Birds of a feather and birds flocking together: Physical versus behavioral cues may lead to trait versus goal-based group perception

Ip, Grace Wai-man; Chiu, Chi‐yue

doi:10.1037/e633912013-670

Cited by 35 publications

(81 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As in Study 2 and following previous research (Dasgupta et al, 1999;Ip et al, 2006), in the high similarity condition, the creatures were homogenous in body color, whereas in the low similarity condition, the creatures were heterogeneous in body color.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 68%

“…the groups described in these studies led them to have particular expectations, and that these expectations were violated by the presence of a symbol-which could perhaps in turn change the way people think about the group. Previous entitativity research avoided this issue of prior expectations by having participants evaluate novel alien groups (e.g., Dasgupta et al, 1999;Ip et al, 2006). We therefore adapted this paradigm to use in Study 2.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These examples illustrated that they varied in body shape, color, and whether they have a symbol, as previous research using entirely novel groups suggests that judgments of entitativity may require a comparison standard (Ip et al, 2006).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In particular, some cues influence entitativity by changing perceptions of group homogeneity, whereas others exert their influence by changing perceptions of group cohesion (Brewer et al, 2004;Haslam et al, 2000;Ip et al, 2006). In order to explore the processes underlying the effect of group symbols on entitativity, in Study 3, we manipulated the mere presence of a symbol in the context of a novel group and measured perceived homogeneity, cohesion, and entitativity.…”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

On the psychological function of flags and logos: Group identity symbols increase perceived entitativity.

Callahan¹,

Ledgerwood²

2016

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Group identity symbols such as flags and logos have been widely used across time and cultures, yet researchers know very little about the psychological functions that such symbols can serve. The present research tested the hypotheses that (a) simply having a symbol leads collections of individuals to seem more like real, unified groups, (b) this increased psychological realness leads groups to seem more threatening and effective to others, and (c) group members therefore strategically emphasize symbols when they want their group to appear unified and intimidating. In Studies 1a–1c, participants perceived various task groups as more entitative when they happened to have a symbol. In Study 2, symbols not only helped groups make up for lacking a physical characteristic associated with entitativity (physical similarity), but also led groups to seem more threatening. Study 3 examined the processes underlying this effect and found that group symbols increase entitativity by increasing perceived cohesiveness. Study 4 extended our results to show that symbols not only shape the impressions people form of novel groups, but also change people’s existing impressions of more familiar and real-world social groups, making them seem more entitative and competent but also less warm. Finally, Studies 5a and 5b further expand our understanding of the psychological function of symbols by showing that group members strategically display symbols when they are motivated to convey an impression of their group as unified and threatening (vs. inclusive and cooperative). We discuss implications for understanding how group members navigate their social identities.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 68%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

On the psychological function of flags and logos: Group identity symbols increase perceived entitativity.

Callahan¹,

Ledgerwood²

2016

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2 Subsequent identification research sought to clarify which features of the group or the environment would induce such behavior and what motivates subjects to categorize themselves in terms of the group. Research indicates that group distinctiveness (Brewer, 1991), group prestige (Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 2002), similarity (Ip, Chiu, & Wan, 2006), common fate (Brown & Wade, 1987), interpersonal interaction (Pettigrew, 1998), and group homogeneity (Vanbeselaere, 1991) can all affect the identification of a person with a social group. A contribution of our research is the finding that the strategic nature of the game should be added to the list.…”

Section: Measurement Of Group Identificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards an Understanding of the Endogenous Nature of Group Identification in Games

Smith

Bezrukova

2012

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is commonly assumed that identification with a social group is constant throughout the play of a one-shot game in the absence of feedback. We provide evidence which challenges this assumption. We direct subjects to play one of two versions of the prisoner's dilemma game. These versions are distinguished by the relative attractiveness of the uncooperative action. We refer to the version with a relatively attractive uncooperative action as the Easy Game and the other as the Difficult Game. We find that for the subjects who play the Difficult Game, their change in group identification is significantly related to their action selected. No such relationship exists within the Easy Game. Additionally, we find that the change primarily occurs after the action is selected rather than upon inspection of the game. We discuss the implications of our findings to settings both inside and outside of the laboratory.

show abstract

When peer norms work? Coherent groups facilitate normative influences on cyber aggression

Dang

2020

Aggressive Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Due to the impersonal and anonymous nature of cyberspace, past work underscored the pivotal role of social influence processes in cyberbullying among adolescents. However, there was also evidence revealing the weak influences that some referent groups yield on youth. The current study argues that the strength of normative influences on cyberbullying depends on the properties of the referent groups. In the school context, we examined whether class entitativity-the extent to which a class is a unified and coherent group, rather than a mere aggregation of studentsmoderated the relationship between class norms and cyberbullying. A total of 474 adolescent students responded to measures of descriptive and injunctive class norms about cyberbullying, perceived class entitativity, and cyberbullying. The results indicated that pro-cyberbullying descriptive and injunctive class norms were positively correlated with cyber aggression. Most importantly, higher levels of procyberbullying class norms predicted increases in cyber aggression when students perceived their classes as highly entitative. In contrast, this effect was not significant when students perceived their classes having low entitativity. These findings promote an understanding of how peer norms work and provide an alternative strategy for interventions into cyber aggression in schools.

show abstract

Birds of a feather and birds flocking together: Physical versus behavioral cues may lead to trait versus goal-based group perception

Cited by 35 publications

References 0 publications

On the psychological function of flags and logos: Group identity symbols increase perceived entitativity.

On the psychological function of flags and logos: Group identity symbols increase perceived entitativity.

Towards an Understanding of the Endogenous Nature of Group Identification in Games

When peer norms work? Coherent groups facilitate normative influences on cyber aggression

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About