pa e n o esul s we
no iced ha he expe imen e in his s udy was a black woman,
some hing e y unusual in he con ex in which he expe imen
ook place. The e o e, we hough ha his pa e n migh be
a esul o he expe imen e e ec (Sa le , 1970) because o
he p esence o a black woman expe imen e in bo h s udies.
Lowe y e al. (2001) a gued ha he p esence o a black
expe imen e migh be a aci o m o social in luence ha
inc eases pa icipan s’ social egula ion. Acco ding o hem,
social egula ion is de e mined by p esump ions abou he
a i ude o o he s and ela ionship-speci ic mo i es. In S udy
1a, he expe imen e was an ing oup membe acco ding o he
salien social dimension manipula ed in he ask (i.e., gende ).
In con as , in S udy 1b, he expe imen e was an ou g oup
membe conside ing he ele an dimension o pe o ming he
ask (i.e., e hnici y). The e o e, pa icipan s migh ha e been
mo e likely conce ned abou possible disc epancies be ween hei
own a i udes owa d black people and he expe imen e ’s ones
in S udy 1b, han in S udy 1a. This may ha e led hem o be
pa icula ly ca e ul no o be pe cei ed as holding p ejudices
agains black people such ha pa icipan s’ coope a ion a es
wi h black us ees in Block 1 o he i s phase may ha e
been a i icially enhanced because o he p esence o a black
expe imen e . This issue is add essed in S udies 2 and 3.
Mo eo e , gi en ha pa icipan s played se e al imes wi h he
same pa ne s, he in insic mo i a ion ein o ced by economic
ou comes, and he eedback a e each ial, we expec ed
pa icipan s o adjus hei s a egies all along he ask in
Blocks 2–5. Pa icula ly, we a gued ha pa icipan s would
use di e en ially ca ego iza ion and indi idua ion p ocesses o
guide hei decision acco ding o us ees’ g oup membe ship.
We expec ed ing oup membe s (e.g., whi e women in bo h
expe imen s) o be indi idua ed, ha is, pa icipan s would use
F on ie s in Psychology | www. on ie sin.o g 6June 2018 | Volume 9 | A icle 1008
psyg-09-01008 June 19, 2018 Time: 17:8 # 7
Telga e al. Ca ego y-Based Lea ning Abou Ou g oup
FIGURE 2 | Pa icipan s’ coope a ion a es in S udy 1 as a unc ion o us ees’ g oup, indi idual consis ency and blocks o ials. In his igu e and he ollowing
ones, Blocks 2–5 e e ed o he lea ning blocks in bo h phases o he expe imen and e o ba s ep esen he s anda d e o o he mean e ie ing he
wi hin-pa icipan s a iabili y as in Cousineau (2005).(A) S udy 1a: Gende . (B) S udy 1b: E hnici y.
hei pe sonal cha ac e is ics in o de o decide whe he o
no o us hem. Howe e , gi en ha ou g oup membe s a e
pe cei ed mo e ca ego ically (i.e., ou g oup homogenei y e ec ,
Taj el and Wilkes, 1963) we expec ed his pa e n o be weake
o ou g oup membe s. The da a suppo ed ou hypo heses in
bo h S udies 1a and 1b. While pa icipan s made hei decision
o coope a ion acco ding o he indi idual ecip oca ion end
o each us ee, coope a ion decisions wi h male (S udy 1a)
and black (S udy 1b) us ees we e somehow in luenced by
he g oup ecip oca ion end. Speci ically, pa icipan s we e
less e icien a making decisions abou ou g oup membe s
when hey did no ecip oca e acco dingly o he es o hei
g oup (i.e., inconsis en indi iduals), as shown in Figu e 2,
despi e he 40 in e ac ions wi h each us ee. This sugges s
ha when making decisions abou he ou g oup, he g oup
ecip oca ion end was pa icula ly ele an , e lec ing a mo e
ca ego y-based decision o ou g oup han ing oup membe s on
gende dimension. This e ec was only ma ginally signi ican
in S udy 1b, in which us ees’ e hnici y was manipula ed. I is
possible ha he expe imen e e ec desc ibed abo e a ec ed no
only pa icipan s’ spon aneous coope a ion a i udes wi h black
us ees (Block 1 o he i s phase), bu also hei lea ning abou
black us ees’ coope a ion ends (Blocks 2–5 o bo h phases). As
a consequence o an inc eased social egula ion, pa icipan s may
F on ie s in Psychology | www. on ie sin.o g 7June 2018 | Volume 9 | A icle 1008
psyg-09-01008 June 19, 2018 Time: 17:8 # 8
Telga e al. Ca ego y-Based Lea ning Abou Ou g oup
ha e paid mo e a en ion o black us ees, and he e o e showed
a be e pe o mance a he ask. In e es ingly, his endency
is obse ed mainly a he beginning o he ask, ha is, igh
a e in e ac ing wi h he black expe imen e . Indeed, he same
analysis conduc ed on he las wo blocks o ials con i med ha
he endency o ca ego ize black us ees was s onge a he end
o he ask, F(1,37) = 6.53, p= 0.02, η2
p= 0.15, when pa icipan s
we e no longe coope a ing in a ial/e o dynamic bu a he
acco ding o wha hey had lea ned in he p e ious blocks o
ials. The possibili y ha black us ees ecei ed g ea e a en ion
is e i ied in S udies 2 and 3.
