“Groupy” Allies Are More Beneficial While “Groupy” Enemies Are More Harmful

Abstract

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.

Consequences of perceiving organization members as a unified entity: Stronger attraction, but greater blame for member transgressions.

“…Given that more-entitative groups appear more competent, and given that people value competence in business organizations, we predict that people will be attracted to entitative business organizations. Consistent with this prediction, research shows that people react positively to entitativity in some types of social groups (Dang & Liu, 2020;Dang, Liu, Ren, & Gu, 2018). For example, people rate ally nations (Castano, Sacchi, et al, 2003), their own ingroups (Castano, Yzerbyt, et al, 2003), and even trash-collecting robots (Fraune et al, 2020) more positively when they perceive these groups as more entitative.…”

“…Entitativity scholars call these behaviors group-member interactivity (Blanchard et al, 2020; Brewer et al, 2004; Dang & Liu, 2020; Ip et al, 2006). In line with the theoretical argument that interactivity and entitativity are inextricably linked (Crump et al, 2010; Denson et al, 2006; Gaertner & Schopler, 1998; Lickel et al, 2003), empirical work tends to operationalize entitativity by measuring and manipulating perceptions of members’ interactivity (e.g., Crump et al, 2010; Dang, Liu, Ren, & Gu, 2018; Denson et al, 2006; Effron & Knowles, 2015; Effron et al, 2018; Newheiser et al, 2012; Spencer-Rodgers et al, 2007). In short, interactivity is the glue that cognitively transforms multiple individuals into a “real group” in people’s minds.…”

“…Entitativity is theoretically distinct from several familiar organizational constructs. Although it is a component of an organization’s image, entitativity differs conceptually from core aspects of image that prior work has examined, such as legitimacy, trustworthiness, and correctness (Elsbach, 2006) because entitativity is neither inherently positive nor negative (Abelson et al, 1998; Dang, Liu, Ren, & Gu, 2018). Entitativity is also different from reputation—the public’s affective evaluation of a firm relative to other firms (Fombrun & Shanley, 1990)—because the members of reputable and disreputable firms alike can be perceived as a unified entity (see Dang, Liu, Ren, & Gu, 2018).…”

How to be “groupy” matters: Groups with shared traits and shared goals engender distinct patterns of social judgments

“…Specifically, some researchers have found a polarization effect (Castano, Sacchi, & Gries, 2003;Wang et al, 2016;Yzerbyt et al, 1998), while others have demonstrated a positivity effect (Callahan & Ledgerwood, 2016;Fessler & Holbrook, 2016). By differentiating the dimensions of group judgments, Dang, Liu, Ren, and Gu (2018) and Dang, Liu, Ren, and Su (2018) partially explain the inconsistent results: entitativity exerts a polarization effect on warmth judgments and a positivity effect on competence judgments. We argue that a common limitation of previous literature is that they view entitativity as an umbrella concept, although they manipulate entitativity with different group properties.…”

“…On the one hand, given the fact that agentic groups have clear motives and goals and that agency implies purpose and intentionality (Hamilton, 2007), groups with high levels of internal interaction and joint action are seen as more deliberate and intentional (Elliott et al, 2016;Keller et al, 2014;Morris et al, 2001). Furthermore, as intent can be divided into positive and negative, high intentionality produces a polarization of judgments about groups on intentrelated traits (Dang, Liu, Ren, & Gu, 2018). In other words, high entitativity groups with positive intents would be viewed as having stronger positive intents and perceived as warmer, while those with negative intents would be viewed as having stronger negative intents and perceived as colder.…”