Uncertainty, entitativity, and group identification

Two studies examined the effects of self-uncertainty and ingroup entitativity on group identification. From uncertainty reduction theory (Hogg, 2000), it was hypothesized that people would identify most strongly with their group if they felt self-conceptually uncertain and the group was highly entitative. Study 1 was a field experiment (N = 114) in which the perceived entitativity of participants’ political party was measured, and self-uncertainty was primed (high vs. low). Study 2 was a laboratory experiment (N = 89) with ad hoc non-interactive groups. Uncertainty was primed as in Study 1, but perceived entitativity was manipulated. In both cases the dependent variable was a multi-item measure of group identification. The hypothesis was fully supported in both studies—participants identified more strongly when they were uncertain and the group was highly entitative. Implications of this research for the role of uncertainty and social identity in extremism, orthodoxy, and ideological belief systems are discussed.     

Self-uncertainty,social identity prominence and group identification

Drawing on uncertainty-identity theory (Hogg, 2007) and referring to the concept of social identity complexity, we conducted two experiments to test the hypothesis that people would identify most strongly with their group if they felt both self-uncertain and that their group's identity was prominent relative to other identities, either because it was distinct from other identities or because they had few other identities. Self-uncertainty was primed in both experiments after participants had been primed to consider their group's attributes to overlap with or be distinct from the attributes of other identities of theirs (Experiment 1, N = 90) or to consider few or multiple other identities they had (Experiment 2, N = 87). As predicted, group identification was strongest under high uncertainty and when identity distinctiveness or few other identities had been primed. Implications of this research for how we conceptualize identity complexity are discussed.     

Group entitativity and group perception: associations between physical features and psychological judgment

Two experiments tested whether the perceived entitativity of groups (i.e., cohesiveness) influences judgments about those groups, in terms of both their observable physical properties and underlying psychological traits. Entitativity was manipulated with groups whose members were similar or dissimilar in skin color. Experiment 1 demonstrated that beliefs about entitativity elicited more accurate judgments of skin color for entitative than nonentitative social groups, although memory for individual members of entitative groups was relatively impoverished. Experiment 2 revealed that entitative groups were viewed as not only physically similar but also psychologically homogeneous and elicited strong negative trait and behavioral judgments. Together, these findings suggest that physical properties (e.g., similarity) can create perceptions of psychological "groupness" that have important consequences for group perception.     

Social identity complexity and immigrants' attitude toward the host nation: the intersection of ethnic and religious group identification

Social identity complexity refers to individual differences in the interrelationships among multiple ingroup identities. The present research conducted in the Netherlands examines social identity complexity in relation to Muslim immigrants' national identification and the attitude toward the host majority. Three studies are reported that focused on the interrelationship between ethnicity and religion and examined social identity complexity in different ways. Study 1 showed that lower social identity complexity is associated with lower national identification. Studies 2 and 3 examined the interaction between ethnic and religious group identification. For Muslim identifiers, higher ethnic identification was related to lower national identification and higher ingroup bias (Studies 2) and lower endorsement of national liberal practices (Study 3). In contrast, for those who did not strongly identify with Muslims, higher ethnic identification was associated with higher national identification, stronger endorsement of Dutch liberal practices, and more positive stereotypes about the Dutch outgroup (Study 3).     

The fundamentality of group principles and perceived group entitativity

We argue that the level of consensus about a set of social identity principles, and their perceived fundamentality, can influence the degree to which members perceive their group as an entity. This idea was explored through an experiment in which participants judged the entitativity of specific (in)groups on the basis of the distribution of the opinions held by their members about three identity-related principles that participants had previously rated for fundamentality. The results demonstrated that the more fundamental a principle was judged to be in comparison to other principles, the more important consensus about that principle was for producing group entitativity, relative to consensus about other principles.     

Perceived entitativity,stereotype formation,and the interchangeability of group members

The authors investigated the effects of perceived entitativity of a group on the processing of behavioral information about individual group members and the extent to which such information was transferred to other group members. The results of 3 experiments using a savings-in-relearning paradigm showed that trait inferences about a group member, based on that member's behavior, were stronger for low entitative groups and for collections of individuals. However, the transference of traits from 1 group member to other members of the group was stronger for high entitative groups. These results provide strong evidence that the perception of high entitativity involves the abstraction of a stereotype of the group and the transfer of that stereotype across all group members. Implications for group impression formation and stereotyping are discussed.     

