Nonsmokers' Attributions for the Outcomes of Smokers: Some Potential Consequences of the Stigmatization of Smokers

Nonsmokers' Attributions for the Outcomes of Smokers: Some Potential Consequences of the

Stigmatization of Smokers1

BRYAN GIBSON^ Central Michigan University

The current research examines intergroup attributional biases made by nonsmokers for the outcomes of smokers. Nonsmokers were asked to make attributions for either the success or failure of either an in-group member (a nonsmoker) or an out-group member (a smoker). Overall, subjects attributed the preponderance of cause for the outcomes to external or unstable (approximately SOYO) rather than internal (approximately 20%) factors. However, results confirmed the expected in-group protective and in-group enhancing attributions on the part of nonsmokers. Specifically, nonsmokers attributed a significantly higher proportion of success to external factors and a lower proportion of success to internal factors when the target was a smoker compared to when the target was a nonsmoker. The implications of these results for smokers and smoking policy are discussed.

A growing body of psychological research would suggest that nonsmokers view smokers negatively. These negative perceptions apply to nonsmokers' judgments of the intelligence of smokers (Dermer & Jacobsen, 1986; Polivy, Hackett, & Bycio, 1979), the attractiveness of smokers (Bleda & Sandman, 1977; Clark, Klesges, & Neimeyer, 1992), and the desirability of smokers as employees or co-workers (Bleda & Sandman, 1977; Lee, 1989; Malouff & Schutte, 1990). In addition, negative affect seems to be tied to these perceptions (cf. Beh, 1989; Bleda & Sandman, 1977; Gibson & Werner, 1992; Jones, 1978; Jones & Bogat, 1978; Zillmann, Baron, & Tamborini, 1981). Finally, others have noted some negative behavioral responses of nonsmokers to smokers. For example, helping behavior is reduced when the person in need of help is a smoker (Bennett & Casey, 1989; Bennett & Kauffman, 1988). Similarly,

'I wish to thank Nicole Scarpato and Ilir Arifaj for their help in the data-collection process. In addition, I would like to thank Fred Rhodewalt and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript.

2Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Bryan Gibson, Department of Psychology, Central Michigan University, Sloan Hall 101, Mt. Pleasant, MI 48859. e-mail: bryan.gi [email protected].

581

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1998, 28, 7, pp. 581-594. Copyright 0 1998 by V. H. Winston & Son, Inc. All rights reserved.

582 BRYAN GIBSON

nonsmokers create a larger area of personal space when interacting with a smoker (Kunzendorf & Denney, 1982) and flee an invasion of personal space more quickly when the invader is smoking (Bleda & Bleda, 1978). Thus, nonsmokers view smokers as having less desirable characteristics than nonsmokers, experience negative affect when interacting with smokers, and exhibit negative behavioral responses toward smokers. This body of research strongly suggests that nonsmokers have come to view smokers as a stigmatized group (see Gibson, 1994, 1997b, for reviews).

If smokers are perceived as a stigmatized out-group, there may be further social consequences of this stigmatization. One consequence may be negative attributions made by nonsmokers about the actions of smokers. A large body of social psychological research provides evidence that attributions for the behavior of out-group members are less favorable than attributions made for the behavior of in-group members (see Hewstone, 1990, for a review). In the first formal examination of this process, Pettigrew (1979) predicted that external attributions would be likely for in-group members who fail and out-group members who succeed (in-group protecting attributions; see Hewstone, 1990; Islam & Hewstone, 1993), while internal attributions would be likely for in-group members who succeed and out-group members who fail (in-group enhancing attributions; see Hewstone, 1990; Islam & Hewstone, 1993). Thus, in much the same way that individuals tend to attribute their own success to internal factors and their own failures to external factors (i.e., the self-serving bias; Brown & Rogers, 1991; Miller & Ross, 1975), in-group members will tend to attribute the success of fellow in-group members to internal factors and the failure of in- group members to external factors.

