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

Abstract

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 Suicide Stigma and Associated Factors in Chinese College Students: Translation and Validation of the Stigma of Suicide Attempt Scale and the Stigma of Suicide and Suicide Survivors Scale

“…Consistent with past studies on entitativity and intergroup bias [53][54][55], in the present study we found that higher scores in students' entitativity ratings of suicide decedents and survivors were associated with greater public suicide stigma, but not with perceived suicide stigma. The effect of entitativity may relate to personality and contextual factors, such as the need for cognitive closure [46], essentialist beliefs [47], and intergroup conflicts.…”

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

“…These findings suggest that the impact of these factors on ingroup bias is not independent and that some shared variance between the two might be responsible for the mediation. This idea is consistent with the notion that ingroup bias follows from ingroup dynamics (Brewer, 1979(Brewer, , 1999Gaertner & Schopler, 1998). However, the present finding might be due to the fact that our manipulation was a distal one and may not apply to other contexts in which more proximal manipulations of entitativity (e.g., similarity or common fate) are used.…”

The Impact of Group Entitativity on Negative Outcome Allocations

“……”