Dr Rubin is a senior lecturer in the School of Psychology at the University of Newcastle, Australia. The School’s was recently ranked in the top 4 of 41 Australian psychology departments in terms of its research (Excellence in Research Australia, 2012).
Dr Rubin received an MSc from the London School of Economics in 1994 and a PhD from Cardiff University in 2000. He was awarded the Society for Personality and Social Psychology’s Student Publication Award in 1997 and the University of Newcastle Vice-Chancellor’s Citation for Outstanding Contributions to Student Learning in 2011. He is a Fellow of the Society of Experimental Social Psychology and a member of the University of Newcastle’s Emerging Research Leaders program.
Dr Rubin has an international reputation in the field of social psychology. He is particularly recognised for his work on social identity and intergroup relations, and he continues to work in related areas such as perceived group variability, prejudice, and stereotyping. His other research interests include evaluations of deviant people; interdependent problem-solving; migration processes; the need for closure; social class; and social integration.
Dr Rubin has been a Chief Investigator on two Australian Research Council Discovery Project grants, and he has authored 27 research publications, including 25 journal articles and 2 book chapters. His work has been cited over 1,400 times, and he is ranked in the top 20% of social psychologists in terms of his publication impact (career-stage e-index compared with 611 North American social psychologists; Nosek et al., 2010).
For more information about Dr Rubin’s research, please visit his research webpage at http://bit.ly/QgpV4O
Abstract: ABSTRACT Based on self-categorization theory, group status should be positively related to group prototypicality when the relevant superordinate category is positively valued. In this case, high status groups should be perceived to be more prototypical than low status groups even in the absence of concerns about maintaining a positive social identity. To test this hypothesis, a minimal group study was conducted in which participants (N?=?139) did not belong to any of the groups involved. Consistent with predictions, participants perceived high status groups to be significantly more prototypical than low status groups. Consistent with self-categorization theory’s cognitive analysis, these results demonstrate that the relation between group status and group prototypicality is a relatively basic and pervasive effect that does not depend on social identity motives. ABSTRACT Based on self-categorization theory, group status should be positively related to group prototypicality when the relevant superordinate category is positively valued. In this case, high status groups should be perceived to be more prototypical than low status groups even in the absence of concerns about maintaining a positive social identity. To test this hypothesis, a minimal group study was conducted in which participants (N?=?139) did not belong to any of the groups involved. Consistent with predictions, participants perceived high status groups to be significantly more prototypical than low status groups. Consistent with self-categorization theory’s cognitive analysis, these results demonstrate that the relation between group status and group prototypicality is a relatively basic and pervasive effect that does not depend on social identity motives.
Abstract: Researchers studying people’s perceptions of variability among members of social groups, or perceived group variability, have tended to focus on the ways in which perceivers’ group affiliations lead to in-group and out-group homogeneity effects, including the other-race effect. However, recent advances have highlighted the role of additional influences. In this review, we consider the influence of (a) the perceiver’s group affiliation, (b) the group’s objective variability, (c) the group’s social position, and (d) the group’s central tendency on trait dimensions. We focus on recent research in these areas that has highlighted the strategic, context-dependent, and symbolic nature of perceived group variability. We conclude that future research needs to adopt a multicausal approach in order to provide a more complete and comprehensive account of perceived group variability.
Abstract: I argue that working-class students need to be better integrated into social life at university in order for them to have a better opportunity to succeed. I discuss this issue in the context of (a) a recent meta-analyses showing the working-class students are less integrated at university than middle-class students and (b) the Australian Government's recent initiative to increase the number of working-class students at Australian universities.
