Daniël H J Wigboldus
email: d.wigboldus@psych.ru.nl

Russell Spears

Gün R Semin

When Do We Communicate Stereotypes? Influence of the Social Context on the Linguistic Expectancy Bias

Keywords: communication, intergroup, language, linguistic expectancy bias, recipient effects, social context, stereotypes

The linguistic expectancy bias (LEB) refers to the tendency to describe expectancy consistent information at a higher level of linguistic abstraction than expectancy inconsistent information. Two experiments examined the influence of the social communicative context on the production of this linguistic bias by manipulating the group membership of the actor in, and the recipient of, stereotypical information. Results supported the prediction that an LEB effect based on stereotypes is especially pronounced in an intergroup social communicative context in which either the actor in or the recipient of the stereotypical information is an outgroup member.

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

2005 Vol 8(3) 215-230 DESPITE the fact that most stereotypes are socially shared and passed on from one person to another (see [START_REF] Haslam | Stereotyping and social influence: Foundations of stereotype consensus[END_REF], until recently relatively little attention has been paid to the interpersonal aspects of stereotyping and the linguistic factors that mediate this process (see [START_REF] Hamilton | Language, intergroup relations and stereotypes[END_REF][START_REF] Harasty | The interpersonal nature of social stereotypes: Differential discussion patterns about ingroups and outgroups[END_REF][START_REF] Haslam | Stereotyping and social influence: Foundations of stereotype consensus[END_REF][START_REF] Maass | Language and stereotyping[END_REF]. Although language plays an important role in most stereotyping research, this role is mostly confined to the content of national, ethnic, and racial stereotypes in the language of traits (e.g. [START_REF] Katz | Racial stereotypes in one hundred college students[END_REF][START_REF] Park | Measures and models of perceived group variability[END_REF], or the organizing function provided by traits in associative networks (e.g.

G P I R

Biased language use

The linguistic category model (LCM: [START_REF] Semin | The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing persons: Social cognition and language[END_REF] distinguishes between four different levels of abstraction that correspond to four distinct word categories. Descriptive-action-verbs are the most concrete, and are used to convey a non-interpretive description of a single, observable event (e.g. 'A shakes B's hand'). Interpretive-action-verbs also describe a specific event, but are more abstract in that they refer to a general class of behaviors instead of a specific concrete behavior (e.g. 'A helps B'). State-verbs constitute the next category in degree of abstraction and describe an emotional state and not a specific event (e.g. 'A cares for B'). The most abstract predicates are adjectives (e.g. 'A is helpful'). These generalize across specific events and objects and describe only the subject (see for detail: [START_REF] Semin | The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing persons: Social cognition and language[END_REF]. Although all of these examples may give an appropriate description of a specific event, the implicit meaning each description conveys varies systematically as a function of the level of abstraction of each description. For instance, relative to concrete descriptions such as action verbs, abstract descriptions such as traits give more information about the qualities of actors and less information about the qualities of the specific situation in which actors find themselves [START_REF] Semin | The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing persons: Social cognition and language[END_REF][START_REF] Basow | Gender stereotypes and roles[END_REF]. In this way the linguistic category model provides an interface between intra-and interpersonal social cognitive processes.

Based on the LCM, Anne Maass and colleagues [START_REF] Maass | Language use in intergroup contexts: The linguistic intergroup bias[END_REF] found evidence for a linguistic version of the intergroup bias phenomenon, the so called linguistic intergroup bias (LIB). This linguistic bias describes the finding that desirable ingroup behaviors and undesirable outgroup behaviors are described at a higher level of linguistic abstraction than undesirable ingroup behavior and desirable outgroup behavior. Especially in intergroup settings where the ingroup identity is threatened, support for this LIB pattern based on differences in social desirability has been found [START_REF] Maass | Linguistic intergroup bias: Evidence for ingroup-protective motivation[END_REF][START_REF] Maass | Language use in intergroup contexts: The linguistic intergroup bias[END_REF]. More recently, subsequent research has shown that the LIB can be considered as a specific example of a more general phenomenon. That is, in general, expectancy consistent behaviors are described at a higher level of linguistic abstraction than expectancy inconsistent behaviors [START_REF] Maass | Linguistic intergroup bias: Stereotype perpetuation through language[END_REF][START_REF] Maass | Linguistic intergroup bias: Differential expectancies or ingroup protection?[END_REF][START_REF] Wigboldus | How do we communicate stereotypes? Linguistic bases and inferential consequences[END_REF]. This more general linguistic phenomenon has been labeled the linguistic expectancy bias or LEB [START_REF] Maass | Linguistic intergroup bias: Stereotype perpetuation through language[END_REF][START_REF] Wigboldus | How do we communicate stereotypes? Linguistic bases and inferential consequences[END_REF]. Typically, it has been found that stereotype consistent information is described more abstractly than stereotype inconsistent information. For example, females behaving in a typical female way and males behaving typically male are described more abstractly (e.g. 'Lisa is careful' and 'Peter is decisive') than males behaving in a typical female way and females behaving typically male (e.g. 'Peter changes a diaper' or 'Lisa tells them what to do'; Wigboldus et al., 2000, Experiment 1). In the current article our main focus is on stereotypical expectancies and thus on the LEB.

Thus far, strong support for the occurrence of the LEB effect has been found in experimental as well as non-experimental studies, in a broad range of different intergroup contexts, in different languages, using closed ended (multiple choice), as well as open ended (free response) measures of linguistic abstraction (for an overview, see [START_REF] Maass | Linguistic intergroup bias: Stereotype perpetuation through language[END_REF]. Importantly, it has also been shown that the biased linguistic pattern that results from the LEB mediates recipients' attributions in a stereotype confirming way [START_REF] Wigboldus | How do we communicate stereotypes? Linguistic bases and inferential consequences[END_REF]. Biased language use thus seems to play an important role in the transmission of stereotypical views.

Communication, categorization, and stereotyping

In most experiments performed so far on the LEB, participants were asked to describe a social event (e.g. [START_REF] Maass | Linguistic intergroup bias: Differential expectancies or ingroup protection?[END_REF], or to transmit information about a social event to an anonymous other participant (e.g. [START_REF] Wigboldus | How do we communicate stereotypes? Linguistic bases and inferential consequences[END_REF]. Surprisingly, the recipient of such communication until recently remained largely undefined. In everyday life it is very rare for a communicator to have no knowledge about the recipient(s). Even when communicating with a total stranger, information about a recipient's most relevant social category memberships such as gender, age, and origin, is mostly directly available from recipient's tone of voice, looks, or accent. Importantly, recipients' perceived characteristics have been shown to play a critical role in the communication process. That is, there is substantial evidence suggesting that communication is not merely the linear transmission of information from a transmitter to a recipient (e.g. [START_REF] Berlo | The process of communication: An introduction to theory and practice[END_REF] but, in addition, is strongly influenced by the context of the communication (for an overview, see [START_REF] Krauss | Social psychological models of interpersonal communication[END_REF]. In particular the communicative context evoked by the recipient and the recipient's perceived characteristics have been shown to play an important role in this respect (e.g. [START_REF] Higgins | The 'communication game': Implications for social cognition and persuasion[END_REF][START_REF] Kingsbury | Manipulating the amount of information obtained from a person giving directions[END_REF][START_REF] Martijn | Judging attitudes: Description, evaluation and type of implication of judgmental language[END_REF][START_REF] Mccann | Personal and contextual factors in communication: A review of the 'communication game[END_REF][START_REF] Sedikides | Effects of fortuitously activated constructs versus activated communication goals on person impressions[END_REF].

Recently, also with respect to the LIB and the LEB effect, it has been demonstrated that the occurrence of these biases may be moderated by the communicative context in general (i.e. what communication goals do communicators have? [START_REF] Douglas | Effects of communication goals and expectancies on language abstraction[END_REF], and recipient characteristics in particular [START_REF] Douglas | Identifiability and self-presentation: Computer-mediated communication and intergroup interaction[END_REF], 2002;[START_REF] Fiedler | On the different uses of linguistic abstractness: From LIB to LEB and beyond[END_REF]Gil de Montes, Semin, & Valencia, 2003;[START_REF] Rubini | Taking the edge off of disagreement: Linguistic abstractness and self-presentation to a heterogeneous audience[END_REF]Semin, Gil de Montes, & Valencia, 2003). For instance, with respect to the LIB, Gil de Montes et al. (2003) showed that the dependency of the relationship between a communicator and a recipient may moderate the LIB effect. In their research, communicators expected either to cooperate or to compete with a recipient. Subsequently, communicators were asked to describe a cartoon depicting either positive or negative behavior performed by an actor that was either liked (Experiment 1) or disliked (Experiment 2) by the recipient. When communicators expected to cooperate with recipients, they described positive behavior of a liked actor at a higher level of linguistic abstraction than negative behavior. When asked to describe an actor who was liked by a recipient that communicators expected to be competing with, negative behavior was described at a higher level of linguistic abstraction than positive behavior. For actors that were disliked by recipients, the reverse pattern of results was found. The dependency of the relationship between communicators thus affected the LIB effect.

The communicative context thus may moderate linguistic biases. The main focus in the current paper is on a specific element of the communicative context that, in our view, is especially relevant in the case of the transmission of stereotypes via the LEB, namely the social communicative context that is made up by the category membership of all parties involved. In an intragroup social communicative context the communicator and the recipient and the actor who is the topic of conversation all are members of the same group (i.e. a female communicator talking to a female recipient about a female actor). In an intergroup social communicative context one of the persons involved has a different group membership (i.e. a female communicator talking to a male recipient about a female target). A prerequisite for an LEB effect based on stereotypical expectancies to occur is of course the activation and subsequent linguistic application of a stereotype. On the basis of this stereotype, some behaviors of an actor will be interpreted as expectancy consistent and subsequently will be described more abstractly, while other behaviors will be interpreted as expectancy inconsistent and subsequently will be described more concretely. For example, the same aggressive behavior may be considered stereotype consistent when the actor is a skinhead, but stereotype inconsistent in the case of a little girl. Stereotype activation thus is crucial for the occurrence of an LEB effect based on stereotypes.