O e all, we could no p o ide empi ical suppo o he esul s
epo ed by Cañadas e al. (2015), who ound he opposi e pa e n
o da a, i.e., ca ego iza ion o he ing oup. In bo h S udies 1a and
1b, he ing oup-ou g oup dis inc ion was clea e han in Cañadas
e al.’s (2015) epo since i was manipula ed acco ding o only
one social dimension. The e o e, ou expe imen al design was
likely mo e adequa e o p o e ha in e g oup con ex de e mines
lea ning s a egies.
Finally, in he i s block o he second phase, in which new
aces we e p esen ed a a 50% ecip oca ion a e, we obse ed
ha pa icipan s equally coope a ed wi h new indi iduals om
he social ca ego ies manipula ed in he lea ning phase. The ac
ha we ound no e ec o he i s coope a o ac o (i.e., he
manipula ion o which g oup s a ed ecip oca ing in a high
p opo ion in he i s phase o he expe imen ) con i ms ha
pa icipan s did no lea n o ca ego ize, ha is, hey did no
apply he coope a ion biases in oduced in he i s phase o new
indi iduals. Howe e , hey did lea n some hing as he ing oup
(S udy 1a) o ou g oup (S udy 1b) a o i ism ound in he e y
i s block o he expe imen disappea ed a he beginning o he
second phase. Pa icipan s’ indi idual-based lea ning in Blocks
2–5 o he i s phase ans e ed o new indi iduals in Block 1 o
he second phase, in such a way ha social ca ego ies became less
signi ican as a c i e ion o decision-making. As a consequence,
pa icipan s s a ed indi idua ing new us ees (i.e., Block 1 o he
second phase) om he i s in e ac ion wi h hem, in con as
wi h he ini ial block o ials.
In summa y, S udy 1 did no eplica e he esul s epo ed
by Cañadas e al. (2015) and a he indica ed ha when
making decision abou s ange s, ing oup membe s a e
indi idua ed whe eas ou g oup membe s a e somehow
ca ego ized. None heless, a possible expe imen e e ec causing
he unexpec ed ou g oup a o i ism ound in S udy 1b s ill needs
o be cla i ied. S udy 2 aimed o es he expe imen e e ec and
i s possible consequences on pa icipan s’ pe cep ion o black
us ees.
STUDY 2
S udy 2 in es iga ed a possible e ec o expe imen e ’s e hnici y
which may ha e a ec ed ou da a in S udy 1b. Thus, we eplica ed
he p ocedu e o S udy 1b manipula ing be ween g oups he
e hnici y o he expe imen e (Whi e s. Black). We expec ed
pa icipan s o show in he i s block o he i s phase an ing oup
a o i ism wi h a whi e expe imen e , and an ou g oup a o i ism
wi h a black expe imen e , as in S udy 1b. Mo eo e , in line wi h
Cañadas e al. (2015), we aimed a in es iga ing whe he he
epea ed in e ac ions wi h he us ees in he us game could
a ec he way hey we e pe cei ed by pa icipan s in e ms o
us wo hiness and basic dimensions o social pe cep ion. Fo
his eason, new measu es o imp ession abou us ees we e
included. Pa icula ly, we expec ed us ees who indi idually
ecip oca ed o be pe cei ed as mo e us wo hy, and gene ally
mo e posi i ely han us ees who did no ecip oca e. We
also expec ed hese da a o echo he pa e n om he us
game ask in ha he disc imina ion be ween high and low
ecip oca ing us ees should be be e o ing oup han o
ou g oup membe s. Finally, in line wi h ou hypo hesis ha he
p esence o a black expe imen e inc eased social egula ion,
we expec ed black us ees o be pa icula ly a ended, i.e.,
indi idua ed, in he p esence o a black expe imen e , bu no
wi h a whi e one. The hypo heses, me hods and analyses o
his expe imen we e egis e ed be o e da a collec ion on Open
Science F amewo k5.
Me hod
Pa icipan s
Sample selec ion
Unde g adua es om he local uni e si y we e in i ed o
pa icipa e in he expe imen . Ou side he class ooms, a pape –
pencil lis was handed o e o se e al p o esso s o s uden s o
sign up. This way, we ensu ed ha pa icipan s had no con ac
wi h he expe imen e s be o e coming o he lab. Fo e hical
easons, men and o eign s uden s we e allowed o pa icipa e in
he expe imen bu we e excluded om he analyses in o de o
e i y ou hypo heses and o exclude he possibili y o cul u al o
gende biases.
Sample size
On he basis o he analyses o S udy 1b, we calcula ed an
es ima ion o he adequa e sample size wi h G*Powe p og am
. 3.1.9.2 (Faul e al., 2007). In o de o eplica e he c i ical
in e ac ion co esponding o a be e lea ning o ing oup s.
ou g oup membe s, wi h an α- alue o 0.05 and an es ima ed
powe o 0.90. The es ima ed e ec size (V) = 0.42 co esponded
o he e ec size ound when he in e ac ion eached signi icance,
ha is, when we included only he wo las blocks o ials
in he analysis (see he “Discussion” sec ion o S udy 1). We
ound ha a sample o 39 pa icipan s pe expe imen al g oup
(N = 78) would be su icien o eplica e ou da a. In he
end, 107 unde g adua es (29 men/ o eigne s we e excluded
in line wi h ou c i e ion o exclusion) (mean age: 19.23
yea s, ange: 18–34 yea s) pa icipa ed in exchange o inancial
compensa ion acco ding o hei accu acy in he ask (5.81€ on
a e age).
Appa a us and S imuli
Appa a us and s imuli we e iden ical o he ones used in
S udy 1b.
