2003, Castano Et Al, The Perception of The Other in IR PDF

The Perception of the Other in International Relations: Evidence for the Polarizing Effect of Entitativity Author(s): Emanuele Castano,
Simona Sacchi and Peter Hays Gries Reviewed work(s): Source: Political Psychology, Vol. 24, No. 3 (Sep., 2003), pp. 449-468 Published by: International Society of Political Psychology Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3792321 . Accessed: 14/03/2013 12:58
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
International Society of Political Psychology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Political Psychology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:58:08 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Vol. Political 24,No.3,2003 Psychology,
in International oftheOther The Perception forthePolarizing Relations: Evidence Effect ofEntitativity

Emanuele Castano
Graduate Faculty,New School University
Simona Sacchi di Milano-Bicocca Universitii PeterHays Gries University of Coloradoat Boulder
In an international relations themutual their mutual context, imagesheldbyactorsaffect abouttheOther's behavior andguidetheinterpretation actions. expectations oftheOther's Here it is arguedthat theeffect oftheseimagesis moderated bythedegreeofentitativity the Other-that the extent to which itis perceived as a realentity. Twostudies tested is, of thishypothesis theentitativity bymanipulating of theEuropeanUnion(EU) amongU.S. whoseimagesoftheEU variedalong theenemy/ally citizens dimension. Results ofthese studies in support evidence yieldedconverging of thehypothesized moderating effect of showed a polarizing on therelationship between entitativity. Specifically, entitativity effect theimageof theEU and judgments carriedoutbytheEU. of harmfulness of actions
KEY WORDS: entitativity, international relations relations, agency, polarization, image,intergroup
The newsmediaroutinely inform us aboutforeign countries newbaltesting listicmissiles, new air defense their submarine developing systems, renovating Is this fleets, or,more recently, developing biological weapons. goodorbad news? The answer to thisquestion of on the of the depends, course, perceived quality relations between ourown country and theforeign in In country question. other it on whether the other is an If it is an words, depends country allyor an enemy. chances are that one would feel if is it an one threatened; enemy, would,on ally, thecontrary, feelsafeguarded. To theextent that countries can be ordered along
449
0162-895X? 2003 International of Political Society Psychology Published Inc.,350 Main Street, Malden,MA 02148,USA, and 9600 Garsington by BlackwellPublishing. Road,Oxford, OX4 2DQ
450
Castano etal.
a continuum from absolute it seemsreasonable to argue enemy, allyto absolute exist between one's of a thata linearrelationship might foreign perception and the perceived harmfulness to one's country's positionon thiscontinuum of an actionundertaken The moreit is an enemy, the country by thatcountry: moreitsactionis likely to be perceived as harmful. in theperception The other feature of a foreign actions important country's is its strength. a is more than a weak Clearly, strong enemy enemy. threatening and strength/weakness to Boulding constitute, Friendliness/hostility according blocksof theimageof theOther. is also credited (1969), thebuilding Boulding withhaving used theterm total and evaluative affective, image-"the cognitive, of the behaviorunit,or its internal structure view of itselfand its universe" (p. 423)-to analyzeinternational systems. onthepsychological ofschema (Fiske& Taylor, 1991),HerBuilding concept and Ciarrochi have that rmann, Voss, Schooler, (1997) proposed imagesof the are not a Other collection ofunrelated butrather a constellation offeatures traits, in meaningful that cluster cohere, ways.Thepossiblewaysinwhich together they to Herrmann andhiscolleagues, aredictated ofthree according bytheinteraction factors: theperceived relative of theactor, theperceived threat and/or capability of thatactor culture opportunity represented by thatactor,and the perceived etal., 1997,p. 408; see also Herrmann, (Herrmann 1985).Thewayinwhich people reactto an actioncarried outby an actor, willthen say a foreign country, depend on whichparticular Needlessto say,theimageprovides the imageis activated. theaction. The sameaction canbe interpreted as harmful tothe keytointerpreting iftheactor is perceived as an "enemy," notvery much so ifit perceiver's country is perceived as a "colony," andpossibly welcome ifitis perceived as an "ally." The work ofHerrmann andhiscolleagues enhances ourunderstanding ofhow actorsin international relations are perceived by lookingat how theperceiver thecontent of theseactors'images.This workis also original in its apprehends ofcontent that clusters form suchimages(see also Alexander, Brewer, suggestion & Herrmann, theimpact of another 1999). Ouraim in thispaperis to investigate factor that couldaffect theinterpretation ofactions carried outbytheOther. Rather than on thecharacteristics ofthecontent, we look at whatwe believeto focusing be an important structural theperceived of the component, namely entitativity actor. and Current Research Entitativity: Origins The concept of entitativity, Donald developed by social psychologist refers to "the of the of nature an of (1958), Campbell degree having entity, having real existence" on Gestalt that (p. 17). Building principles, Campbellsuggested a common andboundedness couldturn mere fate, similarity, proximity, aggregate of individuals intoa coherent at leastin theeye groupand makeit a realentity, of theperceiver.
