Ingroup Entitativity Research Articles

Between Conspiracy Beliefs, Ingroup Bias, and System Justification: How People Use Defense Strategies to Cope With the Threat of COVID-19.

The current situation around coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) portrays a threat to us in several ways: It imposes uncertainty and a lack of control and reminds us of our own mortality. People around the world have reacted to these threats in seemingly unrelated ways: From stockpiling yeast and toilet paper to favoring nationalist ideas or endorsing conspiratorial beliefs. According to the General Process Model of Threat and Defense, the confrontation with a threat – a discrepant experience – makes humans react with both proximal and distal threat responses. While the proximal response manifests in behavioral inhibition that leads to heightened anxious arousal and vigilance, distal responses seek to lower behavioral inhibition and the associated state of anxiety and vigilance through engaging in distal defenses. In the present research, we propose that the reactions to COVID-19 may represent distal defense strategies to the pandemic and, therefore, can be explained and forecasted by the model. Thus, we hypothesized increased perceived COVID-19 threat to lead to a proximal threat response in the form of heightened behavioral inhibition. This, in return, should enhance the use of distal defenses (i.e., several ingroup biases, system justification, and conspiratorial beliefs) overlapping with the reactions observed as a response to COVID-19. This hypothesized mediated effect of increased perceived COVID-19 threat on distal defenses was tested in two preregistered studies: In Study 1 (N = 358), results showed perceived COVID-19 threat to be related to behavioral inhibition and, in turn, to be associated with increased distal defenses (i.e., higher entitativity, control restoration motivation, passive party support). In Study 2 (N = 348), we manipulated COVID-19 threat salience and found results suggesting the distal defenses of ingroup entitativity, system justification, and conspiratorial beliefs to be mediated by the proximal threat response. The results of the present research hint toward a common mechanism through which the seemingly unrelated reactions to COVID-19 can be explained. The results might help to predict future behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic and to design measures to counteract the detrimental effects of the pandemic.

“Patriotism à la Carte”: Perceived Legitimacy of Collective Guilt and Collective Pride as Motivators for Political Behavior

Intergroup emotions motivate behavior, yet little is known about how people perceive these emotional experiences in others. In three experiments (Ns = 109, 179, 246), we show that U.S. citizens believe collective guilt is an illegitimate emotional motivator for ingroup political behavior, while collective pride is legitimate. This differential legitimacy is due to the perception that collective guilt violates the norm of group interest, while collective pride adheres to it; those who believe ingroup interests are more important than outgroups’ exhibited this illegitimacy gap. The perception that the intergroup emotion promoted ingroup entitativity mediated the relationship between emotion (pride vs. guilt) and legitimacy; this relationship was especially strong for those high in the belief in the norm of group interest. Collective guilt can have prosocial consequences, yet the perception that it is illegitimate may hinder such consequences from being realized.

Feeling That In-Group Feeling at a Sponsored Sporting Event: Links to Memory and Future Attendance

Sports, the arts, and events are products in their own right, and when sponsored, they become marketing and communication platforms. The current research examines the role of event emotions on sponsor recall and intent to attend the event in the future. An important theoretical argument is that feeling to be part of an in-group, measured as in-group entitativity, moderates the relationship between emotions and outcomes of memory and intentions. To test our theoretical model, we surveyed attendees at a multiday international track and field event. A total of 282 individuals were surveyed, and 232 of these attendees qualified as audience members and were included in the analysis. Moderated regression analyses revealed that excitement, joy, boredom, and overall tone of the group atmosphere impact event outcomes for the sport and the sponsor, and furthermore, that in-group entitativity can function as an important moderator. Contributions to theory and practice are discussed.