These predictions have typically been tested in studies examining different ethnic groups. For example, Duncan (1976) found that White students were more likely to attribute the aggressive action of a videotaped African American to internal causes, while they viewed such actions by an Anglo American to be influenced by situational factors. Similar results have been reported for attributions made by African Americans and Chicanos (Stephan, 1977), Arabs and Is- raelis (Rosenberg & Wolfsfeld, 1977), and Muslims and Hindus (Islam & Hewstone, 1993; Taylor & Jaggi, 1974). Though researchers in this area have typically focused on ethnic groups (see Hewstone, Jaspars, & Lalljee, 1982; and Winkler & Taylor, 1979, for exceptions), this pattern of inter-group attribution should also be identifiable in any naturally occurring groups with a his- tory of conflict. Given that smokers and nonsmokers are well-defined groups that have recently been in conflict over differing goals, it would seem likely that these groups may exhibit negative intergroup attributions. The current research tests the hypothesis that nonsmokers will make both in-group protecting and in-group enhancing attributions.

NONSMOKERS’ ATTRIBUTIONS ABOUT SMOKERS 583

The current experiment utilized a 2 x 2 (Success/Failure x Smoking Status) factorial design to test this hypothesis. Nonsmoking subjects read a brief scenario in which either a smoker or a nonsmoker either succeeded or failed on a task. They were then asked to make attributions regarding the individual’s behavior and judgments about the person’s general intelligence and future outcomes. The main hypothesis was that the attributions of nonsmokers would demon- strate evidence for both in-group protective and in-group enhancing attributions. Specifically, a crossover interaction was predicted in which nonsmokers who succeed and smokers who fail generate more internal attributions, while nonsmokers who fail and smokers who succeed generate fewer internal attributions. Subsidiary hypotheses addressed judgments of the target’s intelligence, future test performance, and likelihood of acceptance to medical school. Given the previous research that has identified the negative judgments of smokers usually made by nonsmokers, I hypothesized that subjects would view smokers as less intelligent than nonsmokers, less likely to succeed on future tests than nonsmokers, and less likely to gain entrance into medical school than nonsmokers.

Method

Subjects

Subjects were 60 undergraduate psychology students (30 males and 30 females) participating in order to earn extra course credit. Fifty-seven of the 60 subjects were Caucasian, 2 were African American, and 1 was Asian Ameri- can. Five subjects reported being smokers or reported knowing the target individual. These five subjects were removed from all analyses, leaving 55 subjects in the final sample. Of the 55 subjects remaining in the sample, males and females were relatively evenly dispersed in each condition (in the nonsmoker/success condition there were 8 males and 6 females; in the nonsmoker/ failure condition there were 6 males and 7 females; in the smoker/success condition there were 7 males and 7 females; and in the smoker/failure condition there were 8 males and 6 females).

Procedure

When the subject arrived at the experimental session, the experimenter ex- plained “In this study you will read about a specific event in the life of a fellow student. After reading this description we may ask you to make some judgments about the event at a later time.” After these brief initial instructions and after signing an informed consent statement, the participants were given a

584 BRYAN GIBSON

folder with both a photograph of a male student3 and a brief description of that student’s preparation for and grade on a college biochemistry test. The description of the event was constructed so that both internal and external attributions were readily available for either the success or failure of the student. The description read as follows:

Dan Schmidt just received his grade on a biochemistry test he had taken last week. Dan is a pre-med student so he felt that his performance on this test was a critical factor that would influence whether or not he was accepted to medical school. Therefore, he approached the test in a very systematic fashion. He kept up with the reading throughout the semester, always reading the appro- priate chapter before the professor lectured on the material. He had to work 20 hours at his job in the week before the test but he spent what time he could preparing for the test by re-reading the book and quizzing himself on the material. He was planning on studying with a friend in the class, but the friend backed out at the last minute. However, another friend who had taken the class last year showed him old tests and the correct answers to help Dan with his studying. All that hard preparation had taken its toll on him, so two days before the test was scheduled he took the week- end off, going to visit his family rather than “burning out” with more studying. Today Dan was pleased to find out that he had received an “A” on the test.

