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 ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Denson, T. F.
Right arrow Articles by Ames, D. R.
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. 9, No. 1, 43-61 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/1368430206059857
© 2006 SAGE Publications

The Roles of Entitativity and Essentiality in Judgments of Collective Responsibility

Thomas F. Denson

Brian Lickel

Mathew Curtis

Douglas M. Stenstrom

University of Southern California

Daniel R. Ames

Columbia University

Two studies investigated the roles of entitativity and essentiality in judgments of collective responsibility. Analyses focused on four group types (i.e. intimacy groups, task groups, social categories, and loose associations). Repeated measures analyses revealed that intimacy groups and task groups were rated highest in entitativity while intimacy groups and social categories were rated highest in essentiality. Correlational analyses revealed that entitativity played a more central role in judgments of collective responsibility for all four group types. However, tests of interaction effects revealed that essentiality moderated the effect of entitativity on blame judgments. Implications of the role of collective responsibility in intergroup relations are discussed.

Key Words: collective responsibility • entitativity • essentialism • lay theories • intergroup relations

References

  • Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
  • Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Oxford, UK: Addison-Wesley .
  • Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure . Scientific American, 193, 31–35 .[ISI]
  • Atran, S. (1994). Core domains versus scientific theories: Evidence from systematics and Itza-Maya folkbiology. In L. A. Hirschfeld & S. A. Gelman (Eds.), Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture(pp. 316–340). New York: Cambridge University Press .
  • Bauer, D. J., & Curran, P. J. (in press). Probing interactions in fixed and multilevel regression: Inferential and graphical techniques. Multivariate Behavioral Research.
  • Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this ‘we’? Levels of collective identity and self-representations . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83–93 .[CrossRef]
  • Bryk, A. S., Congdon, R., Cheong, Y. F., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2000). HLM 5: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International .
  • Campbell, D. T. (1958). Common fate, similarity, and other indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities . Behavioral Science, 3, 14–25 .
  • Castano, E., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (1998). The highs and lows of group homogeneity . Behavioural Processes, 42, 219–238 .[CrossRef]
  • Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1992). The effects of intentionality and validation on individual and collective responsibility attribution among Hong Kong Chinese . Journal of Psychology, 126, 291–300 .
  • Chiu, C., Dweck, C. S., Tong, J. Y., & Fu, J. H. (1997). Implicit theories and conceptions of morality . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 923–940 .[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Cialdini, R. B. (2000). Influence: Science and practice (4th ed.) Boston: Allyn & Bacon .
  • Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlational analysis for the behavioral sciences(2nd ed.) New York: Erlbaum .
  • Doojse, B., Branscombe, N. R., Spears, R., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1998). Guilty by association: When one's group has a negative history . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 872–886 .[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their roles in judgments and reactions: A world from two perspectives . Psychological Inquiry, 6, 267–285 .[CrossRef]
  • Fiske, A. P. (1991). Structures of social life. New York: Free Press .
  • 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]
  • Hamilton, V. L. (1978). Who is responsible? Toward a social psychology of responsibility attribution . Social Psychology, 41, 316–328 .[CrossRef]
  • Hamilton, D. L., Sherman, S. J., & Rodgers, J. S. (2004). Perceiving the groupness of groups: Entitativity, homogeneity, essentialism, and stereotypes. In V. Yzerbyt, C. M. Judd, & O. Corneille (Eds.), The psychology of group perception: Perceived variability, entitativity, and essentialism. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press .
  • Haslam, N., Rothschild, L., & Ernst, D. (2000). Essentialist beliefs about social categories . British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 113–127 .
  • Haslam, N., Rothschild, L., & Ernst, D. (2002). Are essentialist beliefs associated with prejudice? British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 87–100 .[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Hirschfeld, L. A. (1995). Do children have a theory of race? Cognition, 54, 209–252 .[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Hirschfeld, L. A., & Gelman, S. A. (1997). What young children think about the relation between language variation and social difference . Cognitive Development, 12, 231–238 .
  • Hong, Y., Levy, S. R., & Chiu, C. (2001). The contribution of the lay theories approach to the study of groups . Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 98–106 .
  • Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion: Psychological studies of opinion change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press .
  • Iyer, A., Schmader, T., & Lickel, B. (2005). Predicting American and British opposition to the occupation of Iraq: The role of group-based anger, shame, and guilt. Unpublished manuscript.
  • Janis, I. L. (1971, November). Groupthink. Psychology Today,pp. 43–46.
  • Knowles, E. S. (1976). Group size and the extension of social space boundaries . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 647–654 .[CrossRef]
