Two experiments investigated whether competitors attend to and individuate opponents. Interdependence theories predict that people individuate others on whom their outcomes depend rather than stereotyping them; this has been tested for cooperative but not for competitive interdependence. Competition separates such phenomena as unit formation in cooperation from interdependence per se, posited to be the crucial variable. In two experiments, Ss expected to compete or not compete with a competent or incompetent fictitious subject. Ss commented into a tape recorder about the person's attributes, some inconsistent and some consistent with expectations. As predicted, competitors (a) increased attention to inconsistencies, (b) drew more dispositional inferences about inconsistencies, and (c) formed more varied impressions. The role of competition in undercutting expectancy-based impressions and intergroup vs. interpersonal competition are discussed.

Dehumanization, the psychological process by which individuals or groups of individuals are denied human qualities or are believed to be less than human, has important negative consequences for intergroup relations: dehumanization reduces intergroup helping and excuses aggression towards members of other groups. Current models of dehumanization are unable to explain the variety of dehumanization that occurs in metaphorical thought. For example, they cannot account for the labeling of comatose individuals as “vegetables,” nor do they adequately distinguish between of humans as predators vs. metaphors of humans as prey. We argue that this results from the paucity of attention devoted to the role of agency in the dehumanization process. The ABC model of dehumanization proposed in this paper broadens the scope of dehumanization theory by describing three unique components of agency: affective, behavioral, and cognitive. This article then delineates how the differential attribution of agency components impacts emotional responses toward out‐groups in addition to the metaphors used to describe them. By incorporating both traditional types of dehumanization (extreme and overt negative evaluations) and ambivalent types of dehumanization (mixed positive and negative evaluations) into our model, we provide a more nuanced view of the dehumanization process that accounts for the variance in dehumanization by analogy.

No abstract

No abstract

Two experiments investigated why interpersonal competition facilitates individuating impressions of opponents whereas inter-group competition encourages stereotyping of opponents. Prior research has shown that interdependence conditions, including interpersonal competition, encourage individuation. But, unlike interpersonal competitors, intergroup competitors are inter-dependent with several persons (i.e., teammates and opponents). Because of phenomena such as in-group bias, it was hypothesized that intergroup competitors manage limited attentional resources by assigning higher priority to individuating teammates. Experiment I demonstrated individuating processes, as manifested by attention to and dispositional inferences about expectancy-inconsistent attributes, in interpersonal but not intergroup competition. Experiment 2 demonstrated that intergroup competitors use individuating processes when forming impressions of team mates but not opponents. Implications for real-world competition are discussed.