Importantly, the activation of specific stereotypes is dependent on social categorization processes. That is, stereotype activation requires category activation (see [START_REF] Higgins | Knowledge accessibility and activation: Subjectivity and suffering from unconscious sources[END_REF][START_REF] Van Knippenberg | Social categorization and stereotyping: A functional perspective[END_REF]. The salience of categories at the moment an actor is described thus is of critical importance to stereotype activation and the LEB effect resulting from this activation. However, which categories are salient during a communicative act may be largely dependent on the social context. According to self-categorization theory [START_REF] Oakes | The salience of social categories[END_REF]Oakes, Haslam, & Turner, 1994;[START_REF] Turner | Self and collective: Cognition and social context[END_REF]) categorizing is inherently comparative and hence is intrinsically variable, fluid, and always context dependent. The salience of any given category will be a function of an interaction between its relative accessibility and the 'fit' between the category and reality.

In this article, we argue that the social category membership of a recipient and the actor described creates a social communicative context that renders certain social categorizations more accessible as a result of a high 'fit' between these categorizations and the reality provided by the social communicative context. In turn, this will reveal itself in an LEB effect based on the stereotypes that are part of the social categorization at hand. For example, when a female communicator communicates with a male recipient about a female actor, gender categorizations are likely to have a high fit and thus will be highly accessible, resulting in an LEB effect based on gender stereotypes. However, when a female transmitter communicates with a female recipient about a female actor, social categorization on the basis of gender differences has a relatively low fit and seems less relevant. After all, all parties involved are of the same gender, which renders social categorization on the basis of gender differences non-distinctive. Because stereotype activation requires category activation (see van [START_REF] Van Knippenberg | Social categorization and stereotyping: A functional perspective[END_REF], an LEB effect based on gender stereotypes should be attenuated in the latter case. In this way, the social communicative context evoked by the category memberships of the recipient, the actor described and the communicator may have a crucial influence on the occurrence of an LEB effect. When a specific social comparative context is made salient because either the actor or the recipient (or both) are from a distinctively different social category than the transmitter (intergroup social communicative context), this is likely to result in the increased activation of relevant stereotypes, which may be revealed by a significant LEB effect based on these stereotypes. However, when both the recipient and the actor are from the same social category as the transmitter (intragroup social communicative context), no specific social comparative context will be made salient, which will result in the absence of an LEB effect based on the stereotypes under consideration.

In the following sections, two studies are described that aimed to test the hypothesis that the LEB effect is stronger in an intergroup social communicative context than that in an intragroup social communicative context. In the first study, an open-ended research paradigm is used and gender groups form the basis for categorization. In the second study, a more controlled closed-ended research paradigm is used and two universities are used as a basis for categorization.

Study 1

To investigate the assumptions outlined above, an experiment was designed in which gender was used as a basis for categorization. Gender is a very salient ingroup versus outgroup variable in terms of which people categorize themselves and other people [START_REF] Ashmore | Sex stereotypes and implicit personality theory[END_REF][START_REF] Taylor | A categorization approach to stereotyping[END_REF]. Another advantage of the use of genderstereotypes in the current experimental context is that most of them are shared by both men and women [START_REF] Basow | Gender stereotypes and roles[END_REF]. Participants were asked to describe either a male or a female friend who engaged in typically female or typically male behavior. Importantly, the gender of the recipient of their communicative acts was known to participants. Social desirability of the behaviors was controlled for.

In line with the LEB phenomenon, we expected participants to communicate expectancy consistent behaviors (male actors performing typically male behaviors, female actors performing typically female behaviors) at a higher level of abstraction than expectancy inconsistent behaviors (male actors performing typically female behaviors, female actors performing typically male behaviors: Hypothesis 1). Moreover, we predicted that this LEB effect would be more pronounced in an intergroup social communicative context than in an intragroup social communicative context. We therefore expected the LEB described in Hypothesis 1 to be most evident when the recipient or the actor being described, or both, were outgroup members. When both the recipient and the actor being described were ingroup members, we expected the LEB to be less pronounced or even eliminated (Hypothesis 2).

Method

Participants A total of 66 Dutch undergraduate students (33 men and 33 women) from the Free University Amsterdam participated in this study (M = 21.79 years old). Participants were recruited on campus and received Dfl. 10 (approximately US$4) for their participation.

Design

The study consisted of a 2 (participant gender: male vs. female) ϫ 2 (actor group membership: ingroup vs. outgroup) ϫ 2 (recipient group membership: ingroup vs. outgroup) ϫ 2 (expectancy consistency: consistent vs. inconsistent) ϫ 2 (behavior desirability: desirable vs. undesirable) mixed design with repeated measures on the last two variables.

Procedure The experiment was run on computers and was described as a study on communication. The computer program randomly allocated each participant to one of the four between-participants cells of the design.

First, participants were asked to think of either a good male or a good female friend whom they knew well. On the basis of this manipulation actor group membership was defined as ingroup when the actor was of the same gender as the participant and as outgroup when the actor was not of the same gender as the participant. Then participants had to give some background information about this friend. After this the actual experiment began. Participants were asked to communicate four true stories about their friend.

In each story, one specific behavioral event had to be described that participants had witnessed their friend engage in. We asked participants to communicate one story in which their friend demonstrated desirable, typically male behavior; one story in which their friend demonstrated desirable, typically female behavior; one in which the actor showed undesirable, typically male behavior; and one in which the actor showed undesirable, typically female behavior. The typically male behaviors served as expectancy consistent behaviors for male actors and expectancy inconsistent behaviors for female actors. For the typically female behaviors the reverse was the case. The order of the stories was randomized. Participants could communicate their stories by typing them into the computer. Before writing the stories, they were told that later on in the experiment they would have to read their typed messages out loud to another participant. It was made clear whether this recipient was a male or a female person. Recipient group membership thus was defined as ingroup when the recipient was of the same gender as the participant, and outgroup when the recipient was not of the same gender as the participant. When a participant had finished writing the four stories he or she was informed that it was not necessary to read the stories aloud to another participant.

In order to check our manipulations, we asked participants to change computers with another participant (whom they did not see) and read and judge the four stories this other participant had written on the computer. This way, each participant judged the stories of one unknown other participant. The four stories were presented in random order and each story was followed by two questions that served as manipulation checks for the expectancy consistency manipulation. For each story separately, participants were asked to indicate on a 7-point scale, ranging from not at all (1) to very much (7) to what extent they considered the behavior displayed in the story to be: (1) typically male; (2) typically female.

Finally, participants indicated their age, were debriefed, and thanked for their participation in the experiment.

Dependent variable

The dependent variable consisted of the abstraction level of the stories participants wrote. The information each participant transmitted was coded by an independent rater familiar with Semin andFiedler's (1988, 1991) Linguistic Category Model and its scoring criteria. First, every verb (interpersonal as well as non-interpersonal) and every adjective referring to the actor of the story was coded according to the LCM. The four categories were then scored in the following way: Descriptive Action Verbs = 1; Interpretive Action Verbs = 2; State verbs = 3; Adjectives = 4 [START_REF] Semin | Relocating attributional phenomena within a language-cognition interface: The case of actors' and observers' perspectives[END_REF]. On the basis of these scores the mean level of abstraction was computed for each story separately by adding the different scores and dividing them by their number. The mean level of abstraction for each story could thus vary between 1 (only DAVs, very concrete) and 4 (only ADJs, very abstract). Half of the 264 stories (randomly chosen) was also coded by a second rater to test the consistency of the coding, which was satisfactory (Cohen's kappa = .70).

Results

Manipulation check

In order to check our expectancy consistency manipulation, the extent to which participants' stories described typically male behavior or typically female behavior was rated by another participant. On the basis of these ratings we calculated a mean typicality rating for expectancy consistent storyrating combinations (typically male rating for typically male story, typically female rating for typically female story) and expectancy inconsistent combinations (typically male rating for typically female story, typically female rating for typically male story). These ratings were subjected to a 2 (participant gender: male vs. female) ϫ 2 (actor group membership: ingroup vs. outgroup) ϫ 2 (recipient group membership: ingroup vs. outgroup) ϫ 2 (expectancy consistency: consistent vs. inconsistent) ϫ 2 (behavior desirability: desirable vs. undesirable) mixed design with repeated measures on the last two variables. Three cases were omitted from these analyses because of missing values. The writers of these stories did not want another participant to read and judge their stories. Of course their wish was granted. A reliable main effect for expectancy consistency confirmed our expectancy consistency manipulation (F(1, 55) = 122.13, p < .01, 2 = .66). Expectancy consistent story-rating combinations were rated as more typical (M = 4.78) than expectancy inconsistent combinations (M = 3.06). In addition, we found two smaller, but reliable effects; namely a significant main effect for behavior desirability (F(1, 55) = 6.25, p = .02, 2 = .09); and an interaction between behavior desirability and participant gender (F(1, 55) = 7.98, p < .01, 2 = .11). No other effects were found. Importantly, expectancy consistency thus was not moderated by any of the other variables.