5os .io/6dqs7
F on ie s in Psychology | www. on ie sin.o g 8June 2018 | Volume 9 | A icle 1008
psyg-09-01008 June 19, 2018 Time: 17:8 # 9
Telga e al. Ca ego y-Based Lea ning Abou Ou g oup
P ocedu e
The gene al p ocedu e was iden ical o S udy 1b, excep ha
we in oduced a pos -in e ac ion e alua ion o pa icipan s’
imp ession abou us ees. A e pe o ming he us game,
pa icipan s we e asked o e alua e each o he 16 us ees on
di e en social dimensions, as desc ibed in he nex sec ion.
Pa icipan s we e dis ibu ed in he wo expe imen al
condi ions (Expe imen e : black s. whi e) in he ollowing
way: Expe imen e s A (whi e woman) and B (black woman)
an he expe imen on Tuesdays and Thu sdays, and Mondays
and Wednesdays, espec i ely, un il eaching he sample size
es ima ed as adequa e. Expe imen e s p o ided pa icipan s wi h
iden ical ins uc ions, which hey ecei ed in he same lab.
Measu es
A e pe o ming he us game, pa icipan s we e asked o
e alua e each one o he 16 us ees hey had played wi h on a
scale anging om 1 “no a all” o 7 “ o ally” on he ollowing
dimensions: a ac i eness, us wo hiness, compe ence, h ea ,
and wa m h, in line wi h Cañadas e al. (2015). In o de
o ge a complemen a y measu e o subjec i e ca ego iza ion,
pa icipan s we e also asked abou hei subjec i e pe cep ion
o simila i y o each membe wi h he es o hei g oup on a
scale om −3 “ e y dis inc i e” o +3 “ e y indis inc i e,” and
he equency wi h which hey ha e been p esen ed wi h each
playe in compa ison wi h he o he s (1 “less,” 2 “ he same,”
3 “mo e”). Mo eo e , pa icipan s we e asked o indica e he
pe cei ed equency o p esen a ion and coope a ion a e o each
g oup in pe cen age.
Finally, apa om hei imp ession abou he us ees,
pa icipan s we e asked abou hei own gene al pe cep ion o
in ag oup simila i y on a ou -i ems scale anging om 1 “no
a all” o 7 “ o ally” wi h wo i ems o low simila i y (“I is easy o
di e en ia e be ween black/whi e people,” “Mos o black/whi e
people a e di e en ”), and wo i ems o high simila i y (“I
is ha d o di e en ia e be ween black/whi e people,” “Mos o
black/whi e people a e alike”). Two ques ionnai es o explici
p ejudice owa d blacks and women we e included a he end o
he expe imen , bu do no p o ide aluable in o ma ion since
pa icipan s showed ex eme a es, likely o social desi abili y
e ec s. The e o e, hese da a a e no analyzed and no included
in u he expe imen s.
Resul s
In line wi h S udy 1, one pa icipan was excluded om he
analyses o ha ing mean RT sho e han 200 ms in mo e han
50% o he ials, lea ing in 77 pa icipan s o he analysis. T ials
wi h RTs sho e han 200 ms (7%) we e also excluded. As in
S udies 1a and 1b, we i s analyzed he coope a ion a es in
Blocks 1 o each phase in which pa icipan s we e exposed o
unknown aces, and hen he coope a ion a es esul ing om he
epea ed in e ac ions wi h hem ac oss Blocks 2–5 o bo h phases.
Coope a ion Ra es P io o Lea ning: Block 1 o Each
Phase
Coope a ion a es in Block 1 o he i s phase we e in oduced
in a mixed-design ANOVA wi h us ee g oup (ing oup s.
ou g oup) as a wi hin-pa icipan s ac o and expe imen e
(black s. whi e) as a be ween-g oup a iable. As in S udy 1,
we obse ed a main e ec o us ee g oup indica ing ha
pa icipan s coope a ed mo e wi h black (M= 0.71, SD = 0.16,
CI: 0.67–0.75) han wi h whi e us ees (M= 0.62, SD = 0.18,
CI: 0.57–0.66), F(1,75) = 14.14, p<0.001, η2
p= 0.16. This e ec
was no mode a ed by he e hnici y o he expe imen e , F<1,
p>0.50.
Fu he mo e, we aimed a e i ying whe he pa icipan s used
hei p io expe ience wi h us ees in o de o make decision
abou new pa ne s om he same ca ego y in Block 1 o he
second phase. Thus, we conduc ed a 2 ( us ee g oup: ing oup
s. ou g oup) ×2 ( i s coope a o : ing oup s. ou g oup) ×2
(expe imen e : black s. whi e) mixed-design ANOVA. As in
S udy 1, we ound no signi ican e ec , all Fs<1.20, ps>0.28.
Coope a ion as a Resul o Lea ning: Blocks 2–5 o
Bo h Phases
A mixed-design ANOVA on coope a ion a e was conduc ed wi h
us ee g oup (ing oup s. ou g oup), g oup ecip oca ion (high
s. low), indi idual consis ency (consis en s. inconsis en ) and
blocks (2–5) as wi hin-pa icipan s ac o s, and expe imen e
(black s. whi e) as a be ween-pa icipan s a iable. We
ound a signi ican G oup Recip oca ion ×Indi idual
Consis ency ×Blocks in e ac ion, F(3,225) = 27.38, p<0.001,
η2
p= 0.27, indica ing ha , as in S udy 1, pa icipan s used a
s a egy o indi idua ion ac oss blocks elying no only on
us ees’ g oup ecip oca ion end, bu also on hei indi idual
consis ency.
