Previous research about group perception in terms of warmth and competence focused on the effects of social structural factors but overlooked the role of the fundamental group characteristic (i.e., entitativity or groupiness). Three studies were conducted to examine people’s perception of high/low entitativity groups under various functional relations. In Study 1, we experimentally created the target group (i.e., Group X) and manipulated entitativity and functional relation. In Studies 2 and 3, we chose a real group (i.e., Uyghurs) as the target group and measured cues to entitativity (Study 2) or entitativity itself (Study 3) and interethnic relations. In all studies, participants rated the target group on warmth and competence dimensions. The results suggested that, under cooperative functional relation, the group with higher entitativity was perceived as more competent and warmer, thereby more beneficial. Conversely, when the functional relation was conflictive, the group with higher entitativity was perceived as more competent but colder, and thus more harmful.
AschS. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41, 1230–1240.
2.
BinggeliS.KringsF.SczesnyS. (2014). Perceived competition explains regional differences in the stereotype content of immigrant groups. Social Psychology, 45, 62–70.
3.
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). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
4.
BrewerM. B.WeberJ. G.CariniB. (1995). Person memory in intergroup contexts: Categorization versus individuation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 29–40.
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, 528–550.
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.
7.
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.
8.
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, 735–754.
9.
CikaraM.BruneauE.BavelJ. J. V.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.
10.
ClarkJ. K.ThiemK. C. (2015). Group communicators, perceived entitativity, and persuasion: A self-validation analysis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 61, 5–11.
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, 42–57.
12.
CrawfordM. T.SalamanL. (2012). Entitativity, identity, and the fulfilment of psychological needs. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 726–730.
13.
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.
14.
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, 1212–1230.
15.
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, 991–1003.
16.
DensonT. F.LickelB.CurtisM.StenstromD. M.AmesD. R. (2006). The role of entitativity and essentiality in judgments of collective responsibility. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 9, 43–61.
17.
DovidioJ. F.GaertnerS. L.KawakamiK. (2003). Intergroup contact: The past, present and future. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 6, 5–21.
18.
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, 234–253.
19.
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, 878–902.
20.
GaertnerS. L.DovidioJ. F.RustM. C.NierJ.BankerB.WardC. M.…HouletteM. (1999). Reducing intergroup bias: Elements of intergroup cooperation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 388–402.
21.
GlickP.FiskeS. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512.
22.
GoffP. A.EberhardtJ. L.WilliamsM. J.JacksonM. C. (2008). Not yet human: Implicit knowledge, historical dehumanization, and contemporary consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 292–306.
23.
HamiltonD. L. (2007). Understanding the complexities of group perception: Broadening the domain. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 1077–1101.
24.
HamiltonD. L.ShermanS. J. (1996). Perceiving persons and groups. Psychological Review, 103, 336–355.
25.
HamiltonD. L.ShermanS. J.CastelliL. (2002). A group by any other name—the role of entitativity in group perception. European Review of Social Psychology, 12, 139–166.
26.
HamiltonD. L.ShermanS. J.LickelB. (1998). Perceptions of groups: The importance of entitativity continuum. In SedikidesC.SchoplerJ.InskiC. A. (Eds.), Intergroup cognition and intergroup behavior (pp. 47–74). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
27.
HaslamN.RothschildL.ErnstD. (2002). Are essentialist beliefs associated with prejudice?British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 87–100.
28.
IpG. W.ChiuC. Y.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 & Social Psychology, 90, 368–381.
29.
JacksonJ. W. (1993). Realistic group conflict theory: A review and evaluation of the theoretical and empirical literature. Psychological Record, 43, 395–414.
30.
JacksonJ. W. (2002). Intergroup attitudes as a function of different dimensions of group identification and perceived intergroup conflict. Self and Identity, 1, 11–33.
31.
