People invoke category membership when explaining observed behavior, not just forming impressions

Evidence

A notable contribution of DPM is that the model illustrated a variety of ways in which categorical expectations are reflected on the impression of an individual person. Inspired by this emphasis, I will attempt in this chapter to offer an additional vantage point on the issue. Specifically, I argue that categorical expectations play a significant role not only in impression formation but also in explanations of observed behavior. More often than not, people refer to a category or group membership of the actor in their attempt to figure out the cause of or the reason for an observed behavior. For instance, an Asian woman’s high scores in math exams may be more easily accounted for by her ethnicity rather than by her unique individual dispositions such as her exceptional level of effort or interest in the subject. Alternatively, an outstanding performance by a member of a disadvantaged group may call for praise of his or her talent exactly because the category membership augments dispositional attributions (cf. Jones & McGillis, 1976). — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 109

Categorization

• XREF: Directly relevant to how Islamophobia/antisemitism deploy ethnicity as an explanation for behavior — links to attribution theory in prejudice.
• SEED: Essay angle: how groups get credited or blamed as categories — attribution of success of a minority-member is explained by talent, while dominant-group success gets individual causes.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 109