We also obse ed a T us ee G oup ×G oup
Recip oca ion ×Indi idual Consis ency in e ac ion,
F(1,75) = 3.70, p= 0.058, η2
p= 0.05. Al hough he G oup
Recip oca ion ×Indi idual Consis ency in e ac ion was
signi ican o bo h ing oup, F(1,75) = 108.52, p<0.001,
η2
p= 0.59, and ou g oup us ees, F(1,75) = 85.15, p<0.001,
η2
p= 0.53, he s a egy o indi idua ion was clea e o he o me ,
as shown in Figu e 3, and obse ed in S udy 1.
Imp ession Abou T us ees
In o de o analyze pa icipan s’ pe cep ion o us ees a he
g oup le el, sco es on he pe cei ed in ag oup simila i y,
pe cei ed equency o p esen a ion and pe cei ed coope a ion
a es o each g oup (i.e., ing oup s. ou g oup) we e in oduced in
di e en 2 (e hnici y: blacks s. whi es) ×2 (expe imen e : black
s. whi e) mixed-design ANOVAs. We obse ed ha pa icipan s
pe cei ed black us ees as mo e simila o each o he han whi e
indi iduals. In e es ingly, hey also pe cei ed ha black pa ne s
we e p esen ed mo e o en and we e mo e coope a i e han whi e
us ees, as shown in Table 1.
Then, we examined pa icipan s’ pe cep ion o us ees a he
indi idual le el. In o de o e i y whe he he i e dimensions
measu ed ( us wo hiness, a ac i eness, compe ence, wa m h,
and pe cep ion o h ea ) could be classi ied in o componen s,
we conduc ed se e al p incipal componen s analyses (PCA)
wi h an oblimin o a ion. Each PCA was conduc ed in one
o he condi ion esul ing o he combina ion o ou h ee
wi hin-subjec s a iables ( us ee g oup, g oup coope a ion and
F on ie s in Psychology | www. on ie sin.o g 9June 2018 | Volume 9 | A icle 1008
psyg-09-01008 June 19, 2018 Time: 17:8 # 16
Telga e al. Ca ego y-Based Lea ning Abou Ou g oup
The p esen esea ch did no eplica e he da a epo ed by
Cañadas e al. (2015), al hough i is consis en wi h he p e ious
li e a u e on ou g oup ca ego iza ion. I is possible ha Cañadas
e al. (2015) pa e n o esul s is spu ious, o ha ou samples
o pa icipan s di e ed om he sample used by Cañadas e al.
(2015) on one o se e al dimensions such as he le el o p ejudice
owa d black people o he mo i a ion o con olling p ejudice.
Con olling he a o emen ioned a iables ela ed o he sample
would shed ligh on hese po en ial explana ions. Impo an ly,
he disc epancies be ween di e en s udies in he p ocess o
eplica ion ac ually help o deepen ou knowledge o a pa icula
opic. Wha is o en conside ed as a ailu e o eplica e may a he
be a s ep ahead in he unde s anding o he speci ic a iables
and ci cums ances ha a ec he esul s, an issue o he mos
impo ance which can ha dly be add essed in a single s udy (see
Open Science Collabo a ion, 2015, o a simila pu pose).
In any case, he p ocedu e de eloped by Cañadas e al. (2013)
and ex ended in his pape is a ema kable con ibu ion in
he s udy o indi idua ion and ca ego iza ion p ocesses. The
inclusion o an inconsis en membe wi hin a social g oup is
a key manipula ion o unde s and o wha ex en he g oup
knowledge may be gene alized o all indi iduals in a s e eo yped
manne , independen ly o hei pa icula beha io . I appea ed
o be a use ul ool o in es iga e hese p ocesses in di e en
social con ex s (emo ion: Cañadas e al., 2016; e hnici y: Cañadas
e al., 2015; gende : Cañadas e al., 2013) and ela ed o di e en
DVs such as RT o coope a ion a es, hus g an ing i s ex e nal
alidi y. Fu he esea ch could eliably use his pa adigm o
examine he use o indi idual- o ca ego y-based s a egies.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, ou esul s b oadly indica ed ha , in imp ession
o ma ion p ocesses, social ca ego ies play a key ole in ou
in e ac ions a ze o acquain ance, bu also along epea ed
in e ac ions when we lea n abou hem. Social ca ego iza ion
may occu e en when pa icipan s a e highly mo i a ed o
indi idua ing, and p o ided wi h he means o do so. The cu en
esul s sugges ha in coope a ion se ings, he in o ma ion ha
ca ego izes people wi h whom we in e ac migh some imes bias
ou decisions and hinde ou pe o mance.
ETHICS STATEMENT
This esea ch was conduc ed acco ding o he guidelines se
o h by he Uni e si y o G anada on he use o human
pa icipan s in esea ch. This esea ch is pa o a la ge esea ch
p ojec app o ed by he Uni e si y o G anada e hical commi ee
(175/CEIH/2017).
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
MT, EC, RR-B, and JL concei ed and designed he s udies.
MT and EC p og ammed he expe imen s. MT pe o med he
expe imen s. MT, RR-B, SdL, and JL analyzed and in e p e ed he
da a. MT w o e he manusc ip ha was c i ically e ised by EC,
SdL, RR-B, and JL.
FUNDING
This wo k was suppo ed by he Spanish Minis y o
Educa ion, Cul u e and Spo s, wi h p e-doc o al FPU ellowship
FPU14/07106 o MT, and he Spanish Minis y o Economy
and Compe i i eness, wi h esea ch p ojec s PSI2014-52764-P
and PSI2017-84926-P o JL, PSI2016-78839 o RR-B and
PSI2016-79971-P o SdL.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We a e g a e ul o all he s uden s o he Uni e si y o G anada
o pa icipa ing in he s udies, o Ke y Kawakami and he
Social Cogni ion Lab o Yo k Uni e si y o ceding pa o he
pho og aphs ha ha e been used as s imuli, and o Lucía E. Reina
and Lau a Ba ea Domínguez o hei help in da a collec ion o
S udies 2 and 3. This esea ch is pa o MT’s hesis disse a ion.