The last sentence was varied to create the success manipulation. The above sentence constituted the success condition. The following sentence was substi- tuted to create the failure condition: “Today Dan was disappointed to find out that he had received a ‘D’ on the test.” The smoking manipulation was created by presenting subjects with one of two photographs to go along with the event description: One photograph portrayed a male Caucasian target who was smoking, and one portrayed the same individual in the same pose but without the cigarette. Prior to the arrival of the subject, the experimenter randomly selected either the “smoking” or “nonsmoking” photograph and the “success” or

)In order to ensure that the smoking and nonsmoking photographs were similar except for the smoking manipulation, a separate sample of 20 subjects was recruited to rate the photographs on attractiveness, likability, ambition, and intelligence. Both photographs were cropped so as to hide the model’s hand, which was empty in the nonsmoking photograph but held a cigarette in the smoking photograph. Results indicated that on each dimension addressed, raters viewed the photographs as being highly similar. Specifically, the model in both photographs was rated equally in terms of attractiveness, likability, ambition, and intelligence (all Fs < 1).


“failure” description and inserted these into the folder without seeing which conditions were selected. Thus, the experimenter was unaware of the experimental condition.

After reading the event description and examining the photograph, subjects completed a questionnaire about the event in question and Dan in general. The first set of questions was designed to measure the subjects’ causal attributions regarding Dan’s performance on the exam. This measure was similar to one used by Shaklee and Fischhoff (1982) in which subjects indicated what percentage of 100% causal responsibility should be attributed to each of the following causes: ability (or lack thereof); effort put into studying (or lack thereof); help from friends (or lack thereof); luck (or lack thereof); test ease or difficulty; and other causes. Subjects were told that they could break up the causal responsibility for Dan’s performance in any way they liked, as long as the total percentage of causal responsibility summed to 100%. They then rated (on 2 1 -point scales) Dan’s intelligence (scale endpoints: extremely dull and extremely smart), Dan’s likely performance on future tests (scale endpoints: extremely poorly and extremely well), and the likelihood that Dan would get into medical school (scale endpoints: extremely likely and extremely unlikely). After completing the questionnaire, subjects were asked if they knew the individual in the photograph and if they were smokers or nonsmokers. Finally, subjects were given extra-credit slips, debriefed, and excused.

Results

Causal Attributions

The main dependent variable was the division of 100% of causal responsibility over the six potential causes identified (ability, effort, help from others, luck, ease or difficulty of test, and other). Following from Pettigrew (1979) these potential causes were broken into two categories: external and/or unstable, and internallstable. Pettigrew’s analysis leads to the hypothesis that attributions for the success of an in-group member or the failure of an out-group member are likely to focus on internal and stable causes, while attributions for the failure of an in-group member or the success of an out-group member are likely to focus on external causes or causes that are unstable. Thus, effort, help from others, luck, and test ease or difficulty were combined to create the external or unstable category, while ability was the only potential attribution that was internal and stable, and was therefore examined independently as a stable internal contribution to performance outcome.

Preliminary analyses. Preliminary analyses were conducted in order to determine whether gender or race of the subjects may have influenced the ratings

586 BRYAN GIBSON

of the target individual (a White male). First, in order to test for gender bias in the attributions, sex of subject was included as an additional independent variable in the two ANOVAs reported later. In these 2 x 2 x 2 (Success/Failure x SmokerR\Tonsmoker x Subject Sex) ANOVAs, none of the effects that included subject sex, approached significance (all Fs < 1). This is, perhaps, not surprising, given that many studies on gender bias in attribution have found no sex-of- subject effects (Deaux & Emswiller, 1974; Etaugh & Brown, 1975; Post, 1981). Finally, to assess the possibility that race contributed to the results, the two African American subjects and one Asian American subject were removed from both of the 2 x 2 (SuccessIFailure x SmokerNonsmoker) ANOVAs reported later. In each case, the effects found to be significant when using the en- tire sample remained significant when removing the three minority subjects. This supports the notion that the results were driven by the smoking/nonsmoking group membership rather than ethnic group membership.

