Group agency makes entitative out-groups threatening but entitative in-groups attractive

Evidence

Some studies report a negative association between perceptions of out-group entitativity and evaluations of that out-group, whereas others have found a positive association between perceptions of in-group entitativity and in-group evaluations (Brewer & Harasty, 1996; Castano, Yzerbyt, et al., 2003). This difference may be due in part to the fact that one of the group characteristics that entitativity implies is group agency (Spencer-Rodgers, Hamilton, et al., 2007). If an out-group is highly agentic, outside perceivers may assume that the group’s agency may pose a threat and could be used against their own group, which consequently would generate negative evaluations of entitative out-groups. On the other hand, if an in-group is highly agentic, its members would assume that the group’s agency will be used to their advantage, which would lead in-group members to positively evaluate entitative in-groups. — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 250 (#expands, via linked claim)

Using this distinction, Roccas et al. (2006) conducted a study among Israelis and found that in-group attachment was negatively related to justificatory processes for Israeli mistreatments of Palestinians and positively to self-reported guilt. In spite of being correlated with attachment, in-group glorification showed the opposite relationship to both of these variables. The more in-group glorification, the more justification of the wrongdoings and the less guilt. The results by Roccas et al. (2006) are important inasmuch as their measure of cognitive exoneration for the wrongdoings can be understood as a moral disengagement strategy. They thus provide some preliminary evidence that in-group wrongdoings are assessed differently by individuals who differ in their level of glorification of the in-group, albeit not by those who differ in their level of attachment to it. — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 2115 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Groups first form against an external threat, then transfer their unity onto an object — Fredric Jameson, Marxism and Form, 506; Groups perceived as entitative reduce members’ self-concept uncertainty most effectively — Anna X. Huang, Jacqueline M. Chen, and Juliane Degner, Being One or the Other, Both or…, 85; Recategorizing outgroup members as ingroup members diminishes perceived threat. — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup…, 175 (+5 more)

Broader Connections

• Perceived group agency drives opposite evaluations of in-groups and out-groups #expands (0.92) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 250
• Intergroup threats may not be necessary for ingroup love to drive outgroup hate #complicates (0.73)
• In-group glorification but not attachment predicts justifying harm against out-groups #complicates (0.72) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 2115