Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
The current article investigated how individuals evaluate ingroup members displaying either ingroup bias or egalitarian intergroup behaviors. The hypotheses predicted that on explicit responses a preference for the egalitarian ingroup member would emerge; in contrast, on more spontaneous and uncontrolled responses, a preference for the ingroup favoritist would result. Across four studies these hypotheses were confirmed for both minimal groups (Studies 1 and 2) and ethnic groups (Studies 3 and 4). Despite a verbal preference for those who behaved in an egalitarian way, an implicit ingroup metafavoritism was found. Overall, results indicated the presence of dual attitudes in the perception of ingroup members and the strict interconnection between intergroup behaviors and intragroup perception.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167208315210 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!