Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

People attribute minds to other individuals and make inferences about those individuals’ mental states to explain and predict their behavior. Little is known, however, about whether people also attribute minds to groups and believe that collectives, companies, and corporations can think, have intentions, and make plans. Even less is known about the consequences of these attributions for both groups and group members. We investigated the attribution of mind and responsibility to groups and group members, and we demonstrated that people make a trade-off: The more a group is attributed a group mind, the less members of that group are attributed individual minds. Groups that are judged to have more group mind are also judged to be more cohesive and responsible for their collective actions. These findings have important implications for how people perceive the minds of groups and group members, and for how attributions of mind influence attributions of responsibility to groups and group members.

Keywords

groups theory of mind mind attribution morality responsibility law social cognition legal processes

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aaker

Vohs

Mogilner

(2010). Non-profits are seen as warm and for-profits as competent: Firm stereotypes matter. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 224–237.

Abelson

R. P.

Dasgupta

Park

Banaji

M. R.

(1998). Perceptions of the collective other. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 243–250.

Apperly

I. A.

Riggs

K. J.

Simpson

Chiavarino

Samson

(2006). Is belief reasoning automatic? Psychological Science, 17, 841–844.

Bandura

Underwood

Fromson

M. E.

(1975). Disinhibition of aggression through diffusion of responsibility and dehumanization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 253–269.

Bartels

D. M.

Burnett

R. C.

(2011). A group construal account of drop-in-the-bucket thinking in policy preference and moral judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 50–57.

Bloom

Veres

(1999). The perceived intentionality of groups. Cognition, 71, B1–B9.

Bollen

Mao

Zeng

(2011). Twitter mood predicts the stock market. Journal of Computational Science, 2, 1–8.

Campbell

D. T.

(1958). Common fate, similarity, and other indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities. Behavioral Science, 3, 14–25.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 08-205 (2010).

10.

Cuddy

A. J. C.

Fiske

S. T.

Glick

(2007). The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 631–648.

11.

Doosje

Branscombe

N. R.

Spears

Manstead

A. S. R.

(1998). Guilty by association: When one’s group has a negative history. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 872–886.

12.

Epley

Keysar

Van Boven

Gilovich

(2004). Perspective taking as egocentric anchoring and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 327–339.

13.

Frith

(2003). Development and neurophysiology of mentalizing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 358, 459–473.

14.

Gao

McCarthy

Scholl

(2010). The wolfpack effect: Perception of animacy irresistibly influences interactive behavior. Psychological Science, 21, 1845–1853.

15.

Goel

Hofman

J. M.

Lahaie

Pennock

D. M.

Watts

D. J.

(2010). Predicting consumer behavior with Web search. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 107, 17486–17490.

16.

Gray

Wegner

D. M.

(2007). Dimensions of mind perception. Science, 315, 619.

17.

Hamilton

Sherman

(1996). Perceiving persons and groups. Psychological Review, 103, 336–355.

18.

Haslam

(2006). Dehumanization: An integrated review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 252–264.

19.

Heider

Simmel

(1944). An experimental study of apparent behavior. American Journal of Psychology, 57, 243–249.

20.

Knobe

Prinz

J. J.

(2008). Intuitions about consciousness: Experimental studies. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 7, 67–83.

21.

Lickel

Hamilton

D. L.

Wieczorkowska

Lewis

Sherman

S. J.

Uhles

A. N.

(2000). Varieties of groups and the perception of group entitativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 223–246.

22.

Lin

Keysar

Epley

(2010). Reflexively mindblind: Using theory of mind to interpret behavior requires effortful attention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 551–556.

23.

Looser

C. E.

Wheatley

(2010). The tipping point of animacy: How, when, and why we perceive life in a face. Psychological Science, 21, 1854–1862.

24.

Malle

B. F.

(2011). The social and moral cognition of group agents. Journal of Law and Policy, 19, 95–136.

25.

Menon

Morris

M. W.

Chiu

C. Y.

Hong

Y. Y.

(1999). Culture and construal of agency: Attribution to individual versus group dispositions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 701–717.

26.

Morewedge

C. K.

Preston

Wegner

D. M.

(2007). Timescale bias in the attribution of mind. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 1–11.

27.

Morewedge

C. K.

Schooler

(2011). When group membership reduces mind attribution. Unpublished manuscript, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.

28.

O’Laughlin

M. J.

Malle

B. F.

(2002). How people explain actions performed by groups and individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 33–48.

29.

Quattrone

G. A.

Jones

E. E.

(1980). The perception of variability within in-groups and out-groups: Implications for the law of small numbers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 141–152.

30.

Sherman

S. J.

Percy

E. J.

(2011). The psychology of collective responsibility: When and why collective entities are likely to be held responsible for the misdeeds of individual members. Journal of Law and Policy, 19, 137–170.

31.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 10-277 (2011).

32.

Weldon

M. S.

Bellinger

K. D.

(1997). Collective memory: Collaborative and individual processes in remembering. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 1160–1175.

33.

Wildschut

Pinter

Vevea

J. L.

Insko

C. A.

Schopler

(2003). Beyond the group mind: A quantitative review of the interindividual-intergroup discontinuity effect. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 698–722.

34.

Wimmer

Perner

(1983). Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children’s understanding of deception. Cognition, 13, 103–128.

35.

Woolley

A. W.

Chabris

C. F.

Pentland

Hashmi

Malone

T. W.

(2010). Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science, 330, 686–688.

36.

Yzerbyt

V. Y.

Castano

Leyens

J.-Ph.

Paladino

M.-P.

(2000). The phenomenology of the ingroup: The interplay of identification, entitativity and overexclusion. In Stroebe

Hewstone

(Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 257–295). Chichester, England: Wiley.

37.

Yzerbyt

V. Y.

Corneille

Estrada

(2001). The interplay of subjective essentialism and entitativity in the formation of stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 141–155.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.09 MB

The Group-Member Mind Trade-Off

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material