Mean level of abstraction Abstraction level was subjected to a 2 (participant gender: male vs. female) ϫ 2 (actor group membership: ingroup vs. outgroup) ϫ 2 (recipient group membership: ingroup vs. outgroup) ϫ 2 (expectancy consistency: consistent vs. inconsistent) ϫ 2 (behavior desirability: desirable vs. undesirable) mixed design with repeated measures on the last two variables. No effects were found involving participant gender. These non-effects justify the transformations described above, in which we collapsed participant gender and actor gender into actor group membership, and participant gender and recipient gender into recipient group membership.

In line with Hypothesis 1, a marginally significant main effect for expectancy consistency was obtained (F(1, 58) = 3.20, p = .08, 2 = .04). In general, and in line with the LEB phenomenon, expectancy consistent information (M = 2.25) was communicated at a somewhat higher level of linguistic abstraction than expectancy inconsistent information (M = 2.13). Importantly, and in line with Hypothesis 2, this expectancy effect was moderated by the communicative context made up by the group membership of the actor and the recipient. That is, a significant three-way interaction was found between expectancy consistency, actor group membership, and recipient group membership (F(1, 58) = 5.78, p = .02, 2 = .07) (see Table 1). We predicted a significant LEB effect for expectancy consistency in all intergroup social communicative context conditions. In line with this prediction, simple effects revealed that the LEB main effect for expectancy consistency was reliable when both the actor and the recipient were outgroup members (F(1, 58) = 3.26, p = .04, 2 = .05); when the actor was an outgroup member and the recipient an ingroup member (F(1, 58) = 3.93, p = .03, 2 = .06); and when the actor was an ingroup member and the recipient an outgroup member (F(1, 58) = 6.56, p < .01, 2 = .10). However, in the intragroup social communicative context condition in which both the actor and the recipient were ingroup members, a significant reversal of the LEB effect was found. That is, expectancy inconsistent information was described at a higher level of linguistic abstraction than expectancy consistent information (F(1, 58) = 4.25, p = .02, 2 = .07). Besides these hypothesized effects, the analysis revealed a significant main effect for behavior desirability (F(1, 58) = 5.89, p = .02, 2 = .09), indicating that desirable behaviors were communicated more abstractly (M = 2.28) than undesirable behaviors (M = 2.10). Also an interaction between expectancy consistency and recipient group membership was found (F(1, 58) = 5.93, p = .02, 2 = .07). This effect was modified by the higher order interaction described above. No other effects were found.

Discussion

The present experiment delivers evidence that the production of an LEB effect is not inevitable and may be influenced by the social communicative context. In line with the notion that the stereotype activation that underlies an LEB effect requires category activation [START_REF] Van Knippenberg | Social categorization and stereotyping: A functional perspective[END_REF], and the assumption that category activation depends on the fit [START_REF] Oakes | The salience of social categories[END_REF] between a specific categorization and the social communicative social context, a significant LEB effect was found only when gender differed across the parties involved in a communicative act. No evidence for an LEB effect was found when gender did not vary across the parties involved.

Interestingly, in the intragroup social communicative context participants not only showed a reduced LEB effect, they actually demonstrated the reverse pattern to the LEB. That is, the expectancy inconsistent information was communicated at a higher level of abstraction than the expectancy consistent information. This reversal seems to run counter to the notion that the LEB is a general phenomenon that applies to groups as well as to individuals [START_REF] Maass | Linguistic intergroup bias: Differential expectancies or ingroup protection?[END_REF]. However, it could be argued that when people do not categorize themselves and others on the basis of a salient group membership but as individuals, expectancy inconsistent information is more informative, diagnostic, and more salient than expectancy consistent information [START_REF] Fiske | A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation[END_REF][START_REF] Jones | From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception[END_REF][START_REF] Stangor | Memory for expectancy-congruent and expectancyincongruent information: A review of the social and social developmental literatures[END_REF]. Expectancy inconsistent information thus may be communicated at a higher level of abstraction when people describe others at a more individual level, which might have been the case in the current intragroup context. However, at least some form of category activation must have been present for the information to be considered as expectancy consistent or expectancy inconsistent. This may have been due to the fact that we asked participants to come up with their own behavioral examples and asked them to describe a friend engaging in typically male and typically female behavior. The sheer asking for typically male and typically female behavioral examples, at least to some extent, may have activated gender based expectancies. Possibly, these expectancies have resulted in an inverse LEB effect in the intragroup social communicative context condition.

One of the strong points of the present study is that transmitters generated their own behavioral examples and communicated them in their own words. Most research performed so far on the LEB utilized a fixed response format in which participants were asked to choose between (e.g. [START_REF] Maass | Linguistic intergroup bias: Differential expectancies or ingroup protection?[END_REF], or rate [START_REF] Von Hippel | The linguistic intergroup bias as an implicit indicator of prejudice[END_REF] fixed descriptions that differed in their level of linguistic abstraction. The current finding that an LEB pattern emerges when transmitters use their own words to describe events based on their own personal experience strongly adds to the validity of this bias. However, the free response format of the current experiment also leads to a less controlled experiment. The stories participants generated varied not only in terms of language abstraction but also on an innumerable number of other variables (i.e. number of words, content, grammatical mistakes, and so on).

In order to test the reliability of the effects found in Study 1 using a more controlled research method, we performed a second study in which we used a fixed response format. Because, in Study 2, participants were presented with existing behavioral information, the typicality of the behaviors did not need to be stated explicitly. As a basis for categorization, two different universities were used. Recipient category membership was manipulated by informing participants that the research they participated in was conducted by researchers from either the one or the other university.

Study 2

Amsterdam has two universities. The University of Amsterdam (Universiteit van Amsterdam, UvA) and the Free University (Vrije Universiteit, VU). As is mostly the case whenever people are divided into groups, there are clear stereotypical views attached to students of both universities [START_REF] Doff | Is verdediging de beste aanval? (Is defense the best attack?)[END_REF]. For example, students of the UvA are known to be independent spirits but also sloppy ones whereas students of the VU are seen as serious and hard working but also a bit boring. In the present study, these two universities were used as a basis for categorization. Four stories were created describing an actor engaging in typically UvA and typically VU behavior. Again, social desirability of the behaviors was controlled for. Participants, all students from the UvA, were asked to read the stories, and on the basis of each story separately rate the appropriateness of four descriptor sentences differing in language abstraction that were given underneath the stories. Importantly, the actors described were either four different students from the UvA or four different students from the VU. As noted above, recipient category membership was manipulated by stating on the front page of the questionnaire that the research was conducted and would be analyzed by social psychology researchers from either the UvA or the VU.

In line with the LEB phenomenon and the results of Study 1, we expected participants to rate more abstract descriptors as more appropriate for stories describing expectancy consistent behaviors (UvA student engaging in typically UvA behaviors, VU students engaging in typically VU behaviors) than for stories describing expectancy inconsistent behaviors (UvA student engaging in typically VU behaviors, VU students engaging in typically UvA behaviors; Hypothesis 1). Moreover, we predicted that this LEB effect would be more pronounced in an intergroup social communicative context than in an intragroup social communicative context. We therefore expected the LEB described in Hypothesis 1 to be most evident when the recipient, the actor being described, or both are outgroup members (VU related). When both the recipient and the actor being described are ingroup members (UvA related), we expected the LEB to be less pronounced or even eliminated (Hypothesis 2).

Method

Participants A total of 222 Dutch undergraduate psychology students (46 men and 176 women) from the University of Amsterdam participated in this study in order to partially fulfill course requirements (M = 22.14 years old).

Design

The study consisted of a 2 (actor group membership: ingroup vs. outgroup) ϫ 2 (recipient group membership: ingroup vs. outgroup) ϫ 2 (expectancy consistency: consistent vs. inconsistent) ϫ 2 (behavior desirability: desirable vs. undesirable) mixed design with repeated measures on the last two variables.

Materials

Expectancy consistency and behavior desirability were manipulated by presenting participants with four different scenarios containing socially desirable and undesirable behaviors performed by four different actors (two male names and two female names were used). Two scenarios described actions that may be considered stereotypical for students of the VU (desirable: making a summary right after a lecture; undesirable: staying home reading a book instead of going to a party to which you are invited). Similarly, two scenarios described actions that may be considered stereotypical for students of the UvA (desirable: calling companies for a student internship of your own accord; undesirable: not showing up for an oral exam). These behaviors were based on traits that have been shown [START_REF] Doff | Is verdediging de beste aanval? (Is defense the best attack?)[END_REF] to be stereotypical for VU students (seen as serious and hard working but also a bit boring) and counterstereotypical for UvA students, and traits that are stereotypical for UvA students (seen as independent but also a bit sloppy) and counterstereotypical for VU students. Typically UvA behaviors performed by UvA actors and typically VU behaviors performed by VU actors thus were expectancy consistent whereas typically UvA behaviors performed by VU actors and typically VU behaviors performed by UvA actors can be considered as expectancy inconsistent [START_REF] Doff | Is verdediging de beste aanval? (Is defense the best attack?)[END_REF].

Each scenario consisted of two to three sentences describing an actor engaging in a particular action. Below each scenario four sentences were presented corresponding to the four levels of linguistic abstraction described by the LCM [START_REF] Semin | The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing persons: Social cognition and language[END_REF]. For example, the following is the scenario describing desirable, typical UvA behavior, and the accompanying descriptor sentences: Karin, a 23-year-old student at the University of Amsterdam wants to obtain some work experience via a student internship. Her supervisor at the University has some places available. However, instead of waiting for places offered to her by her supervisor, she phones the companies she would like to work for, on her own initiative.

Karin phones companies all day.

Karin arranges her own student internship.

Karin likes to arrange her own things.

Karin is an independent student.