Varieties of groups and the perception of group entitativity

Three studies examined perceptions of the entitativity of groups. In Study 1 (U.S.) and Study 2 (Poland), participants rated a sample of 40 groups on 8 properties of groups (e.g., size, duration, group member similarity) and perceived entitativity. Participants also completed a sorting task in which they sorted the groups according to their subjective perceptions of group similarity. Correlational and regression analyses were used to determine the group properties most strongly related to entitativity. Clustering and multidimensional scaling analyses in both studies identified 4 general types of groups (intimacy groups, task groups, social categories, and loose associations). In Study 3, participants rated the properties of groups to which they personally belonged. Study 3 replicated the results of Studies 1 and 2 and demonstrated that participants most strongly valued membership in groups that were perceived as high in entitativity.     

Implicit theories about groups and stereotyping: the role of group entitativity

The consequences of holding an entity (i.e., the belief that a group's characteristics are fixed) or incremental (i.e., the belief that a group's characteristics are malleable) implicit theory about groups was examined for stereotyping and perceptions of group entitativity. Two studies showed that implicit theories about groups affect stereotyping by changing perceptions of group entitativity. Study 1 found that entity theorists were more likely to stereotype than incremental theorists and that perception of group entitativity significantly accounted for this relation. In Study 2, implicit theories of groups were manipulated via instruction set and entity theorists stereotyped more and perceived groups as more entitative than incremental theorists. Again, the effect of implicit theory was significantly, although partially, mediated by perceptions of group entitativity. The roles of implicit theories about groups and perceptions of group entitativity are discussed regarding stereotyping.     

Perceptions of entitativity and attitude change

The current work explored the properties of groups that lead them to be persuasive and the processes through which such persuasion occurs. Because more entitative groups induce greater levels of information processing, their arguments should receive greater elaboration, leading to persuasion when members of groups present strong (vs. weak) counter attitudinal arguments. Experiment 1 explored these hypotheses by examining if idiosyncratic perceptions of group entitativity and manipulations of argument strength affect attitude change and argument elaboration. Experiment 2 experimentally manipulated group entitativity and argument strength independently to examine the causal relationship between entitativity, attitude change, and argument elaboration. In both experiments, it was found that groups greater in entitativity were more persuasive when presenting strong (vs. weak) arguments and induced greater argument elaboration. Implications for our understanding of entitativity, persuasion, and information processing about social groups are discussed.     

Benefits of membership: the activation and amplification of group identities in response to social rejection

Groups vary in the range of benefits they provide to members, but one potential benefit of membership is a confirmation of individuals' sense of belonging to a larger social whole. The current studies present an exploration of this potential benefit by examining the activation and amplification of group identities and memberships following rejection. Results demonstrate that rejected participants exhibited heightened activation of group constructs, social identities, and idiosyncratic group memberships (Studies 1 and 2) and judged their own groups to be more entitative (meaningful and cohesive) than other groups (Study 3) as compared to controls. Moreover, heightened activation of group constructs and entitative group memberships after rejection was associated with higher self-esteem (Studies 1 and 2) and more positive mood (Study 4). The potential use of group identity activation and amplification as an indirect belonging regulation strategy is discussed within the context of a broader belonging regulation model.     

From uncertain boundaries to uncertain identity: Effects of entitativity threat on identity–uncertainty and emigration

When people feel uncertain about their national identity, they may want to emigrate from their nation. This uncertainty can arise when people are exposed to an alternative historical narrative about their own national (ingroup) origins promoted by a neighboring nation (outgroup). Drawing on uncertainty–identity theory we propose that the conditions that promote this process would include when: (a) a revised history threatens the entitativity of national identity, (b) people identify strongly with their nation, (c) a neighboring nation is numerically large enough to transform its own view into a new shared reality, and (d) a new interpretation of history is considered credible. We conducted an experiment in the context of historical disputes between China (outgroup) and Korea (ingroup) (N = 160). We measured Korean identification and manipulated a type of identity threat (valence threat vs. entitativity threat), relative group size (not salient vs. salient), and source credibility (low vs. high). Then, we measured identity–uncertainty and emigration as dependent variables. As predicted, hierarchical regression analyses yielded a significant four‐way interaction on identity–uncertainty. Simple slopes analyses revealed that entitativity (vs. valence) threat significantly increased identity–uncertainty among high identifiers when the outgroup's relative size was salient and its view was credible. Further, the elevated identity–uncertainty strengthened intentions to emigrate from the ingroup. Implications for intergroup communications and identity validation are discussed.     

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

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. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Culture and group perception: dispositional and stereotypic inferences about novel and national groups

In 3 studies, the authors tested the hypothesis that Chinese participants would view social groups as more entitative than would Americans and, as a result, would be more likely to infer personality traits on the basis of group membership--that is, to stereotype. In Study 1, Chinese participants made stronger stereotypic trait inferences than Americans did on the basis of a target's membership in a fictitious group. Studies 2 and 3 showed that Chinese participants perceived diverse groups as more entitative and attributed more internally consistent dispositions to groups and their members. Guided by culturally based lay theories about the entitative nature of groups, Chinese participants may stereotype more readily than do Americans when group membership is available as a source of dispositional inference.     

