Ingroup Experts and Peers as Social Vaccines Who Inoculate the Self-Concept: The Stereotype Inoculation Model
Ingroup Experts and Peers as Social Vaccines Who Inoculate the Self-Concept: The Stereotype Inoculation Model
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/1047840x.2011.607313
复制
发表时间：
2011-01-01
影响因子：
9.3
通讯作者：
Dasgupta, Nilanjana
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Dasgupta, Nilanjana
个人选择追求一条学术或职业道路而不是另一条道路可能感觉像是一种自由选择，但往往会受到成就环境中微妙线索的限制，这些线索表明谁天生属于那里，谁不属于那里。人们倾向于成就领域，因为这些领域与内群体的刻板印象同步，让人感觉很舒服，而远离其他领域，因为它们与内群体的刻板印象相差太远，让人感觉不舒服。即使是表现出色的人也可能对自己的能力缺乏信心，并从某些成就领域退缩表现和自我效能并不总是齐头并进。哪些因素可以解除这些限制，增强个人追求学术和专业道路的自由，尽管存在相反的陈规定型观念？本文使用一种新的理论视角--刻板印象接种模型--来解决这个问题，揭示了内群体成员（高成就环境中的专家和同龄人）如何作为“社会疫苗”发挥作用，增加社会归属感，增强群体成员对刻板印象的自我概念。该模型整合了来自社会心理学和组织行为学的几篇文献的见解，以阐明预测，并辅以支持性证据，说明内群体专家和同伴何时充当社会疫苗和潜在的心理机制。文章最后确定了未来的研究方向，可能的干预措施，以及该模型的政策含义。
Individuals' choice to pursue one academic or professional path over another may feel like a free choice but is often constrained by subtle cues in achievement environments that signal who naturally belongs there and who does not. People gravitate toward achievement domains that feel like a comfortable fit because they are in sync with ingroup stereotypes and away from other domains that feel like an uncomfortable fit because they deviate too far from ingroup stereotypes. Even individuals who are high performers may lack confidence in their ability and withdraw from certain achievement domains-performance and self-efficacy do not always go hand in hand. What factors might release these constraints and enhance individuals' freedom to pursue academic and professional paths despite stereotypes to the contrary? The present article addresses this question using a new theoretical lens-the stereotype inoculation model-that reveals how ingroup members (experts and peers in high-achievement settings) function as "social vaccines" who increase social belonging and inoculate fellow group members' self-concept against stereotypes. The model integrates insights from several literatures in social psychology and organizational behavior to articulate predictions accompanied by supporting evidence about when ingroup experts and peers serve as social vaccines and the underlying psychological mechanisms. The article concludes by identifying directions for future research, possible interventions, and policy implications of the model.