and Polarization Entitativity
451
The multiple routes to gauging theentitativity of a group in the arereflected research thathas been inspired by Campbell'soriginalinsights. Followinga Lewiniantradition, some authors have showncontinuity withearlierresearch on the conceptsof interdependence, and internal cohesiveness, organization, and have emphasized theidea thatentitativity leads to unity & (e.g., Gaertner & 1998; Hamilton, Sherman, Lickel, 1998; Insko, Schopler, Schopler,& has furthered our underSedikides,1998; Lickel et al., 2000). This perspective of differences in the of and individuals. and Hamilton standing perceptions groups Sherman is themediator thatentitativity for these (1996) proposed responsible differences. to theseauthors, as less entitative According groupsare perceived thanindividuals. less effort would be Consequently, integrative putintosolving inconsistencies forgroupsthanforindividuals, and less coherent impressions wouldbe formed fortheformer thanforthelatter. In support of thisrationale, research has shownthat whentheentitativity of manipulating groupentitativity thegroup-target is increased, theperceiver the information about the processes ina waysimilar tothat usedfor theindividual-target Sherman, (McConnell, group & Hamilton, 1994, 1997; Welbourne, 1999). Also, Pickett (2001) showedthat, relative tomembers ofnon-entitative members ofhighly entitative groups, groups are subject to greater Other authors have focused on the intragroup comparison. between of thegroup(Brewer, & Carini, Weber, perceived similarity exemplars & Harasty, 1995) or on thegroup (Brewer 1996),andhaveinterpreted prototype as a measure of thepsychological existence of thegroup(Castano, entitativity in press). and Bourguignon Castano,Yzerbyt, (in Focusingon ingroup entitativity, commonfate,similarity, and salienceof the boundedness, press) manipulated of entitativity moderate EuropeanUnion,and foundthatall thesecomponents thelevelof identification with theEU amongEuropean citizens (see also Lickel et al., 2000). Merginginsights fromterror management theory (Greenberg, & Solomon, 1986) and social identity Pyszczynski, theory (Tajfel & Turner, thattheperceived 1979),Castano,Yzerbyt, Paladino,and Sacchi (2002) found of one's nation and identification with it increased whenparticipants' entitativity needforsymbolic was raisedby making salient theinevitability of immortality their owndeath. The entitativity of one's nation also seemsto fulfill moreimmediateand pragmatic needs.Usinga role-play situation in thecontext of a fictitious international scenario,Sacchi and Castano (2002, study2) foundthat whosehypothetical was presented as beinghighin entitativparticipants country itas having more felt more andthey ity perceived secure, intentionality, they experienced less threat from other countries see Castano,in press;see (forreviews, also Yzerbyt, Castano, 2000). Leyens,& Paladino, and theinterplay between entiFinally, Yzerbyt his colleaguesinvestigated and essentialism & see also Corneille, Estrada, 2001; Haslam, tativity (Yzerbyt, & Ernst, 2000) and found that thebehavior of individuals Rothschild, belonging to highly entitative is morelikely to be attributed to enduring disgroups group
452
Castano et al.