REFERENCES
Alguacil, S., Mad id, E., Espín, A. M., and Ruz, M. (2017). Facial iden i y and
emo ional exp ession as p edic o s du ing economic decisions. Cogn. A ec .
Beha . Neu osci. 17, 315–329. doi: 10.3758/s13415-016-0481-9
Allpo , G. W. (1954). The Na u e o P ejudice. Camb idge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
A ow, K. J. (1974). The Limi s o O ganiza ion. New Yo k, NY: No on.
Ballie , D., and Van Lange, P. A. (2013). T us , con lic , and coope a ion:
a me a-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 139, 1090–1112. doi: 10.1037/a00
30939
Ba na d, C. I. (1968). The Func ions o he Execu i e. Camb idge, MA: Ha a d
Uni e si y P ess.
Be g, J., Dickhau , J., and McCabe, K. (1995). T us , ecip oci y, and social his o y.
Games Econ. Beha . 10, 122–142. doi: 10.1006/game.1995.1027
Billig, M., and Taj el, H. (1973). Social ca ego iza ion and simila i y in in e g oup
beha iou . Eu . J. Soc. Psychol. 3, 27–52. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420030103
Blai , I. V. (2002). The malleabili y o au oma ic s e eo ypes and p ejudice. Pe s.
Soc. Psychol. Re . 6, 242–261. doi: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0603_8
Blai , I. V., Judd, C. M., and Chapleau, K. M. (2004). The in luence o a ocen ic
acial ea u es in c iminal sen encing. Psychol. Sci. 15, 674–679. doi: 10.1111/j.
0956-7976.2004.00739.x
Blue, P. R., Hu, J., and Zhou, X. (2018). Highe s a us hones y is wo h mo e:
he e ec o social s a us on hones y e alua ion. F on . Psychol. 9:350. doi:
10.3389/ psyg.2018.00350
Bodenhausen, G. V., Kang, S. K., and Pee y, D. (2012). Social Ca ego iza ion and
he Pe cep ion o Social G oups. London: SAGE Publica ions L d. doi: 10.4135/
9781446247631.n16
Bogliacino, F., Jiménez Lozano, L., and Reyes, D. (2018). Socioeconomic
s a i ica ion and s e eo yping: lab-in- he- ield e idence om Colombia. In .
Re . Econ. 65, 77–118. doi: 10.1007/s12232-017-0285-4
B ewe , M. B. (1981). “E hnocen ism and i s ole in in e pe sonal us ,” in
Scien i ic Inqui y and he Social Sciences, eds M. B. B ewe and B. E. Collins
(San F ancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass), 345–359.
B ewe , M. B. (1988). “A dual p ocess model o imp ession o ma ion,” in A Dual
P ocess Model o Imp ession Fo ma ion, eds T. K. S ull and R. S. Wye J .
(Hillsdale, NJ: Law ence E lbaum Associa es, Inc.), 1–36.
F on ie s in Psychology | www. on ie sin.o g 16 June 2018 | Volume 9 | A icle 1008

psyg-09-01008 June 19, 2018 Time: 17:8 # 17
Telga e al. Ca ego y-Based Lea ning Abou Ou g oup
B ewe , M. B. (2007). The impo ance o being we: human na u e and in e g oup
ela ions. Am. Psychol. 62, 726–738. doi: 10.1037/0003-066x.62.8.728
B ewe , M. B. (2008). Depe sonalized T us and ing oup Coope a ion Ra ionali y
and Social Responsibili y: Essays in Hono o Robyn Mason Dawes. New Yo k,
NY: Psychology P ess, 215–232.
Bukowski, M., Moya, M., de Lemus, S., and Szmajke, A. (2009). Selec i e s e eo ype
ac i a ion: he join impac o in e pe sonal goals and ask con ex . Eu . J. Soc.
Psychol. 39, 317–324. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.585
Cañadas, E., Lupiáñez, J., Kawakami, K., Nieden hal, P. M., and Rod íguez-
Bailón, R. (2016). Pe cei ing emo ions: cueing social ca ego iza ion p ocesses
and a en ional con ol h ough acial exp essions. Cogn. Emo . 30, 1149–1163.
doi: 10.1080/02699931.2015.1052781
Cañadas, E., Rod íguez-Bailón, R., and Lupiáñez, J. (2015). ). The e ec o social
ca ego iza ion on us decisions in a us game pa adigm. F on . Psychol.
6:1568. doi: 10.3389/ psyg.2015.01568
Cañadas, E., Rod íguez-Bailón, R., Milliken, B., and Lupiáñez, J. (2013). Social
ca ego ies as a con ex o he alloca ion o a en ional con ol. J. Exp. Psychol.
142, 934–943. doi: 10.1037/a0029794
Cousineau, D. (2005). Con idence in e als in wi hin-subjec designs: a simple
solu ion o Lo us and Masson’s me hod. Tu o . Quan . Me hods Psychol. 1,
42–45. doi: 10.20982/ qmp.01.1.p042
Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., and Glick, P. (2004). When p o essionals become
mo he s, wa m h doesn’ cu he ice. J. Soc. Issues 60, 701–718. doi: 10.1111/
j.0022-4537.2004.00381.x
de Lemus, S., Spea s, R., and Moya, M. (2012). The powe o a smile o mo e
you: complemen a y submissi eness in women’s pos u e as a unc ion o gende
salience and acial exp ession. Pe s. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 38, 1480–1494. doi: 10.
