By bringing in the Big-Two model of social perception, the present research extended previous literature regarding how people perceive homogeneous and cohesive groups from the process level to the content level. We compared the effects of intragroup similarity and interaction on warmth and competence judgments about groups. The similarity or interaction (high or low) of the novel groups (Study 1) and an international group (Study 2) was manipulated by descriptions. Participants were asked to rate the target groups on warmth- and competence-related traits. Consistent with our hypotheses, similarity polarized both warmth and competence judgments, whereas interaction polarized warmth judgments but enhanced competence judgments. The current research not only advances group perception research but also provides practical implications for improving group image and intergroup relations.
AllportF. H. (1954). The structuring of events: Outline of a general theory with applications to psychology. Psychological Review, 61(5), 281–303. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0062678
BrewerM. B.HarastyA. S. (1996). Seeing groups as entities: The role of perceiver motivation. In SorrentinoR. M.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition, Vol. 3: The interpersonal context (pp. 347–370). Guilford Press.
4.
BrewerM. B.HongY. Y.LiQ. (2004). Dynamic entitativity: Perceiving groups as actors. In YzerbytV.JuddC. M.CorneilleO. (Eds.), The psychology of group perception (pp. 25–38). Psychology Press.
5.
CallahanS. P.LedgerwoodA. (2016). On the psychological function of flags and logos: Group identity symbols increase perceived entitativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(4), 528–550. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000047
6.
CampbellD. T. (1958). Common fate, similarity, and other indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities. Behavioral Sciences, 3, 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830030103
7.
CartwrightD.ZanderA. (1960). Group dynamics: Research and theory (2nd ed.). Row, Peterson.
8.
CastanoE.SacchiS.GriesP. H. (2003). The perception of the other in international relations: Evidence for the polarizing effect of entitativity. Political Psychology, 24(3), 449–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00336
9.
CastanoE.YzerbytV.BourguignonD. (2003). We are one and I like it: The impact of ingroup entitativity on ingroup identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(6), 735–754. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.175
10.
CikaraM.BruneauE.Van BavelJ. J.SaxeR. (2014). Their pain gives us pleasure: How intergroup dynamics shape empathic failures and counter-empathic responses. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 110–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.06.007
11.
ClarkJ. K.WegenerD. T. (2009). Source entitativity and the elaboration of persuasive messages: The roles of perceived efficacy and message discrepancy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 42–57. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015450
12.
CrawfordM. T.ShermanS. J.HamiltonD. L. (2002). Perceived entitativity, stereotype formation, and the interchangeability of group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(5), 1076–1094. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.83.5.1076
13.
CrumpS. A.HamiltonD. L.ShermanS. J.LickelB.ThakkarV. (2010). Group entitativity and similarity: Their differing patterns in perceptions of groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(7), 1212–1230. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.716
14.
CuddyA. J. C.FiskeS. T.GlickP. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the bias map. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40(7), 61–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(07)00002-0
15.
da Silva FrostA.LedgerwoodA. (2020). Calibrate your confidence in research findings: A tutorial on improving research methods and practices. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, e14. https://doi.org/10.1017/prp.2020.7
16.
DangJ.LiuL.RenD.GuZ. (2018). “Groupy” allies are more beneficial while “groupy” enemies are more harmful. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(8), 925–934. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617729409
17.
DangJ.LiuL.RenD.SuQ. (2018). Polarization and positivity effects: Divergent roles of group entitativity in warmth and competence judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 74, 74–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.09.003
18.
DangJ.LiuL.ZhangQ.LiC. (2019). Leaving an attacked group: Authoritative criticism decreases ingroup favoritism. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 13, e7. https://doi.org/10.1017/prp.2019.5
19.
DasguptaN.BanajiM. R.AbelsonR. P. (1999). Group entitativity and group perception: Associations between physical features and psychological judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5), 991–1003. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.991
20.
EffronD. A.KnowlesE. D. (2015). Entitativity and intergroup bias: How belonging to a cohesive group allows people to express their prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(2), 234–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000020
21.
ElliottM. T.WeiL. C.WingA. M. (2016). Modelling single-person and multi-person event-based synchronization. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 8, 167–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2016.01.015
22.
FesslerD. M. T.HolbrookC. (2016). Synchronized behavior increases assessments of the formidability and cohesion of coalitions. Evolution & Human Behavior, 37(6), 502–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2016.05.003
23.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J.GlickP.XuJ. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878–902. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.82.6.878
24.
GaertnerL.InskoC. A. (2001). On the measurement of social orientations in the minimal group paradigm: Norms as moderators of the expression of intergroup bias. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.28
25.
GaertnerL.IuzziniJ.WittM. G.OriñaM. M. (2006). Us without them: Evidence for an intragroup origin of positive in-group regard. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(3), 426–439. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.28
26.
GaertnerL.SchoplerJ. (1998). Perceived ingroup entitativity and intergroup bias: An interconnection of self and others. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28(6), 963–980. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.426
27.
HamiltonD. L. (2007). Understanding the complexities of group perception: Broadening the domain. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(6), 1077–1101. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.436
28.