as compared to thesamebehavior of less entiby members displayed positions, & tative groups (Yzerbyt, Rogier, Fiske,1998). from research on entitativity is that inthe The message groups vary emerging The perceived as real entities. extent to whichthey are perceived psychological butrather seemsnotto be an issue ofeither/or, a existence of a group, therefore, its is measure. of and entitativity question degree; in International Relations The Entitativity oftheOther others. The speofschemas about is concerned with thecontent Imagetheory of imagesof theOtherhave been shownto holdpredictive cificcharacteristics of its to thenature of itsperception, andto theinterpretation respect powerwith to whichit is of theOther is a measure of theextent behavior. The entitativity as a realentity. is that theperception ofthe"existence" Ourcontention perceived oftheOther forgranted or perceived as an issueofeither/or. shouldnotbe taken If so, non-existence is unproblematic. on theother wouldsimply Existence, hand, to emerge, be a necessary condition foranyexpectations and thequality of the heldbytheperceiver wouldsuffice to makepredictions about imageoftheOther ofexistence theOther's behavior. can be ascribed If,bycontrast, varying degrees to theOther, becomesan important factor to consider-especially existence if,as we argue, ithelpsin predicting thedegreeof theseexpectations. harmfulness of a foreign Using a vectoranalogyfor,say, the perceived we could that the whereas direction, country, say imagespredict entitativity might be a measure of its strength. We therefore act as a arguethat entitativity might of therelationship moderator between theimageof theOther andtheperception and interpretation of itsbehavior. Our specific contention is that themoderating roleof entitativity takestheform of a polarizing effect. To showpolarization, one needsto showthat theimpact ofx ony is strengthenedat higher valuesofthepolarizing variable thesameis reduced at z, andthat lowervalues of z. Furthermore, whenthepredictor x is bipolar, variable entitashouldbe positively related to y at one pole ofx and negatively to related tivity it at theopposite of x. pole To illustrate our rationale, let's consider one of thesimplest of predictions the actions of a will be as more imagetheory-that foreign country perceived harmful whoholdsan enemy whoholds bysomeone imageofitthan bysomeone an allyimage.To theextent that theenemy/ally dimension can be conceived as a continuum, we can think oftherelationship between it andperceived harmfulnessas a linear one.Ifentitativity, as we suggest, has a polarizing this relaeffect, shouldbe stronger whentheentitativity of theforeign is high, tionship country and weaker whenitsentitativity is low.Furthermore, becauseexpectations about thebehavior of an enemy are to be itsentitacountry likely negative, increasing shouldlead to a perception of increased harmfulness. Whenone holdsan tivity aboutthebehavior ofthat however, allyimageofa country, expectations country
453
theentitativity ofan allycountry tend tobe positive. should Therefore, increasing lead to theperception of morefriendliness. These hypotheses wereinvestigated in twostudies. Overview oftheStudies in bothstudieswereAmerican theoutgroup was the students; Participants In Union both the of the EU was studies, entitativity (EU).' European manipulatedand theimageof theEU heldby participants was assessed,either before or after the The harm(Study1) (Study2) entitativity manipulation. perceived fulness of EU actions constituted themaindependent variable. Because of themultiple rootsof entitativity, we tested ourhypotheses using twodifferent of to be sure that andnotone manipulations entitativity entitativity, ofitscomponents was responsible for theeffects observed. was only, Entitativity cues in StudyI and similarity in Study 2. As a manipulated by usingperceptual measure ofentitativity, we usedshorter versions ofan entitativity scale developed and Bourguignon (1999), whichincludesitemstapping by Castano,Yzerbyt, common and distinctiveness fate, (see also Castanoet al., 2002). similarity, Ourmainprediction centered on an interaction between theimageoftheEU heldbyparticipants andthemanipulation ofentitativity. we expected Specifically, who viewedtheEU as an enemy of theUnited Statesto onlythoseparticipants to theUnitedStatesin thehighjudge theactionsof theEU as moreharmful condition than in thelow-entitativity condition. Forthoseparticipants entitativity who viewedtheEU as an ally,itshigher shouldhave led to theperentitativity of theEU as less harmful. to observe a stronger relaAlso, we expected ception between theimageoftheEU andtheperceived harmfulness oftheactions tionship oftheEU among in thehigh-entitativity condition to those participants compared in thelow-entitativity condition. Study1 Method students enrolledin an introductory Participants. Fifty-seven psychology coursetookpartin theexperiment in exchange forcoursecredit. Procedure and materials. arrived at thelab in groups offour and Participants wererandomly to one of the two conditions vs. low assigned experimental (high sat in separate cubiclesand wereunableto communientitativity). Participants
Because theEU is becoming an important actor in theinternational oftherelaarena, investigation tionsbetween theUnited StatesandtheEU has an appliedinterest, notonlya theoretical one.Also, theEU is a group aboutwhich ourparticipants had little theentitativity knowledge, making manipulation relatively easy to implement.