Abstract: Previous research has shown that immigrants’ approach orientation positively predicts their attitudes towards contact with host nationals (Matschke & Sassenberg, 2010). The present research builds on this previous work by investigating the extent to which immigrants’ independent vs. interdependent problem-solving style moderates the relation between approach–avoidance orientation and social integration. Interdependent problem-solvers rely on other people to achieve their goals. This interdependence was expected to reduce the influence of approach–avoidance orientation on integration amongst immigrants. Immigrants to Australia (N = 137) completed a questionnaire that included measures of approach–avoidance orientation and problem-solving style. Participants also completed three measures of social integration: (1) proportion of Australian friends, (2) feelings of inclusion in Australian society, and (3) satisfaction with employment, accommodation, and life in Australia. Consistent with previous research, there was a positive relation between approach and social integration and a negative relation between avoidance and social integration. Consistent with predictions, problem-solving style moderated the relation for approach orientation: Only immigrants who were independent problem-solvers showed a significant positive relation between approach and social integration. The results are discussed in relation to Gable’s (2006) model of approach and avoidance social goals and motives, and the implications for immigration services are considered.
Abstract: Contact researchers have largely overlooked the potential for negative intergroup contact to increase prejudice. In Study 1, we tested the interaction between contact quantity and valence on prejudice toward Black Australians (n = 1,476), Muslim Australians (n = 173), and asylum seekers (n = 293). In all cases, the association between contact quantity and prejudice was moderated by its valence, with negative contact emerging as a stronger and more consistent predictor than positive contact. In Study 2, White Americans (n = 441) indicated how much positive and negative contact they had with Black Americans on separate measures. Although both quantity of positive and negative contact predicted racism and avoidance, negative contact was the stronger predictor. Furthermore, negative (but not positive) contact independently predicted suspicion about Barack Obama’s birthplace. These results extend the contact hypothesis by issuing an important caveat: Negative contact may be more strongly associated with increased racism and discrimination than positive contact is with its reduction.
Abstract: Previous research has shown that the people in low status, negatively-valued groups are perceived to be more homogeneous than the people in high status, positively-valued groups. The present research investigated the possibility of an opposite effect in which people perceive positive groups to be more homogeneous than negative groups. The researchers hypothesized that winning groups would be perceived to be more homogenous than losing groups because group homogeneity is associated with group cohesiveness, and group cohesiveness has a positive value in the context of an intergroup competition. In a first experiment (N = 175), target groups varied according to their objective group variability and whether they won or lost a competition. As predicted, winning groups were perceived to be significantly more homogenous than losing groups regardless of their objective variability. In a second experiment (N = 186), these effects were replicated using different social groups, and the effect of group performance on homogeneity judgements was mediated by perceptions of group cohesiveness.
Abstract: A meta-analysis of 35 studies found that social class (socioeconomic status) is related to social integration among students in higher education: Working-class students are less integrated than middle-class students. This relation generalized across students’ gender and year of study, as well as type of social class measure (parental education and parental income). However, type of social integration measure was a significant moderator. In particular, the social subscale of the Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire obtained the largest effect (r = .18, p < .001). Significant effects were also found using measures of the sense of belonging and participation in formal and informal social activities. Future research in this area should use multidimensional measures of social integration and investigate potential mediators of the social class-social integration relation.
Abstract: The present research investigated linguistic description as a moderator of biased evaluations of counterstereotypical individuals. Members of an online participant pool (N = 237) indicated their liking for stereotypical and counterstereotypical individuals who were described using adjectives or behaviors. There was a significant interaction between target typicality and linguistic description: People liked counterstereotypical individuals more than stereotypical individuals when target individuals were described using adjectives. In contrast, they showed no bias or a negative bias against counterstereotypical individuals who were described using behaviors. This interaction effect generalized across gender targets (men/women) and sexuality targets (gay/straight), and it was partially mediated by subjective processing fluency. Implications for the backlash effect and prejudice reduction are discussed.
Abstract: Over and Carpenter (2009) recently found that 18-month old infants who had been primed with a social affiliation cue were more likely to offer to help another person. The present research investigated whether similar affiliation cues affect intentions to seek help, rather than offer help. Undergraduate psychology students (N = 122) were randomly assigned to one of two conditions in which they viewed a photograph of two people who were either holding hands (affiliation condition) or not holding hands (nonaffiliation condition). Participants then indicated their intention to ask other people for help when they worked on a university coursework assignment. Participants in the affiliation condition had significantly stronger intentions to seek help than participants in the nonaffiliation condition. These results are consistent with the idea that social affiliation cues activate a broad prosocial orientation that applies not only to others (i.e., help-giving) but also to the self (i.e., help-seeking). Future research should investigate the potential influence of attachment style on the relationship between affiliation cues, help-giving, and help-seeking.