Group cohesion benefits individuals who express prejudice, but harms their group

When someone expresses prejudice against an outgroup, how negatively do we judge the prejudiced individual and his or her ingroup? Previous lines of research suggest that the answer depends on the ingroup's entitativity—i.e., how cohesive it is—but they make different predictions about whether entitativity should increase or decrease outside observers' negative reactions to prejudice. We resolve this tension by demonstrating divergent consequences of entitativity for prejudiced individuals versus their groups. Mediational and experimental data from six studies (two pre-registered; N = 2455) support two hypotheses: Entitativity increases how responsible the group seems for its member's prejudice, which in turn decreases how unacceptable observers find the member's behavior and how much they condemn her (H1), but which also increases how much they condemn the group (H2). Thus, entitativity can grant individuals a license to express prejudice but can damage their group's reputation.

The benefits of collective responsibility: How ingroup reputation concern motivates prosociality in intergroup contexts

AbstractCollective responsibility processes have been investigated from the perspectives of the outgroup (e.g., collective blame) and the ingroup (e.g., collective guilt). This article extends theory and research on collective responsibility with a third perspective, namely that of the individual actor whose behavior triggers the attribution of collective blame. Four experiments (n = 78, 118, 208 and 77, respectively) tested the hypotheses that collective responsibility processes influence the individual actors' appraisals, emotions and behavior. The possibility of collective blame for their individual action prompted more prosocial behavior among participants (Experiment 1). Participants also experienced more ingroup reputation concern and in turn more negative emotions (Experiment 2–4) for a past wrongdoing if it could reflect negatively on the ingroup in the eyes of outgroups. The increased negative emotions then motivated participants to improve the ingroup's image (Experiment 4). The effects were moderated by perceived ingroup entitativity, in that activating collective blame increased ingroup reputation concern and negative emotions only for ingroups perceived as highly entitative (Experiment 3).

The Effect of Media Exposure on Perceptions of Group Entitativity: A Preliminary Investigation

Group entitativity (i.e., the perception that a group is a coherent unit) has been found to play an important role in governing intergroup judgments and behaviors. Accordingly, considerable attention has been devoted to documenting both the factors that influence perceptions of entitativity and the effects of entitativity on group-based outcomes. Conspicuously absent from this research, however, is an assessment of the media's influence on these relationships. This is surprising, given the well-documented role of media exposure on an array of intergroup processes and effects. The current study tackles this issue by experimentally examining the impact of media exposure on perceptions of in-group entitativity and self-esteem among Latino news viewers. Although preliminary, the results found here suggest that media exposure can influence entitativity judgments.

Entitativity and intergroup bias: How belonging to a cohesive group allows people to express their prejudices.

We propose that people treat prejudice as more legitimate when it seems rationalistic-that is, linked to a group's pursuit of collective interests. Groups that appear to be coherent and unified wholes (entitative groups) are most likely to have such interests. We thus predicted that belonging to an entitative group licenses people to express prejudice against outgroups. Support for this idea came from 3 correlational studies and 5 experiments examining racial, national, and religious prejudice. The first 4 studies found that prejudice and discrimination seemed more socially acceptable to third parties when committed by members of highly entitative groups, because people could more easily explain entitative groups' biases as a defense of collective interests. Moreover, ingroup entitativity only lent legitimacy to outgroup prejudice when an interests-based explanation was plausible-namely, when the outgroup could possibly threaten the ingroup's interests. The last 4 studies found that people were more willing to express private prejudices when they perceived themselves as belonging to an entitative group. Participants' perceptions of their own race's entitativity were associated with a greater tendency to give explicit voice to their implicit prejudice against other races. Furthermore, experimentally raising participants' perceptions of ingroup entitativity increased explicit expressions of outgroup prejudice, particularly among people most likely to privately harbor such prejudices (i.e., highly identified group members). Together, these findings demonstrate that entitativity can lend a veneer of legitimacy to prejudice and disinhibit its expression. We discuss implications for intergroup relations and shifting national demographics. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved).

Why Does Ingroup Identification Shield People from Death Anxiety?

