High-entitativity groups trigger trait spillover across all members

Evidence

The groups that persistently landed in the middle of the competence–warmth space (gay men, Arabs and Muslims, blue-collar workers, Native Americans, migrant workers) may indeed elicit the nondescript stereotypes suggested by this location. However, consider the case of Black people, who inhabited the middle cluster when labeled at this abstract level yet, at the subgroup level, split neatly into competent but not warm Black professionals and incompetent but warm poor Blacks. Stereotypes of gay men might, for example, subdivide into threatening militants, imagined predators, harmless buffoons, and respected aesthetic professionals. American stereotypes of Muslims might divide among American citizens, harmless Arab nationals, and terrorists. Our data for these middle groups do not distinguish between unformed stereotypes and averages over opposite subgroups. — Susan T. Fiske et al., A Model of (Often Mixed) Stereotype…, 292 (#complicates, via linked claim)

People find it convenient to retain overgeneralized categories because “it takes less effort, and effort … is disagreeable” (Allport, 1954/1979, p. 21). But even convenience has its limits. Allport amended the principle of least effort: “except in the area of our most intense interests” (p. 21). When observers are motivated (and knowledgeable), they move from subtypes to subgroups. That is, they do not merely exclude the few exceptional subtypes but begin to see variety within the category: subsets of similar individuals within the overall group. People learn that the larger category contains subgroup clusters (e.g., within Latinos, subgroups of Cubans, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans). Although Allport did not anticipate the subgroup idea, his subtype idea paved the way for the distinction between them. Because subgroups increase the perceived variability of the category, they limit the tyranny of categories, whereas subtypes (which “fence off” exceptions to the general stereotype) maintain it. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 305 (#complicates, via linked claim)

In addition to examining the group formation process, a fruitful avenue for future research is examining the dissolution of groups and the formation of subgroups. According to ODT, feelings of deindividuation should motivate people to adopt more exclusive group identities as opposed to seeking total individuation. Thus, the need for distinctiveness can be satisfied in two complementary and sometimes sequential ways: (1) making intragroup distinctions, that is, dividing an overly inclusive group into more distinctive subgroups with which to identify, and (2) making intergroup comparisons between one’s subgroup and 138 • Cynthia L. — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 847 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Identical behaviors of outgroup members are encoded as abstract traits; Excessive group inclusion triggers subgroup formation rather than full individuation — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 847; Motivated observ ers perceive within-group variety while unmotivated ones rely on subtypes — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 305 (+6 more)

Broader Connections

• Abstract-level middle-cluster stereotypes mask sharp subtype splits within a group. #complicates (0.78) — Susan T. Fiske et al., A Model of (Often Mixed) Stereotype…, 292
• Motivated observ ers perceive within-group variety while unmotivated ones rely on subtypes #complicates (0.75) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 305
• Excessive group inclusion triggers subgroup formation rather than full individuation #complicates (0.72) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 847