eservation. Whereas previous research established an association between these variables, the current study attempted to establish a casual link. To test our hypotheses, participants were first randomly group via a minimal group induction into one of two opposing partisan groups that conflicted in both ideology and preferences. They then observed a video-taped negotiation between two supposed group representatives, whose stance on thestatus quo was manipulated. Following the negotiation, participants evaluated the representatives on negotiation skill and partisan-relevant characteristics. Observers of the negotiation were prone to: (1) favor their own group representative on measures of negotiation quality; (2) perceive in the two representatives characteristics consistent with their partisan ideology; and (3) favor the representative advancing the status quo. Observers who were aligned with the status quo expected a more effortful conflict than those seeking change. Implications and l imitations are discussed. We present two studies that examine the circumstances under which individuals advancing the status quo are more favorably evaluated compared to individuals advocating change. The biasing effect of intergroup conflict on social perception has long been a topic of both basic and applied inquiry (Hastorf & Cantril, 1954), and has proven to be a robust psychological phenomenon. Recent work has focused on particular aspects of the social environment that magnify perceived conflict, such as the degree to which favoring the status quo over change intensifies misperceptions of an opposing group (Keltner & Robinson, 1997). This work has established two relationships between biased perceptions of opposing groups and preferences regarding the status quo: (1) Observer effect: Observers favoring the status quo tend to be more biased judges than those seeking change; (2) Target effect: Individuals favoring the overhaul of the status quo tend to be judged more negatively than those favoring its pr