1177/0146167212454178
Deu sch, M. (1973). The Resolu ion o Con lic : Cons uc i e and Des uc i e
P ocesses. New Ha en, CT: Yale Uni e si y P ess.
Dunning, D., Ande son, J. E., Schlosse , T., Ehleb ach , D., and Fe chenhaue , D.
(2014). T us a ze o acquain ance: mo e a ma e o espec han expec a ion o
ewa d. J. Pe s. Soc. Psychol. 107, 122–141. doi: 10.1037/a0036673
Dun on, B. C., and Fazio, R. H. (1997). An indi idual di e ence measu e o
mo i a ion o con ol p ejudiced eac ions. Pe s. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 23, 316–326.
doi: 10.1177/0146167297233009
Elleme s, N., and Haslam, S. A. (2012). Handbook o Theo ies o Social Psychology,
Vol. 2. London: SAGE Publica ions L d.
Faul, F., E d elde , E., Lang, A. G., and Buchne , A. (2007). G*Powe 3: a lexible
s a is ical powe analysis p og am o he social, beha io al, and biomedical
sciences. Beha . Res. Me hods 39, 175–191. doi: 10.3758/BF03193146
Fiske, S. T. (1980). A en ion and weigh in pe son pe cep ion: he impac o
nega i e and ex eme beha io . J. Pe s. Soc. Psychol. 38, 889–906. doi: 10.1037/
0022-3514.38.6.889
Fiske, S. T., Lin, M., and Neube g, S. L. (1999). “The con inuum model: en yea s
la e ,” in Dual-P ocess Theo ies in Social Psychology, eds S. Chaiken and Y. T ope
(New Yo k, NY: Guil o d P ess), 231–254.
Fiske, S. T., and Neube g, S. L. (1990). “A con inuum o imp ession o ma ion,
om ca ego y-based o indi idua ing p ocesses: in luences o in o ma ion and
mo i a ion on a en ion and in e p e a ion,” in Ad ances in Expe imen al Social
Psychology, Vol. 23, ed. P. Z. Ma k (Camb idge, MA: Academic P ess), 1–74.
F eeman, J. B., Schille , D., Rule, N. O., and Ambady, N. (2010). The neu al
o igins o supe icial and indi idua ed judgmen s abou ing oup and ou g oup
membe s. Hum. B ain Mapp. 31, 150–159. doi: 10.1002/hbm.20852
Goodwin, S. A., Gubin, A., Fiske, S. T., and Yze by , V. Y. (2000). Powe
can bias imp ession p ocesses: s e eo yping subo dina es by de aul and
by design. G oup P ocess. In e g oup Rela . 3, 227–256. doi: 10.1177/
1368430200003003001
G eenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., and Schwa z, J. L. (1998). Measu ing indi idual
di e ences in implici cogni ion: he implici associa ion es . J. Pe s. Soc.
Psychol. 74, 1464–1480. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464
Haslam, S. A., Oakes, P. J., and Tu ne , J. C. (1996). “Social iden i y, sel -
ca ego iza ion, and he pe cei ed homogenei y o ing oups and ou g oups:
he in e ac ion be ween social mo i a ion and cogni ion,” in Handbook o
Mo i a ion and Cogni ion, Vol. 3, eds R. M. So en ino and E. T. Higgins
(New Yo k, NY: Guil o d P ess), 182–222.
Hen ich, N., and Hen ich, J. (2007). Why Humans Coope a e: A Cul u al and
E olu iona y Explana ion, ed. J. P. Hen ich (Ox o d: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess).
Hugenbe g, K., Young, S. G., Be ns ein, M. J., and Sacco, D. F. (2010). The
ca ego iza ion-indi idua ion model: an in eg a i e accoun o he o he - ace
ecogni ion de ici . Psychol. Re . 117, 1168–1187. doi: 10.1037/a0020463
Johnson, N. D., and Mislin, A. A. (2011). T us games: a me a-analysis. J. Econ.
Psychol. 32, 865–889. doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2011.05.007
Kawakami, K., Amodio, D. M., and Hugenbe g, K. (2017). “In e g oup pe cep ion
and cogni ion: an in eg a i e amewo k o unde s anding he causes and
consequences o social ca ego iza ion,” in Ad ances in Expe imen al Social
Psychology, ed. M. O. James (Camb idge, MA: Academic P ess). doi: 10.1016/
bs.aesp.2016.10.001
Kawakami, K., Dunn, E., Ka mali, F., and Do idio, J. F. (2009). Misp edic ing
a ec i e and beha io al esponses o acism. Science 323, 276–278. doi: 10.1126/
science.1164951
Kawakami, K., Williams, A., Sidhu, D., Choma, B. L., Rod iguez-Bailon, R.,
Canadas, E., e al. (2014). An eye o he I: p e e en ial a en ion o he eyes
o ing oup membe s. J. Pe s. Soc. Psychol. 107, 1–20. doi: 10.1037/a0036838
King-Casas, B., Tomlin, D., Anen, C., Came e , C. F., Qua z, S. R., and Mon ague,
P. R. (2005). Ge ing o know you: epu a ion and us in a wo-pe son
economic exchange. Science 308, 78–83. doi: 10.1126/science.1108062
Lepo e, L., and B own, R. (1997). Ca ego y and s e eo ype ac i a ion: is p ejudice
ine i able? J. Pe s. Soc. Psychol. 72, 275–287. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.72.