Research to date guided by terror management theory has demonstrated that mortality salience increases ingroup identification. However, the process that leads from death reminders to group investment has remained underinvestigated. We tested a model in which mortality salience increased the perceived continuity of the group while at the same time strengthening the perception of group entitativity. In turn, higher perceived group entitativity led to enhanced ingroup identification. Three-path mediation analysis showed that mortality salience transmitted its effects onto ingroup identification indirectly, progressing first through perceived collective continuity and then through ingroup entitativity. Moderated mediation analysis revealed that personal self-esteem and the need for closure did not moderate this effect of mortality salience on ingroup identification.

Entitativity, identity, and the fulfilment of psychological needs

Social groups provide many benefits to the individual and some groups are better able to meet the needs of their group members. The current research examines the impact of perceived entitativity on the degree to which groups are able to fulfil the psychological needs of individual members. Participants listed ingroups based on the group typology of Lickel et al. (2000) and rated characteristics of the group, level of identification, and the degree to which the group met a series of needs. The results indicate that increased entitativity predicts greater perceived relative need fulfilment and that this effect is mediated by level of identification with the group. These results extend our understanding of the functions that different group types serve and the consequences of ingroup entitativity perceptions for the individual.

The cultural narratives of Francophone and Anglophone Quebecers: Using a historical perspective to explore the relationships among collective relative deprivation, in‐group entitativity, and collective esteem

Responding to calls to contextualize social psychological variables in history, the present research examines the relationship between collective relative deprivation and collective esteem using a historical perspective. We hypothesized that collective relative deprivation perceived to be experienced during an important low-point in a group's history serves to define the group's current collective identity, which is in turn associated with collective esteem. In Study 1, cultural narrative interviews were conducted with Francophone and Anglophone Quebecers in order to identify key historical chapters for these groups and to examine the extent to which historical low-points were identity-defining features of their narratives. In Study 2, using the information obtained from these narratives, collective relative deprivation was explored across group members' perceived histories and related to current in-group entitativity and collective esteem. The relationship between collective relative deprivation thought to be experienced by one's group during a historical low-point and collective esteem was positive for both Anglophone and Francophone Quebecers and was mediated by in-group entitativity. Collective relative deprivation perceived to be experienced during a historical low-point serves to define one's collective identity, which is in turn associated with greater collective esteem.

Perceiving one's nation: Entitativity, agency and security in the international arena

The perception of groups as real entities rather than mere aggregates of individuals has important consequences on intergroup relations. Social psychological research, in fact, shows that it affects stereotyping, identification process, and intergroup bias. Previous research has also shown that group entitativity is not a positive or negative group attribute per se; rather, it depends on the context and the relationship between the perceiver and the group. While enhancing entitativity leads to worse expectations about the out-group actions, high entitativity is a valued characteristic when associated with an ally or with the in-group. Indeed, enhancing in-group entitativity leads to stronger in-group identification. The specific reasons for why this is the case, however, remain to be ascertained. What is good about in-group entitativity? In the present contribution we propose that in-group entitativity may lead to perceive the group as a real entity provided with intentions and capacity for planned actions, notably ensuring the safety of its members by protecting them against external threats. We report two correlational studies conducted with American citizens (Study 1) and Italian citizens (Study 2), showing that in-group entitativity is associated with a higher level of identification, attribution of intentionality, and perceived security provided by the in-group. These findings were replicated in a third study-conducted with a role-play method on a fictitious scenario-in which entitativity was manipulated rather than measured. Study 3 also shows that artificially increasing the perception of in-group entitativity enhances perceived safety in an international context and reduces the perception of threat from an out-group. Findings are discussed in terms of possible implications for intergroup and international relations.

Perceived Polarization: Reconciling Ingroup and Intergroup Perceptions Under Uncertainty

Two studies investigated how generalized uncertainty affects the tendency to coordinate perceptions of the ingroup with intergroup perceptions. Across two field studies, we found that uncertainty leads to a stronger association between the perceived entitativity of an ingroup and the extent of perceived attitude polarization between the ingroup and outgroup. Study 1 showed that, for striking grocery store employees, feelings of uncertainty were associated with enhanced coordination of ingroup entitativity and intergroup polarization. Study 2 primed Democrat and Republican partisans to feel either high uncertainty or high certainty. Those who felt uncertain associated their perceptions of their group's entitativity with perceived polarization of the two parties more strongly than did those who felt certain. Discussion centers on processes underlying the phenomena as well as the implications of the findings for political polarization in American society.

