The Experts below are selected from a list of 138 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
David L Hamilton - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Central Role of Entitativity in Stereotypes of Social Categories and Task Groups
Journal of personality and social psychology, 2007Co-Authors: Julie Spencer-rodgers, David L Hamilton, Steven J. ShermanAbstract:Research indicates that people's intuitive beliefs about Groups are organized according to a Group typology (B. Lickel, D. L. Hamilton, & S. J. Sherman, 2001). In Study 1, the authors compared and contrasted people's spontaneous cognitive representations of two Group types, task Groups and social categories. Analyses revealed significant differences as well as commonalities in people's beliefs about the Group types. Notably, perceivers used more abstract, enduring language and contextually rich descriptors when characterizing social categories than when describing task Groups. In Study 2, the authors investigated the differential roles of distinct Group Perception variables (entitativity, homogeneity, essence, role differentiation, and agency) as predictors of stereotyping for the different Group types. Entitativity and all of the Group Perception variables significantly predicted stereotyping for both social categories and task Groups. However, Perceptions of entitativity mediated the association between the Group Perception variables and stereotypic judgments. These findings demonstrate that laypeople hold stereotype-like mental representations of Group types other than social categories and that entitativity plays a crucial mediating role in stereotyping across different types of Groups.
-
Understanding the complexities of Group Perception: broadening the domain
European Journal of Social Psychology, 2007Co-Authors: David L HamiltonAbstract: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.
-
Culture and Group Perception: dispositional and stereotypic inferences about novel and national Groups.
Journal of personality and social psychology, 2007Co-Authors: Julie Spencer-rodgers, David L Hamilton, Melissa J. Williams, Kaiping Peng, Lei WangAbstract: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.
-
a Group by any other name the role of entitativity in Group Perception
European Review of Social Psychology, 2002Co-Authors: David L Hamilton, Steven J. Sherman, Luigi CastelliAbstract:The social world consists of numerous and diverse Groupings of people into meaningful and important collectives. As perceivers, we routinely encounter aggregates of people, some of which we endow with the property of Groupness, and others we do not. Moreover, the variety of Groups is enormous, yet perceivers differentiate among them and understand their properties. This chapter discusses how and why perceivers “see” an aggregate of persons as a Group, the distinctions among different types of Groups that perceivers detect, the variation among Groups in their perceived Groupness or entitativity, and the consequences that follow from perceiving a Group as an entitative unit. The results of our research program addressing these issues are summarized, and implications for remaining unanswered questions are discussed.
-
Affect, cognition, and stereotyping: Interactive processes in Group Perception.
1993Co-Authors: Diane M Mackie, David L HamiltonAbstract:Cognitive and Affective Processes in InterGroup Perception: The Developing Interface. Emotions, Arousal, and Stereotypic Judgments: A Heuristic Model of Affect and Stereotyping. The Influence of Affect on Stereotyping: The Case of Illusory Correlations. Affect and Perceived Group Variability: Implications for Stereotyping and Prejudice. The Role of Anxiety in Facilitating Stereotypic Judgments of Out-Group Behavior. Cognition and Affect in Stereotyping: Parallel Interactive Networks. Values, Stereotypes, and Emotions as Determinants of InterGroup Attitudes. Stereotypes and Evaluative InterGroup Bias. Mere Exposure Effects With OutGroup Stimuli. Applications of Emotion Theory and Research to Stereotyping and InterGroup Relations. Negative Interdependence and Prejudice: Whence the Affect? Stereotyping and Affect in Discourse: Interpreting the Meaning of Elderly Painful Self-Disclosure. Social Identity and Social Emotions: Toward New Conceptualizations of Prejudice. The Role of Discrepancy Associated Affect in Prejudice Reduction. Social Stigma: The Consequences of Attributional Ambiguity. Affect, Cognition, and Sterotyping: Concluding Comments. Commentary. Subject Index.
