For and Against: Perceived Entitativity of Supportive and Oppositional Opinion Groups

Abstract

It is argued that self-labeling of opinion groups as holding ‘for’ or ‘against’ attitudes influences perceived entitativity of such groups. Based on literature on positivity biases and Moscovici’s analysis of social change (1976), we predicted that individuals may associate support with nomicity, and should perceive supportive groups as more entitative than oppositional ones. In three studies, participants rated the entitativity of supportive and oppositional groups varying in extremity and homogeneity. The first two studies showed that support was associated with greater entitativity than opposition, but only in the case of extreme opinions. They also replicated past findings that extremity and homogeneity increase perceived entitativity. A third study showed that activating an intergroup context did not lead to an ingroup-outgroup effect, but suggested that the joint effects of favorability and extremity depend on how well-defined opinions the groups are supposed to have.

Keywords

lay theories of groups opinion groups perceived entitativity

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allag, F. (1998). Entitativité et traitement de l’information. Unpublished manuscript.

Brewer, M. B. , & Harasty, A. S. (1996). Seeing groups as entities: The role of perceiver motivation. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition (Vol. 3., pp. 347-370). New York: Guilford .

Campbell, D. T. (1958). Common fate, similarity, and other indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities . Behavioural Sciences, 3, 14-25 .

Dasgupta, B. , Banaji, M. R. , & Abelson, R. P. (1999). Group entitativity and group perception: Associations between physical features and psychological judgment . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 991-1003 .

Eagly, A. H. , & Carli, L. L. (1981). Sex of researchers and sex-typed communications as determinants of sex differences in influenceability: A meta-analysis of social influence studies . Psychological Bulletin, 90, 1-20 .

Hamilton, D. L. , & Sherman, S. J. (1996). Perceiving persons and groups . Psychological Review, 103, 336-355 .

Hamilton, D. L. , & Zanna, M. P. (1972). Differential weighting of favorable and unfavorable attributes in impressions of personality . Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 6, 204-212 .

Harkins, S. G. , & Petty, R. E. (1987). Informational utility and the multiple source effect . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 260-268 .

Hong, Y-y , Levy, S. R. , & Chiu, C-y (2001). The contribution of lay theories approach to the study of groups . Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 98-106 .

10.

Lickel, B. , Hamilton, D. L. , Lewis, A. , Sherman, S. J. , Wieczorkowska, G. , & Neville Uhles, A. (2000). Varieties of groups and the perception of group entitativity . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 223-246 .

11.

Lickel, B. , Hamilton, D. L. , & Sherman, S. J. (2001). Elements of lay theory of groups: Types of groups, relational styles, and the perception of group entitativity . Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 129-140 .

12.

Maslach, C. , Santee, R. T. , & Wade, C. (1987). Individuation, gender roles and dissent: Personality mediators of situational forces . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1088-1093 .

13.

McGarty, C. , Haslam, S. A. , Hutchinson, K. J. , & Grace, D. M. (1995). Determinants of perceived consistency: The relationship between group entitativity and the meaningfulness of categories . British Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 237-256 .

14.

Morchain, P., & Schadron, G. (1999). Stéréotypisation et jugeabilité. Comment l’entitativité permet l’extrêmisation des jugements concernant les groupes défavorisés. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 12, 25-46.

15.

Moscovici, S. (1976). Social influence and social change. London: Academic Press .

16.

Mucchi-Faïna, A. (1996). Minority influence and gender influence. Unpublished manuscript.

17.

Mullen, B. (1991). Group composition, salience and cognitive representations: The phenomenology of being in a group . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27, 291-323 .

18.

Oberlé, D. (1996). Est-ce que le groupe intéresse toujours les psychologues sociaux? Connexions, 68, 29-53 .

19.

Sherif, M. , & Sherif, C. W. (1967). Attitudes as the individual’s own categories: The social judgment approach to attitude change. In C. W. Sherif , & M. Sherif (Eds.), Attitude, ego involvment, and change (pp. 105-139). New York: Wiley .

20.

Sherman, S. J. , Hamilton, D. L. , & Lewis, A. C. (2000). Perceived entitativity and social identity value of group memberships. In D. Abrams & M. Hogg. (Eds.), Social identity and social cognition (pp 80-110). Malde: MA: Blackwell .

21.

Skowronski, J. J. , & Carlston, D. E. (1989). Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: A review of explanations . Psychological Bulletin, 105, 131-142 .

22.

Steiner, I. D. (1974). Whatever happened to the group in social psychology? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 94-108 .

23.

Susskind, J. , Maurer, K. , Thakkar, V. , Hamilton, D. , & Sherman, J. (1999). Perceiving individuals and groups: Expectancies, dispositional inferences, and causal attributions . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 181-191 .

24.

Wilder, D. A. (1977). Perception of groups, size of opposition, and social influence . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 253-268 .

25.

Wilder, D. A. (1990). Some determinants of the persuasive power of ingroups and outgroups: Organization of information and attribution of independence . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1202-1213 .

26.

Wilder, D. A. , & Simon, D. A. (1998). Categorical and dynamic groups: Implications for social perception and intergroup behavior. In C. Sedikides , J. Schopler , & C. A. Insko (Eds.), Intergroup cognition and intergroup behavior (pp. 27-44). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum .