The Perception of the Other in International Relations: Evidence for the Polarizing Effect of Entitativity

Castano, Emanuele; Sacchi, Simona; Gries, Peter Hays

doi:10.1111/0162-895x.00336

Cited by 70 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 43 publications

(43 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In this view, entitativity induces a polarization effect in group judgments, such that positively-valued groups will be evaluated more favorably, and negatively-valued groups will be judged less favorably, than will positive and negative groups perceived as possessing lesser amounts of entitativity. The positive or negative value of the target group might be based on prior beliefs and expectations (as in Castano, Sacchi et al, 2003) or on the valence of the information acquired about the group and its members (as in the present study). This polarization effect was tested in Study 3 by manipulating the valence of the behavioral information describing high and low entitativity groups and by assessing participants' impressions of the groups on a series of trait scales.…”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 90%

Group entitativity and similarity: Their differing patterns in perceptions of groups

Crump

Hamilton

Sherman

et al. 2010

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three studies were conducted to investigate the relation between perceptions of group entitativity and group similarity. The first two studies tested whether entitativity and similarity would be perceived differently in participants' ingroups and outgroups. Across several different group types, we found that, in comparison to outgroups, ingroups were perceived to be relatively more entitative than outgroups, whereas outgroup members were perceived to be highly similar in comparison to ingroup members. The results of Study 3 showed that manipulation of group entitativity influenced perceptions of group entitativity but not of group similarity, whereas manipulation of similarity influenced perceptions of group similarity but not of group entitativity. The results of these studies provide support for the contention that entitativity and similarity are distinct (though related) concepts that function differently in group perception.

show abstract

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 90%

Group entitativity and similarity: Their differing patterns in perceptions of groups

Crump

Hamilton

Sherman

et al. 2010

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, Castano, Sacchi, and Gries (2003) showed that when individuals consider their outgroup to be an enemy, they are more likely to perceive it to be homogeneous and to recognise it as threatening. This vicious circle, between feeling threatened by an outgroup and perceiving it as homogeneous, may plausibly contribute to increasing the radicalism of local T. Mannarini and M. Roccato 18 protests.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Uses of the term NIMBY in the Italian press, 1992–2008

Mannarini

Roccato

2011

Environmental Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Uses of the term NIMBY ('not in my back yard') were analysed in the three main Italian newspapers between 1992 and 2008. In Study 1, a content analysis of 231 articles containing the term NIMBY showed two main views of the issues raised: one, aligned with the conventional view, according to which protesters are mainly driven by parochialism, emotionalism and ignorance, and the other consistent with the most innovative literature on this issue, which presents NIMBY conflicts as struggles for justice and democracy. Study 2, which adopted the discursive psychology perspective on the articles characterised by the co-occurrence of the words 'NIMBY' term and 'protest', confirmed those results. Overall, there are multiple and diverse portrayals of NIMBY conflicts in the Italian press; the idea that the press supports traditional views of such conflicts, is, in part, unfounded.Key words: NIMBY; LULU; protest; mass media; bias;T. Mannarini and M. Roccato 2 Two main approaches to describing the opposition of local communities to the siting of unwanted facilities in their locality exist among scholars, in the mass media and in public opinion (Freudenberg & Pastor, 1992). Based on Roccato, Rovere, and Bo (2008), we label them "technocratic" and "participatory".The technocratic approach tends to view such oppositions negatively, labelling them NIMBY -"not in my back yard" (Beckmann, 1973), and charging them with: ignorance about the facilities' technical features; irrationality and emotive reactions leading to anti-modern positions; and parochialism among people who refuse the building of the facilities in their locality because they are blinded by self-interest and lack a civic sense (Freudenberg & Pastor, 1992). Sometimes, these protesters are even charged with anti-democratically paralysing public policies and of being based on a "culture of veto" that brings BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone) positions. Although research has disconfirmed such postulates (e.g., della Porta & Piazza, 2007;McAvoy, 1998;Wolsink, 2000), the technocratic approach is still widely taken in the scientific debate and in the mass media. 1According to the participatory approach, democracy and environmental and distributive justice are at stake in NIMBY conflicts (Carruthers, 2007). On the one hand, as concerns democracy, such conflicts are considered to be consequences of denial of the right of local citizens to participate in the decision-making process that leads to the siting of the unwanted facility in their locality (Gould, 1996;Rootes, 2007). In this light, such local protests are environmental movements structured on dense inter-organisational networks and shared collective identities (Diani & Rambaldo, 2007); furthermore, these protests stem from a democratic dilemma between representative and direct democracy and may help develop new conceptions of pluralism that are qualitatively distinct from the liberal pluralist model (Schlosberg, 2002). On the other hand, NIMBY conflicts stem from the attempt of human popu...

show abstract

“…In addition, they can seem more likely to perform negative, threatening behaviors towards those outside the The function of group symbols 6 group (Abelson, Dasgupta, Park, & Banaji, 1998;Dasgupta, Banaji, & Abelson, 1999) and they are more likely to be seen as having harmful intentions (Castano, Sacchi, & Gries, 2003). In short, perceived entitativity has important downstream effects on group perception.…”

Section: Linking Entitativity and Symbolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

The Perception of the Other in International Relations: Evidence for the Polarizing Effect of Entitativity

Cited by 70 publications

References 43 publications

Group entitativity and similarity: Their differing patterns in perceptions of groups

Group entitativity and similarity: Their differing patterns in perceptions of groups

Uses of the term NIMBY in the Italian press, 1992–2008

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About