Attributions to ability. A 2 x 2 (SuccessIFailure x SmokerNonsmoker) between-subjects ANOVA was carried out on the ability attribution. As predicted, a significant interaction was obtained, F( 1,5 1) = 6 . 4 3 , ~ < .02 (Table I) . To determine the group-enhancing versus group-protecting nature of the attributions, simple effects tests were carried out. These tests revealed that, as predicted, ability was cited as a more important cause of both the success of nonsmokers compared to the success of smokers, F( 1,5 1) = 1 5 . 5 4 , ~ < .OO 1. and the failure of smokers compared to the failure of nonsmokers, F( 1,5 1) = 3 1.39, p < .001. In addition, ability was cited as a more important cause of both the success of nonsmokers compared to the failure of nonsmokers, F( 1, 5 1) =

1 8 . 9 9 , ~ < .OO 1, and the failure of smokers compared to the success of smokers, F(1, 51) = 2 6 . 9 1 , ~ < .001 (Table 1).

Attributions to unstable causes. Effort, help, luck, and task difficulty were combined to create an index of unstable causes for the test outcome. A 2 x 2 (SuccessEailure x SmokedNonsmoker) between-subjects ANOVA was carried out on this variable. As predicted, the interaction was significant, F(1, 51) =

5 . 2 0 , ~ < .05 (Table 2).4 Simple effects tests revealed that, as predicted, unstable causes were cited as more important for both smokers who succeeded compared to nonsmokers who succeeded, F( 1,5 1) = 1 1.88, p < .O 1, and nonsmokers who failed compared to smokers who failed, F(1,5 1) = 2 5 . 9 2 , ~ < .001. Furthermore,

41t is not surprising that this analysis found results complementary to those of the ability variable since they were not independent measures (i.e., the total amount of causality must sum to 100%; thus, it was highly likely that ifability was seen as a causal factor, the unstable causes would consequently be seen as less causally important). However, the two measures are not perfectly related because of the presence of the “other” category. The analysis of the combined unstable cause variable does show that the other category (which was not included in the unstable cause variable) did not significantly influence the results of these analyses.

NONSMOKERS' ATTRIBUTIONS ABOUT SMOKERS 587

Table 1

Percentage of Causality Attributed to Ability for Smoking and Nonsmoking Targets Experiencing Positive or Negative Outcomes

Target person

Outcome Nonsmoker Smoker M

Success

Failure

M

23.2, 16.4b 19.8 n = 14 n = 14 n = 28 14.21, 23.9, 19.3

n = 13 n = 14 n = 27 18.9 20.2 19.6

n = 21 n = 28 N = 55

Note. Values represent the average amount of causality attributed to ability in each cell. Different subscripts indicate means that differ at the .01 level.

unstable causes were viewed as more important for both nonsmokers who failed compared to nonsmokers who succeeded, F( 1, 5 1) = 9.8 1, p < .O 1, and smokers who succeeded compared to smokers who failed, F( 1,5 1) = 2 9 . 2 0 , ~ < .oo 1.

Other Dependent Variables

Judgments of intelligence, future test performance, and likelihood of acceptance into medical school were entered into separate 2 x 2 (SuccessIFailure x SmokedNonsmoker) between-subjects ANOVAs.

Intelligence. Intelligence was measured with a 2 1 -point scale ranging from l(extremely dull) to 21 (extremely smart). Not surprisingly, the success manipulation had a significant effect on ratings of Dan's intelligence. Those who read that Dan had received an A on the test rated him as significantly more intelligent (M= 15.6) than did those who read that he had received a D on the test ( M = 13.5), F(1, 51) = 10.99, p < .002. Neither the main effect for smoking status nor the interaction between outcome and smoking status was significant (bothFs < 1).