2.275
Le in, D. T. (1996). Classi ying aces by ace: he s uc u e o ace ca ego ies. J. Exp.
Psychol. 22, 1364–1382. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.22.6.1364
Le in, D. T. (2000). Race as a isual ea u e: using isual sea ch and
pe cep ual disc imina ion asks o unde s and ace ca ego ies and he c oss- ace
ecogni ion de ici . J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 129, 559–574. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.
129.4.559
Lewicki, R. J., McAllis e , D. J., and Bies, R. J. (1998). T us and dis us : new
ela ionships and eali ies. Acad. Manag. Re . 23, 438–458. doi: 10.2307/259288
Li, T., Liu, X., Pan, J., and Zhou, G. (2017). The in e ac i e e ec o acial
appea ance and beha io s a emen on us belie and us beha io . Pe s.
Indi id. Di . 117, 60–65. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2017.05.038
Lin ille, P. W., Fische , G. W., and Salo ey, P. (1989). Pe cei ed dis ibu ions o
he cha ac e is ics o in-g oup and ou -g oup membe s: empi ical e idence and
a compu e simula ion. J. Pe s. Soc. Psychol. 57, 165–188. doi: 10.1037/0022-
3514.57.2.165
Lin ille, P. W., Salo ey, P., and Fische , G. W. (1986). “S e eo yping and pe cei ed
dis ibu ions o social cha ac e is ics: an applica ion o ing oup-ou g oup
pe cep ion,” in P ejudice, Disc imina ion, and Racism, eds J. F. Do idio and S. L.
Gae ne (San Diego, CA: Academic P ess), 165–208.
Lowe y, B. S., Ha din, C. D., and Sinclai , S. (2001). Social in luence e ec s on
au oma ic acial p ejudice. J. Pe s. Soc. Psychol. 81, 842–855. doi: 10.1037/0022-
3514.81.5.842
Mac ae, C. N., and Bodenhausen, G. V. (2000). Social cogni ion: hinking
ca ego ically abou o he s. Annu. Re . Psychol. 51, 93–120. doi: 10.1146/
annu e .psych.51.1.93
Mac ae, C. N., Hood, B. M., Milne, A. B., Rowe, A. C., and Mason, M. F. (2002). A e
you looking a me? Eye gaze and pe son pe cep ion. Psychol. Sci. 13, 460–464.
doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00481
Maddux, W. W., Ba den, J., B ewe , M. B., and Pe y, R. E. (2005). Saying no
o nega i i y: he e ec s o con ex and mo i a ion o con ol p ejudice on
au oma ic e alua i e esponses. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 41, 19–35. doi: 10.1016/j.
jesp.2004.05.002
Meissne , C. A., and B igham, J. C. (2001). Thi y yea s o in es iga ing he own-
ace bias in memo y o aces: a me a-analy ic e iew. Psychol. Public Policy Law
7, 3–35. doi: 10.1037/1076-8971.7.1.3
Nosek, B. A., Hawkins, C. B., and F azie , R. S. (2011). Implici social cogni ion:
om measu es o mechanisms. T ends Cogn. Sci. 15, 152–159. doi: 10.1016/j.
ics.2011.01.005
Open Science Collabo a ion (2015). Es ima ing he ep oducibili y o psychological
science. Science 1045:aac4716. doi: 10.1126/science.aac4716
Pa k, B., and Ro hba , M. (1982). Pe cep ion o ou -g oup homogenei y and le els
o social ca ego iza ion: memo y o he subo dina e a ibu es o in-g oup and
ou -g oup membe s. J. Pe s. Soc. Psychol. 42, 1051–1068. doi: 10.1037/0022-
3514.42.6.1051
Pax on, P. (2001). T us : a sociological heo y. Soc. Fo ces 79, 1187–1188.
doi: 10.1353/so .2001.0022
F on ie s in Psychology | www. on ie sin.o g 17 June 2018 | Volume 9 | A icle 1008
psyg-09-01008 June 19, 2018 Time: 17:8 # 18
Telga e al. Ca ego y-Based Lea ning Abou Ou g oup
Plan , E. A., and De ine, P. G. (1998). In e nal and ex e nal mo i a ion o espond
wi hou p ejudice. J. Pe s. Soc. Psychol. 75, 811–832. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.75.
3.811
Rod íguez-Bailón, R., Moya, M., and Yze by , V. (2000). Why do supe io s a end
o nega i e s e eo ypic in o ma ion abou hei subo dina es? E ec s o powe
legi imacy on social pe cep ion. Eu . J. Soc. Psychol. 30, 651–671. doi: 10.1002/
1099-0992(200009/10)
Romano, A., Ballie , D., Yamagishi, T., and Liu, J. H. (2017). Pa ochial us and
coope a ion ac oss 17 socie ies. P oc. Na l. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114, 12702–12707.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1712921114
Sa le , J. M. (1970). Racial "expe imen e e ec s" in expe imen a ion, es ing,
in e iewing, and psycho he apy. Psychol. Bull. 73, 137–160. doi: 10.1037/
h0028511
Schneide , W., Eschman, A., and Zuccolo o, A. (2002). E-P ime Use ’s Guide.
Pi sbu g, CA: Psychology So wa e Tools Inc.
Solnick, S. J., and Schwei ze , M. E. (1999). The in luence o physical a ac i eness
and gende on Ul ima um Game decisions. O gan. Beha . Hum. Decis. P ocess.
79, 199–215. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1999.2843
Somme s, S. R. (2006). On acial di e si y and g oup decision making: iden i ying
mul iple e ec s o acial composi ion on ju y delibe a ions. J. Pe s. Soc. Psychol.
