Motivated entitativity: Applying balance theory to group perception

Group Processes and Intergroup Relations

Volumn 9, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 235-247

  Pilialoha, Brian R U ^a   Brewer, Marilynn B ^a  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Balance theory; Entitativity; Motivation

Indexed keywords

EID: 33645464919     PISSN: 13684302     EISSN: 14617188     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1368430206062079     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Abelson, R. P. (1959). Modes of resolution of belief dilemmas. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 3, 343-352.
2. Abelson, R. P., Aronson, E., McGuire, W. J., Newcomb, T. M., Rosenberg, M. J., Tannenbaum, P. H. (Eds.) (1968). Theories of cognitive consistency: A sourcebook. Chicago: Rand McNally.
3. Brewer, M. B., Hong, Y-y., & Li, Q. (2004). Dynamic entitativity: Perceiving groups as actors. In V. Yzerbyt, C. Judd, & O. Corneille (Eds.), The psychology of group perception: Perceived variability, entitativity, and essentialism (pp. 25-38). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
4. Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).
5. Campbell, D. T. (1958). Common fate, similarity, and other indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities. Behavioral Science, 3, 14-25.
6. Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. (1968). Group dynamics: Research and theory (3rd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
7. Castano, E., Yzerbyt, V., Paladino, M., & Sacchi, S. (2002). I belong, therefore, I exist: Ingroup identification, ingroup entitativity, and ingroup bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 135-143.
8. de Spinoza, B. (1677/2002). Ethics. In M. L. Morgan (Ed.), Spinoza: Complete works (S. Shirley, Trans.). Indianapolis, IN: Hacket.
9. Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Rust, M. C., Nier, J. A., Banker, B. S., Ward, C. M. et al. (1999). Reducing intergroup bias: Elements of intergroup cooperation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 388-402.
10. Garcia-Marques, T., & Mackie, D. M. (2000). The positive feeling of familiarity: Mood as an information processing regulation mechanism. In H. Bless, J. P. Forgas, (Eds.), The message within: The role of subjective experience in social cognition and behavior (pp. 240-261). New York: Psychology Press.
11. Greenwald, A. G., Banaji, M. R., Rudman, L. A., Farnham, S. D., Nosek, B. A., & Rosier, M. (2000). Prologue to a unified theory of attitudes, stereotypes, and self-concept. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Feeling and thinking: The role of affect in social cognition (pp. 308-330). New York: Cambridge University Press.
12. Greenwald, A. G., Banaji, M. R., Rudman, L. A., Farnham, S. D., Nosek, B. A., & Mellott, D. S. (2002). A unified theory of implicit attitudes, stereotypes, self-esteem, and self-concept. Psychological Review, 109, 3-25.
13. Hamilton, D. L., Sherman, S. J., & Lickel, B. (1998). Perceiving social groups: The importance of the entitativity continuum. In C. Sedikides, J. Schopler, & C. A. Insko (Eds.), Intergroup cognition and intergroup behavior (pp. 47-73). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
14. Harvey, J. H., Ickes, W., & Kidd R. F. (1976). A conversation with Fritz Heider. In J. H. Harvey, W. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd, (Eds.), New directions in attribution research(Vol. 1, pp. 3-21). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. Heider, F. (1946). Attitudes and cognitive organization. Journal of Psychology, 21, 107-112.
16. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
17. Heider, F. (1979). On balance and attribution. In P. W. Holland & S. Leinhardt (Eds.), Perspectives on social network research (pp. 11-23). New York: Academic Press.
18. Hogg, M. A. (1992). The Social Psychology of Group Cohesiveness: From Attraction to Social Identity. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
19. Insko, C. A. (1984). Balance theory, the Jordan paradigm, and the Wiest tetrahedron. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 89-141). New York: Academic Press.
20. Johnson v. Texas, 509 U.S. 350 (1993).
21. Jones, E. E. (1998). Major developments in five decades of social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey, (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol 1, pp. 3-57). New York: McGraw-Hill.
22. Kelman, H. C., & Baron, R. M. (1968). Determinants and modes of resolving inconsistency dilemmas: A functional analysis. In R. P. Abelson, E. Aronson, W. J. McGuire, T. M. Newcomb, M. J. Rosenberg, & P. H. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Theories of cognitive consistency: A sourcebook (pp. 670-683). Chicago: Rand McNally.
23. Koffka, K. (1935). Principles of gestalt psychology. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.
24. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480-498.
25. Lickel, B., Hamilton, D. L., Wieczorkowska, G., Lewis, A. Sherman. J., & Uhles, A. N. (2000). Varieties of groups and the perception of group entitativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 223-246.
26. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press.
27. Newcomb, T. M. (1953). An approach to the study of communicative acts. Psychological Review, 60, 393-404.
28. Sears, D. O. (1983). The person positivity bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 233-250.
29. Tyler, T. R., & Mitchell, G. (1994). Legitimacy and the empowerment of discretionary legal authority. Duke Law Journal, 43, 703-814.
30. Wertheimer, M. (1923). Untersuchengen zur Lehre von der Gestalt. II. Psychologie Forschung, 4, 301-350 (as cited in Campbell, 1958).