  • Lickel, B., Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, S. J. (2001). Elements of a lay theory of groups: Types of groups, relational styles, and the perception of group entitativity . Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 129–140 .
  • Lickel, B., Hamilton, D. L., Wieczorkowska, G., Lewis A., Sherman, S. J., & Uhles, N. (2000). Varieties of groups and the perception of group entitativity . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 223–246 .[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Lickel, B., Rutchick, A., Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, S. J. (in press). Intuitive theories of group types and relational principles . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.
  • Lickel, B., Schmader, T., Curtis, M, Scarnier, M., & Ames, D. R. (2005) Vicarious shame and guilt . Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 8, 145–157 .[Abstract]
  • Lickel, B., Schmader, T., and Hamilton, D. L. (2003). A case of collective responsibility: Who else was to blame for the Columbine High School shootings? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 194–204 .[Abstract]
  • Mahalingam, R. (1999). Essentialism, power, and representation of caste: A developmental study . Dissertation Abstracts International, 60, 856-856 .
  • Malt, B. C. (1995). Category coherence in cross-cultural perspective . Cognitive Psychology, 29, 85–148 .
  • McConnell, A. R., Sherman, S. J., & Hamilton, D. L. (1997). Target entitativity: Implications for information processing about individual and group targets . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 750–762 .[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • McGarty, C., Haslam, S. A., Hutchinson, K. J., & Grace, D. M. (1995). Determinants of perceived consistency: The relationship between group entitativity and the meaningfulness of categories . British Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 237–256 .
  • Medin, D. L. (1989). Concepts and conceptual structure . American Psychologist, 44, 1469–1481 .[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority. New York: Harper and Row .
  • Moreland, R. L., & McMinn, J. G. (2004). Entitativity and social integration: Managing beliefs about the reality of groups. In V. Yzerbyt, C. M. Judd, & O. Corneille (Eds.), The psychology of group perception: Perceived variability, entitativity, and essentialism. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press .
  • Moscovici, S., & Zavalloni, M. (1969). The group as a polarizer of attitudes . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12, 125–135 .[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Plaks, J. E., Levy, S. R., Dweck, C. S., & Stroessner, S. J. (2004). In the eye of the beholder: Lay theories and the perception of group entitativity, variability, and essence. In V. Yzerbyt, C. M. Judd, & O. Corneille (Eds.), The psychology of group perception: Perceived variability, entitativity, and essentialism. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press .
  • Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2001). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
  • Robertson, P. (2004). Hell: Salon's war correspondent on the Iraq inferno. Salon Magazine, September 23.
  • Rothbart, M., & Taylor, M. (1992). Category labels and social reality: Do we view social categories as natural kinds? In K. Fiedler & G. R. Semin (Eds.), Language, interaction, and social cognition (pp. 11–36), Newbury Park, CA: Sage .
  • Rothschild, L., & Haslam, N. (2003). Thirsty for H-sub-20? Multiple essences and psychological essentialism . New Ideas in Psychology, 21, 31–41 .[CrossRef]
  • Ruotsila, M. (2000). Lord Sydenham of Combe's world Jewish conspiracy . Patterns of Prejudice, 34, 47–64 .
  • Sanders, J., Hamilton, V. L., Denisovsky, G., Kato, N., Kawai, M., Kozyreva, P., et al. (1996). Distributing responsibility for wrongdoing inside corporate hierarchies: Public judgments in three societies . Law and Social Inquiry, 21, 815–855 .
  • Sherif, M. (1966). The psychology of social norms. Oxford, UK: Harper Torchbooks .
  • Sherman, S. J., Castelli, L, & Hamilton, D. L. (2002). The spontaneous use of a group typology as an organizing principle in memory . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 328–342 .[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Shultz, T. R., Jaggi, C., & Schleifer, M. (1987). Assigning vicarious responsibility . European Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 377–380 .
  • Taylor, M. (1996). The development of children's beliefs about social and biological aspects of gender differences . Child Development, 67, 1555–1571 .[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Welbourne, J. L. (1999). The impact of perceived entitativity on inconsistency resolution for groups and individuals . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 481–508 .[CrossRef]
  • Yzerbyt, V., Corneille, O., & Estrada, C. (2001). The interplay of subjective essentialism and entitativity in the formation of stereotypes . Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 141–155 .
  • Yzerbyt, V., & Rocher, S. (2002). Subjective essentialism and the emergence of stereotypes. In C. McGarty & V. Y. Yzerbyt (Eds.), Stereotypes as explanations: The formation of meaningful beliefs about social groups(pp. 38–66), New York: Cambridge University Press .
  • Yzerbyt, V., Rocher, S., & Schadron, G. (1997). Stereotypes as explanations: A subjective essentialistic view of group perception. In R. Spears, & P. J. Oakes (Eds.), The social psychology of stereotyping and group life(pp. 20–50). Malden, MA: Blackwell .

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 ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Denson, T. F.
Right arrow Articles by Ames, D. R.
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?