454
Castano etal.
a booklet andwereaskedtoreadtheinstruceachother. catewith Theyweregiven various before On thefirst tions answering questions. pageofthebooklet carefully to four statements aimed inthetwoconditions), (a constant participants responded were "The EuropeanUnion at assessingthe image of theEU. The statements to avoidconflict," valuescooperative solutions to problems andtries "The Euroin and conwill not our trust them but instead Union reciprocate exploit pean are self-centered and "The European Union'sobjectives tribute their fairshare," harmful to us (i.e., theUnitedStates),"and "The EuropeanUnionwould take on our partto cooperate and theywould even tryto of any efforts advantage The first two items wereused to assess the us the United States)." (i.e., exploit et al., to assess the"enemy" image(see Alexander "ally" imageand theothers This of EU entitativity was introduced. On thesecondpage,a manipulation consisted condition, solelyof a mapof theEU (Figure1). In thehigh-entitativity All ofthecounborders ofthe15 EU countries. themapdidnotshowtheinternal in thesame color (blue) and 12 yellowstarsweresuperimtriesweredepicted (theEU flagis blue with12 yellowstars).In thelow-entitativity posed on them anddifferent colors. weredepicted borders thesame 15 countries condition, using
1999).
'
Ai
::
(B) highentitativity. (A) low entitativity, Figure 1. Entitativity manipulation:
455
statements theperceived entitathenresponded to three measuring Participants and two the of the the to statements EU (see tivity Appendix) measuring harmoftheEU to theUnited States("The European Unionmayputinjeopardy fulness of the UnitedStates"and "The commercial the worldcommercial supremacy of the United States Union").ParbytheEuropean maybe threatened supremacy all questions answered scale (1, notat all/Idisagree; 7, usinga 7-point ticipants of thequestionnaire, weredebriefed, completion verymuch/I agree).After they andreleased. thanked, Results oftheentitativity we created a comTo assesstheeffectiveness manipulation, items thethree entimeasuring positescore(M = 3.97, SD = 1.21) by averaging on thisscoreshowedthat in the a = .77). A t testperformed (Cronbach's tativity tobe more theEU was perceived entitative condition, (M = 4.21) high-entitativity thanin thelow-entitativity condition (M = 3.71) [t(55) = 1.58,p < .05].2Simiafter reversal of thetwonegative thefour itemsassessitems, larly, appropriate a = .75) to createa score (Cronbach's ing theimageof theEU wereaveraged theimageof theEU (M = 4.77, SD = 1.01). We refer to thisfactor representing as IEU (Image of theEuropean IEU valuesmeanperception of Union).Higher the EU as an ally; conversely, lowerscoresmeanperception of theEU as an thetwo itemsmeasuring harmfulness wereaveraged enemy. Finally, perceived = = 3.36, SD = < into a harmfulness score .91, .001) (r (M p together composite valueson thisscoremeanhigher harmfulness. 1.64). Higher perceived ofentitativity The impact IEU, (highvs. low; recoded1 and0, respectively), andtheir on perceived interaction harmfulness was tested via a hierarchical multhe two main in effects the first and the interaction tipleregression, entering step terms in thesecondstep.Previous to theseanalyses, IEU was centered (i.e., the meanof thevariable was substracted each see Cohen & score; Cohen,1983). by Results are shownin Table 1.
Table 1. Summary of Hierarchical forVariables Perceived Analysis Regression Predicting Harmfulness (Study1,N = 57) Variable B SE B .41 .21 .38 p .11 -.34* -.68**
Step 1 .38 Entitativity IEU -.55 Step2 x IEU -1.43 Entitativity = = Note.R2 .12 forstep1; AR2 .19 forstep2 (ps < .001).