Future testperformance. Future test performance was measured with a 21 - point scale ranging from 1 (extremely poorly) to 21 (extremely well). Once again, the success manipulation produced a significant effect. Those who read

588 BRYAN GIBSON

Table 2

Percentage of Causality Attributed to Unstable Causes for Smoking and Nonsmoking Targets Experiencing Positive or Negative Outcomes

Target person

Outcome Nonsmoker Smoker M

Success

Failure

M

76.1, 82.4b 79.2 n = 14 n = 14 n = 28 8 1.9b 72.5, 77.0

n = 13 n = 14 n = 27 78.9 77.4 78.2

n = 27 n = 28 N = 55

Note. Values represent the amount of causality attributed to the combination of effort, luck, help from friends, and test ease or difficulty. Different subscripts represent means that differ at the .01 level.

that Dan received an A on the test felt that he would perform better on future tests ( M = 16.6) than did those who read that he had received a D on the test ( M = 13.7),F(l, 51)= 16.58,p< .OOl.Neitherthemaineffectforsmokingstatusnor the outcome by smoking status interaction achieved significance (both Fs < 1).

Likelihood of acceptance into medical school. The likelihood that Dan would be accepted into medical school was measured on a 2 1 -point scale ranging from 1 (extremely unlikely) to 21 (extremely likely). The success manipulation again significantly influenced ratings. Those who read that Dan received an A on the test felt that he was more likely to get into medical school (M =

16.6) than did those who read that Dan received a D on the test ( M = 11 .8), F( 1,51) = 2 3 . 8 6 , ~ < .001. In addition, the main effect for smoking status was marginally significant, F(1, 51) = 3 . 5 5 , ~ < .07, with Dan being rated as less likely to be accepted into medical school if he was a smoker ( M = 13.3) than if he was a nonsmoker ( M = 15.3). The outcome by smoking status interaction was not significant ( F < 1).

Discussion

The data for both the ability attributions and the attributions to unstable causes support the hypothesis that nonsmokers will make both group-


protecting and group-enhancing attributions regarding the outcomes of smokers and nonsmokers. Nonsmokers made significantly greater ability attributions for both nonsmokers who succeeded compared to nonsmokers who failed, and for smokers who failed compared to smokers who succeeded, These are typical in-group-enhancing attributions. In addition, nonsmokers made more unstable attributions for the success of smokers and the failure of nonsmokers, demonstrating the typical in-group protective pattern of attributions. Thus, the current research demonstrates the applicability of previous work on intergroup attribution to a nonethnic group; in this case, nonsmokers. Somewhat surprisingly, the items evaluating the target’s intelligence and future test performance did not differ based on smoking status. The item measuring perceived likelihood of acceptance into medical school, however, was marginally significant in the predicted direction: When the target was a smoker, acceptance into medical school was seen as less likely.

The attributional data in the current research fit nicely with previous research on intergroup attribution. In the current research, nonsmokers gave more favorable attributions to members of their own group, while making more negative attributions for members of the out-group (smokers). This pattern is similar to the pattern of attributions seen in research using ethnic groups as the target groups in the research. This similarity suggests that this area of research may be open to the study of a number of other existing groups that may show evidence of intergroup attributional bias. Examples of such groups might be pro-life and pro-choice groups, fans of rival sports teams, or even Democrats and Republicans. Intergroup conflict is not limited to racial or ethnic groups, and studying how other real-world groups perceive each other could be beneficial in understanding and perhaps minimizing such conflict.

The results of the current research suggest that smokers may indeed have reason to think that they are evaluated differently than nonsmokers. This differ- ence in the evaluation of performance may in turn lead to discrimination. It may be the case that the attributional bias identified in the current research could lead to smokers suffering in job hiring, promotion, or in other interpersonal domains, such as dating. Future research should attempt to identify such discrimination and to explore the role played by attributions for performance if such discrimination exists.

