This paper explores whether perceived entitativity of a group (i.e., how much it is seen as a unit) influences how its apologies are perceived. Because entitative groups are assigned agency and collective responsibility and their members are viewed as interchangeable, their apologies were hypothesized to appear more sincere and less due to ulterior motives. This effect emerged with small groups apologizing for minor grievances (Studies 1 and 2), although not always if the apology came from a leader (vs. the whole group). In Study 3, these benefits of entitativity extended to greater liking for the more entitative group, and in the case of a government apologizing for international harm. Whereas past research has emphasized the harmful impact outgroup entitativity can have on intergroup relations, these studies suggest entitativity can have benefits when the intergroup behavior is a beneficial one (e.g., apology).
AbelsonR. P.DasguptaN.ParkJ.BanajiM. R. (1998). Perception of the collective other. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 243–250. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0204_2
2.
BachmanG. F.GuerreroL. K. (2006). Forgiveness, apology, and communicative responses to hurtful events. Communication Reports, 19, 45–56. doi:10.1080/08934210600586357
3.
BaumeisterR. F.StillwellA. M.HeathertonT. F. (1994). Guilt: An interpersonal approach. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 243–267. doi:10.1037/0033–2909.115.2.243
4.
BrewerM. B.HongY.LiQ. (2004). Dynamic entitativity: Perceiving groups as actors. In YzerbytV.JuddC.CorneilleO. (Eds.), The psychology of group perception: Contributions to the study of homogeneity, entitativity, and essentialism (pp. 25–38). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
5.
BrownR. P.WohlM. J. A.ExlineJ. J. (2008). Taking up offenses: Secondhand forgiveness and group identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1406–1419. doi:10.1177/0146167208321538
6.
BurgoonJ. K.Le PoireB. A. (1993). Effects of communication expectancies, actual communication, and expectancy disconfirmation on evaluations of communicators and their communication behavior. Human Communication Research, 20, 67–96. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1993.tb00316.x
7.
CampbellD. T. (1958). Common fate, similarity, and other indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities. Behavioral Science, 3, 14–25. doi:10.1002/bs.3830030103
8.
CastanoE.SacchiS.GriesP. H. (2003). The perception of the other in international relations: Evidence for the polarizing effect of entitativity. Political Psychology, 24, 449–468. doi:10.1111/0162–895X.00336
9.
CehajicS.BrownR.CastanoE. (2008). Forgive and forget? Antecedents and consequences of intergroup forgiveness in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Political Psychology, 29, 351–367. doi:10.1111/j.1467–9221.2008.00634.x
10.
CrawfordM. T.ShermanS. J.HamiltonD. L. (2002). Perceived entitativity, stereotype formation, and the interchangeability of group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1076–1094. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.83.5.1076
11.
DasguptaN.BanajiM. R.AbelsonR. P. (1999). Group entitativity and group perception: Associations between physical features and psychological adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 991–1003. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.77.5.991
12.
FehrR.GelfandM. J. (2012). When apologies work: How matching apology components to victims’ self-construals facilitates forgiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113, 37–50. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.04.002
13.
GaertnerL.IuzziniJ.O’MaraE. M. (2008). When rejection by one fosters aggression against many: Multiple-victim aggression as a consequence of social rejection and perceived groupness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 958–970. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.02.004
14.
GraingerK.HarrisS. (2007). Introduction: Special issue on apologies. Journal of Politeness Research, 3, 1–9. doi:10.1515/PR.2007.001
15.
HamiltonD. L. (2007). Understanding the complexities of group perception: Broadening the domain. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 1077–1101. doi:10.1002/ejsp.436
16.
HamiltonD. L.ShermanS. J. (1996). Perceiving persons and groups. Psychological Review, 103, 336–355. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.103.2.336
17.
HareliS.EisikovitsZ. (2006). The role of communicating social emotions accompanying apologies in forgiveness. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 189–197. doi:10.1007/s11031–006–9025-x
18.
HewstoneM.CairnsE.VociA.McLernonF.NiensU.NoorM. (2004). Intergroup forgiveness and guilt in Northern Ireland: Social psychological dimensions of “The Troubles.” In BranscombeN. R.DoosjeB. (Eds.), Collective guilt: International perspectives (pp. 193–215). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
19.
HoggM.van KnippenbergD.RastD. E.III. (2012). The social identity theory of leadership: Theoretical origins, research findings, and conceptual developments. European Review of Social Psychology, 23, 258–304. doi:10.1080/10463283.2012.741134
20.
HornseyM. J.WohlM. A.PhilpotC. R. (2015). Collective apologies and their effects on forgiveness: Pessimistic evidence but constructive implications. Australian Psychologist, 50, 106–114. doi:10.1111/ap.12087
21.
