Emanuele Castano

I Belong, therefore, I Exist: Ingroup Identification, Ingroup Entitativity, and Ingroup Bias

Merging insights from the intergroup relations literature and terror management theory, the authors conducted an experiment in which they assessed the impact of death-related thoughts on a series of ingroup measures. Participants in the mortality-salience condition displayed stronger ingroup identification, perceived greater ingroup entitativity, and scored higher on ingroup bias measures. Also, perceived ingroup entitativity as well as ingroup identification mediated the effect of the mortality salience manipulation on ingroup bias. The findings are discussed in relation to theories of intergroup relations and terror management theory. A new perspective on the function of group belonging also is presented.

Not Quite Human: Infrahumanization in Response to Collective Responsibility for Intergroup Killing

The present research examines how awareness of violence perpetrated against an out-group by ones in-group can intensify the infrahumanization of the out-group, as measured by a reduced tendency to accord uniquely human emotions to out-groups. Across 3 experiments that used different in-groups (humans, British, White Americans) and out-groups (aliens, Australian Aborigines, and Native Americans), when participants were made aware of the in-groups mass killing of the out-group, they infrahumanized the victims more. The perception of collective responsibility, not just the knowledge that the out-group members had died in great numbers, was shown to be necessary for this effect. Infrahumanization also occurred concurrently with increased collective guilt but was unrelated to it. It is proposed that infrahumanization may be a strategy for people to reestablish psychological equanimity when confronted with a self-threatening situation and that such a strategy may occur concomitantly with other strategies, such as providing reparations to the out-group.

Ingroup Glorification, Moral Disengagement, and Justice in the Context of Collective Violence

What aspects of ingroup identification can lead people to resist justice for the victims of their ingroup’s mistreatment? In three studies carried out in the United States and United Kingdom, in which participants read reports of mistreatment of prisoners and civilians by coalition troops in the Iraq war, ingroup glorification, but not ingroup attachment or other individual-difference variables, was a key predictor of lesser demands for justice, but only when the perpetrators belonged to the ingroup. This effect of glorification was mediated by two moral disengagement mechanisms focusing on the outgroup: minimization of the emotional suffering of the victims’ families and explicit dehumanization of the victim group. These findings further reinforce the difference between glorification and other forms of ingroup identification, demonstrating that glorification is problematic in maintaining and fostering intergroup relations because of its connection to moral disengagement.

The Primacy of the Ingroup: The Interplay of Entitativity and Identification

In the present chapter, we move away from the traditional focus on the outgroup encountered in the literature on intergroup relations and argue that the ingroup is psychologically primary. We build upon the notion of entitativity first proposed by Campbell (1958) and suggest that entitative ingroups meet basic needs related to group membership better than less coherent ingroups. We provide initial support for the privileged status of entitative ingroups by reviewing contemporary research on group homogeneity. Next, we report on a research program showing that social identification and ingroup entitativity go hand in hand. First, we address the influence of ingroup identification on group entitativity in such phenomena as the “black sheep” effect and ingroup overexclusion. Second, we examine the impact of ingroup entitativity on social identification. We conclude by proposing that ingroup entitativity may also be related to a feeling of efficacy which need not produce conflict and discrimination toward outgroups. Globally, the accumulated evidence strongly suggests that the perception of ingroup entitativity plays a key role in intra- and intergroup relations. Ones own family is an ingroup; and by definition all other families on the street are outgroups; but seldom d o they clash… One knows that ones lodge has distinctive characteristics that mark it off from all others, but one does not necessarily despise the others. The situation it seems can best be stated as follows: although we could not perceive our own ingroups excepting as they contrast to outgroups, still the ingroups are psychologically primary. We live in them, by them, and sometimes, for them. Hostility toward outgroups helps strengthen our sense of belonging, but it is not required (Allport, 1954, pp. 40–41).

Protecting the Ingroup: Motivated Allocation of Cognitive Resources in the Presence of Threatening Ingroup Members

Research on the Black Sheep effect (Marques, Yzerbyt, & Leyens, 1988) suggests that motivational factors such as the level of identification with the ingroup influences the way people react against negative ingroup members. The present study tested the idea that people may invest a sizable amount of cognitive resources to protect their view of the ingroup when it is challenged by a negative target. We measured the identification of our participants, all students in psychology, with the larger group of psychologists and presented them with descriptions of four ingroup members, three positive and one negative. As expected, high identifiers gave a harsher judgment of the negative target than did low identifiers. In addition, participants’ performance on a secondary task confirmed that high identifiers devoted more resources than low identifiers to process the information about the negative member as compared to a positive ingroup member. These results stress the relationship between motivation and cognitive resources in general, and the Black Sheep effect and stereotyping in particular.

