Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rubini, M.
Right arrow Articles by Palmonari, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, Vol. 10, No. 2, 280-296 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/1368430207075156
© 2007 SAGE Publications

Increasing Group Entitativity

Linguistic Intergroup Discrimination in the Minimal Group Paradigm

Monica Rubini

University of Bologna, mrubini{at}scform.unibo.it

Silvia Moscatelli

University of Bologna

Augusto Palmonari

University of Bologna

Previous research has shown the strength of the linguistic intergroup bias across different intergroup settings. However, there is no evidence of linguistic discrimination within minimal groups. This experiment aimed to shed light on the phenomenon of linguistic intergroup discrimination in a minimal group setting, and to investigate the impact of group entitativity on this bias. Four group entitativity conditions were created by altering the mere categorization condition toward less entitativity and toward more entitativity. Participants were asked to describe the choice allegedly made by another participant in allocating resources to ingroup and outgroup members. Results showed an overall linguistic bias, whereby ingroup behaviors were described more positively and abstractly than outgroup behaviors. Increasing group entitativity resulted in increasingly biased outgroup descriptions, which in the most entitative condition revealed a predominant use of negative abstract terms.

Key Words: group entitativity • linguistic discrimination • minimal groups

References

  • Billig, M., & Tajfel, H. (1973). Social categorization and similarity in intergroup behavior . European Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 27—52 .[ISI]
  • Blanz, M., Mummendey, A., & Otten, S. (1997). Normative evaluations and frequency expectations regarding positive versus negative outcome allocations between groups . European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 165—176 .[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Brewer, M.B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive—motivational analysis . Psychological Bulletin, 17, 475—482 .
  • Brewer, M.B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55, 429—444 .[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Brewer, M.B., & Harasty, A.S. (1996). Seeing groups as entities: The role of perceiver motivation. In E. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Vol. 3. The interpersonal context (pp. 347—370). New York: Guilford .
  • Campbell, D.T. (1958). Common fate, similarity and other indexes of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities . Behavioral Science, 3, 14—25 .[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Cartwright, D.S., & Zander, A. (1968). Group dynamics (3rd ed.) London : Tavistock .
  • Castano, E. (2004). On the advantages of reifying the ingroup. In V. Yzerbyt, C. M. Judd, & O. Corneille (Eds.), The psychology of group perception: Perceived variability, entitativity, and essentialism (pp. 381—400). New York : Psychology Press .
  • Castano, E., Brewer, M.B., & MacDonald, K. (2000). How badly off we are! Negative common fate, entitativity and identification with the ingroup. Unpublished manuscript.
  • Castano, E., Yzerbyt, V., & Bourguignon, D. (2003). We are one and I like it: The impact of ingroup entitativity on ingroup identification . European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 735—754 .[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Diehl, M. (1990) The minimal group paradigm: Theoretical explanations and empirical findings . European Review of Social Psychology , 1, 263—292 .
  • Franco, F.M., & Maass, A. (1996). Implicit vs. explicit strategies of out-group discrimination: The role of intentional control in biased language use and reward allocation . Journal of Language and Social Psychology , 15, 335—359 .[ISI]
  • Franco, F.M., & Maass, A. (1999). Intentional control over prejudice: When the choice of the measure matters . European Journal of Social Psychology , 29, 469—477 .[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Gaertner, L., & Schopler, J. (1998). Perceived ingroup entitativity and intergroup bias: An interconnection of self and others . European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 963—980 .[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Gaertner, S.L., Dovidio, J.F., Anastasio, P.A., Bachman, B.A., & Rust, M.C. (1993). The common ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias . European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 1—26 .
  • Gardham, K., & Brown, R.J. (2001). Two forms of intergroup discrimination with positive and negative outcomes: Explaining the positive— negative asymmetry effect . British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 23—34 .[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Hamilton, D.L., Sherman, S.J., & Lickel, B. (1998). Perceiving social groups: The importance of the entitativity continuum. In C. Sedikides, J. Schopler, & C. A. Insko (Eds.), Intergroup cognition and intergroup behavior (pp. 47—74). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum .
  • Horwitz, M., & Rabbie, J.M. (1982). Individuality and membership in the intergroup system. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 241—274). Cambridge , UK: Cambridge University Press .
  • Janis, I. (1968). Group identification under condition of external danger. In D. S. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics. Research and theories (3rd ed.). London : Tavistock .
  • Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts. New York: Harper & Row .
  • Lickel, B., Hamilton, D.L., Lewis, A., Sherman, S.J., Wieczorkowska, G., & Uhles, A.N. (2000). Varieties of group and the perception of group entitativity . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 78, 223—246 .[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Maass, A. (1999). Linguistic intergroup bias: Stereotypes-perpetuation through language . Advances in Experimental Social Psychology , 31, 79—131 .
  • Maass, A., Castelli, L., & Arcuri, L. (2000). Measuring prejudice: Implicit versus explicit techniques. In D. Capozza & R. J. Brown (Eds.), Social identity processes: Trends in theory and research (pp. 96—116). London: Sage .
