A meta-analysis that included more than 1,100 effect sizes tested the predictions of three theoretical perspectives that explain evaluative extremity in social judgment: complexity-extremity theory, subjective group dynamics model, and expectancy-violation theory. The work seeks to understand the ways in which group-based information interacts with person-based information to influence extremity in evaluations. Together, these three theories point to the valence of person-based information, group membership of the evaluated targets relative to the evaluator, status of the evaluators' ingroup, norm consistency of the person-based information, and incongruency of person-based information with stereotype-based expectations as moderators. Considerable support, but some limiting conditions, were found for each theoretical perspective. Implications of the results are discussed.

中文翻译：

---

解释小组成员评估的极端性：三种理论的荟萃分析测试。

一项包含1,100多个效应量的荟萃分析测试了三种理论观点的预测，这些理论观点解释了社会判断中的评估极端性：复杂性至极端性理论，主观群体动力学模型和预期违背性理论。该工作试图了解基于群体的信息与基于人的信息交互以影响评估中的肢体的方式。这三个理论共同指出了基于个人的信息的价值，相对于评估者的被评估目标的群体成员资格，评估者的群体地位，基于个人的信息的规范一致性以及基于个人的信息与信息之间的不一致基于定型的期望作为主持人。每个理论观点都发现了相当大的支持，但有一些限制条件。