This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Pilialoha, B. R. U. Articles by Brewer, M. B. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Motivated Entitativity: Applying Balance Theory to Group Perception

Marilynn B. Brewer

The Ohio State University

The focus of the current work is on the motivated aspects of entitativity using the perspective gained from theories of cognitive consistency. The central hypothesis is that balance principles will motivate perceivers to partition the social world in such a way as to achieve a state of consistency between social units and attributed acts. Three studies are reported: one employing content analytic methods to investigate motivated perceptions of the US Supreme Court in the context of the 2000 presidential election, and two laboratory experiments. Results generally supported the prediction that agreement with a court's decision would lead to perceiving the court as an entitative unit, whereas disagreement would lead to ‘de-entifying' the court by differentiating individual members or subgroups. Alternative explanations and implications of these findings for motivated cognition are discussed.

Key Words: balance theory • entitativity • motivation

References

• Abelson, R. P. (1959). Modes of resolution of belief dilemmas . Journal of Conflict Resolution, 3, 343–352 .
• Abelson, R. P., Aronson, E., McGuire, W. J., Newcomb, T. M., Rosenberg, M. J., Tannenbaum, P. H. (Eds.) (1968). Theories of cognitive consistency: A sourcebook. Chicago: Rand McNally .
• Brewer, M. B., Hong, Y-y., & Li, Q. (2004). Dynamic entitativity: Perceiving groups as actors. In V. Yzerbyt, C. Judd, & O. Corneille (Eds.), The psychology of group perception: Perceived variability, entitativity, and essentialism(pp. 25–38). Philadelphia: Psychology Press .
• Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).
• 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 .
• Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. (1968). Group dynamics: Research and theory (3rd ed.). New York: Harper & Row .
• Castano, E., Yzerbyt, V., Paladino, M., & Sacchi, S. (2002). I belong, therefore, I exist: Ingroup identification, ingroup entitativity, and ingroup bias . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 135–143 .[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• de Spinoza, B. (1677/2002). Ethics. In M. L. Morgan (Ed.), Spinoza: Complete works(S. Shirley, Trans.). Indianapolis, IN: Hacket .
• Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Rust, M. C., Nier, J. A., Banker, B. S., Ward, C. M. et al. (1999). Reducing intergroup bias: Elements of intergroup cooperation . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 388–402 .[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Garcia-Marques, T., & Mackie, D. M. (2000). The positive feeling of familiarity: Mood as an information processing regulation mechanism. In H.Bless, J. P. Forgas, (Eds.), The message within: The role of subjective experience in social cognition and behavior(pp. 240–261). New York: Psychology Press .
• Greenwald, A. G., Banaji, M. R., Rudman, L. A., Farnham, S. D., Nosek, B. A., & Rosier, M. (2000). Prologue to a unified theory of attitudes, stereotypes, and self-concept. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Feeling and thinking: The role of affect in social cognition(pp. 308–330). New York: Cambridge University Press .
• Greenwald, A. G., Banaji, M. R., Rudman, L. A., Farnham, S. D., Nosek, B. A., & Mellott, D. S. (2002). A unified theory of implicit attitudes, stereotypes, self-esteem, and self-concept . Psychological Review, 109, 3–25 .[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. 47–73). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum .
• Harvey, J. H., Ickes, W., & Kidd R. F. (1976). A conversation with Fritz Heider. In J. H. Harvey, W. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd, (Eds.), New directions in attribution research(Vol. 1, pp. 3–21). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum .
• Heider, F. (1946). Attitudes and cognitive organization . Journal of Psychology, 21, 107–112 .
• Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley .
• Heider, F. (1979). On balance and attribution. In P. W. Holland & S. Leinhardt (Eds.), Perspectives on social network research(pp. 11–23). New York: Academic Press .
• Hogg, M. A. (1992). The Social Psychology of Group Cohesiveness: From Attraction to Social Identity. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf .
• Insko, C. A. (1984). Balance theory, the Jordan paradigm, and the Wiest tetrahedron. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology(Vol. 18, pp. 89–141). New York: Academic Press . Johnson v. Texas, 509 U.S. 350 (1993).
• Jones, E. E. (1998). Major developments in five decades of social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey, (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology(4th ed., Vol 1, pp. 3–57). New York: McGraw-Hill .
• Kelman, H. C., & Baron, R. M. (1968). Determinants and modes of resolving inconsistency dilemmas: A functional analysis. In R. P. Abelson, E. Aronson, W. J. McGuire, T. M. Newcomb, M. J. Rosenberg, & P. H. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Theories of cognitive consistency: A sourcebook(pp. 670–683). Chicago: Rand McNally .
• Koffka, K. (1935). Principles of gestalt psychology. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World .
• Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning . Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480–498 .[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Lickel, B., Hamilton, D. L., Wieczorkowska, G., Lewis, A.Sherman. J., & Uhles, A. N. (2000). Varieties of groups and the perception of group entitativity . ournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 223–246 .
• Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press .
• Newcomb, T. M. (1953). An approach to the study of communicative acts . Psychological Review, 60, 393–404 .[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Sears, D. O. (1983). The person positivity bias . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 233–250 .[CrossRef]
• Tyler, T. R., & Mitchell, G. (1994). Legitimacy and the empowerment of discretionary legal authority . Duke Law Journal, 43, 703–814 .[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Wertheimer, M. (1923). Untersuchengen zur Lehre von der Gestalt. II. Psychologie Forschung, 4, 301–350 (as cited in Campbell, 1958).

CiteULike

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Pilialoha, B. R. U. Articles by Brewer, M. B. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?