Perceptions of entitativity and attitude change

Rydell, Robert W.; McConnell, Allen

doi:10.1037/e633912013-981

Cited by 8 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Perceived group entitativity also influences the processing of persuasive messages. A persuasive message from a high entitativity (compared to low entitativity) group engages more integrative processing, and hence recipients differentiate more between strong and weak arguments (Rydell & McConnell, 2005). All of these studies indicate that perceiving a group as high in entitativity induces more extensive, systematic, integrative processing of group-relevant information.…”

Section: Entitativitymentioning

confidence: 83%

“…This measure proved useful, although being a single item measure, it is not ideal. More recently, researchers have used a variety of strategies for measuring entitativity, including a variety of rating scales and even some pictorial measures (Castano et al, 2002;Crump, Hamilton, Sherman, Lickel, & Thakkar, 2007;Gaertner & Schopler, 1998;Kashima et al, 2005;Rutchick, Sack, & Hamilton, 2006;Rydell & McConnell, 2005;Spencer-Rodgers et al, 2007). At present there is no standard set of items for measuring entitativity.…”

Section: Entitativitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Understanding the complexities of group perception: broadening the domain

Hamilton

2007

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent developments in the study of group perception have been guided by four concepts: homogeneity, essentialism, agency, and entitativity. Research on these topics has broadened the scope of questions asked, issues studied, and explanatory mechanisms that are important in the perception of groups. This article summarizes each concept, discusses its contribution to understanding group perception, and highlights unresolved questions that need investigation. Possible conceptual interpretations of the relations among these concepts and their relationship to stereotyping are then discussed. Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.The study of social perception has been a central part of social psychology almost since its very beginnings. The roots of work on impression formation go back to Asch's (1946) seminal paper, ideas about attribution have their origins in Heider's writings (1944), and the empirical study of stereotypes first appeared in the classic study by Katz and Braly (1933). All of these papers appeared in print prior to the time that social psychology was even recognized as a separate subspecialty within the discipline of psychology (Cartwright, 1979).Within the domain of group perception, the focus of course has been on stereotyping: the development, use, and change of people's belief systems about large categories of people defined primarily by gender, race, nationality, religion, occupation, sexual orientation-the list of groups about whom we have stereotypes could go on almost endlessly (Fiske, 1998;Hamilton, 1981;Schneider, 2004). Ever since Allport's (1954) seminal analysis, the important role of categorization has been a central focus of our thinking about stereotypes and stereotyping. Stereotypes are systems of beliefs about categories of people, so questions of how perceivers categorize others into groups are of central relevance to stereotyping. Moreover, the role of categorization in social perception

show abstract

Section: Entitativitymentioning

confidence: 83%

Section: Entitativitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding the complexities of group perception: broadening the domain

Hamilton

2007

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, not all collections of people constitute a group to the same degree. To what extent do you believe that South Koreans [North Koreans] typify what it means to be a group?”), we used Rydell and McConnell's () scale ( α = .78). Participants responded on a 1 ( not at all ) to 7 ( very much ) scale.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceived collective continuity and attitudes toward outgroups

Warner

Kent

Kiddoo

2016

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a series of six studies, we examined the role that perceived collective continuity (PCC) plays in intergroup attitudes. While the extant literature focuses on attitudes toward ingroups, the current studies chose to expand upon this research by concentrating on three types of outgroups (national, religious, and organizational). Results indicated that for groups perceived as neutral or positive, increased PCC was associated with more positive attitudes, while for enemy groups, increased PCC was associated with more negative attitudes. Entitativity played a mediating role such that as the outgroup was perceived as more continuous, it was also seen as more entitative. Higher entitativity led to less negative attitudes toward a past ally but more negative attitudes toward a past enemy. Results held whether past conflict and PCC were measured or manipulated, further supporting our findings. PCC has negative or positive implications for judgments of outgroups depending on intergroup history. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

“…On the other hand, McConnell and colleagues (e.g. McConnell et al, 1997) have shown that people engage in more effortful and elaborative information processing of highly entitative groups, and hence strong arguments of highly entitative groups are viewed as more persuasive, leading to greater attitude change (Rydell & McConnell, 2005).…”

Section: Implications For Outgroupsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lay Theories and Intergroup Relations

Levy

Chiu²,

Hong

2006

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

160

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lay theory research on intergroup relations has rapidly grown over the past two decades. Drawing on articles in this Special Issue, we showcase the latest developments. First, we define lay theories, addressing the extent of overlap with scientific theories and differences among lay theories in terms of type of representation, level of articulation, frequency of activation and use, range of applicability, and degree of universality. Second, we describe advances in the understanding of the functions of lay theories. Third, we review the far-reaching implications of lay theories for group and intergroup processes. Fourth, we discuss the movement toward comparing and contrasting related lay theories. Taken together, these articles suggest the study of lay theories provides a fuller understanding of intergroup relations

show abstract

Perceptions of entitativity and attitude change

Cited by 8 publications

References 0 publications

Understanding the complexities of group perception: broadening the domain

Understanding the complexities of group perception: broadening the domain

Perceived collective continuity and attitudes toward outgroups

Lay Theories and Intergroup Relations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About