Abstract: The need for closure predicts an evaluative bias against people whose opinions or behaviors deviate from those of other members of their social groups. In the present study, we investigated whether the relationship between the need for closure and deviant bias generalized to nonsocial stimuli, and we examined the process underlying this relationship. Sixty-one undergraduate students completed measures of the need for closure, the need for structure, intolerance for ambiguity, and the ability to be decisive and achieve cognitive structure. They then rated their liking for letters of the Latin alphabet (?A? & ?B?) whose locations were consistent and inconsistent with relevant categories (?A circle? and ?B circle?). Participants liked category-inconsistent letters less than category-consistent letters. Measures related to the need for structure and closed-mindedness correlated positively with this deviant bias, whereas measures related to the ability to be decisive and achieve cognitive structure did not. These results imply that the relationship between the need for closure and deviant bias is a relatively basic and pervasive effect that is not unique to social deviance and is driven by the need for structure and closed-mindedness. Implications for social and nonsocial stimuli are discussed. The need for closure predicts an evaluative bias against people whose opinions or behaviors deviate from those of other members of their social groups. In the present study, we investigated whether the relationship between the need for closure and deviant bias generalized to nonsocial stimuli, and we examined the process underlying this relationship. Sixty-one undergraduate students completed measures of the need for closure, the need for structure, intolerance for ambiguity, and the ability to be decisive and achieve cognitive structure. They then rated their liking for letters of the Latin alphabet (?A? & ?B?) whose locations were consistent and inconsistent with relevant categories (?A circle? and ?B circle?). Participants liked category-inconsistent letters less than category-consistent letters. Measures related to the need for structure and closed-mindedness correlated positively with this deviant bias, whereas measures related to the ability to be decisive and achieve cognitive structure did not. These results imply that the relationship between the need for closure and deviant bias is a relatively basic and pervasive effect that is not unique to social deviance and is driven by the need for structure and closed-mindedness. Implications for social and nonsocial stimuli are discussed.
Abstract: An experiment examined the effects of imagining contact with an illegal immigrant on attitudes towards illegal immigrants and subsequent effects of that attitude change on feelings about other groups (secondary transfer). Compared to a condition in which participants imagined negative contact with an illegal immigrant, participants who imagined positive contact reported more positive attitudes concerning illegal immigrants. Using bootstrapped mediation models, effects of positive imagined contact on attitudes towards illegal immigrants were shown to generalize to other groups that were independently ranked as similar to illegal immigrants, but not to dissimilar groups. This generalization gradient effect was relatively large. Implications for theory and practical applications to prejudice reduction are discussed.
Abstract: This research investigated whether people are biased against migrants partly because they find migrants more difficult to cognitively process than nonmigrants. In Study 1, 181 undergraduate students evaluated migrant and nonmigrant members of two minimal groups and reported the difficulty that they experienced in thinking about each type of target. Participants rated migrants less positively than nonmigrants, and difficulty ratings partially mediated this effect. Study 2 (N = 191) replicated these findings and demonstrated similar findings for individuals who had been excluded from minimal groups. This evidence implies that migrant bias can be explained partly in terms of the difficulty that people have in processing information about migrants, and that it is related to migrants’ exclusion from their original group.
Abstract: People report less variability within in-groups than within out-groups when they make their ratings on traits on which the in-group has a higher central tendency than the out-group. Simon (1992a, 1992b) proposed that this effect is motivated by the need to protect a positive social identity. The present research tested the necessity of the social identity motive by using participants who were not members of any of the target groups that they judged. In Study 1 (N = 60), psychology undergraduate students reported significantly less intragroup variability on positive traits among a group of fashion designers that won a fashion competition than among a group that lost. Study 2 (N = 75) found a reverse effect on negative traits and confirmed the mediating role of perceived central tendency. These results demonstrate that the social identity motive is not necessary to explain the effect of central tendency on ratings of intragroup variability, and that the effect is more general than previously reported.
