Good is generally more alike than bad in the information ecology: Investigating the case of (the ABC model of) group stereotypes

On most if not all evaluatively relevant dimensions such as the temperature level, taste intensity, and nutritional value of a meal, one range of adequate, positive states is framed by two ranges of inadequate, negative states, namely too much and too little. This distribution of positive and negative states in the information ecology results in a higher similarity of positive objects, people, and events to other positive stimuli as compared to the similarity of negative stimuli to other negative stimuli. In other words, there are fewer ways in which an object, a person, or an event can be positive as compared to negative. Oftentimes, there is only one way in which a stimulus can be positive (e.g., a good meal has to have an adequate temperature level, taste intensity, and nutritional value). In contrast, there are many different ways in which a stimulus can be negative (e.g., a bad meal can be too hot or too cold, too spicy or too bland, or too fat or too lean). This higher similarity of positive as compared to negative stimuli is important, as similarity greatly impacts speed and accuracy on virtually all levels of information processing, including attention, classification, categorization, judgment and decision making, and recognition and recall memory. Thus, if the difference in similarity between positive and negative stimuli is a general phenomenon, it predicts and may explain a variety of valence asymmetries in cognitive processing (e.g., positive as compared to negative stimuli are processed faster but less accurately). In my dissertation, I show that the similarity asymmetry is indeed a general phenomenon that is observed in thousands of words and pictures. Further, I show that the similarity asymmetry applies to social groups. Groups stereotyped as average on the two dimensions agency / socio-economic success (A) and conservative-progressive beliefs (B) are stereotyped as positive or high on communion (C), while groups stereotyped as extreme on A and B (e.g., managers, homeless people, punks, and religious people) are stereotyped as negative or low on C. As average groups are more similar to one another than extreme groups, according to this ABC model of group stereotypes, positive groups are mentally represented as more similar to one another than negative groups. Finally, I discuss implications of the ABC model of group stereotypes, pointing to avenues for future research on how stereotype content shapes social perception, cognition, and behavior.

Explaining the Outcomes of Negotiations of Economic Partnership Agreements between the European Union and the African, Caribbean and Pacific Regional Economic Communities - Comparing EU-CARIFORUM and EU-ECOWAS EPAs

The European Commission has been negotiating Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) with Regional Economic Communities of African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States since 2002. The outcomes have been mixed. The negotiations with the Caribbean Forum (CARIFORUM) concluded rather more quickly than was initially envisaged, whereas negotiations with West African Economic Community (ECOWAS) and the remaining ACP regions have been dragging on for several years. This research consequently addresses the key question of what accounts for the variations in the EPA negotiation outcomes, making use of a comparative research approach. It evaluates the explanatory power of three research variables in accounting for the variation in the EPA negotiations outcomes – namely, Best Alternative to the Negotiated Agreement (BATNA); negotiation strategies; and the issues linkage approach – which are deduced from negotiation theory. Principally, the study finds that, the outcomes of the EPA negotiations predominantly depended on the presence or otherwise of a “Best Alternative” to the proposed EPA; that is then complemented by the negotiation strategies pursued by the parties, and the joint application of issues linkage mechanism which facilitated a sense of mutual benefit from the agreements.