Perceiving persons and groups.

Abstract

This article analyzes the similarities and differences in forming impressions of individuals and in developing conceptions of groups. In both cases, the perceiver develops a mental conception of the target (individual or group) on the basis of available information and uses that information to make judgments about that person or group. However, a review of existing evidence reveals differences in the outcomes of impressions formed of individual and group targets, even when those impressions are based on the very same behavioral information. A model is proposed to account for these differences. The model emphasizes the role of differing expectancies of unity and coherence in individual and group targets, which in turn engage different mechanisms for processing information and making judgments. Implications of the model are discussed.

Sowing the seeds of stereotypes: Spontaneous inferences about groups.

“…Past research has documented that differences in perceived group entitativity can influence numerous downstream outcomes. In particular, if high-entitativity groups are perceived as more like individual targets (Hamilton & Sherman, 1996;Hamilton et al, 2014), then participants should make more false recognitions for high-than for low-entitativity groups. Alternatively, if STIGs, like STIs, are made spontaneously as a part of comprehending behavior, they may occur for all groups, regardless of entitativity.…”

“…It seemed quite plausible that perceivers would be more likely to make spontaneous inferences about some groups than about others, and the accumulated literature on entitativity suggested this variable as a likely candidate for identifying groups for which STIGs would be more or less likely. Specifically, if perceivers process information about highly entitative groups in a manner similar to the way they process information about individual persons (Hamilton & Sherman, 1996;McConnell et al, 1994McConnell et al, , 1997, then it is reasonable to assume that STIGs would be more likely to be made for high-than for low-entitativity groups. Our results, however, do not lend support to this expectation.…”

“…If they make inferences about individuals with greater frequency, it could, in turn, result in STIs becoming a more routinized process than that of making STIGs. Second, Hamilton and Sherman (1996) reviewed a considerable amount of evidence showing differences in the outcomes of information processing and impressions formed of individual and group targets, even when targets are presented the same information and task instructions. Hamilton and Sherman proposed that there are some fundamental differences in the way information about individual versus group targets is processed.…”

Scope insensitivity in helping decisions: Is it a matter of culture and values?

“…Hamilton & Sherman, 1996;Susskind et al 1999). While these cognitive studies show that people perceive single individuals as a more psychologically coherent units than groups, it may be that collectivists' perceptions of groups (especially small groups, belonging to their own nationality and ethnicity) are more coherent, leading to greater confidence when making judgments and decisions about groups; which may in turn increase their helping behavior.…”

Perceiving individuals and groups: Expectancies, dispositional inferences, and causal attributions.

“…These separate lines of research may imply that the processes underlying the formation of impressions of individuals and of groups are fundamentally distinct. Moreover, several studies comparing information processing for individual and group targets have shown differences in how information about these targets is processed (see Hamilton & Sherman, 1996, for a review). However, given that impression formation in both cases is based on how people learn, integrate, and use information they acquire about others, the distinction between these areas of research may be more artificial than real.…”