  • Maass, A., Ceccarelli, R., & Rudin, S. (1996). Linguistic intergroup bias: Evidence for ingroup-protective motivation . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 512—526 .[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Maass, A., Milesi, A., Zabbini, S., & Stahlberg, D. (1995). The linguistic intergroup bias: Differential expectancies or ingroup protection? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 68, 116—126 .[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Maass, A., Salvi, D., Arcuri, L., & Semin, G.R. (1989). Language use in intergroup contexts: The linguistic intergroup bias . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 57, 981—993 .[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Maass, A., & Schaller, M. (1991). Intergroup bias and the cognitive dynamics of stereotype formation . European Review of Social Psychology , 2, 189—209 .
  • Mlicki, P.P. (1993). `Us and them'. The effects of categorization and interdependence on identification within, and differentiation between categories and groups. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers .
  • Mummendey, A., Simon, B., Dietze, C., Grunert, M., Haeger, G., Kessler, S. et al. (1992). Categorization is not enough: Intergroup discrimination in negative outcome allocation . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 125—144 .[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Otten, S., & Mummendey, A. (2000). Valence-dependent probability of ingroup favoritism between minimal groups: An integrative view of the positive—negative asymmetry in social discrimination. In D. Capozza & R. J. Brown (Eds.), Social identity processes: Trends in theory and research (pp. 33—49). London: Sage .
  • Otten, S., & Wentura, D. (1999). About the impact of automaticity in the minimal group paradigm: Evidence from affective priming tasks . European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 1049—1071 .[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Perdue, C.W., Dovidio, G.F., Gurtman, M.B., & Tyler, R.B. (1990) ` Us' and `them': Social categorization and the process of intergroup bias . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 475—486 .[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Platow, M.J., O'Connell, A., Shave, R., & Hanning, P. (1995). Social evaluations of fair and unfair allocators in interpersonal and intergroup situations . British Journal of Social Psychology, 3 4 , 363—381 .
  • Rabbie, J.M., & Horwitz, M. (1969). Arousal of ingroup—outgroup bias by a chance of win or loss . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 3, 269—277 .
  • Rabbie, J.M., & Lodewijkx, H.F.M. (1996). A Behavioral Interaction Model: Towards an integrative theoretical framework for studying intra- and intergroup dynamics. In E. Witte & J. H. Davis (Eds.), Understanding group behavior: Vol.2. Small group processes and interpersonal relations (pp. 255—294). New York: Erlbaum .
  • Rabbie, J.M., Schot, J.C., & Visser, L. (1989). Social identity theory: A conceptual and empirical critique from the perspective of a behavioral interaction model . European Journal of Social Psychology, 19, 171—202 .[ISI]
  • Reynolds, K.J., Turner, J.C., & Haslam, S.A. (2000). When are we better than them and they worse than us? A closer look at social discrimination in positive and negative domains . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 64—80 .[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Rubini, M., & Semin, G.R. (1994). Language use in the context of congruent and incongruent ingroup behaviors . British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 355—362 .[ISI]
  • Schacter, S. (1959). The psychology of affiliation. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press .
  • Semin, G.R., & Fiedler, K. (1988). The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing persons: Social cognition and language . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 558—568 .[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Semin, G.R., & Fiedler, K. (1991). The linguistic category model, its bases, applications and range . European Review of Social Psychology, 2, 1—50 .
  • Semin, G.R., & Fiedler, K. (1992). The inferential properties of interpersonal verbs . In G. R. Semin, & K. Fiedler (Eds.). Language, interaction and social cognition (pp. 58—78). Newbury Park, CA: Sage .
  • Tajfel, H., Billig, M.G., Bundy, R.P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behavior . European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149—178 .[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Tajfel, H., & Turner, J.C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33—47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole .
  • Turner, J.C., Hogg, M.A., Turner, P.J., & Smith, P.M. (1985). Failure and defeat as determinants of group cohesiveness . British Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 97—111 .[ISI]
  • Von Hippel, W., Vargas, P.T., & Sekaquaptewa, D., (1997). The linguistic intergroup bias as an implicit indicator of prejudice . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 490—509 .[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Wigboldus, D.H.J., Semin, G.R., & Spears, R. (2000). How do we communicate stereotypes? Linguistic bases and inferential consequences . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 5—18 .[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Wilder, D.A. & Simon, A. (1998). The group as a category and an interactive entity: Implications for social perception and intergroup behavior. In C. Sedikides, J. Schopler, & C. A. Insko (Eds.), Intergroup cognition and intergroup behavior (pp. 27—44). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum .
  • Yzerbyt, V., Castano, E., Leyens, J.P., & Paladino, M.P. (2000). The primacy of the ingroup: The interplay of entitativity and identification . European Review of Social Psychology, 11, 257—295 . Paper received 9 March 2004; revised version accepted 3 June 2005.

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rubini, M.
Right arrow Articles by Palmonari, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?