90, 597–612. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.597
S olie , R. M., and F eeman, J. B. (2016). “Chap e 7 - he neu oscience o social
ision A2 - Abshe , John R,” in Neu oimaging Pe sonali y, Social Cogni ion, and
Cha ac e , ed. J. Clou ie (San Diego, CA: Academic P ess), 139–157.
S oessne , S. J. (1996). Social ca ego iza ion by ace o sex: e ec s o pe cei ed non-
no malcy on esponse imes. Soc. Cogn. 14, 247–276. doi: 10.1521/soco.1996.14.
3.247
Taj el, H. (1978). “The achie emen o g oup di e en ia ion,” in Di e en ia ion
be ween Social G oups: S udies in he Social Psychology o In e g oup Rela ions,
ed. H. Taj el (London: Academic P ess), 77–98.
Taj el, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., and Flamen , C. (1971). Social ca ego iza ion
and in e g oup beha iou . Eu . J. Soc. Psychol. 1, 149–178. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.
2420010202
Taj el, H., and Tu ne , J. (1979). “An in eg a i e heo y o in e g oup con lic ,” in
The Social Psychology o In e g oup Rela ions, eds W. G. Aus in and S. Wo chel
(Mon e ey, CA: B ooks/Cole Pub. Co.), 33–47.
Taj el, H., and Wilkes, A. L. (1963). Classi ica ion and quan i a i e judgemen . B .
J. Psychol. 54, 101–114. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1963. b00865.x
Tanis, M., and Pos mes, T. (2005). A social iden i y app oach o us : in e pe sonal
pe cep ion, g oup membe ship and us ing beha iou . Eu . J. Soc. Psychol. 35,
413–424. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.256
Tiedens, L. Z., and F agale, A. R. (2003). Powe mo es: complemen a i y in
dominan and submissi e non e bal beha io . J. Pe s. Soc. Psychol. 84, 558–568.
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.558
Tomasello, M. (2009). Why We Coope a e. Camb idge, MA: MIT P ess.
To osa, M. I., Lupiáñez, J., and Ruz, M. (2013a). Race, emo ion and us : an ERP
s udy. B ain Res. 1494, 44–55. doi: 10.1016/j.b ain es.2012.11.037
To osa, M. I., S izhko, T., Capizzi, M., and Ruz, M. (2013b). In e pe sonal e ec s
o emo ion in a mul i- ound us game. Psicoloìgica 24, 179–198. doi: 10.1016/
j.psych es.2008.05.006
To enham, N., Tanaka, J. W., Leon, A. C., McCa y, T., Nu se, M., Ha e, T. A.,
e al. (2009). The NimS im se o acial exp essions: judgmen s om un ained
esea ch pa icipan s. Psychia y Res. 168, 242–249. doi: 10.1016/j.psych es.
2008.05.006
Tu ne , J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reiche , S. D., and We he ell, M. S. (1987).
Redisco e ing he Social G oup: A Sel -Ca ego iza ion Theo y. Camb idge, MA:
Basil Blackwell. doi: 10.1093/ox o dhb/9780199730018.013.0004
Uleman, J. S., and K essel, L. M. (2013). “A B ie his o y o heo y and esea ch
on imp ession o ma ion,” in The Ox o d Handbook o Social Cogni ion, ed. D.
Ca ls on (Ox o d: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess). doi: 10.1016/j.cogni ion.2008.07.
002
an ’ Wou , M., and San ey, A. G. (2008). F iend o oe: he e ec o implici
us wo hiness judgmen s in social decision-making. Cogni ion 108, 796–803.
doi: 10.1016/j.cogni ion.2008.07.002
Wilson, R. K., and Eckel, C. C. (2011). “T us and social exchange,” in Camb idge
Handbook o Expe imen al Poli ical Science, eds J. N. D uckman, D. P. G een,
J. H. Kuklinski, and A. Lupia (Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess), 243–
257. doi: 10.1037/h0025720
Wilson, W., and Kaya ani, M. (1968). In e g oup a i udes and s a egies in games
be ween opponen s o he same o o a di e en ace. J. Pe s. Soc. Psychol. 9,
24–30. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2418-09.2009
Xu, X., Zuo, X., Wang, X., and Han, S. (2009). Do you eel my pain? Racial
g oup membe ship modula es empa hic neu al esponses. J. Neu osci. 29:8525.
doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2418-09.2009
Yamagishi, T., Jin, N., and Kiyona i, T. (1999). Bounded gene alized ecip oci y:
ing oup boas ing and ing oup a o i ism. Ad . G oup P ocess. 16, 161–197.
Con lic o In e es S a emen : The au ho s decla e ha he esea ch was
conduc ed in he absence o any comme cial o inancial ela ionships ha could
be cons ued as a po en ial con lic o in e es .
Copy igh © 2018 Telga, de Lemus, Cañadas, Rod íguez-Bailón and Lupiáñez. This
is an open-access a icle dis ibu ed unde he e ms o he C ea i e Commons
A ibu ion License (CC BY). The use, dis ibu ion o ep oduc ion in o he o ums
is pe mi ed, p o ided he o iginal au ho (s) and he copy igh owne a e c edi ed
and ha he o iginal publica ion in his jou nal is ci ed, in acco dance wi h accep ed
academic p ac ice. No use, dis ibu ion o ep oduc ion is pe mi ed which does no
comply wi h hese e ms.
F on ie s in Psychology | www. on ie sin.o g 18 June 2018 | Volume 9 | A icle 1008