Abstract

Thought about group-based privileges or disadvantages were expected to have different consequences for outcome evaluation and psychological well-being, depending on whether the individual is a member of a core- or peripheral-status group. To test this hypothesis, women- and men-students were randomly assigned to consider the ways that their gender group membership has resulted in either beneficial or detrimental outcomes in their lives. There was no outcome evaluation bias and differences in well-being measures. And more advantage cases in men and more disadvantage cases in women were reported. But no differences in psychological wellbeing including group self-esteem and individual self-esteem were evidenced. So, we can not interpret those result that among high-status group members, thinking about privilege can evoke guilt and taint one's group image, whereas thinking about disadvantage among low-status members can augment personal internal attributions for the outcomes. Justness in evaluation judgment situation was emerged by priming each gender's privileges or disadvantage, and resulted in little evaluation bias instead. Discussion focuses on the cultural differences in each gender's discriminative occasions between American culture and Korean culture and implications that the operations of several types of mechanisms have for the reasons of high -and low-status group members when their groups are portrayed as exerting either negative or positive effects on their lives.