For each descriptor sentence separately, participants were asked to rate on a 7-point scale, ranging from not at all (1) to very much (7) to what extent this sentence was applicable to the scenario.

Procedure

The experiment was part of a test battery in which participants filled out several questionnaires. The present experiment was presented as a questionnaire on person descriptions. On the first page of the questionnaire, recipient group membership was manipulated by informing participants that this research was performed by researchers of the social psychology department of either the UvA (ingroup) or the VU (outgroup). On the second page of the questionnaire, actor group membership was manipulated by informing participants that they would be presented with four short stories about four students that all came from either the UvA (ingroup) or the VU (outgroup). Moreover, at the beginning of each story, the actor was continually introduced as a student of either the UvA or the VU. Participants were randomly assigned to each of these four experimental between-participants conditions.

Subsequently, participants were presented with the four scenarios described earlier and rated the accompanying descriptor sentences.

Finally, participants were asked to indicate on 7-point scales, ranging from not at all (1) to very much (7) to what extent each of the typically UvA (independent, sloppy) and typically VU traits (serious, boring) applied to the average UvA student and the average VU student. With these measures we aimed to check our expectancy consistency manipulation.

Dependent variable

The dependent variable consisted of the ratings participants made for each scenario on the basis of the four descriptors corresponding to the four levels of linguistic abstraction described by the LCM [START_REF] Semin | The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing persons: Social cognition and language[END_REF]. In line with the LCM and the scoring of the open ended data in Study 1, the four descriptors were weighted in the following way: Descriptive Action Verb = 1; Interpretive Action Verb = 2; State verb = 3; Adjective = 4 [START_REF] Semin | Relocating attributional phenomena within a language-cognition interface: The case of actors' and observers' perspectives[END_REF]. Moreover participants' ratings were recoded by subtracting 1 from each rating, so that ratings ranged from 0 to 6. On the basis of the descriptor weights and participants' ratings (r DAV , r IAV , r SV , and r ADJ ) the mean abstraction rating (MAR) for each scenario was computed in the following way:

(r DAV ϫ 1) ϩ (r IAV ϫ 2) ϩ (r SV ϫ 3) ϩ (r ADJ ϫ 4) MAR = ---------------------- (r DAV ϩ r IAV ϩ r SV ϩ r ADJ )
The mean abstraction rating for each story could thus vary between 1 (only DAV descriptor rated as applicable, very concrete) and 4 (only ADJ descriptor rated as applicable, very abstract). 1

Results

Manipulation check

In order to check our expectancy consistency manipulation, participants were asked to indicate to what extent each of the typically UvA and typically VU traits applied to the average UvA student and the average VU student. On the basis of these ratings we calculated a mean typicality rating for expectancy consistent combinations (UvA traits applied to UvA students, VU traits applied to VU students) and expectancy inconsistent combinations (UvA traits applied to VU students, VU traits applied to UvA students). These applicability ratings were subjected to a 2 (actor group membership: ingroup vs. outgroup) ϫ 2 (recipient group membership: ingroup vs. outgroup) ϫ 2 (expectancy consistency: consistent vs. inconsistent) ϫ 2 (group rated: UvA vs. VU) mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures on the last two variables. A reliable main effect for expectancy consistency confirmed our expectancy consistency manipulation (F(1, 218) = 101.98, p < .01, 2 = .31). For expectancy consistent university-trait combinations, traits were rated as more applicable (M = 4.32) than for expectancy inconsistent combinations (M = 3.76). These results confirm our expectancy consistency manipulation. The applicability ANOVA also revealed a main effect for group rated (F(1, 218) = 15.56, p = .04, 2 = .07). In general, traits were rated as more applicable to the average VU student (M = 4.11) than to the average UvA student (M = 3.97). Also, a two-way interaction was found between expectancy consistency and group rated (F(1, 218) = 4.24, p = .04, 2 = .02). Simple effects revealed that the expected simple main effect for expectancy was somewhat stronger for the ratings of the VU group (F(1, 218) = 28.71, p < .01, 2 = .12); than for the ratings of the UvA group (F(1, 218) = 80.25, p < .01, 2 = .27). Importantly, however, in both cases the expectancy simple main effect was reliable. Finally, a three-way interaction was found between expectancy consistency, recipient group membership, and actor group membership (F(1, 218) = 4.22, p < .05, 2 = .01). Again, simple effects revealed that the expected simple main effect for expectancy consistency was reliable in all four communicative context conditions (all ps < .01, 2 varied between .05 and .18). No other effects were found. In sum, although the reliability of the expectancy manipulation differed somewhat between conditions, expectancy consistency was successfully manipulated in all conditions.

Mean abstraction rating Mean abstraction ratings were subjected to a 2 (actor group membership: ingroup vs. outgroup) ϫ 2 (recipient group membership: ingroup vs. outgroup) ϫ 2 (expectancy consistency: consistent vs. inconsistent) ϫ 2 (behavior desirability: desirable vs. undesirable) mixed ANOVA with repeated measures on the last two variables. In line with Hypothesis 1, a reliable main effect for expectancy consistency was found (F(1, 218) = 44.62, p < .01, 2 = .16). In line with the LEB phenomenon, expectancy consistent scenarios received relatively more abstract ratings (M = 2.38) than expectancy inconsistent scenarios (M = 2.29). Importantly, this effect was moderated by recipient group membership and actor group membership. That is, a significant threeway interaction was found between expectancy consistency, recipient group membership and actor group membership (F(1, 218) = 11.59, p < .01, 2 = .04) (see Table 2). We predicted a significant LEB effect for expectancy consistency in all intergroup social communicative context conditions. In line with this prediction, simple effects revealed that the LEB main effect for expectancy consistency was reliable when both the actor and the recipient were outgroup members (F(1, 218) = 12.80, p < .01, 2 = .06); when the actor was an outgroup member and the recipient an ingroup member (F(1, 218) = 24.29, p < .01, 2 = .10); and when the actor was an ingroup member and the recipient an outgroup member (F(1, 218) = 26.20, p < .01, 2 = .11). However, in the intragroup social communicative context condition in which both the actor and the recipient were ingroup members, no reliable simple main effect for expectancy consistency was found (F(1, 218) = 0.15, p = .70, 2 = .00). Thus, again no evidence for the LEB was found in an intragroup communicative context.

Besides these hypothesized effects, a main effect for behavior desirability was found (F(1, 218) = 352.17, p < .01, 2 = .61), indicating that desirable scenarios (M = 2.51) were rated more abstractly than undesirable scenarios (M = 2.17). Also, an interaction between expectancy consistency and behavior desirability (F(1, 218) = 86.65, p < .01 2 = .28) was found, indicating that expectancy inconsistent undesirable behaviors were rated at a lower level of abstraction than the other types of behaviors (for all specific comparisons, p < .01). Additional effects are not discussed as they were modified by higher order interactions. These were an interaction between actor group membership and expectancy consistency (F(1, 218) = 4.43, p = .04, 2 = .02); and a main effect for actor group membership (F(1, 218) = 5.23, p = .02, 2 = .02). No other effects were found.

Discussion

The present experiment delivers further evidence for the idea that the production of an LEB effect may be influenced by the communicative social context. Importantly, in the current experiment, the social context (universities) as well as the research method (closed ended ratings) differed from Study 1. Despite these differences, the effects found in Study 2 were comparable to those found in Study 1. Again, evidence for the occurrence of an LEB effect was found in an intergroup social communicative context but not in an intragroup social communicative context. Study 2 overcame one of the methodological problems of Study 1, namely that in the intragroup social communicative context participants were asked to generate typically male and female stories. As a result, in Study 1, at least some form of category activation may have been present in the intragroup condition which may have led to the reversal of the LEB effect. In the Study 1 intragroup condition, expectancy inconsistent information may have been more informative, diagnostic, and more salient, resulting in more abstract language use. In Study 2, participants were simply confronted with behaviors, without mentioning their typicality. As a result the UvA-VU comparison was not activated at all in the intragroup condition in Study 2. Participants thus could not have known what was to be expected of each actor. This difference between Study 1 and Study 2 may account for the finding that in the intragroup condition in Study 2, the LEB reversal found in Study 1 was not present.

General discussion

Research on the LEB [START_REF] Maass | Linguistic intergroup bias: Stereotype perpetuation through language[END_REF][START_REF] Wigboldus | How do we communicate stereotypes? Linguistic bases and inferential consequences[END_REF] has shown that there are subtle and systematic differences in the linguistic representation of social events as a function of stereotypical views. That is, in general, stereotype consistent information is communicated at a higher level of linguistic abstraction than stereotype inconsistent information. The main goal of the present work was to investigate the influence of a recipient's category membership on the production of an LEB effect. Two experiments were performed which aimed to test the influence of the social communicative context elicited by the group membership of the recipient and the actor being described on the production of an LEB effect. Both experiments supported the assumption that the production of an LEB effect is moderated by this social communicative context. In both studies, participants produced an LEB effect whenever the actor, the recipient, or both were from a different social category than the communicator. However, when both the actor and the recipient were of the same social category, a reversed LEB effect (Study 1) or no LEB effect (Study 2) was produced.

With this, both experiments supported our predictions that were based on two assumptions. First, it was assumed that the activation of specific stereotypes is dependent on social categorization processes. That is, stereotype activation requires category activation (see van [START_REF] Van Knippenberg | Social categorization and stereotyping: A functional perspective[END_REF]. Second, it was assumed that the salience of a category depends on the fit between this categorization and the social context (e.g. [START_REF] Oakes | The salience of social categories[END_REF]. On the basis of these two assumptions, we argued that when a specific social comparative context is made salient because the actor or the recipient (or both) are from a distinctively different social category than the transmitter (intergroup social communicative context), this will result in the increased activation of relevant stereotypes, which reveals itself in an LEB effect. However, when both the recipient and the actor are from the same social category as the transmitter (intragroup social communicative context), no specific social comparative context will be made salient, which will result in the absence of an LEB effect. The LEB results of both Study 1 and Study 2 supported this line of reasoning.