Steven J. Sherman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Central Role of Entitativity in Stereotypes of Social Categories and Task Groups
Journal of personality and social psychology, 2007Co-Authors: Julie Spencer-rodgers, David L Hamilton, Steven J. ShermanAbstract:Research indicates that people's intuitive beliefs about Groups are organized according to a Group typology (B. Lickel, D. L. Hamilton, & S. J. Sherman, 2001). In Study 1, the authors compared and contrasted people's spontaneous cognitive representations of two Group types, task Groups and social categories. Analyses revealed significant differences as well as commonalities in people's beliefs about the Group types. Notably, perceivers used more abstract, enduring language and contextually rich descriptors when characterizing social categories than when describing task Groups. In Study 2, the authors investigated the differential roles of distinct Group Perception variables (entitativity, homogeneity, essence, role differentiation, and agency) as predictors of stereotyping for the different Group types. Entitativity and all of the Group Perception variables significantly predicted stereotyping for both social categories and task Groups. However, Perceptions of entitativity mediated the association between the Group Perception variables and stereotypic judgments. These findings demonstrate that laypeople hold stereotype-like mental representations of Group types other than social categories and that entitativity plays a crucial mediating role in stereotyping across different types of Groups.
-
a Group by any other name the role of entitativity in Group Perception
European Review of Social Psychology, 2002Co-Authors: David L Hamilton, Steven J. Sherman, Luigi CastelliAbstract:The social world consists of numerous and diverse Groupings of people into meaningful and important collectives. As perceivers, we routinely encounter aggregates of people, some of which we endow with the property of Groupness, and others we do not. Moreover, the variety of Groups is enormous, yet perceivers differentiate among them and understand their properties. This chapter discusses how and why perceivers “see” an aggregate of persons as a Group, the distinctions among different types of Groups that perceivers detect, the variation among Groups in their perceived Groupness or entitativity, and the consequences that follow from perceiving a Group as an entitative unit. The results of our research program addressing these issues are summarized, and implications for remaining unanswered questions are discussed.
Robert P. Abelson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Group entitativity and Group Perception: associations between physical features and psychological judgment.
Journal of personality and social psychology, 1999Co-Authors: Nilanjana Dasgupta, Mahzarin R. Banaji, Robert P. AbelsonAbstract: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.
Ching Wan - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
birds of a feather and birds flocking together physical versus behavioral cues may lead to trait versus goal based Group Perception
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2006Co-Authors: Chiyue Chiu, Ching WanAbstract:Entitativity Perception refers to the Perception of a collection of individuals as a Group. The authors propose 2 perceptual-inferential bases of entitativity Perception. First, perceivers would expect a collection of individuals with similar physical traits to possess common psychological traits. Second, perceivers watching a Group of individuals engage in concerted behavior would infer that these individuals have common goals. Thus, both similarity in physical traits (e.g., same skin color) and concerted collective behavior (e.g., same movement) would evoke Perception of Group entitativity. Results from 5 experiments show that same Group movement invariably leads to common goal inferences, increased perceived cohesiveness, and increased perceived entitativity. Moreover, same skin color evokes inferences of Group traits and increases perceived homogeneity and perceived entitativity but only when skin color is diagnostic of Group membership.
Michele Settanni - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
From Their Point of View: Identifying Socio-Behavioral Profiles of Primary School Pupils Based on Peer Group Perception.
Frontiers in psychology, 2018Co-Authors: Laura Elvira Prino, Tiziana Pasta, Claudio Longobardi, Davide Marengo, Michele SettanniAbstract:Our study adopted a person-based approach with the aim to identify socio-behavioral profiles of primary school students based on peer Group Perception. The study involved 109 classes and their teachers, from the first three grades of elementary school. The final student sample consisted of 424 children, aged 6-9 years (M = 94.9 months; SD = 9.7), of whom 58.3% were male. We used peer-Group nomination to investigate the aspects that are linked to peer Group acceptance and Perception of classroom behaviors, with reference to academic and relational criteria. We identified and defined six clusters. We validated these clusters by taking into consideration the children's academic performances and the teacher's Perceptions of their relationship with the single students. The identified clusters were related to both of these aspects, and they show predictive value when referring to children's behaviors as evaluated by their teachers. Implications for theory and educational policies are discussed.