HamiltonD. L.ShermanJ. W.LickelB. (1998). Perceptions of groups: The importance of entitativity continuum. In SedikidesC.SchoplerJ.InskiC. A. (Eds.), Intergroup cognition and intergroup behavior (pp. 47–74). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
HamiltonD. L.ShermanS. J.RodgersJ. S. (2004). Perceiving the groupness of groups: Entitativity, homogeneity, essentialism, and stereotypes. In YzerbytV.JuddC. M.CorneilleO. (Eds.), The psychology of group perception: Perceived variability, entitativity, and essentialism (pp. 39–60). Psychology Press.
HohmanZ. P.DahlE.GrubbsS. (2016). Entitativity and social identity complexity: The relationship between group characteristics and personal characteristics on group identification. Self and Identity, 15(6), 638–649. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2016.1185462
33.
IpG. W.ChiuC.WanC. (2006). Birds of a feather and birds flocking together: Physical versus behavioral cues may lead to trait versus goal-based group perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 368–381. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.368
34.
KellerP. E.NovembreG.HoveM. J. (2014). Rhythm in joint action: Psychological and neurophysiological mechanisms for real-time interpersonal coordination. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 369(1658), 20130394. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0394
LakensD. (2011). If they move in sync, they must feel in sync: Movement synchrony leads to attributions of rapport and entitativity. Social Cognition, 29(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2011.29.1.1
38.
LevyS. R.PlaksJ. E.HongY. Y.ChiuC. Y.DweckC. S. (2001). Static versus dynamic theories and the perception of groups: Different routes to different destinations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(2), 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0502_6
39.
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. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.78.2.223
40.
LickelB.MillerN.StenstromD. M.DensonT. F.SchmaderT. (2006). Vicarious retribution: The role of collective blame in intergroup aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(4), 372–390. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_6
41.
MadonS. (1997). What do people believe about gay males? A study of stereotype content and strength. Sex Roles, 37(9–10), 663–685. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02936334
42.
MorrisM. W.MenonT.AmesD. R. (2001). Culturally conferred conceptions of agency: A key to social perception of persons, groups, and other actors. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 169–182. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0502_7
43.
NewheiserA. K.DovidioJ. F. (2015). High outgroup entitativity can inhibit intergroup retribution. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54(2), 341–358. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12078
44.
NewheiserA. K.SawaokaT.DovidioJ. F. (2012). Why do we punish groups? High entitativity promotes moral suspicion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4), 931–936. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12078
45.
NewheiserA. K.TauschN.DovidioJ. F.HewstoneM. (2009). Entitativity and prejudice: Examining their relationship and the moderating effect of attitude certainty. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 920–926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.04.024
46.
PoppeE. (2001). Effects of changes in GNP and perceived group characteristics on national and ethnic stereotypes in Central and Eastern Europe. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(8), 1689–1708. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb02746.x
47.
RikettaM. (2005). Cognitive differentiation between self, ingroup, and outgroup: The roles of identification and perceived intergroup conflict. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35(1), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.234
48.
RothbartM.ParkB. (2004). The mental representation of social categories: Category boundaries, entitativity, and stereotype change. In YzerbytV.JuddC. M.CorneilleO. (Eds.), The psychology of group perception: Perceived variability, entitativity and essentialism (pp. 79–100). Psychology Press.
49.
RutchickA. M.HamiltonD. L.SackJ. D. (2008). Antecedents of entitativity in categorically and dynamically construed groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(6), 905–921. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.555
50.
RydellR. J.McConnellA. R. (2005). Perceptions of entitativity and attitude change. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(1), 99–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271316
51.
SmithR. W.FaroD.BursonK. A. (2013). More for the many: The influence of entitativity on charitable giving. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(5), 961–976. https://doi.org/10.1086/666470
52.
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(4), 525–543. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.4.525
53.
SteigerJ. H. (2004). Beyond the F test: Effect size confidence intervals and tests of close fit in the analysis of variance and contrast analysis. Psychological Methods, 9, 164–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.9.2.164
54.
StewartN. A. J.LonsdaleA. J. (2016). Its better together: The psychological benefits of singing in a choir. Psychology of Music, 44(6) 1240–1254. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735615624976
55.
StroessnerS. J.DweckC. S. (2015). Inferring group traits and group goals: A unified approach to social perception. In StrorssnerS. J.ShermanJ. W. (Eds.), Social perception from individuals to groups (pp. 177–195). Psychology Press.
56.
SusskindJ.MaurerK.ThakkarV.HamiltonD. L.ShermanJ. W. (1999). Perceiving individuals and groups: Expectancies, dispositional inferences, and causal attributions. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 76(2), 181–191. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.2.181
57.
TajfelH.BilligM. G.BundyR. P.FlamentC. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149–178. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420010202
58.
WangZ.HeX.LiuF. (2016). From similitude to success: The effects of facial resemblance on perceptions of team effectiveness. Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied, 22(1), 48–58. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000068
59.
WelbourneJ. L. (1999). The impact of perceived entitativity on inconsistency resolution for groups and individuals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(5), 481–508. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1999.1387
60.
YzerbytV. Y.RocherS.SchadronG. (1997). Stereotypes as explanations: A subjective essentialistic view of group perception. In SpearsR.OakesP. J.EllemersN.HaslamS. A. (Eds.), The social psychology of stereotyping and group life (pp. 20–50). Blackwell.
61.
YzerbytV. Y.RogierA.FiskeS. T. (1998). Group entitativity and social attribution: On translating situational constraints into stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(10), 1089–1103. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672982410006
62.
ZakariaF. (1999). From wealth to power: The universal origins of America’s world role. Princeton University Press.
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.
