An experimental investigation of the double standard in the perception of international affairs

Eighty-eight male college students evaluated a Vietnam War peace proposal that was attributed to one of four sources (United States, South Vietnam, North Vietnam, Viet Cong) or to no source. The proposal attributed to the United States was evaluated significantly higher than the same proposal attributed to North Vietnam. Enhancement of the United States' proposal contributed most to this double standard effect (i.e., the proposal attributed to the United States was judged significantly more positively than in the no source condition), but derogation of a proposal by the enemy was also a factor (i.e., the North Vietnam—no source differential approached statistical significance). Consistency theory predictions were partially supported. When attributed to the United States' ally, South Vietnam, the peace proposal was evaluated significantly more positively than it was in the North Vietnam condition, but the South Vietnam—Viet Cong comparison was not significant.