Beyond the attributional findings of the current research, the findings that smokers were viewed as equally intelligent and equally likely to succeed on future tests was unexpected, but perhaps understandable. Other research has found that nonsmokers tend to view smokers as being less intelligent than nonsmokers (cf. Dermer & Jacobsen, 1986; Polivy et al., 1979). Yet, the current study found no evidence that the intelligence or future performance of smokers was viewed any more negatively than the intelligence or future performance of

590 BRYAN GIBSON

nonsmokers. A potential reason for this discrepancy is the presence of individuating information in the current research. The target student was described as being actively engaged in attempting to succeed in school and work, as having friends and family who were important to him, and performing either well or poorly in an academic setting. Others have found that stereotypes are not applied universally, and their effect may be reduced when such individuating information is present (cf. Baron, Albright, & Malloy, 1995; Hilton & Fein, 1989; Locksley, Borgida, Brekke, & Hepburn, 1980). This pattern of results bolsters the assertion that smokers may benefit from concealing their smoking status in initial encounters with nonsmokers. First meetings are a form of social interaction in which no individuating information is present (at least at the on- set of the interaction). Thus, it seems likely that in these meetings, nonsmokers’ stereotypes would play a large role in determining their judgments of the smoker. In these cases, such first impressions based on stereotypes may lead to further confirmation of the stereotype through self-fulfilling prophecy processes (cf. Darley & Fazio, 1980; Snyder, Tanke, & Berscheid, 1977). How- ever, once a nonsmoker has interacted with a smoker (who has refrained from smoking during their interactions), individuating information is accrued, and the stereotypes held by nonsmokers may be less likely to be applied to the individual once her or his smoking status is uncovered. It is interesting, though, that in the current research, nonsmokers were willing to rate smokers as marginally less likely to be accepted into medical school than nonsmokers. It may be that the “unhealthy” component of the nonsmoker’s stereotype of smokers (cf. Clark et al., 1992; Cooper & Kohn, 1989) was more readily applied to a do- main related to health concerns (i.e., medical school).

The previous discussion highlights the unique quality of smoking as a social stigma. Because smoking status is not readily identifiable unless an individual is engaged in the act of smoking, smokers may be able to successfully separate themselves from their stigma. This may present smokers with a unique opportunity to dampen the effect of their stigma on social interactions. A number of lines of social psychological research would suggest that smokers might be able to successfully take advantage of this aspect of their stigmatization. For example, research has found that first impressions are relatively stable (cf. Asch, 1946; Jones, Rock, Shaver, Goethals, & Ward, 1968). Thus, smokers who refrain from smoking when they first meet a nonsmoker may create a relatively stable positive first impression that perseveres after their smoking status becomes known. Furthermore, Gaertner and his colleagues (Gaertner, Dovidio, Anastasio, Bachman, & Rust, 1993; Gaertner, Mann, Murrell, & Dovidio, 1989) have proposed that prejudice may be reduced if the boundaries between groups can be shifted so that an individual who was previously seen as an out-group member is instead seen as an in-group member of some broader


in-group. Smokers may be able to take advantage of this principle by not smoking in front of new acquaintances or colleagues in order to build in-group membership before their stigma is identified. For example, smokers at a new job may hide their stigma while others come to know them and include them as part of another in-group (co-worker). When the new worker’s smoking status is identified by nonsmoking co-workers, his or her in-group status on the other dimension may override some of the negative consequences of the nonsmokers’ stereotypes.

Finally, these ideas have implications for public smoking restrictions. Though the tobacco industry and smokers’ action groups have fought the legis- lated restriction of smoking (Gibson, 1997a), there may be interpersonal benefits that smokers gain from such restrictions. Because workplace and public restrictions of smoking force smokers to interact with nonsmokers when they are not smoking, they are more likely to be perceived as in-group members by nonsmokers who are interacting with them. Though smokers may still feel that they are experiencing discrimination from such restrictions, ironically they may be making gains interpersonally. Furthermore, if smokers are concerned with the reduction of the prejudice they may feel they are experiencing, then the separation of smokers and nonsmokers in public areas may, in fact, help them. A generation of social psychological research would suggest that in- creased intergroup contact in and of itself is not sufficient to reduce prejudice (cf. Mackie & Hamilton, 1993; Stephan, 1987, for reviews). Thus, insisting that smoking not be restricted in public areas may do little to reduce nonsmokers’ stereotypes of smokers, and in fact may solidify such stereotypes. In the case of smokers and nonsmokers, a more useful strategy to decrease conflict may be to encourage interaction between members of the groups in which group status is not known. This may allow first impressions and categorization effects to operate in ways that may be more beneficial in reducing this particu- lar example of intergroup conflict.

