Brian Lickel

Varieties of groups and the perception of group entitativity.

Three studies examined perceptions of the entitativity of groups. In Study 1 (U.S.) and Study 2 (Poland), participants rated a sample of 40 groups on 8 properties of groups (e.g., size, duration, group member similarity) and perceived entitativity. Participants also completed a sorting task in which they sorted the groups according to their subjective perceptions of group similarity. Correlational and regression analyses were used to determine the group properties most strongly related to entitativity. Clustering and multidimensional scaling analyses in both studies identified 4 general types of groups (intimacy groups, task groups, social categories, and loose associations). In Study 3, participants rated the properties of groups to which they personally belonged. Study 3 replicated the results of Studies 1 and 2 and demonstrated that participants most strongly valued membership in groups that were perceived as high in entitativity.

Vicarious Shame and Guilt

Participants recalled instances when they felt vicariously ashamed or guilty for another’s wrongdoing and rated their appraisals of the event and resulting motivations. The study tested aspects of social association that uniquely predict vicarious shame and guilt. Results suggest that the experience of vicarious shame and vicarious guilt are distinguishable. Vicarious guilt was predicted by one’s perceived interdependence with the wrongdoer (e.g. high interpersonal interaction), an appraisal of control over the event, and a motivation to repair the other person’s wrongdoing. Vicarious shame was predicted by the relevance of the event to a shared social identity with the wrongdoer, an appraisal of self-image threat, and a motivation to distance from the event. Implications for intergroup behavior and emotion are discussed.

Vicarious Retribution: The Role of Collective Blame in Intergroup Aggression

We provide a new framework for understanding 1 aspect of aggressive conflict between groups, which we refer to as vicarious retribution. Vicarious retribution occurs when a member of a group commits an act of aggression toward the members of an outgroup for an assault or provocation that had no personal consequences for him or her but which did harm afellow ingroup member. Furthermore, retribution is often directed at outgroup members who, themselves, were not the direct causal agents in the original attack against the persons ingroup. Thus, retribution is vicarious in that neither the agent of retaliation nor the target of retribution were directly involved in the original event that precipitated the intergroup conflict. We describe how ingroup identification, outgroup entitativity, and other variables, such as group power, influence vicarious retribution. We conclude by considering a variety of conflict reduction strategies in light of this new theoretical framework.

Elements of a Lay Theory of Groups: Types of Groups, Relational Styles, and the Perception of Group Entitativity

Discussion in this article is on the elements of perceivers intuitive theory of groups. The first element of the theory concerns perceivers intuitive taxonomy of different types of groups. We discuss research examining this intuitive taxonomy, as well as the group properties that define different types of groups within the taxonomy. A second important element in the lay theory concerns perceivers beliefs about how people within different types of groups regulate social interactions with one another. We discuss research examining the relation between perceivers beliefs about different types of groups and how people within those groups are expected to relate to each other. Finally, we discuss how people use their intuitive theory of groups when making social judgments pertaining to groups.

A Case of Collective Responsibility: Who Else Was to Blame for the Columbine High School Shootings?

Two studies examined perceptions of collective responsibility for the April 20, 1999, shootings at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. Collective responsibility refers to the perception that others, besides the wrongdoers themselves, are responsible for the event. In Study 1, the authors assessed perceptions of the shooters’ parents and their peer group (the Trenchcoat Mafia), whereas Study 2 tested perceptions of collective responsibility across a range of groups. In both studies, perceptions of a target group’s entitativity predicted judgments of collective responsibility. This relationship was mediated by two situational construals that justify applying collective responsibility: responsibility by commission (encouraging or facilitating the event) and responsibility by omission (failing to prevent the event). Study 2 also determined that perceptions of authority predicted judgments of collective responsibility for the Columbine shootings and was mediated by inferences of omission. Future directions in collective responsibility research are discussed.

Ashamed to Be an American? The role of Identification in Predicting Vicarious Shame for Anti-Arab Prejudice After 9-11

We propose that individuals sometimes feel ashamed for the negative actions of their in-group because these actions constitute a threat to their identity. The present study examined factors that evoke shame when individuals recall instances of negative behavior committed by another in-group member. American undergraduates recalled instances when other Americans exhibited prejudice toward people of Middle-Eastern descent after September 11th and rated their emotions and motivations following the event. Results indicated that identification with being American predicted more shame and a stronger desire to distance oneself from the group when the event was very negative. Identification predicted less shame and distancing for less negative events. The implications of the results for social emotions, identity management, and the black sheep effect are discussed.

The effects of skin tone on race-related amygdala activity: an fMRI investigation

Previous work has shown differential amygdala response to African-American faces by Caucasian individuals. Furthermore, behavioral studies have demonstrated the existence of skin tone bias, the tendency to prefer light skin to dark skin. In the present study, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to investigate whether skin tone bias moderates differential race-related amygdala activity. Eleven White participants viewed photographs of unfamiliar Black and White faces with varied skin tone (light, dark). Replicating past research, greater amygdala activity was observed for Black faces than White faces. Furthermore, dark-skinned targets elicited more amygdala activity than light-skinned targets. However, these results were qualified by a significant interaction between race and skin tone, such that amygdala activity was observed at equivalent levels for light- and dark-skinned Black targets, but dark-skinned White targets elicited greater amygdala activity than light-skinned White targets.

The Roles of Entitativity and Essentiality in Judgments of Collective Responsibility.

Two studies investigated the roles of entitativity and essentiality in judgments of collective responsibility. Analyses focused on four group types (i.e. intimacy groups, task groups, social categories, and loose associations). Repeated measures analyses revealed that intimacy groups and task groups were rated highest in entitativity while intimacy groups and social categories were rated highest in essentiality. Correlational analyses revealed that entitativity played a more central role in judgments of collective responsibility for all four group types. However, tests of interaction effects revealed that essentiality moderated the effect of entitativity on blame judgments. Implications of the role of collective responsibility in intergroup relations are discussed.

Mood and the correction of positive versus negative stereotypes.

The present research examined the effects of sadness on the correction of social stereotypes. Participants who either were not induced to feel sad were asked to form an impression of a single individual who belonged to a group that had either stereotypically positive or negative implications. Experiments 1 and 2 showed that sad people corrected for their negative, but not for their positive stereotypes. Experiment 3 demonstrated that this asymmetry was not due to stereotype valence per se but to whether the stereotype was perceived as an inappropriate basis for judgment. A model is presented that suggests that sad people do not simply ignore category-based information, but rather correct for their stereotypes only when they are perceived as inappropriate, which tends to be more often the case if the stereotype is negative than if it is positive. The implications of the present results for 4 extant models of mood and information processing are discussed.

The Roles of Ingroup Identification and Outgroup Entitativity in Intergroup Retribution

A new aspect of intergroup conflict was investigated— vicarious retribution—in which neither the agent of retribution nor the target of retribution are directly involved in the initial intergroup provocation. The underlying processes involved in vicarious intergroup retribution were tested correlationally (Study 1) and experimentally (Study 2). Both ingroup identification and outgroup entitativity predict the degree of vicarious retribution. In both studies, there was evidence of motivated cognition, specifically that highly identified individuals perceived the outgroup as higher in entitativity than individuals low in identification. Structural equation modeling demonstrated that part of the effect of identification on retribution against the outgroup was mediated through perceptions of entitativity.