The Perception of the Other in International Relations: Evidence for the Polarizing Effect of Entitativity

In an international relations context, the mutual images held by actors affect their mutual expectations about the Others behavior and guide the interpretation of the Others actions. Here it is argued that the effect of these images is moderated by the degree of entitativity of the Other-that is, the extent to which it is perceived as a real entity. Two studies tested this hypothesis by manipulating the entitativity of the European Union (EU) among U.S. citizens whose images of the EU varied along the enemy/ally dimension. Results of these studies yielded converging evidence in support of the hypothesized moderating effect of entitativity. Specifically, entitativity showed a polarizing effect on the relationship between the image of the EU and judgments of harmfulness of actions carried out by the EU.

The highs and lows of group homogeneity

Two experiments yielded further evidence for the ingroup homogeneity effect (Kelly, C., 1989. Political identity and perceived intragroup homogeneity. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 28, 239-250; Simon, B., 1992. The perception of ingroup and outgroup homogeneity: reintroducing the intergroup context. In: Stroebe, W., Hewstone, M. (Eds.), Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. Vol. 3. Wiley, Chichester; Simon, B., Brown, R., 1987. Perceived intragroup homogeneity in minority-majority contexts. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 12, 463-468.). In the first experiment, with the aim of investigating the effect of the context of judgment, we asked psychology students to judge the variability of psychologists or of social workers (one-group conditions) or to judge both groups (two-group condition) on dimensions typical of psychologists and on dimensions typical of social workers. As predicted, whereas an ingroup homogeneity effect was found for the dimensions typical of the ingroup in the two-group condition, no asymmetry in perception of group variability emerged in the one-group conditions. In the second experiment, we examined the effect of ingroup identification in an explicit intergroup situation. In line with predictions, high identifiers perceived greater homogeneity in the ingroup than in the outgroup. In contrast, low identifiers displayed the opposite tendency. The impact of context and social identification on group entitativity is considered in its cognitive and motivational aspects.

Dehumanization, Retributive and Restorative Justice, and Aggressive Versus Diplomatic Intergroup Conflict Resolution Strategies

The desire for justice can escalate or facilitate resolution of intergroup conflicts. Two studies investigated retributive and restorative notions of justice as the mediating factor of the effect of perceived outgroup sentience—an aspect of (mechanistic) dehumanization referring to the emotional depth attributed to others—on intergroup conflict resolution. Study 1 showed that for Palestinians, who see themselves as victims, perceived sentience of Israelis decreased retributive but increased restorative notions of justice, which, ultimately, increased support for conflict resolution by negotiation rather than political violence. Study 2 partially replicated Study 1’s findings with Jewish Israelis. The role of perceived sentience and its relationship to retributive and restorative notions of justice in protracted and nonprotracted conflicts and their resolution is discussed.

Perceiving one's nation: Entitativity, agency and security in the international arena

The perception of groups as real entities rather than mere aggregates of individuals has important consequences on intergroup relations. Social psychological research, in fact, shows that it affects stereotyping, identification process, and intergroup bias. Previous research has also shown that group entitativity is not a positive or negative group attribute per se; rather, it depends on the context and the relationship between the perceiver and the group. While enhancing entitativity leads to worse expectations about the out-group actions, high entitativity is a valued characteristic when associated with an ally or with the in-group. Indeed, enhancing in-group entitativity leads to stronger in-group identification. The specific reasons for why this is the case, however, remain to be ascertained. What is good about in-group entitativity? In the present contribution we propose that in-group entitativity may lead to perceive the group as a real entity provided with intentions and capacity for planned actions, notably ensuring the safety of its members by protecting them against external threats. We report two correlational studies conducted with American citizens (Study 1) and Italian citizens (Study 2), showing that in-group entitativity is associated with a higher level of identification, attribution of intentionality, and perceived security provided by the in-group. These findings were replicated in a third study-conducted with a role-play method on a fictitious scenario-in which entitativity was manipulated rather than measured. Study 3 also shows that artificially increasing the perception of in-group entitativity enhances perceived safety in an international context and reduces the perception of threat from an out-group. Findings are discussed in terms of possible implications for intergroup and international relations.

Justifying Atrocities The Effect of Moral-Disengagement Strategies on Socially Shared Retrieval-Induced Forgetting

A burgeoning literature has established that exposure to atrocities committed by in-group members triggers moral-disengagement strategies. There is little research, however, on how such moral disengagement affects the degree to which conversations shape people’s memories of the atrocities and subsequent justifications for those atrocities. We built on the finding that a speaker’s selective recounting of past events can result in retrieval-induced forgetting of related, unretrieved memories for both the speaker and the listener. In the present study, we investigated whether American participants listening to the selective remembering of atrocities committed by American soldiers (in-group condition) or Afghan soldiers (out-group condition) resulted in the retrieval-induced forgetting of unmentioned justifications. Consistent with a motivated-recall account, results showed that the way people’s memories are shaped by selective discussions of atrocities depends on group-membership status.