JuddC. M.James-HawkinsL.YzerbytV.KashimaY. (2005). Fundamental dimensions of social judgment: Understanding the relations between judgments of competence and warmth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 899–913.
32.
KervynN.JuddC. M.YzerbytV. Y. (2009). You want to appear competent? Be mean! You want to appear sociable? Be lazy! Group differentiation and the compensation effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 363–367.
33.
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.
34.
LickelB.MillerN.StenstromD. M.DensonT. F.SchmaderT. (2006). Vicarious retribution: The role of collective blame in intergroup aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 372–790.
35.
MalleB. F. (2010). The social and moral cognition of group agents. Journal of Law and Policy, 19, 95–136.
36.
McShaneB. B.BöckenholtU. (2014). You cannot step into the same river twice: When power analyses are optimistic. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 612–625
37.
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.
38.
NewheiserA. K.DovidioJ. F. (2015). High outgroup entitativity can inhibit intergroup retribution. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54, 341–358.
39.
NewheiserA. K.SawaokaT.DovidioJ. F. (2012). Why do we punish groups? High entitativity promotes moral suspicion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 931–936.
40.
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, 920–926.
41.
O’LaughlinM. J.MalleB. F. (2002). How people explain actions performed by groups and individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 33–48.
42.
RikettaM.SacramentoC. A. (2008). They cooperate with us, so they are like me’: Perceived intergroup relationship moderates projection from self to outgroups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 11, 115–131.
43.
RosenbergS.NelsonC.VivekananthanP. (1968). A multidimensional approach to the structure of personality impressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 283–294.
44.
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 (pp. 79–100). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
45.
RutchickA. M.HamiltonD. L.SackJ. D. (2008). Antecedents of entitativity in categorically and dynamically construed groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 905–921.
46.
RydellR. J.McconnellA. R. (2005). Perceptions of entitativity and attitude change. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 99–110.
47.
SacchiS.CastanoE.BrauerM. (2009). Perceiving one’s nation: Entitativity, agency and security in the international arena. International Journal of Psychology, 44, 321–332.
48.
SherifM. (1966). In common predicament. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
49.
SherifM.HarveyO. J.WhiteB. J.HoodW. R.SherifC. W. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation. The Robbers Cave experiment. Norman: University of Oklahoma Book Exchange.
50.
SmithR. W.FaroD.BursonK. A. (2013). More for the many: The influence of entitativity on charitable giving. Journal of Consumer Research, 39, 961–976.
51.
Spencer-RodgersJ.HamiltonD. L.ShermanS. J. (2007). The central role of entitativity in stereotypes of social categories and task groups. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 92, 369–388.
52.
SvirydzenkaN.SaniF.BennettM. (2010). Group entitativity and its perceptual antecedents in varieties of groups: A developmental perspective. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 611–624.
53.
VociA.HewstoneM. (2003). Intergroup contact and prejudice toward immigrants in Italy: The mediational role of anxiety and the moderational role of group salience. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 6, 37–54.
54.
WelbourneJ. L. (1999). The impact of perceived entitativity on inconsistency resolution for groups and individuals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 481–508.
55.
WojciszkeB. (2005). Morality and competence in person- and self-perception. European Review of Social Psychology, 16, 155–188.
56.
YzerbytV.ProvostV.CorneilleO. (2005). Not competent but warm…really? Compensatory stereotypes in the French-speaking world. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 8, 291–308.
57.
YzerbytV. Y.CastanoE.LeyensJ. P.PaladinoM. P. (2000). The primacy of the ingroup: The interplay of entitativity and identification. In StroebeW.HewstoneM. (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 257–295). Chichester, England: Wiley.
58.
YzerbytV. Y.KervynN.JuddC. M. (2008). Compensation versus halo: The unique relations between the fundamental dimensions of social judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1110–1123.
59.
ZannaM.HamiltonD. (1972). Attributes dimensions and patterns of traits inferences. Psychonomic Science, 27, 343–354.
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.
