1. Constrained Choice Study
Semester Project -- Lorraine Wang

2. Background
Social identity complexity is affected by stress and is related to personal value priorities and to tolerance of outgroup members (Roccas & Brewer, 2002)
Stereotyping of individuals occurs at the level of basic rather than superordinate categories (Brewer, Dull, & Lui, 1981)
Social identity threats do not only occur in low status groups, but also in high status groups (Scheepers & Ellemers, 2005)
Increased threat predicts increased normative tightness (Gelfand et al., 2011)
Might consider leaving out the ‘performance-based…” and just start with ‘social idenitty threats’
I’d add a final point about Gelfand et al., 2011 finding that Increased threat predicts increased normative tightness
(might be a good idea to briefly glance at their study’s abstract to get a refresher of what threats they talked about and their definition of normative tightness)
 social identity complexity—a new theoretical construct that refers to an individual’s subjective representation of the interrelationships
among his or her multiple group identities
Stereotype threat refers to situations in which individuals feel they might be judged negatively because of a stereotype. ... In short, as social identity theory assumes (Tajfel & Turner, 1986), individuals strive to maintain a positive perception of their groups and collectives.
Normative tightness refers to the degree to which social norms are pervasive, clearly defined, and reliably imposed in a given social group
Roccas and Brewer: Social Identity Complexity
Less constraint→recognition of increased social identity complexity→Increase tolerance / decrease normative tightness
Identity Complexity
-High threat decreases complexity (Increase similarity, decrease tolerance)
Redundancy in group memberships-cohesion
Salience of sub-groups decreases tightness
Scheepers and Ellemers: When the Pressure is Up
Threat of categorization against one’s will (in footnotes)

3. Past Results Second iteration -- Gender specific constraint
First iteration -- general constraint
No significant effects
More constraint led to less normative tightness
Second iteration -- Gender specific constraint
Added the Genderism and Transphobia Scale
Gender diversity increase tolerance of gender nonconformity and decrease normative tightness
Significant effect of condition on avoidance
CCT is the abbreviation for the study that I use. Markus is sometimes confused when I use it. Maybe just say “first iteration--general constraint”
I wonder if the hypothesis can be made shorter? “A smaller number of choices (high constraint, low complexity) would prime for stricter norms and less tolerance of deviance (higher normative tightness)”
Maybe bring the points from the previous slides in about threat here (Gelfand and Scheepers and Ellemers)? The hypothesis for CCT-1 is more related to the social identity complexity.
Even though there were no significant effects, they were trending in a certain direction: more constraint led to less normative tightness (against hypothesis)
These results are consistent with a threat model and Gelfand’s notion of threat increases normative tightness is we assume that low levels of constraint--seeing that kind of diversity--is a threatening experience for majority group members.
First iteration:
Constrained choice in demographics linked to less tolerance of individuals whose identities are not accounted for in the demographics? Do fewer choices prime for stricter norms about identities? Vary constraint in demographics, evaluate various behaviors and the extent to which they would avoid someone acting in such a way, evaluate morality. Constraint applied to many identities (gender, race/ethnicity, sexuality, political affiliation)
Too few participants to make concrete conclusions (N=88). No significant effects. Directions was opposite of expected, though consistent with FYP: more constraint led to less normative tightness.
Continuation: Specific questions about people of the demographic dimensions as actors in hypothetical situations. The condition will be if the answer must be one from a list, a checklist, or a fill-in-the-blank. Include race as constrained identity
Second iteration:
In the demographic manipulation, participants either had to choose Male/Female (high) vs. 10 gender options (low). Then they responded to items for NT, J, A, M, and Genderism and Transphobia scale (opinion of gender non-conformists). Does seeing gender diversity on demographic questionnaires increase tolerance of gender non-conformity? Does it decrease general normative tightness?

4. Work This Semester Outcome Measure General normative tightness
Morality
Genderism and Transphobia Scale
Gender nonconforming
Avoidance
Justification
Hypothesis: Seeing gender diversity on demographic questionnaires would be a threatening experience, and it would decrease tolerance of gender nonconformity and increase general normative tightness
Make sure you mention that you worked on developing the new avoidance and justification and support items
Some studies found that priming thoughts of immigrants leads to lower tolerance
Priming of immigrants ---> decrease tolerance
Previous studies have shown that external threat increases cohesiveness, homogeneity, and unfavorable attitudes towards minorities, or “out-groups.”

5. Method Qualtrics Survey (N=130): Manipulation:
Demographic Questions-High Constraint/ Low Constraint
Manipulation: Two conditions
Normative tightness: 6 questions
Support: 9 questions
Justification: 6 questions
Avoidance: 10 questions
Genderism and Transphobia scale: 17 questions
Morality: 15 questions

6. Results The effect of level of constraint on perceived immorality
The effect of level of constraint on lack of justification
I would put perceived immorality and justification on one slide. Mention that condition did not significantly predict differences in outcomes across measures
For immorality and justification, can see both kinds of trends (for and against hypothesis, even though it’s a really small trend). Morality is in the camp of social identity complexity--high constraint increases normative tightness. Justification is in the camp of threatening experience--low constraint increases normative tightness

7. Results
The effect of level of constraint and political affiliation on avoidance
I would then go to a slide with just one graph: the graph of avoidance broken down by political affiliation. You can mention that even though condition didn’t impact level of avoidance, that being a republican did. A persistent effect. While not groundbreaking, could offer a new demographic to constrain. This then transitions to your future steps slide (I added political affiliation to the list).

8. Next Step Other demographic topics: Political affiliation Race
Religion
Other tolerance items:
How much do you like someone?
Tolerate their presence in your life?