Abstract: Drawing from the intergroup contact model and self-categorization theory, the authors advanced the novel hypothesis of a valence-salience effect, whereby negative contact causes higher category salience than positive contact. As predicted, in a laboratory experiment of interethnic contact, White Australians (N = 49) made more frequent and earlier reference to ethnicity when describing their ethnic contact partner if she had displayed negative (vs. positive, neutral) nonverbal behavior. In a two-wave experimental study of retrieved intergenerational contact, American young adults (N = 240) reported age to be more salient during negative (vs. positive) contact and negative contact predicted increased episodic and chronic category salience over time. Some evidence for the reverse salience-valence effect was also found. Because category salience facilitates contact generalization, these results suggest that intergroup contact is potentially biased toward worsening intergroup relations; further implications for theory and policy making are discussed.
Abstract: We investigated the effects of gender and group size on perceptions of group variability, using groups of students taking different majors that varied in the proportion of men and women (female-majority, parity, and male-majority). We found that both group size and gender had consistent effects on perceived out-group variability, even when potentially confounded alternative explanations were assessed. Men showed a stronger out-group homogeneity effect than women, except when women were in the majority (Studies One and Two), and women showed no in-group homogeneity effect. There was an association between out-group homogeneity and the tendency to generate more subgroups for the in-group than out-group (Study Two), but perceived variability was not associated with familiarity, distinctiveness, perceived group size, or perceived group status. These consistent effects qualify the conclusions of prior research in important ways, and cannot be explained in terms of differences in stereotype accuracy (Study Three), or a confound between the gender majority of a major and its perceived status (Study Four). We discuss our findings in terms of theoretical explanations for gender and size effects on out-group homogeneity, and methodological considerations.
Abstract: People tend to perceive ingroup homogeneity on ingroup stereotypical traits and outgroup homogeneity on outgroup stereotypical traits (e.g., Kelly, 1989; Simon, 1992a; Simon & Pettigrew, 1990). If it is assumed that people use homogeneity ratings to indicate the extent to which groups possess traits, then this stereotype effect may be interpreted as an expression of perceived trait possession (i.e., ingroups possess ingroup stereotypical traits and outgroups possess outgroup stereotypical traits). If it is further assumed that research participants abide by the conversational norm of appropriate quantity (e.g., Bless, Strack, & Schwarz, 1993), then this stereotype effect should be significantly reduced following prior expressions of perceived trait possession. A literature review and two minimal group experiments (Ns = 75, 104) supported this prediction. This evidence is discussed in relation to the outgroup homogeneity effect and self-categorization theory.
Abstract: Past research on member-to-group generalization has failed to distinguish the effect of member descriptive deviance from the effect of member evaluative deviance. In addition, researchers have used group judgments that confound stereotypicality with prejudice. Three experiments resolved these methodological problems and provided the first systematic test of Hamburger’s (1994) model of stereotype change. In Experiment 1 (N=60), consistent with Hamburger’s predictions, exposure to one deviant group member increased perceived group dispersion, but did not affect judgments of group stereotypicality and prejudice. Experiment 2 (N=120) replicated these results in an interpersonal setting, but not in an intergroup setting. Experiment 3 (N=125) replicated the results of Experiment 1 when a member’s profile conveyed information about eight stereotype-relevant dimensions, but not when it conveyed information about only four stereotype-relevant dimensions. We discuss the results in the light of past evidence and future strategies for stereotype change.