G*Power (Version 3.1.9.3) [Computer software]. Düsseldorf, Germany: Institute for Experimental Psychology, Heinrich Heine University.
22.
KleinO.SpearsR.ReicherS. (2007). Social identity performance: Extending the strategic side of SIDE. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 28–45. doi:0.1177/1088868306294588
23.
LeonardD. J.MackieD. M.SmithE. R. (2011). Emotional responses to intergroup apology mediate intergroup forgiveness and retribution. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 1198–1206. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.05.002
24.
LickelB.HamiltonD. L.WieczorkowskaG.LewisA.ShermanS. J.UhlesA. N. (2000). Varieties of groups and the perception of group entitativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 223–246. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.223
25.
LickelB.RutchickA. M.HamiltonD. L.ShermanS. J. (2006). Intuitive theories of group types and relational principles. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 28–39. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2005.01.007
26.
LickelB.SchmaderT.CurtisM.ScarnierM.AmesD. R. (2005). Vicarious shame and guilt. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 8, 145–157. doi:10.1177/1368430205051064
27.
LickelB.SchmaderT.HamiltonD. L. (2003). A case of collective responsibility: Who else was to blame for the Columbine High School shootings?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 194–204. doi:10.1177/0146167202239045
LuhtanenR.CrockerJ. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one’s social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 302–318. doi:10.1177/0146167292183006
MinowM. (1998). Between vengeance and forgiveness: Facing history after genocide and mass violence. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
32.
NoorM.BrownR.PrenticeG. (2008). Precursors and mediators of intergroup reconciliation in Northern Ireland: A new model. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 481–495. doi:10.1348/014466607X238751
33.
OlshtainE. (1989). Apologies across languages. In Blum-KulkaS.HouseJ.KasperG. (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp. 155–173). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
34.
PedhazurE. J.SchmelkinL. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
PhilpotC. A.HornseyM. J. (2008). What happens when groups say sorry: The effect of intergroup apologies on their recipients. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 474–487. doi:10.1177/0146167207311283
37.
PhilpotC. A.HornseyM. J. (2011). Memory for intergroup apologies and its relationship with forgiveness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 96–106. doi:10.1002/ejsp.741
38.
RydellR. J.McConnellA. M. (2005). Perceptions of entitativity and attitude change. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 99–110. doi:10.1177/0146167204271316
39.
ShnabelN.NadlerA. (2008). A needs-based model of reconciliation: Satisfying the differential emotional needs of victim and perpetrator as a key to promoting reconciliation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 116–132. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.116
40.
ShnabelN.NadlerA.UllrichJ.DovidioJ. F.CarmiD. (2009). Promoting reconciliation through the satisfaction of the emotional needs of victimized and perpetrating group members: The needs-based model of reconciliation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1021–1030. doi:10.1177/0146167209336610
41.
Spencer-RodgersJ.HamiltonD. L.ShermanS. J. (2007). The central role of entitativity in stereotypes of social categories and task groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 369–388. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.369
42.
Spencer-RodgersJ.WilliamsM. J.HamiltonD. L.PengK.WangL. (2007). Culture and group perception: Dispositional and stereotypic inferences about novel and national groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 525–543. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.4.525
43.
StenstromD. M.LickelB.DensonT. F.MillerN. (2008). The roles of ingroup identification and outgroup entitativity in intergroup retribution. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1570–1582. doi:10.1177/0146167208322999
44.
SusskindJ.MaurerK.ThakkarV.HamiltonD. A.ShermanJ. W. (1999). Perceiving individuals and groups: Expectancies, dispositional inferences, and causal attributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 181–191. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.2.181
45.
TavuchisN. (1991). Mea culpa: A sociology of apology and reconciliation. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
46.
WohlM. J. A.Cohen-ChenS.HalperinE.CaouetteJ.HornseyM. J. (2015). Belief in the malleability of groups strengthens the tenuous link between a collective apology and intergroup forgiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 714–725. doi:10.1177/0146167215576721
47.
WohlM. J. A.HornseyM. J.BennettS. H. (2012). Why group apologies succeed and fail: Intergroup forgiveness and the role of primary and secondary emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 306–322. doi:10.1037/a0024838
48.
WohlM. J. A.HornseyM. J.PhilpotC. R. (2011). A critical review of official public apologies: Aims, pitfalls, and a staircase model of effectiveness. Social Issues and Policy Review, 5, 70–100. doi:10.1111/j.1751-2409.2011.01026.x
49.
YzerbytV. Y.RogierA.FiskeS. T. (1998). Group entitativity and social attribution: On translating situational constraints into stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1089–1103. doi:10.1177/01461672982410006
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.