It should be noted that the current experiments do not deliver clear cut proof for the assumed underlying self categorization mechanism. Although the results are very much in line with a social categorization account, there was no check on the intragroup/intergroup identity salience and the resulting stereotype activation of participants in the different conditions. Future research may incorporate such measures, and these should mediate the effect of the social communicative context on the LEB found in the current studies. Without identity salience and stereotype activation checks, alternative explanations for the current pattern of results remain possible. For instance, within [START_REF] Haviland | What's new? Acquiring new information as a process in comprehension[END_REF] given-new contract framework, in the intragroup social context condition, the given could be taken for granted because this is shared with the other ingroup members and thus the emphasis of the communication task will be on the new information. This may be done by using relatively more abstract terms for what is new. In the intergroup context, a stronger emphasis may be put on the given in order to be able to establish common ground with the recipient in the intergroup context. This may be achieved by using relatively more abstract language for what is given. 2 Hopefully, future research will reveal more about the processes underlying the current findings.

Nevertheless, some interesting implications may be derived from the current results. First and most importantly, the current studies seem to provide convincing evidence for the notion that the characteristics of a recipient may influence the production of a linguistic bias when stereotype-relevant information gets communicated from one person to another. In line with earlier research indicating the importance of recipients' characteristics for the communication process (e.g. [START_REF] Higgins | The 'communication game': Implications for social cognition and persuasion[END_REF][START_REF] Kingsbury | Manipulating the amount of information obtained from a person giving directions[END_REF][START_REF] Krauss | Social psychological models of interpersonal communication[END_REF][START_REF] Mccann | Personal and contextual factors in communication: A review of the 'communication game[END_REF], the current findings indicate that the interpersonal transmission of stereotypes by means of a linguistic bias may be strongly influenced by the characteristics of a recipient. It may therefore be important for future LEB research to take the relevant recipient characteristics into account when studying the production of a linguistic bias (see [START_REF] Fiedler | On the different uses of linguistic abstractness: From LIB to LEB and beyond[END_REF].

Second, the current findings demonstrate that the LEB effect does not operate unconditionally whenever people are asked to describe stereotype-relevant behaviors, but instead is context dependent. In line with other recent research on the specific conditions under which linguistic abstraction biases occur [START_REF] Douglas | Effects of communication goals and expectancies on language abstraction[END_REF][START_REF] Fiedler | On the different uses of linguistic abstractness: From LIB to LEB and beyond[END_REF][START_REF] Gil De Montes | Communication patterns in interdependent relationships[END_REF][START_REF] Semin | Communication constraints of strategic language use[END_REF], the current results indicate that it is possible to obstruct the production of an LEB effect based on stereotypical views. The findings from both our studies clearly indicate that the production of an LEB effect based on stereotypes is absent when there is no salient relevant intergroup context. Future research will have to provide more insight into the conditions under which people do and do not produce an LEB effect. Interestingly, recent research by [START_REF] Semin | Communication constraints of strategic language use[END_REF] has demonstrated that whereas LIB effects were observed when transmitters were asked to send a message to a recipient, in a control condition where the messages had no communicative function, no effects were observed. Presumably, not only the relationship between a transmitter and a recipient is of importance to the construction of a message, but also whether the message has a communicative function. Future research is necessary to reveal more about the communicative prerequisites for an LEB effect to occur.

At a more theoretical level, an intriguing implication of the current research is the idea that the social communicative context evoked by the social category membership of a recipient may influence the communication of stereotypes at an interpersonal level. As argued before by others [START_REF] Doosje | The effect of comparative context on central tendency and variability judgements and the evaluation of group characteristics[END_REF][START_REF] Ellemers | Stereotyping in social context[END_REF][START_REF] Oakes | Stereotyping and social reality[END_REF]Spears, Oakes, Ellemers, & Haslam, 1997) stereotypes and group perceptions should not be seen as fixed 'pictures in our heads' [START_REF] Lippmann | Public opinion[END_REF] but as dependent on relevant aspects of the social context and the perspective of the perceiver. In everyday life, the characteristics of the people we communicate with constitute an important part of this social context. The research presented in this article demonstrates that contextual aspects such as these may even get reflected in the linguistic tools people use to communicate with others. Not only the way we perceive social reality is dependent on relevant aspects of the social context, but also the way in which we communicate this social reality to others. In this way, stereotypes are maintained not only within individuals but also between individuals.

Notes

1. None of the participants rated each of the four descriptors of a scenario as 'not at all' applicable. Therefore, there were no divisions by zero. Note that in calculating the mean abstraction rating in this way, an abstraction score comparable to the mean level of linguistic abstraction used in Study 1 is obtained. Not only does the mean abstraction rating result also in a score between 1 and 4, it also behaves in a similar way. For example, when only the DAV rating is above zero, it does not matter for the mean abstraction rating how high this rating is, the mean abstraction rating will always be 1. Likewise, when only DAVs are used to describe a scene in your own words, the mean level of abstraction also will be 1, independent of the number of DAVs used. 2. We would like to thank Klaus Fiedler for pointing out this alternative explanation.

Table 1 .

 1 Wigboldus et al. social context and the leb 221 Mean level of abstraction as a function of actor group membership, recipient group membership, and expectancy consistency

		Expectancy consistency
	Actor group membership Consistent Inconsistent
	Recipient ingroup
	Ingroup (n = 12)	1.99	2.24*
	Outgroup (n = 20)	2.35	2.16*
	Recipient outgroup
	Ingroup (n = 18)	2.36	2.11**
	Outgroup (n = 16)	2.21	2.02*

Notes: N = 66. Values can vary between 1 and 4 with higher values indicating higher levels of abstraction. Cell means in rows differ at *p < .05; **p < .01.

  Wigboldus et al. social context and the leb

	Table 2. Mean level of abstraction as a function of
	actor group membership, recipient group
	membership, and expectancy consistency
		Expectancy consistency
	Actor group membership Consistent Inconsistent
	Recipient UvA
	UvA (n = 59)	2.37	2.38
	VU (n = 51)	2.36	2.22**
	Recipient VU
	UvA (n = 59)	2.42	2.29**
	VU (n = 53)	2.37	2.28**
	Notes: N = 222. Participants were students of the
	University of Amsterdam (UvA). The Free University
	Amsterdam (VU) is the other university in
	Amsterdam. Values can vary between 1 and 4 with
	higher values indicating higher abstraction ratings.
	Cell means in rows differ at **p < .01.
			225

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (Grants PPS 98-031 and PGS 56-381). We thank Gooitske Marsman and Sandra Zwier for assistance in coding the data of Study 1.


Janet B Ruscher
email: ruscher@tulane.edu

Elizabeth L Cralley

Kimberly J O'farrell

How Newly Acquainted Dyads Develop Shared Stereotypic Impressions through Conversation

This study investigated how feelings of closeness at initial acquaintance encourage the development of shared stereotypic impressions of others through conversation. At least early in a relationship, closer dyads may be especially inclined to get along with one another. In order to satisfy this goal, they should focus their conversations around easily agreed upon stereotypic attributes and spontaneously express agreement about those attributes. As a consequence, the shared impressions that they form should be relatively stereotypic. In this study, closeness was manipulated in previously unacquainted college-age dyads, who then discussed their impressions of an elderly woman. Closer dyads allocated more discussion time to stereotypic attributes, expressed agreement about those attributes, invoked stereotypic exemplars, and ultimately formed more stereotypic shared impressions. The discussion considers study limitations and possible boundary conditions of the effects, as well as implications for the transmission of outgroup stereotypes during socialization to a new ingroup.

keywords conversation, shared impressions, stereotyping

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

2005 Vol 8(3) 259-270 NEWLY acquainted individuals juggle a number of simultaneous social tasks during their initial conversations. They endeavor to paint favorable self-portraits, try to ascertain reciprocity of feeling, and try to become better acquainted. Meanwhile, in addition to these challenges of mutual impression formation, newly acquainted individuals must negotiate the tasks that brought them together in the first place: tasks whose explicit goals are often not mutual impression formation. Newly acquainted individuals may, for example, need to navigate a job training session or render a decision as a jury or as an expert panel. Perhaps more commonly, newly acquainted individuals may be the novice members of an established group who need to form shared impressions of higher status members, of veteran peers, or of outgroup members. The present paper focuses on how newly G P I R

Shared impression formation through conversation

A shared impression involves a consensual understanding of what individual members of the group apparently believe, as well as an understanding about what the group as a whole believes. Upon encountering a new person, group members initially may presume some degree of consensus (e.g. [START_REF] Marks | Ten years of research on the false consensus effect: An empirical and theoretical review[END_REF], especially if the group members hail from similar backgrounds. Even so, if the target is minimally relevant, group members will communicate in an effort to confirm just how much consensus exists [START_REF] Ruscher | Forming shared impressions through conversation: An adaptation of the Continuum Model[END_REF]. This shared sociocognitive process mimics how individual perceivers initially work toward confirmatory categorization of minimally relevant targets, as described by the continuum model of impression formation [START_REF] Fiske | A continuum model of impression formation from category-based to individuating processes: Influence of information and motivation on attention and interpretation[END_REF]. For small groups, confirmation of a shared impression might be a brief nonverbal exchange, an agreeing nod in response to a group epithet, or a longer conversation about the target. For example, after learning that a mutually known target possesses a social stigma, acquainted dyads avidly discuss their recollections of the target's behaviors and make inferences about the target [START_REF] Ruscher | Revising disrupted impressions through conversation[END_REF]. In revising their impression of the now stigmatized target, acquainted dyads try to judge the extent to which they hold a shared impression. Moreover, they discuss how well the stigma fits with other target characteristics and eventually come to use the stigma as the central organizing characteristic of their shared impression.