*p< .01,**p< .001.
2 For
checkonly, one-tailed tests wereused. manipulation
456
Castano et al.
ofharmfulness, entitativIEU was a reliable As expected, whereas predictor as an ally,theless it was perceived itywas not.The moretheEU was perceived theinteraction between these to theUnitedStates.More important, as harmful was then in twoways. The interaction twovariables was significant. decomposed Cohen forsinglevalues of IEU. Following First, simpleslopes werecomputed deviation above(ally)andone stanandCohen(1983),thevaluesofone standard Resultsof thesesimple below themean(enemy)wereselected. darddeviation theperception that foran allyimage,highentitativity triggered slopes indicated foran enemy of less harmfulness [P = -.34, t(53)= -2.02, p < .05]. By contrast, harmfulness of the greater perception entitativity triggered [P = .55, image,high t(53) = 3.38,p < .005]. thetwoentitativity conditions. Given ofIEU for We also lookedat theeffect of IEU condition was giventhevalue0, themaineffect that thelow-entitativity in themodelwiththeinterwas givenby theIEU coefficient forthiscondition not This was actionterm Aiken & West, 1991). (see significant [P = .19, t(53) = was obtained condition forthe high-entitativity 1.04,p < .30]. The effect by thecodingso that theinteraction after = switching highentitativity recomputing effect forIEU [P = -.69, 0 and low entitativity = 1. This revealeda significant themore theEU was at highlevelsofentitativity, t(53)= -4.68, p < .001]; hence, in its harmfulness was actions.3 an the less as perceived ally, perceived ofIEU on harmfulness of Study1 showedtheexpected The findings impact of on this more the effect EU entitativity and, moderating important, predicted that the relation between relation. The shapeof theobserved interaction implies harmfulness was strong whenentitativity was high, theimageand theperceived was low.4This pattern of results seems butwas non-significant whenentitativity to support that the between ourconjecture the entitativity polarizes relationship the of the Other and about it. image expectations Study2 2 was designed to replicate andexpand theresults of Study1. In addiStudy in tionto a low- and high-entitativity a third condition was included condition, whichtheentitativity of theoutgroup A dif(i.e., theEU) was notmanipulated. ferent of entitativity was used.This consisted of twoversions of a manipulation fictional articleon the EU. The first versionhighlighted similarities and the common fateof EU countries of group (i.e., twofactors leadingto perceptions thesecondversion differences andthedisparate fates of entitativity); highlighted
An alternative of computing wouldconsist withharmfulness analytical strategy simpleregressions andIEU as predictor, as criterion forthetwoconditions Theserevealed thesamepattern separately. as theanalyses and are notreported here. described, 4 The standard deviations of IEU and harmfulness were comparable:.92 and 1.54 in the lowand 1.10 and 1.75 in thehigh-entitativity condition. condition, entitativity
457
version oftheentitativity scale was used,as well A longer countries. EU member scale assessing theimageoftheEU. The dependent variables ofStudy as a longer was in Study1 theimpact of entitativity Whereas modified. 2 werealso slightly of theoutgroup withrespect harmfulness on theperceived assessedexclusively dimension to commercial issues,Study2 lookedat thisdimension plus another The use oftwo relations themilitary. in an international relevant setting, namely thesefindings. generalizing topicssupports andthe an interaction effect between As in Study1, we expected entitativity difThe harmfulness. of the on the EU variable, only perceived dependent image ofa control in which thepresence in ourpredictions concerned ference condition, the ourclaimconcerning at all. To corroborate was notmanipulated entitativity should be for the control condition the effect of entitativity, slope polarizing lowconditions. that for the and between high-entitativity midway Method in an introducand seventeen students enrolled One hundred Participants. in in for course took the part experiment exchange coursecredit. tory psychology arrival atthelab,participants wererandomly and materials. Procedure Upon of the vs. control vs. low entito one three conditions (highentitativity assigned a and asked to read the instructions were booklet carefully. tativity). They given The first ofreading andunderstanding international news:"We ask taskconsisted readthebrief thatfollows, to retain themostimportant article you to carefully and especially to form an impression abouttheEuropean Union.Do not points, hesitate tounderline seemimportant toyou.You willbe askedyour thepoints that werethenaskedto proceedto of theEuropean Union."Participants impression thenext The article introduced theEU countries andspecpagetoreadthearticle. ified that "thenow 15 and in thenearfuture 19 members of theEuropean Union share[vs. do notshare]a common of a European leaderwas past."The opinion also reported that"we [Europeans] are so similar to [vs. so different suggesting each other." The article did notmention nordid it speak theUnited States, from] abouttheissueson which thedependent variables focused. then to theentitativity scale fortheEU, followed Participants responded by a scale assessing their imageoftheEU (bothscalesareintheAppendix). Finally, weretoldthat themembers oftheEU weregoingtomeet in 2 months participants to makedecisions a commercial with theUnited Statesandthe concerning treaty creation of a European The dependent variables twoquestions: army. comprised "To whatextent do you think thisEuropeancommercial is likelyto be treaty harmful fortheU.S. economy?" and "To whatextent do youthink thisEuropean is to be perceived a threat?" to all questions on 7army Participants responded scales.After ofthequestionnaire, weredebriefed, thanked, point completion they and released.
458
Castano et al.
Results indexwas created the 10 itemsoftheEU entiAn entitativity by averaging = An of scale a .71). (Cronbach's analysis variance(ANOVA) on this tativity vs. Low) as thebetween-participants Control vs. score,usingentitativity (High in thehighwas = factor, significant [F(2, 114) 10.45,p < .001]. As expected, = = = N SD condition .67, (M 4.94, 39), participants judgedtheEU entitativity = = as moreentitative thanin thecontrol condition SD .65, N = 40), (M 4.66, in scored than the condition which, turn, (M = 4.24, SD = higher low-entitativity = < N at or .03 less,one-tailed). .69, 38) (all pairwise comparisons significant p ofthenegative theitems theimage After reversal items, assessing appropriate of theEU wereaveraged intoa composite score(a = .82, M = 4.63, SD = .82). values tothisscoreas IEU (ImageoftheEuropean We againrefer Union).Higher on thisscoremeanperception oftheEU as an ally;conversely, lowerscores mean An ANOVAindicated that oftheEU as an enemy. IEU was notinfluperception of entitativity encedby themanipulation [F(2, 114) = 2.10, n.s.]. answers to theperceived harmfulness items forthecommercial Participants' and army issues(r = .56,p < .001) wereaveraged intoa singleperceivedtreaty harmfulness index(M = 3.66,SD = 1.28).Higher valuesonthis scoremeanhigher harmfulness. perceived This indexwas used as a criterion variable in a hierarchical regresmultiple sion.Giventhat hadthree itintotwovariables: Xl levels,we recoded entitativity = -2, = 0, highentitativity = 1, low entitativity = -1) and X2 (control (control = 1) (see West, & Krull,1996).We = 1, low entitativity Aiken, highentitativity then created twoadditional variables each ofthem bymultiplying bythevariable IEU. The predictors wereused in thehierarchical multiple regression analysis, withX1, X2, and IEU entered in step 1 and X1 x IEU and X2 x IEU in step2. Previousto computing the multiple IEU was centered. Resultsare regression, shownin Table 2.5 As expected, neither of thetwocontrast variables the although representing effect of entitativity was a reliable of was. The IEU more harmfulness, predictor theEU was perceived as an ally, theless itwas perceived as harmful totheUnited States.More important, X2 did not interact with although significantly IEU, Xl thepresence of a linear of entitativity. effect of X1 on The effect did,suggesting harmfulness was then for two values of IEU: one standard devicomputed single ationabovethemean(ally) andone standard deviation belowthemean(enemy). Whentheimageof theEU was that ofan ally,higher levelsof entitativity led to = = theperception ofless harmfulness < This effect [P -.32, t(113) -2.91,p .005].