References

Asch, S. (1946). Forming impressions on personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41,258-290.

Baron, R. M., Albright, L., & Malloy, T. E. (1995). Effects of behavioral and social class information on social judgment. Personality and Social Psy- chology Bulletin, 21, 308-315.

Beh, H. C. (1 989). The effect of passive smoking on vigilance performance. Ergonomics, 32, 1227-1236,

Bennett, R., & Casey, D. (1989, August). Ambient cigarette smoke and environmental load: Effects on prosocial behavior. Paper presented at the

592 BRYAN GIBSON

97th annual convention of the American Psychological Association, New Orleans, LA.

Bennett, R., & Kauffman, D. (1988, August). Ambient cigarette smoke and helping: An environmental stressor effect. Paper presented at the 96th annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Atlanta, GA.

Bleda, P. R., & Bleda, S. E. (1978). Effects of sex and smoking on reactions to spatial invasion at a shopping mall. The Journal ofSocial Psychology, 104,

Bleda, P. R., & Sandman, P. H. (1977). In smoke’s way: Socioemotional reactions to another’s smoking. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62,452-458.

Brown, J. D., & Rogers, R. J. (1991). Self-serving attributions: The role of physiological arousal. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17,

Clark, E. M., Klesges, R. C., & Neimeyer, R. A. (1992). Attributions about sex- ual behavior, attractiveness, and health as a function of subjects’ and targets’ sex and smoking status. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 13,

Cooper, W. H., & Kohn, P. M. (1 989). The social image of the young female smoker. British Journal ofAddiction, 84, 935-941.

Darley, J. M., & Fazio, R. H. (1 980). Expectancy confirmation processes arising in the social interaction sequence. American Psychologist, 35,

Deaux, K., & Emswiller, T. (1974). Explanations of successful performance on sex-linked tasks: What is skill for the male is luck for the female. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 80-85.

Dermer, M. L., & Jacobsen, E. (1986). Some potential negative consequences of cigarette smoking: Marketing research in reverse. Journal ofApplied Social Psychology, 16, 702-725.

Duncan, B. L. (1976). Differential social perception and attribution of intergroup violence: Testing the lower limits of stereotyping of Blacks. Jour- nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 590-598.

Etaugh, C., & Brown, B. (1975). Perceiving the causes of success and failure of male and female performers. Developmental Psychology, 11, 103.

Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1 993). The common in-group identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of inter-group bias. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Euro- pean Review of Social Psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 1-26). London, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Gaertner, S. L., Mann, J., Murrell, A., & Dovidio, J. F. (1 989). Reducing intergroup bias: The benefits of recategorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57,239-249.

311-312.

501-506.

205-216.

867-88 1.


Gibson, B. (1 994). Psychological aspects of smoker-nonsmoker interaction: Implications for public policy. American Psychologist, 49, 108 1- 1083.

Gibson, B. (1997a). An introduction to the controversy over smoking. Journal of Social Issues, 53( l), 3- 1 1.

Gibson, B. (1 997b). Smoker-nonsmoker conflict: Using a social psychological framework to understand a current social controversy. Journal of Social Issues, 53(1), 97-1 12.

Gibson, B., & Werner, C. M. (1 992). The decision to attempt interpersonal con- trol: The case of nonsmoker-smoker interaction. Basic and Applied So- cial Psychology, 13,269-284.