This consensual understanding is facilitated by focusing conversation around stereotypic attributes of the target. When acquainted dyads explicitly [START_REF] Ruscher | Forming shared impressions through conversation: An adaptation of the Continuum Model[END_REF] or implicitly [START_REF] Ruscher | Revising disrupted impressions through conversation[END_REF] need to reach a consensus about a target person, they allocate a disproportionate amount of their discussion time to stereotypic attributes. Because stereotypes are implicitly shared among culturally similar people, stereotypic information is easily understood and, indeed, is recognized as the kind of information upon which people quickly can agree [START_REF] Ruscher | Multiple communicators with unique target information transmit less stereotypical impressions[END_REF]. Interestingly, this preference for discussing shared information also is evident in studies of group decision-making and problem solving (e.g. [START_REF] Stasser | Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion[END_REF]. With both shared impression formation and group decisionmaking, people presumably want to develop a common ground understanding in order to relate better to one another [START_REF] Wittenbaum | Management of information in small groups[END_REF]. With impression formation among consensually focused acquainted dyads, the common ground understanding that develops is relatively stereotypic and is related directly to focus on stereotypic information. Moreover, that development of shared stereotypic impressions is related directly to dyads' spontaneous agreement about that stereotypic information [START_REF] Ruscher | Forming shared impressions through conversation: An adaptation of the Continuum Model[END_REF].

Beyond agreeing about and allocating time to stereotypic attributes, consensually focused dyads produce conversations whose content is relatively stereotypic. For example, people who discuss outgroup members often introduce stereotypic exemplars into their conversations. In some cases, these exemplars appear to serve as illustrations of the stereotypic qualities of the outgroup (e.g. [START_REF] Harasty | The interpersonal nature of social stereotypes: Differential discussion patterns about in-groups and out-groups[END_REF][START_REF] Van Dijk | How 'they' hit the headlines: Ethnic minorities in the press[END_REF]. Indeed, telling a story about a particular outgroup member's apparently insensitive or even criminal behavior may suggest that the entire outgroup possesses such qualities (cf. [START_REF] Henderson-King | Anti-black prejudice as a function of exposure to the negative behavior of a single black person[END_REF]. In other cases, stereotypic exemplars are invoked as a means of comparison. The newly encountered target reminds the conversing dyad of prototypical exemplars: an elderly target is reminiscent of one person's crotchety grade school teacher, a target with alcoholism resembles the consistently drunk 'regular' at a local pub, a gay target evokes thoughts of a stereotypically flamboyant character on television. These stereotypic exemplars are invoked particularly when consensus is sought (e.g. [START_REF] Ruscher | Revising disrupted impressions through conversation[END_REF][START_REF] Yost | The role of motivation and cognitive capacity in transactive impression formation[END_REF], which suggests that the stereotype is accessible and is being applied to the target. Indeed, people who hear others invoke stereotypic exemplars of a group increase their own stereotyping of subsequently encountered members of that target group [START_REF] Duval | Bolstering and undercutting use of the elderly stereotype through communication of exemplars: The role of speaker age and exemplar stereotypicality[END_REF], so spontaneously introducing stereotypic exemplars into conversation likely is associated with stereotype accessibility.

New acquaintances

For newly acquainted dyads, the development of shared stereotypic impressions presumably would be encouraged by consensual focus. But what besides explicit instructions to reach consensus might especially encourage newly acquainted dyads to seek consensus and, consequently, to stereotype an outgroup member? One likely possibility is the extent to which the newly acquainted dyad members feel close to one another and experience reciprocal liking. At least in the early stages of a relationship, feelings of closeness might encourage desires for consensus and similarity of opinion. For example, people report greater attraction to strangers who share their evaluative perceptions of other targets [START_REF] Craig | Similarity, interpersonal attitudes and attraction: The evaluative-descriptive distinction[END_REF]. Indeed, relationships in their formative stages are marked by mutual enhancement, agreement, and similarity (e.g. [START_REF] Mccarthy | Friendship duration and responses to attitudinal agreement-disagreement[END_REF]cf. Swann, de la Ronde, & Hixon, 1998). Mutual enhancement goals can be met by focusing on information that is shared among group members, because that information can be validated by other group members [START_REF] Wittenbaum | Mutual enhancement: Toward an understanding of the collective preference for shared information[END_REF]. By extension, one might expect that newly acquainted dyads who feel close to one another would tend to agree about their impressions of others and would focus on implicitly shared information.

Of course in naturalistic settings, dyads who experience some type of initial bond might share other qualities that could encourage stereotyping, besides feelings of closeness. For example, dyad members recently might have both experienced a self-esteem threat, and thus temporarily might have bonded together because misery loves miserable company. A self-esteem threat might encourage them to stereotype (and possibly to derogate) a target person (e.g. [START_REF] Fein | Prejudice as self-image maintenance: Affirming the self through derogating others[END_REF], thereby adding the additional purpose of self-esteem restoration, beyond the desire to get along with an attractive other. Alternatively, existing close dyads might be especially similar with respect to culture or ethnicity and, on average, hold exceedingly similar stereotypes of outgroups; such dyads might form more shared stereotypic impressions of an outgroup member simply because they already share more overlap in impressions than less close dyads. To isolate initial feelings of closeness from these (admittedly interesting) factors that sometimes co-vary with closeness in natural settings, we manipulated closeness among half of the previously unacquainted dyads in the present study, adapting a closeness-generating procedure designed by [START_REF] Aron | The experimental generation of interpersonal closeness: A procedure and some preliminary findings[END_REF].

Summary and hypotheses

In sum, recent acquaintances who feel close should be motivated to get along with each other. Focusing conversation around implicitly agreed upon (i.e. stereotypic) attributes and expressing agreement with such information should help meet this goal of a smooth mutually rewarding interaction. The conversations as a whole should be more stereotypic, including references to stereotypic exemplars. As a consequence of focusing on stereotypic attributes, the shared impressions formed should be relatively stereotypic. We therefore predicted that, compared to less close dyads: (e) closer dyads would form more stereotypic shared impressions.

Finally, we also examined a mediational model, predicting that:

(f) the relation between closeness and shared stereotypic impressions would be mediated, at least in part, by discussion of stereotypic attributes.

Method Participants

Thirty-two previously unacquainted same-sex dyads (4 male; 28 female) participated in exchange for extra credit in their psychology courses; participants were between 19 and 23 years of age. Dyads were assigned randomly to either the less close or closer condition. Samesex dyads were used to increase the likelihood of similar stereotypic expectations within a dyad (i.e. stereotypes of elderly women should be more similar in same-sex than mixed-sex dyads). The data of two female dyads who failed to follow instructions were discarded, leaving 15 dyads in each condition.

Procedure

Experimenters scheduled two previously unacquainted same-sex college students to participate together, drawn from several large lower-division courses. When both dyad members arrived, a female experimenter explained that instructions for the entire experiment would be provided on audiotape; this procedure allowed experimenters to remain unaware of the closeness condition and also provided uniform procedures for all dyads.

After obtaining informed consent, the experimenter activated the audio-cassette player and the video-camera, then left the room.

Closeness manipulation

The female voice on the audiotape instructed participants to open their first set of folders, inside of which seven questions were written. These questions were borrowed from Aron et al.'s (1997) Informal pretesting as well as two previous studies in our lab [START_REF] O'farrell | Close friendship and information processing in response to overhearing self-relevant information[END_REF] verified that our shorter procedure, requiring only 6-7 minutes, could be successful in creating different levels of closeness. The shorter procedure lent itself to the typical 45 minute study participation time (i.e. a class period), allowing dyads to perform the subsequent tasks and participate in a debriefing interview during the time allotted (cf. [START_REF] Sedikides | The relationship closeness induction task[END_REF]. In this adapted procedure, the tape-recorded voice instructed dyads in the closer condition to become better acquainted by orally sharing their responses to each question from a subset of the intimate questions from Aron et al.'s (1997) longer procedure; these seven questions were enclosed in the aforementioned folder. For dyads in the less close condition, the tape-recorded voice instructed dyads to write their responses to these same questions on paper, purportedly to allow the researchers to know more about them. This control condition was included rather than Aron et al.'s shared trivial questions in order to keep less close dyads cognitively and affectively comparable to closer dyads. Thus, whereas Aron et al.'s (1997) original procedure confounds particular questions with condition (and possibly the moods or depth of thought encouraged by the questions), the present procedure confounds the audience for the responses (i.e. the other participant versus the researchers). After providing the instructions for the requisite condition, the audiotape then paused for seven minutes to allow participants to respond to the questions.

Stimulus person

The audiotape next informed dyads that they would hear a description of a person, and that together they would discuss that person later in the study. Dyads then heard one of two descriptions of an elderly retired woman, used in previous research [START_REF] Duval | Bolstering and undercutting use of the elderly stereotype through communication of exemplars: The role of speaker age and exemplar stereotypicality[END_REF]. Alternate versions were used for purposes of generalizability. Each description conveyed two attributes that were stereotypic and two attributes that were counterstereotypic with respect to stereotypes of elderly people. Pretested stereotypic attributes comprised adheres to strict routines, has wisdom of experience, opinionated, and moves around slowly (M = 2.29 in stereotypicality and M = 0.16 in valence on +3 to -3 scales) and counterstereotypic attributes comprised politically liberal, computer buff, makes impulsive decisions, and has a mind like a steel trap (stereotypicality M = -2.40; valence M = 0.16).