Uncertainty, entitativity, and group identification

Two studies examined the effects of self-uncertainty and ingroup entitativity on group identification. From uncertainty reduction theory ( Hogg, 2000), it was hypothesized that people would identify most strongly with their group if they felt self-conceptually uncertain and the group was highly entitative. Study 1 was a field experiment ( N = 114) in which the perceived entitativity of participants’ political party was measured, and self-uncertainty was primed (high vs. low). Study 2 was a laboratory experiment ( N = 89) with ad hoc non-interactive groups. Uncertainty was primed as in Study 1, but perceived entitativity was manipulated. In both cases the dependent variable was a multi-item measure of group identification. The hypothesis was fully supported in both studies—participants identified more strongly when they were uncertain and the group was highly entitative. Implications of this research for the role of uncertainty and social identity in extremism, orthodoxy, and ideological belief systems are discussed.

Relevance of social categories, depersonalization and group processes: two field tests of self‐categorization theory

AbstractTwo field studies investigated whether, as predicted by self‐categorization theory (Turner, 1987), the relationship between comparative fit of an ingroup‐outgroup categorization and group phenomena is mediated by depersonalization of self‐perception, and moderated by category accessibility. In the first study participants were football fans, and in the second they were employees in an organization. In each study, two experimental conditions were created, whereby the accessibility and salience of the ingroup‐outgroup categorization were varied. New measures of comparative fit and depersonalization were developed, based on meta‐contrast ratios. Outcome variables were ingroup bias (Studies 1 and 2), ingroup entitativity, organizational citizenship behaviours, job satisfaction and turnover intentions (Study 2). Consistent with self‐categorization theory, results showed (a) that comparative fit determined ingroup bias and other criterion variables through the mediating process of depersonalization, and (b) that this process was active only when the category was highly accessible. The moderational role of accessibility concerned the relationship between depersonalization and outcome variables, not the link between fit and depersonalization. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

We are one and I like it: The impact of ingroup entitativity on ingroup identification

AbstractIt is argued that the entitativity of the ingroup moderates the level of identification with the ingroup. Specifically, that high levels of entitativity are conducive to strong identification, whereas low levels of entitativity reduce identification with the ingroup. These hypotheses were tested across four studies using the European Union (EU) as the reference group. The four studies manipulated four different factors that, according to Campbell (1958), impact on group entitativity: common fate (Study 1), similarity (Study 2), salience (Study 3), and boundedness (Study 4). Across the four studies, we found evidence for the impact of these factors on the level of identification with the EU among European citizens holding moderate attitudes toward the EU but not (or much less) for citizens holding more extreme attitudes towards the EU. Mediational analyses further confirmed the viability of an entitativity‐based interpretation of the impact of the manipulations on the level of identification. The findings are discussed in light of the current debate on the concept of entitativity, the motives for social identification, and the reduction of ingroup bias. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The Relation between Allocentrism and Perceptions of Ingroups

The authors examine how allocentrism, or the importance placed on ingroups, relates to the perceived homogeneity and entitativity (groupness)of relational (interpersonal) and collective (categorical) ingroups. In two studies (N s = 198, 90), allocentrism is shown to be positively related to perceptions of ingroup entitativity and homogeneity. This pattern was obtained, however, only for perceptions of collective ingroups. Ethnic differences between Hispanic and non-Hispanic White participants’ perceptions of ingroups were mediated by allocentrism (Study 1). Participants in Study 2 were members of a laboratory task group and their levels of allocentrism predicted their perceptions of the group’s homogeneity and entitativity regardless of the actual homogeneity of the group. The effects of allocentrism on perceptions of ingroups are discussed in terms of self-esteem, group identification, and responses to ingroup members’ deviations from norms.