Hewstone, M. (1990). The “ultimate attribution error”? A review of the litera- ture on inter-group causal attribution. European Journal of Social Psy-

Hewstone, M., Jaspars, J., & Lalljee, M. (1982). Social representations, social attribution and social identity: The inter-group images of “public” and “comprehensive” schoolboys. European Journal of Social Psychology,

Hilton, J. L., & Fein, S. (1989). The role of typical diagnosticity in stereotype- based judgments. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 57,20 1-2 1 1.

Islam, M. R., & Hewstone, M. (1993). Inter-group attributions and affective consequences in majority and minority groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64,936-950.

Jones, E. E., Rock, L., Shaver, K. G., Goethals, G. R., & Ward, L. M. (1968). Pattern of performance and ability attribution: An unexpected primacy effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 3 17-340.

Jones, J. W. (1978). Adverse emotional reactions of nonsmokers to secondary cigarette smoke. Environmental Psychology and Nonverbal Behavior, 3,

Jones, J. W., & Bogat, G. A. (1 978). Air pollution and human aggression. Psy- chological Reports, 43,721-722.

Kunzendorf, R. G., & Denney, J. (1 982). Definitions of personal space: Smok- ers versus nonsmokers. Psychological Reports, 50, 8 18.

Lee, C. (1989). Stereotypes of smokers among health science students. Addic- tive Behaviors, 14, 327-333.

Locksley, A., Borgida, E., Brekke, N., & Hepburn, C. (1980). Sex stereotypes and social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39,

Mackie, D. M., & Hamilton, D. L. (1993). Affect, cognition, and stereotyping: Concluding comments. In D. M. Mackie & D. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and stereotyping: Interactive processes in group perception (pp. 371-383). San Diego, CA: Academic.

chology, 20,311-335.

12,241-269.

125- 127.

82 1-83 1.

594 BRYAN GIBSON

Malouff, J., & Schutte, N. S. (1990). The employment disadvantage of being a smoker. Journal of Drug Education, 20, 329-336.

Miller, D. T., & Ross, M. (1975). Self-serving biases in attribution of causality: Fact or fiction? Psychological Bulletin, 82, 3 13-325.

Pettigrew, T. F. (1979). The ultimate attribution error: Extending Allport’s cognitive analysis of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulle- tin, 5, 46 1-476.

Polivy, J., Hackett, R., & Bycio, P. (1979). The effect of perceived smoking status on attractiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5,

Post, R. D. ( 198 1). Causal explanations of male and female academic performance as a function of sex-role biases. Sex Roles, 7, 691-698.

Rosenberg, S. W., & Wolfsfeld, G. (1977). International conflict and the prob- lem of attribution. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 21, 75-103.

Shaklee, H., & Fischhoff, B. (1982). Strategies of information search in causal analysis. Memory and Cognition, 10,520-530.

Snyder, M., Tanke, E. D., & Berscheid, E. (1977). Social perception and interpersonal behavior: On the self-fulfilling nature of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35,656-666.

Stephan, W. G. (1977). Stereotyping: Role of in-group-out-group differences in causal attribution of behavior. Journal of Social Psychology, 101,255- 266.

Stephan, W. G. (1987). The contact hypothesis in inter-group relations. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Group processes and inter-group relations: Review of personality andsocialpsychology (Vol. 9, pp. 13-40). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Taylor, D. M., & Jaggi, V. (1974). Ethnocentrism and causal attribution in a South Indian context. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 5 , 162- 17 1.

Winkler, J. D., & Taylor, S. E. (1979). Preference, expectations, and attributional bias: Two field studies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 9,

Zillmann, D., Baron, R. A., & Tamborini, R. (1981). Social costs of smoking: Effects of tobacco smoke on hostile behavior. Journal of Applied Social

40 1-404.

183-197.

psycho lo^, 11, 548-561.

Documents

Nonsmokers' Attributions for the Outcomes of Smokers: Some Potential Consequences of the Stigmatization of Smokers