你能看见我的努力吗：社会地位感知对消费者繁简偏好的影响

文章通过5个实验(包括1个预注册实验)探讨了个体感知到的相对社会地位如何影响消费者对产品繁简设计的偏好。实验1和2发现处于相对低社会地位的个体会偏好设计繁复的产品。实验3和4探究了该效应的中介机制, 即繁复设计的产品可以传递出努力线索, 而相对低社会地位个体因为重视努力进而偏好繁复设计产品。实验5通过调节变量的方式进一步验证上述机制, 发现社会地位对繁简偏好的影响只存在于那些重视努力价值的个体身上。文章推进了消费者审美偏好, 主观社会地位和消费者努力等方向的研究进展。     

Uncertainty reduction, self-enhancement, and ingroup identification

Two experiments tested the prediction that uncertainty reduction and self-enhancement motivations have an interactive effect on ingroup identification. In Experiment 1 (N = 64), uncertainty and group status were manipulated, and the effect on ingroup identification was measured. As predicted, low-uncertainty participants identified more strongly with a high- than low-status group, whereas high-uncertainty participants showed no preference; and low-status group members identified more strongly under high than low uncertainty, whereas high-status group members showed no preference. Experiment 2 (N = 210) replicated Experiment 1, but with a third independent variable that manipulated how prototypical participants were of their group. As predicted, the effects obtained in Experiment 1 only emerged where participants were highly prototypical. Low prototypicality depressed identification with a low-status group under high uncertainty. The implications of these results for intergroup relations and the role of prototypicality in social identity processes are discussed.     

The induction of shared identity: the positive role of individual distinctiveness for groups

This article examines inductive processes of social identity formation, the bottom-up processes by which individual group members influence a social identity, integrating it with work on entitativity. Three studies tested the prediction that feelings of individual distinctiveness mediate the relation between inductive social identity formation and entitativity and that entitativity in turn predicts identification. The studies provided consistent support for this theoretical model over alternative models, using a range of different social groups and methods. Study 1 found support for the model in self-selected small groups. Study 2 supported it with a much broader set of groups that were not self-selected. Finally, Study 3 varied levels of inductive social identity formation systematically by varying group size and provided direct support for the hypothesized causal relations.     

When subgroups secede: extending and refining the social psychological model of schism in groups

This article is about a field study (N=1,080) concerning the secession of a subgroup from the Church of England, and it is aimed at extending and refining the existing social psychological model of schisms in groups. It was found that the first step toward a schism is the belief that the group identity has been subverted. This belief will prompt negative emotions (i.e., dejection and agitation) and decrease both group identification and perceived group entitativity (i.e., cohesion, oneness). In turn, low group entitativity will reduce the level of group identification. Finally, low group identification and high negative emotions will increase schismatic intentions. It is also demonstrated that the negative impact of group identification, and the positive impact of negative emotions, on schismatic intentions is moderated by the perceived ability to voice dissent (i.e., the greater the perceived voice, the weaker the impact).     

We are one and I like it: The impact of ingroup entitativity on ingroup identification

It is argued that the entitativity of the ingroup moderates the level of identification with the ingroup. Specifically, that high levels of entitativity are conducive to strong identification, whereas low levels of entitativity reduce identification with the ingroup. These hypotheses were tested across four studies using the European Union (EU) as the reference group. The four studies manipulated four different factors that, according to Campbell (1958), impact on group entitativity: common fate (Study 1), similarity (Study 2), salience (Study 3), and boundedness (Study 4). Across the four studies, we found evidence for the impact of these factors on the level of identification with the EU among European citizens holding moderate attitudes toward the EU but not (or much less) for citizens holding more extreme attitudes towards the EU. Mediational analyses further confirmed the viability of an entitativity‐based interpretation of the impact of the manipulations on the level of identification. The findings are discussed in light of the current debate on the concept of entitativity, the motives for social identification, and the reduction of ingroup bias. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Going to extremes for one's group: the role of prototypicality and group acceptance

To explore who goes to aggressive and antisocial extremes on behalf of their group we primed perceptions of (a) group prototypicality (peripheral vs. central) and (b) ease of acceptance by the group. Participants were members of self‐significant groups—fraternities and sororities (N = 218). Drawing on social identity theory, uncertainty‐identity theory and the social identity theory of influence through leadership, we found, as predicted, that peripheral members who believed it was easy to be accepted were most likely to intend to engage in and support antisocial and aggressive intergroup behaviors. This effect was somewhat stronger among males than females, and strengthened among the most highly identified participants. The research's potential for understanding socially harmful intergroup violence is noted.