After presenting the description, the audiotape instructed dyads to discuss their impressions of the person just described. Once 2.5 minutes had elapsed, the audiotaped voice requested that dyads stop their conversation and individually complete, without consultation, the surveys in their next folder. Surveys required participants to rate the target on four items associated with stereotypes of elderly people (slow to learn; forgetful; incompetent; foolish) used in previous research [START_REF] Duval | Bolstering and undercutting use of the elderly stereotype through communication of exemplars: The role of speaker age and exemplar stereotypicality[END_REF][START_REF] Ruscher | Off-target verbosity evokes negative stereotypes of older adults[END_REF]; scores on these items were averaged as a single index of resulting stereotypic impressions (Cronbach's alpha = .70). Surveys also included two items from [START_REF] Aron | The experimental generation of interpersonal closeness: A procedure and some preliminary findings[END_REF] and seven items from [START_REF] Zaccaro | The effects of task and interpersonal cohesiveness on performance of a disjunctive group task[END_REF] that assessed perceived closeness and interpersonal attraction. Scores on these nine items were averaged to form a check on the closeness manipulation (Cronbach's alpha = .77). These items included 'To what extent would you enjoy working with your partner again?' and 'I wanted my partner to like me'. All survey items were presented along 11-point Likert-type scales. After completion of all tasks, dyads were probed for suspicion and debriefed. Dyad members finally were given an opportunity to request erasure of their videotape; no one made such a request.

Data from the videotapes Following previous procedures (e.g. [START_REF] Ruscher | Revising disrupted impressions through conversation[END_REF], a coder unaware of the experimental condition determined whether dyads explicitly discussed the stereotypic or counterstereotypic attributes, or made comments irrelevant to the stereotype. Stereotype-irrelevant comments included references to the speaker who described the target, theories about other qualities of the target (e.g. marital status; occupation), and irrelevant interchanges (e.g. comments about the videocamera). Although potentially interesting, hypotheses about these aspects of conversation were not generated a priori, so they were not analyzed. A second coder unaware of condition independently coded a random third of the protocols (totaling 299 comments). Cohen's kappa indicated good agreement for these three designations ( = .71), with particularly rare disagreement on whether discussed attributes were stereotypic or counterstereotypic ( = .96). Using the first coder's designations, the number of seconds allocated to counterstereotypic and stereotypic attributes were recorded with a stopwatch.

Also following previous procedures, the first coder counted the dyads' references to specific exemplars (e.g. 'She reminds me of my grandmother, who has a hard time getting used to modern times'), verbal expression of agreement about those attributes (e.g. 'Yeah, you're right'), and comments that were neither exemplars nor agreement. The second coder evinced a similar understanding of whether comments were exemplars, agreement, or other comments ( = .84); coders never confused exemplars with agreement ( = 1.00).

Finally, the first coder made a global assessment on a 5-point scale of how much the entire conversation stereotyped the elderly target, with higher scores reflecting greater stereotypicness. This assessment simply provided a more holistic view of the conversation, in recognition that time allocation to target attributes, invoked exemplars, and agreement may not have captured fully the stereotypicness of the conversation. The second coder made ratings on one-third of the conversations (N = 10); ratings of the coders were highly correlated (r(8) = .82) and average ratings made by the two coders were statistically indistinguishable (F < 1).

Results

A two-person conversation is by nature dyadic, alternating turns of listening and speaking, so such data were recorded at the dyad level. For the questionnaire data, intraclass correlation coefficients [START_REF] Kenny | The analysis of data from two-person relationships[END_REF] indicated that scores of dyad members were consensual and not independent (manipulation check = .49; stereotyping index = .52, both significant at p < . 01). The dyad therefore was used as the unit of analysis for these data as well. All means are reported in Table 1; correlations among the independent variable, manipulation check, and dependent variables are reported in Table 2.

Manipulation check

Data from the manipulation check were analyzed with a one-way between-groups analysis of variance (ANOVA), using closeness as the group factor. As expected, dyads in the closer condition (M = 9.06) reported feeling closer to and greater attraction toward their partners than did dyads in the less close condition (M = 8.12) (F(1,28) = 7.11, p < .02, 2 = .203).

Conversation data

The number of seconds that dyads allocated to discussing the target's attributes were submitted to a 2 ϫ 2 closeness (less, more) by attribute stereotypicness (stereotypic, counterstereotypic) mixed model ANOVA with repeated measures on the last factor. Closeness did not predict Content analyses lend insight into the nature of these conversations. Because increased time discussing the target's attributes conceivably provided dyads with more opportunities to agree with one another and to invoke exemplars, time allocated to discussing target attributes was entered as a covariate in the 2 ϫ 2 closeness-by-stereotypicness analyses on these dependent variables. For agreement, the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) detected only the closeness-by-attribute interaction (F(1,27) = 5.56, p < .03, 2 = .171). As seen in Table 1, closer dyads agreed more when discussing stereotypic attributes than did less close dyads. As expected, then, closer dyads apparently developed their common ground along stereotypic dimensions.

The ANCOVA on invoked exemplars also detected the closeness-by-stereotypicness interaction (F(1,27) = 8.104, p < .008, 2 = .231). As shown in Table 1, closer dyads tended to generate more exemplars around stereotypic attributes than counterstereotypic attributes, whereas less close dyads evidenced little preference. This finding would suggest that, as expected, closer dyads found the target reminiscent of known stereotypic instances.

Finally, global ratings of how much the conversation as a whole appeared to stereotype the elderly person were submitted to a one-way ANOVA. Closer dyads (M = 3.87) produced more stereotypic conversations than did less close dyads (M = 2.60) (F(1,28) = 21.97, p < .001, 2 = .44). Thus, a more holistic view of the conversation was consistent with what emerged through analyses of discussion time, stereotypic exemplars invoked, and agreement about stereotypic attributes. These ratings also correlated significantly with time allocated to discussing stereotypic attributes, and marginally with the other indicators of stereotyping through conversation (see Table 2).

Resulting impressions

As noted above, dyads' subsequent impression ratings were not independent (interclass correlation = .52), indicating that the impressions formed were shared. Dyads' average ratings of the four stereotypic attributes, made subsequent to their conversations, were submitted to a one-way ANOVA. As expected, the impression ratings of closer dyads (M = 4.63) tended to be more stereotypic than those of less close dyads (M = 3.60) (F(1,28) = 4.03, p < .055, 2 = .126).

Path analysis

To what extent did the stereotypic processing during the conversation give way to stereotypic impressions? We examined the extent to which the closeness-stereotyping relation might be mediated by preferential focus on stereotypic attributes, using the procedures outlined by [START_REF] Baron | The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations[END_REF]. Three regression equations were estimated. First, closeness (less close = -1; more close = +1) marginally predicted the dependent variable of shared stereotypic impressions (standardized ␤ = .355, F(1,28) = 4.03, p < .055). Second, closeness predicted the proposed mediator, percentage of time 1 allocated to stereotypic attributes (␤ = .41, F(1,28) = 5.63, p < .03). Finally, when both closeness and time were entered as predictors, the effect of closeness on shared stereotypic impressions was reduced (closeness ␤ = .20, p < .29; time ␤ = .38, p < .05, F(2,27) = 4.37, p < .03). Given the small sample size, a bootstrap analysis was employed to test the indirect effect [START_REF] Preacher | SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models[END_REF][START_REF] Shrout | Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations[END_REF]. Insofar as the confidence interval around the indirect effect contained zero, this analysis did not provide evidence for a significant indirect effect (point estimate unstandardized b = .22; 95% confidence interval around b -.04 to .60; N = 30; 10,000 bootstrap resamples). The failure to detect a significant indirect effect is addressed in the discussion.

Discussion

Compared to less close dyads, newly acquainted college-age dyads who felt closer to one another focused their discussions around stereotypic attributes and agreed about those attributes. They also referenced stereotypic exemplars, held conversations that generally stereotyped the target, and formed shared impressions that were relatively stereotypic. Thus, at least at early stages of acquaintance, feelings of closeness apparently encourage people to find common ground bases for agreement. Stereotyping others during conversation appears to be one convenient basis for finding such common ground.

Given that stereotypes comprise shared social representations, both members possessed information to contribute to the conversation. That is, not only did both dyad members learn stereotypic information about the specific target, but they presumably also possessed stereotypes and exemplars of elderly persons. Discussing shared information is validating and mutually enhancing, allowing each dyad member to feel important and to see her or his views echoed by the other [START_REF] Wittenbaum | Mutual enhancement: Toward an understanding of the collective preference for shared information[END_REF]. These findings have profound implications for situations in which small groups are charged with rendering decisions about the target, above and beyond impression formation. Newly acquainted groups such as expert panels and juries may, at times, be motivated more by desires to get along than by accuracy goals. If so, they may focus on stereotypic features, and make decisions based on stereotypes. Even if accuracy goals are in place, groups sometimes use consensus as a proxy for accuracy [START_REF] Ruscher | Forming shared impressions through conversation: An adaptation of the Continuum Model[END_REF]. The consensuality of stereotypic information implies veracity, so stereotype-based judgments actually may appear justified. What everyone believes is seen as true, a phenomenon that Allport termed the illusion of universality (Allport, 1954(Allport, /1989)).