Abstract: The articles by Reicher (2004), Jost, Banaji, and Nosek (2004), and Sidanius, Pratto, van Laar, and Levin (2004) discuss the strengths and weaknesses of social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), system justification theory (Jost & Banaji, 1994), and social dominance theory (Sidanius, 1993). The latter two theories grew out of a critique of social identity theory, but this critique relates more to deficiencies in social identity research than to deficiencies in the theory itself. More balanced and comprehensive social identity research is required in order to allow a fair assessment of the theory’s limitations. In addition, Reicher (2004) and Huddy (2004) are correct that only social identity theory offers the potential for explaining social change and social stability.
Abstract: This chapter reviews the extensive literature on bias in favor of in-groups at the expense of out-groups. We focus on five issues and identify areas for future research: (a) measurement and conceptual issues (especially in-group favoritism vs. out-group derogation, and explicit vs. implicit measures of bias); (b) modern theories of bias highlighting motivational explanations (social identity, optimal distinctiveness, uncertainty reduction, social dominance, terror management); (c) key moderators of bias, especially those that exacerbate bias (identification, group size, status and power, threat, positive-negative asymmetry, personality and individual differences); (d) reduction of bias (individual vs. intergroup approaches, especially models of social categorization); and (e) the link between intergroup bias and more corrosive forms of social hostility.
Abstract: Two experiments explored whether crossing social category memberships can reduce intergroup bias. Experiment 1 provided a precise comparison between discrimination against single outgroups, partial outgroups, and double outgroups. Intergroup bias and perceived intergroup similarity followed an additive pattern such that partial outgroups were discriminated against as much as single outgroups, whereas both were discriminated against to a lesser extent than double outgroups. In Experiment 2, a more realistic form of crossing was employed whereby five additional dimensions of categorization were considered by participants instead of the traditional two. In line with a decategorization perspective, intergroup bias was reduced in both multiple group conditions relative to the single categorization (baseline) condition. Participants perceived a weakened intergroup structure and displayed a greater tendency to see outgroup members as individuals in multiple group conditions; however, only perceived intergroup structure mediated the pattern of intergroup bias. The implications of these findings for conceptualizations of crossed categorization are discussed.
Abstract: Distinctions are made between global and specific, personal and social, and trait and state self-esteem, and these are used to structure a review of over 40 studies concerning social identity theory’s hypothesis that (a) intergroup discrimination elevates self-esteem and (b) low self-esteem motivates discrimination. It is observed that researchers have tended to employ measures of global personal trait self-esteem in their investigations of this self-esteem hypothesis, and it is argued that measures of specific social state self-esteem are more consistent with social identity theory’s assumptions. Although no convincing evidence is found for the self-esteem hypothesis in its full and unqualified form, it is argued that this is due to a lack of specificity in its formulation and it is suggested that a more qualified and specific version of the hypothesis may be more appropriate.
Abstract: In this chapter, we review the evidence supporting theories of perceived group variability between gender groups. In particular, we look at the roles of (a) differential intergroup familiarity and (b) gender differences in explaining null gender out-group homogeneity effects. We then go on to consider how group size might influence the out-group homogeneity effect in gender groups. Finally, we report some of our own research investigating the roles of differential familiarity, gender differences, and group size in determining gender out-group homogeneity, and we conclude by discussing a tentative model of out-group homogeneity.
Abstract: (from the chapter) The primary goal in this chapter is to redirect attention to a consideration of both (1) the categorization processes involved in the perception of individuals who belong to multiple groups, and (2) the potential consequences of these processes. Attending to both categorization processes and consequential intergroup responding can be aided by a consideration of 2 areas of research: crossed categorization research, which has strong social identity roots, and research that has used the name-matching paradigm (S. E. Taylor et al, 1978) to assess categorization of outcomes. The authors review relevant name-matching paradigm findings in the context of crossed-categorization theorizing to generate testable hypotheses regarding when and how various patterns of intergroup bias emerge in crossed contexts. (from the book) In this chapter, the authors remind us that a person may be categorized in many different ways, such that a person may be simultaneously an ingroup member on some dimensions and an outgroup member on others. They argue that a proper understanding of these crossed-categorization phenomena requires an integration of social identity and social cognition research.
DOI 
