Increasing Group Entitativity

Group Processes and Intergroup Relations - Tập 10 Số 2 - Trang 280-296 - 2007
Monica Rubini1, Silvia Moscatelli1, Augusto Palmonari1
1University of Bologna,

Tóm tắt

Previous research has shown the strength of the linguistic intergroup bias across different intergroup settings. However, there is no evidence of linguistic discrimination within minimal groups. This experiment aimed to shed light on the phenomenon of linguistic intergroup discrimination in a minimal group setting, and to investigate the impact of group entitativity on this bias. Four group entitativity conditions were created by altering the mere categorization condition toward less entitativity and toward more entitativity. Participants were asked to describe the choice allegedly made by another participant in allocating resources to ingroup and outgroup members. Results showed an overall linguistic bias, whereby ingroup behaviors were described more positively and abstractly than outgroup behaviors. Increasing group entitativity resulted in increasingly biased outgroup descriptions, which in the most entitative condition revealed a predominant use of negative abstract terms.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

10.1002/ejsp.2420030103

10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199703)27:2<165::AID-EJSP812>3.0.CO;2-3

Brewer, M.B., 1979, Psychological Bulletin,, 17, 475

10.1111/0022-4537.00126

Brewer, M.B. & Harasty, A.S. (1996). Seeing groups as entities: The role of perceiver motivation. In E. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Vol. 3. The interpersonal context (pp. 347—370). New York: Guilford .

10.1002/bs.3830030103

Cartwright, D.S., 1968, Group dynamics (3rd ed.)

Castano, E. (2004). On the advantages of reifying the ingroup. In V. Yzerbyt , C. M. Judd , & O. Corneille (Eds.), The psychology of group perception: Perceived variability, entitativity, and essentialism (pp. 381—400). New York : Psychology Press .

Castano, E., 2000, How badly off we are! Negative common fate, entitativity and identification with the ingroup

10.1002/ejsp.175

10.1080/14792779108401864

10.1177/0261927X960153007

10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199906)29:4<469::AID-EJSP938>3.0.CO;2-S

10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(1998110)28:6<963::AID-EJSP905>3.0.CO;2-S

10.1080/14792779343000004

10.1348/014466601164678

Hamilton, D.L. , Sherman, S.J. & Lickel, B. (1998). Perceiving social groups: The importance of the entitativity continuum. In C. Sedikides , J. Schopler , & C. A. Insko (Eds.), Intergroup cognition and intergroup behavior (pp. 47—74). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum .

Horwitz, M. & Rabbie, J.M. (1982). Individuality and membership in the intergroup system. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 241—274). Cambridge , UK: Cambridge University Press .

Janis, I., 1968, Group identification under condition of external danger, 3

Lewin, K., 1948, Resolving social conflicts

10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.223

10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60272-5

Maass, A. , Castelli, L. & Arcuri, L. (2000). Measuring prejudice: Implicit versus explicit techniques. In D. Capozza & R. J. Brown (Eds.), Social identity processes: Trends in theory and research (pp. 96—116). London: Sage .

10.1037/0022-3514.71.3.512

10.1037/0022-3514.68.1.116

10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.981

10.1080/14792779143000060

Mlicki, P.P., 1993, Us and them'. The effects of categorization and interdependence on identification within, and differentiation between categories and groups

10.1016/0022-1031(92)90035-I

Otten, S. & Mummendey, A. (2000). Valence-dependent probability of ingroup favoritism between minimal groups: An integrative view of the positive—negative asymmetry in social discrimination. In D. Capozza & R. J. Brown (Eds.), Social identity processes: Trends in theory and research (pp. 33—49). London: Sage .

10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199912)29:8<1049::AID-EJSP985>3.0.CO;2-Q

10.1037/0022-3514.59.3.475

Platow, M.J., 1995, British Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 4

10.1037/h0028284

Rabbie, J.M. & Lodewijkx, H.F.M. (1996). A Behavioral Interaction Model: Towards an integrative theoretical framework for studying intra- and intergroup dynamics. In E. Witte & J. H. Davis (Eds.), Understanding group behavior: Vol.2. Small group processes and interpersonal relations (pp. 255—294). New York: Erlbaum .

10.1002/ejsp.2420190302

10.1037/0022-3514.78.1.64

10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01031.x

Schacter, S., 1959, The psychology of affiliation

10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.558

10.1080/14792779143000006

Semin, G.R. & Fiedler, K. (1992). The inferential properties of interpersonal verbs . In G. R. Semin , & K. Fiedler (Eds.). Language, interaction and social cognition (pp. 58—78). Newbury Park, CA: Sage .

10.1002/ejsp.2420010202

Tajfel, H. & Turner, J.C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin , & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33—47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole .

10.1111/j.2044-8309.1984.tb00619.x

10.1006/jesp.1997.1332

10.1037/0022-3514.78.1.5

Wilder, D.A. & Simon, A. (1998). The group as a category and an interactive entity: Implications for social perception and intergroup behavior. In C. Sedikides , J. Schopler , & C. A. Insko (Eds.), Intergroup cognition and intergroup behavior (pp. 27—44). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum .

10.1080/14792772043000059