Potential boundary conditions

In a broad sense, dyads in the present study focused their discussions strategically to satisfy a social goal (cf. [START_REF] Schaller | Influence of impression-management goals on the emerging contents of group stereotypes: Support for a social-evolutionary process[END_REF]. Among these newly acquainted individuals, increased feelings of closeness encouraged focus on stereotypic attributes. Closeness alone may not suffice for effects, insofar as the converse may occur for well acquainted dyads who already feel close. Among previously acquainted dyads, closeness predicts increased disagreement about a potentially stereotyped target's attributes, and predicts the formation of more complex (and essentially less stereotypic) impressions [START_REF] Ruscher | Shared impression formation in the cognitively interdependent dyad[END_REF]. Among good friends, closeness is not jeopardized by trivial disagreements and, indeed, some degree of unique opinion can be valued. But for both newly acquainted and established dyads, closer dyads appear to adopt whichever strategy is most likely to support the close relationship. That said, one can imagine situations in which stereotyping a third party would jeopardize closeness even for newly acquainted dyads, and would call for another strategy. For example, if strong norms prohibited expressing stereotypic beliefs about the third party's social group, dyad members might infer that closeness would be maintained by validating the nonprejudiced self-images presented by their partners. Social norms rarely prohibit the expression of stereotypic beliefs about elderly persons, but may be strong in other instances (e.g. European-Americans discussing an African-American target). In such cases, agreement among newly acquainted dyads might be sought regarding counterstereotypic attributes, to bolster closeness and validate non-prejudiced self-images. Thus, one boundary condition on the present effects may be the social acceptability of verbally expressing stereotypic views.

The social acceptability of verbally expressing stereotypic views could also underlie the extent to which individuals are likely to communicate specific attributes. Although equated for evaluative connotation (which is often confounded with stereotypicality), the stereotypic attributes in the present study conceivably were more communicable than the counterstereotypic attributes. Consistent with this reasoning, stereotypicality is associated with communicability for Canadians of European descent but not for ethnic minorities [START_REF] Schaller | Selective pressures on the once and future contents of ethnic stereotypes: Effects of the communicability of traits[END_REF]. Expressing stereotypic views of majority group members (e.g. white Canadians) is probably no more prohibited than expressing stereotypic views of elderly persons, so the stereotypic attributes in the present study likely were high in communicability. Indeed, communicable attributes may serve similar functions as stereotypic ones. Both may be likely to elicit agreement and be easily understood [START_REF] Ruscher | Multiple communicators with unique target information transmit less stereotypical impressions[END_REF], which would facilitate a smooth interaction.

As evident from the preceding discussion, an assumption of the present research is that newly acquainted individuals who feel close seek points of agreement. The current findings suggest that this goal may be achieved by focusing on stereotypic attributes, recognizing that communicable attributes or even counterstereotypic attributes sometimes might achieve similar goals. Although agreeing upon impressions of a third party individual may be sufficient to maintain closeness, a social target per se may not be formally necessary. Agreeing about a nonsocial object or sociopolitical issue, for example, also might maintain feelings of closeness and mutual attraction. On the other hand, agreeing upon impressions of a potentially stereotyped individual may be an especially powerful way to maintain feelings of closeness and mutual attraction. If circumstances elicit a high level of group differentiation or identity salience, for example, a sense of ingroup formation and 'we-ness' may enhance the desire to find points of agreement. In the present study, dyads were same-sex (predominantly female) college-aged students who were discussing an elderly woman. Consequently, for most of the dyads, age was the salient characteristic distinguishing them from the target. Our findings may be stronger than if identity salience was minimized (e.g. an elderly man and young woman discussing a middle-aged person) or if the discussion topic were a relatively uncontroversial social object (e.g. cola flavored with lemon). Stereotyping a third party target may be a viable method of maintaining closeness during early interaction, but it is unlikely to be the only method.

Potential explanations for the nonsignificant indirect path

According to expectation states theory [START_REF] Berger | Status characteristics and social interaction[END_REF], people associate certain status characteristics with varying degrees of competence. Old age is a diffuse status characteristic, insofar as it sometimes implies the high competence of wisdom and experience (e.g. senators, emeritus faculty) or the low competence of feeblemindedness (e.g. residents of long-term care facilities). The competency-related beliefs that our college-age dyads presumably held would have developed through interactions with older individuals, sharing stories and impressions with others, and portrayals of elderly persons in film and advertising [START_REF] Ruscher | Prejudiced communication: A social psychological perspective[END_REF]. The degree to which the elderly target met these prior expectations would be a function partly of the specific attributes that described her. Some of these attributes were related to intellectual competence (e.g. wisdom of experience, mind like a steel trap), but others were less so (e.g. moves slowly, liberal). In contrast, the attributes rated in their final impressions uniformly reflected intellectual competence (i.e. slow to learn, forgetful, incompetent, foolish). In retrospect, this imperfect match may in part explain the failure to detect a significant indirect path from closeness to resulting impressions. Time spent talking about a host of stereotypic attributes (i.e. the mediator examined) may not be the ideal path to resulting impressions that were centered around intellectual competency (i.e. the dependent variable examined). Unfortunately, dyads' conversations often blended stereotypic attributes (e.g. 'imagine the old lady drudging around the yard with her cats, while she gives you advice from all her years'), so separating out time spent on competency-related attributes would prove difficult. A better match between the mediator and dependent variable might have facilitated our ability to detect significant mediation.

Unlike the current study, attention (e.g. [START_REF] Fiske | Personality feedback and situational norms can control stereotyping processes[END_REF] and discussion time (e.g. [START_REF] Ruscher | Multiple communicators with unique target information transmit less stereotypical impressions[END_REF] have emerged as mediators of resulting impressions in previous research. The final criterion used for inferring simple mediation often has been that the regression coefficient for the independent variable is no longer significant when the mediator is entered in the equation [START_REF] Baron | The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations[END_REF]. More recently, researchers have included variations on Sobel's test for the significance of the indirect path [START_REF] Kenny | Data analysis in social psychology[END_REF] or have used empirically derived methods that are less conservative for small sample sizes than Sobel's test [START_REF] Mackinnon | A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects[END_REF][START_REF] Shrout | Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations[END_REF]. Conceivably, mediation via discussion time reported in previous studies may not satisfy contemporary criteria, in which case the current predictions about mediation may have been weakly grounded. Alternatively, the design may have had insufficient power. In addition to the relatively small sample size, the magnitude of the difference between conditions was small (manipulation check on closeness yielded Ms = 8.12 and 9.06). A greater difference between the closeness conditions presumably would have increased the direct effect, but also might have increased the magnitude of the indirect effect as well.

Group socialization

Research on socialization into larger natural social groups is congruent with the present findings. Newcomers to existing groups are taught the appropriate beliefs and behaviors of that group [START_REF] Moreland | Socialization in small groups: Temporal changes in individual-group relations[END_REF]. The process of socialization includes leading newcomers to accept consensually held beliefs about outgroups, as well as prescriptions on how to interact with them. For example, in a study of students entering a Canadian military college, members of the Anglophone majority initially held positive or neutral attitudes about various outgroups (e.g. Francophones, immigrants). Over time, however, the individuals who were most socially identified with their ingroup became most negative about outgroups [START_REF] Guimond | Group socialization and prejudice: The social transmission of intergroup attitudes and beliefs[END_REF]. 'Fitting in' with a group to which one is attracted and identifies with requires, in part, accepting its beliefs about others. Indeed, publicly expressing the beliefs of the group may be perceived as a valuable way of demonstrating early commitment to and attraction for the group. For example, newcomers to university sororities and fraternities (i.e. pledges) express negative prejudice about outgroups primarily when those opinions will be public, but not private; existing members express prejudice equally irrespective of the publicness of those opinions [START_REF] Noel | Peripheral ingroup membership status and public negativity toward outgroups[END_REF]cf. Ryan & Bogart, 1997).

The present work with dyads in a laboratory setting provides some insight into how prejudices toward and stereotypes about outgroup members may be transmitted during socialization into larger, naturally occurring social groups. When talking about outgroup members, implicitly shared (i.e. stereotypic) attributes most likely should be introduced into the conversation; newcomers who wish to be accepted may find themselves agreeing with and perhaps elaborating on those attributes. Both newcomers and veteran members then may illustrate their viewpoints with stories about specific outgroup members that seemingly illustrate the general qualities of the outgroup (c.f. [START_REF] Van Dijk | How 'they' hit the headlines: Ethnic minorities in the press[END_REF].

In conclusion, at least at initial acquaintance, people's desire to be liked may lead them to find sources of common ground and shared viewpoints. One of these sources of common ground may, unfortunately, be stereotypic views of outgroup members. Prejudiced individuals therefore may find it exceedingly easy to get along by validating their shared stereotypic beliefs about an outgroup member. Ironically, then, efforts to start off on the right foot with a new acquaintance may come naturally at the expense of a third party.

  (a) closer dyads would allocate more discussion time to stereotypic attributes; (b) closer dyads would express verbal agreement about stereotypic attributes; (c) closer dyads would invoke more stereotypic exemplars; (d) closer dyads would hold conversations that were rated as more stereotypic;

Table 1 .

 1 Discussion time, exemplar use, and agreement, as a function of closeness and attribute stereotypicness

	Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 8(3)

Jennifer Landeche, and Brooke Sams for their assistance with data collection, coding, and videotape transcription. The authors also thank Scott Reid and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful feedback on an earlier version of the manuscript.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Robert E. Flowerree Tulane Psychology Fund. The second and third authors contributed equally to this research, so authorship order was determined by a coin toss. The authors thank Ashley Berg, Allison Bernstein, Morgan Brokaw, Kristi Byers, Sasha Carp, Lynn Cook, Sharon Davidson, Camille Greenberg, Jamie Jaspriza,