Three studies examined perceptions of the entitativity of groups. In Study 1 (U.S.) and Study 2 (Poland), participants rated a sample of 40 groups on 8 properties of groups (e.g., size, duration, group member similarity) and perceived entitativity. Participants also completed a sorting task in which they sorted the groups according to their subjective perceptions of group similarity. Correlational and regression analyses were used to determine the group properties most strongly related to entitativity. Clustering and multidimensional scaling analyses in both studies identified 4 general types of groups (intimacy groups, task groups, social categories, and loose associations). In Study 3, participants rated the properties of groups to which they personally belonged. Study 3 replicated the results of Studies 1 and 2 and demonstrated that participants most strongly valued membership in groups that were perceived as high in entitativity.

The extent to which stigmatized interaction partners engender perceivers' threat reactions (i.e., stigma-threat hypothesis) was examined. Experiments 1 and 2 included the manipulation of stigma using facial birthmarks. Experiment 3 included manipulations of race and socioeconomic status. Threat responses were measured physiologically, behaviorally, and subjectively. Perceivers interacting with stigmatized partners exhibited cardiovascular reactivity consistent with threat and poorer performance compared with participants interacting with nonstigmatized partners, who exhibited challenge reactivity. In Experiment 3, intergroup contact moderated physiological reactivity such that participants who reported more contact with Black persons exhibited less physiological threat when interacting with them. These results support the stigma-threat hypothesis and suggest the utility of a biopsychosocial approach to the study of stigma and related constructs.

The present research examined emotions as predictors of opposition to policies and actions of one's country that are perceived to be illegitimate. Two studies investigated the political implications of American (Study 1) and British (Study 2) citizens' anger, guilt, and shame responses to perceived harm caused by their countries' occupation of Iraq. In both studies, a manipulation of pervasive threat to the country's image increased participants' shame but not guilt. The emotions predicted political action intentions to advocate distinct opposition strategies. Shame predicted action intentions to advocate withdrawal from Iraq. Anger predicted action intentions to advocate compensation to Iraq, confrontation of agents responsible, and withdrawal from Iraq. Anger directed at different targets (ingroup, ingroup representative, and outgroup representative) predicted action intentions to support distinct strategies (Study 2). Guilt did not independently predict any political action intentions. Implications for the study of political action and emotions in intergroup contexts are discussed.

No abstract

Participants recalled instances when they felt vicariously ashamed or guilty for another’s wrongdoing and rated their appraisals of the event and resulting motivations. The study tested aspects of social association that uniquely predict vicarious shame and guilt. Results suggest that the experience of vicarious shame and vicarious guilt are distinguishable. Vicarious guilt was predicted by one’s perceived interdependence with the wrongdoer (e.g. high interpersonal interaction), an appraisal of control over the event, and a motivation to repair the other person’s wrongdoing. Vicarious shame was predicted by the relevance of the event to a shared social identity with the wrongdoer, an appraisal of self-image threat, and a motivation to distance from the event. Implications for intergroup behavior and emotion are discussed

Individuals who violate expectations increase uncertainty during social interactions. Three experiments explored whether expectancy-violating partners engender "threat" responses in perceivers. Participants interacted with confederates who violated or confirmed expectations while multiple measures were assessed, including cardiovascular reactivity, task performance, appraisals, and behavior. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants interacted with White or Latino confederates who described their family backgrounds as either high or low socioeconomic status. In Experiment 3, participants interacted with Asian or White confederates who spoke with expected accents or southern accents. Participants interacting with expectancy-violating partners (e.g., Asians with southern accents) exhibited cardiovascular responses consistent with threat, poorer task performance, and manifested negative and defeat-related behavior. Implications for decreasing prejudicial responses via uncertainty reduction are discussed.Keywords: uncertainty, expectancy violations, cardiovascular reactivity, challenge and threat Interacting with strangers can be stressful. During such interactions, individuals are simultaneously attending to their own thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, including self-presentational, self-regulatory, and impression management concerns, as well as trying to accurately perceive the characteristics of the person to establish conversational fluency, expectations, and social norms (DePaulo & Friedman, 1998;Gilbert, 1998;Gudykunst, 1984). To the extent that the stranger meets expectations, the interaction is likely to be routinized and predictable. However, when the stranger is unexpected or surprising in some way, routinized responses are likely to be disrupted and anxiety heightened (Hebl, Tickle, & Heatherton, 2000). In the present study, we tested the notion that expectancy violations engendered by interaction partners would create more situational uncertainty and increase psychological threat as marked cardiovascularly, affectively, and behaviorally.We have previously observed that, in general, African Americans relative to European Americans engendered threat responses among White participants during a pleasant social interaction. More important, the degree of past intergroup contact with African Americans reported by White participants moderated responses, such that the greater the contact with African Americans the lower the threat responses. This finding underscores the importance of contact during social interactions. But what about situations in which one could not have experienced contact because the stranger is surprising or unexpected in some way, that is, a stranger who violates expectancies?Expectancies function to help people predict the future on the basis of past experiences and knowledge (Olson, Roese, & Zanna, 1996). Hence, expectancy violations disrupt one's predictive ability and can create uncertainty. This uncertainty is likely to increase the demands of situations, diverting attentional resources away...

We provide a new framework for understanding 1 aspect of aggressive conflict between groups, which we refer to as vicarious retribution. Vicarious retribution occurs when a member of a group commits an act of aggression toward the members of an outgroup for an assault or provocation that had no personal consequences for him or her but which did harm a fellow ingroup member. Furthermore, retribution is often directed at outgroup members who, themselves, were not the direct causal agents in the original attack against the person's ingroup. Thus, retribution is vicarious in that neither the agent of retaliation nor the target of retribution were directly involved in the original event that precipitated the intergroup conflict. We describe how ingroup identification, outgroup entitativity, and other variables, such as group power, influence vicarious retribution. We conclude by considering a variety of conflict reduction strategies in light of this new theoretical framework.

Two studies examined perceptions of collective responsibility for the April 20, 1999, shootings at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. Collective responsibility refers to the perception that others, besides the wrongdoers themselves, are responsible for the event. In Study 1, the authors assessed perceptions of the shooters' parents and their peer group (the Trenchcoat Mafia), whereas Study 2 tested perceptions of collective responsibility across a range of groups. In both studies, perceptions of a target group's entitativity predicted judgments of collective responsibility. This relationship was mediated by two situational construals that justify applying collective responsibility: responsibility by commission (encouraging or facilitating the event) and responsibility by omission (failing to prevent the event). Study 2 also determined that perceptions of authority predicted judgments of collective responsibility for the Columbine shootings and was mediated by inferences of omission. Future directions in collective responsibility research are discussed.