In-group entitativity breeds identification without needing out-group contrast

Evidence

As Brewer (1979) originally intuited, recent empirical findings from minimal group experiments suggest that perceptions of in-group entitativity can lead to positive in-group regard (i.e., valuing the in-group), even in the absence of meaningful contrasting out-groups (Gaertner, Iuzzini, Witt, & Oriña, 2006). What is responsible for these surprising effects? The answer may lie, in part, in how perceptions of group entitativity influence perceptions of group agency. As previously mentioned, perceptions of in-group entitativity may also be accompanied by perceptions of group agency and the belief that this agency will be used to one’s advantage. Such a belief may lead one to identify more strongly with highly entitative in-groups. — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 267

Categorization

Category: Contrarian or Surprising Claims

• XREF: Reverses Tajfel’s classic reading that in-group favoritism requires an out-group; connects to Brewer’s optimal distinctiveness work.
• QUESTION: The agency mechanism—valuing entitative groups because their agency serves the self—merits testing against mere belongingness accounts.

Related

• In-group favoritism can arise without any contrasting out-group present. (similarity 0.91)
• In-groups are seen as more entitative and out-groups as more homogeneous (similarity 0.84)
• Valuing one’s in-group does not inevitably produce out-group discrimination (similarity 0.84)
• Liking one’s own group does not predict hostility toward other groups (similarity 0.84)
• Only emotional attachment to one’s group, not categorization or self-esteem, drives in-group favoritism (similarity 0.83)
• Perceived group activity and entitativity mutually imply each other (similarity 0.83)
• Ingroup favoritism operates independently of outgroup hatred (similarity 0.83)
• In-groups acquire definition only through comparison and contrast with out-groups (similarity 0.83)
• Awareness of an out-group alone suffices to trigger intergroup competition (similarity 0.82)
• In-group bias arises even without conflict, hostility, or self-interest (similarity 0.82)
• Social identity derives its value from comparisons against out-groups (similarity 0.82)
• In-group identity is defined only through contrast with out-groups (similarity 0.82)
• High member interaction, shared attributes, and common goals increase perceived group entitativity. (similarity 0.82)
• Perceived group agency drives opposite evaluations of in-groups and out-groups (similarity 0.82)
• Experimentally raising a group’s perceived entitativity increases members’ identification with it. (similarity 0.82)