The Impact of Group Entitativity on Negative Outcome Allocations

ABSTRACT

 This study (N = 215) investigated the impact of group entitativity on ingroup favoritism in the allocation of negative outcomes. Three conditions of group entitativity were created by modifying the standard minimal group condition through the manipulation of proximity and common fate. Findings showed that increasing group entitativity enhanced intergroup discrimination, and pointed out the strong impact of common fate. Thus, this study adds to the evidence on the effects of group entitativity in the field of intergroup relations.

This research was supported by a grant from the Italian Ministry of University and Research (PRIN 2007PJYAKF).

Keywords:

• group entitativity
• intergroup discrimination
• minimal groups
• negative outcome allocations

Acknowledgments

Notes

This research was supported by a grant from the Italian Ministry of University and Research (PRIN 2007PJYAKF).

1. Since preliminary analyses showed no difference between males and females on discrimination, gender was not further considered as an independent variable.

2. This measure differs from other pictorial measures, such as Tropp and Wright's (2001) Inclusion of the Ingroup in the Self (IIS) measure. Whereas they both were inspired by Aron, Aron, and Smollan's (1992) Inclusion of Other in the Self (IOS) scale, the IIS, which consists of two circles with varying degrees of overlap, taps the interconnection between the self and the ingroup rather then cognitive representations of groups. Thus, in this study the centre circle of diagrams representing the ingroup was not labeled with the word “self” in order to make the GEM even less similar to an IIS-like identification measure. This modification also allowed to maintain the equivalence between measures of ingroup and outgroup interconnection as much as possible. Finally, in this study ingroup identification was positively yet moderately correlated with perceived ingroup entitativity (r = .441, p < .001), suggesting that these measures tap different reactions to the experimental manipulation (cf. Castano, Yzerbyt, Paladino, & Sacchi, 2002).

3. The manipulation of common fate implied that in each experimental session a group was submitted to a positive fate (i.e., receiving the coupons), whereas the other group underwent a negative fate (i.e., not receiving the coupons). Previous studies did not report any effect of the quality of fate on discrimination (cf. Moscatelli & Rubini, 2011). In this study, simple pair comparisons revealed that in the negative fate condition there was higher favoritism on the FAV on P strategy (M = 6.42, SD = 4.08) than in the positive fate one (M = 4.34, SD = 3.85), t(73) = 2.27, p = .026, η² = .066. In the former condition, individuals were also more parity-oriented (M = 3.45, SD = 3.89) than in the latter (M = 5.67, SD = 4.11), t(73) = 2.40, p = .019, η² = .07. However, the quality of fate did not affect any other discriminatory or cooperative strategy. Moreover, there were no effects on perceived ingroup interconnection, perceived outgroup interconnection, or ingroup identification.