I Belong, therefore, I Exist: Ingroup Identification, Ingroup Entitativity, and Ingroup Bias

Merging insights from the intergroup relations literature and terror management theory, the authors conducted an experiment in which they assessed the impact of death-related thoughts on a series of ingroup measures. Participants in the mortality-salience condition displayed stronger ingroup identification, perceived greater ingroup entitativity, and scored higher on ingroup bias measures. Also, perceived ingroup entitativity as well as ingroup identification mediated the effect of the mortality salience manipulation on ingroup bias. The findings are discussed in relation to theories of intergroup relations and terror management theory. A new perspective on the function of group belonging also is presented.

The Primacy of the Ingroup: The Interplay of Entitativity and Identification

In the present chapter, we move away from the traditional focus on the outgroup encountered in the literature on intergroup relations and argue that the ingroup is psychologically primary. We build upon the notion of entitativity first proposed by Campbell (1958) and suggest that entitative ingroups meet basic needs related to group membership better than less coherent ingroups. We provide initial support for the privileged status of entitative ingroups by reviewing contemporary research on group homogeneity. Next, we report on a research program showing that social identification and ingroup entitativity go hand in hand. First, we address the influence of ingroup identification on group entitativity in such phenomena as the “black sheep” effect and ingroup overexclusion. Second, we examine the impact of ingroup entitativity on social identification. We conclude by proposing that ingroup entitativity may also be related to a feeling of efficacy which need not produce conflict and discrimination toward outgroups. Globally, the accumulated evidence strongly suggests that the perception of ingroup entitativity plays a key role in intra- and intergroup relations. One's own family is an ingroup; and by definition all other families on the street are outgroups; but seldom d o they clash… One knows that one's lodge has distinctive characteristics that mark it off from all others, but one does not necessarily despise the others. The situation it seems can best be stated as follows: although we could not perceive our own ingroups excepting as they contrast to outgroups, still the ingroups are psychologically primary. We live in them, by them, and sometimes, for them. Hostility toward outgroups helps strengthen our sense of belonging, but it is not required (Allport, 1954, pp. 40–41).

Perceived ingroup entitativity and intergroup bias: an interconnection of self and others

Campbell's (1958) concept of ingroup entitativity is reformulated as a perceived interconnection of self and others. A 2 (intergroup relations: competitive, neutral)×3 (intragroup interaction: low, medium, high) between-subjects design was used to examine (1) the effects of intergroup and intragroup relations on perceived ingroup entitativity and (2) the relation between ingroup entitativity and intergroup bias. Regardless of the relations between groups, members who experienced intragroup interaction had stronger perceptions of ingroup entitativity and stronger representations of the aggregate of ingroup and outgroup members as two separate groups than members who lacked intragroup interaction. Furthermore, perceptions of ingroup entitativity mediated the effect of the salience of the intergroup boundary on behavioral intergroup bias. These results call into question the ‘intergroup’ nature of group based phenomena. An ingroup entitativity framework is presented that locates the source of group-based phenomena (e.g. intergroup bias) in intragroup processes. Copyright © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Perceived ingroup entitativity and intergroup bias: an interconnection of self and others

Campbell's (1958) concept of ingroup entitativity is reformulated as a perceived interconnection of self and others. A 2 (intergroup relations: competitive, neutral)×3 (intragroup interaction: low, medium, high) between-subjects design was used to examine (1) the effects of intergroup and intragroup relations on perceived ingroup entitativity and (2) the relation between ingroup entitativity and intergroup bias. Regardless of the relations between groups, members who experienced intragroup interaction had stronger perceptions of ingroup entitativity and stronger representations of the aggregate of ingroup and outgroup members as two separate groups than members who lacked intragroup interaction. Furthermore, perceptions of ingroup entitativity mediated the effect of the salience of the intergroup boundary on behavioral intergroup bias. These results call into question the ‘intergroup’ nature of group based phenomena. An ingroup entitativity framework is presented that locates the source of group-based phenomena (e.g. intergroup bias) in intragroup processes. Copyright © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.