in step2 was due exclusively to thesignificant interaction of XI x IEU. " The changein R2Obtained Alternative modelsin which theterm X2 x IEU was entered confirmed that itdidnotconseparately to explaining amount of variance. tribute anynoticeable
459
forVariables of Hierarchical Table 2. Summary Perceived Analysis Regression Predicting Harmfulness (Study2, N = 117) Variable Step 1 XI X2 IEU Step 2 XIx IEU X2 x IEU *p < .001. B -.09 -.04 -.51 -.57 -.03 SE B .14 .08 .14 .16 .09 p -.06 -.04 -.32* -.31 -.02
Note. R'2 = .11 for step 1; AR2 = .10 for step 2 (ps < .001).
was reversed whentheimageof theEU was that of an enemy, with highentitato of more the harmfulness = tivity leading perception [P .28, t(113) = 2.27, < p .02]. harmfulness wereobtained for thethree IEU predicted Simpleslopesinwhich levelsofentitativity. Giventhat is an ordinal the values corvariable, entitativity to and low were chosen and control, -1, respec(1, 0, responding high, entitativity was high,IEU reliably tively)as single values.6When entitativity predicted The moretheEU was perceived harmfulness: as an ally,theless its perceived actions wereperceived as harmful [P = -.67, t(113)= -5.40, p < .001]. Thiswas also thecase at medium levelsofentitativity [p = -.31, t(113)= -3.67, p < .001], = butnotat low levelsofentitativity < areshown inFigure (p .06,t 1). Theresults thepolarizing effect of entitativity. 2, whichillustrates Discussion Classic work on imagetheory recent 1956,1969) as wellas more (Boulding, research et al., 1997),has produced an excellent account of the (e.g., Herrmann theOther ininternational relations. wayperceivers apprehend Specifically, images oftheOther suchas enemy, anddegenerate notonly havebeenfound ally,colony, to operate as schemata, thusinfluencing theinterpretation of events concerning theOther, buthavealso proven effective in predicting policychoices(Herrmann et al., 1997). The implicit ofthework on imagetheory has beenthat theOther assumption exists.Whatwe proposehereis thattheOther can exist,in theeye of thepermoreor less. Specifically, on thesocial-psychological ceiver, literature, building we argued that countries can vary in theextent towhich areseenas realentithey ties.We called themeasure of thisvariation entitativity (Campbell,1958). The
As inStudy1 (see note3), we computed for thethree conditions These simple regressions separately. revealed thesamepattern as theanalyses we describe, and are notreported here.
460
Castano et al.
S.--.
--- ----- -
------
-.
lowentitativity --- control -- high entitativity
(enemy)
IEU
(ally)
between Union(IEU) and perceived of harmfulness Figure2. Relationship Imageof theEuropean its actions to theUnited of thethree Statesas a function conditions. experimental
reasonfortaking intoconsideration this"structural" in addition to dimension, dimensions to "content," related is thattheexpectations thatone derivesfrom be moderated dimension. We thusput image theory might by this structural forward a polarization hypothesis. As a preliminary testof thishypothesis, we concentrated on therelationship betweenthe perception of the Otheralong the enemy/ally continuum and the of harmfulness of its actionsto the ingroup. This relationship is perception all else beingequal: The morehostile is thought theOther fairly straightforward, to be to one's own country, themoreharmful theactionsof theOther will be tobe. Conversely, themore theOther is thought tobe,themore perceived friendly beneficial theactions of theOther willbe perceived to be. We then carried outtwoexperiments inwhich all else was notequal. Namely, we variedthe entitativity of the Otherthrough As experimental manipulation. moderated the predicted by ourpolarization hypothesis, entitativity relationship describedabove. When the EU was made highlyentitative in the eyes of American theimageoftheEU was a very ofperceived students, predictor strong harmfulness. Whentheentitativity of theEU was reduced, theimageno longer theperceived harmfulness. whentheentitativity of theEU Moreover, predicted was moderate, thesloperepresenting theimpact of imageon perceived harmfulness landedprecisely thetwoother between conditions (Study2). who heldan imageof theEU as an ally,highentitativAmongparticipants ofitsactions as less harmful totheUnited States. ityled to theperception Among who held an of the as an EU the was true. participants image enemy, opposite
461
case for themoderating effect makesa convincing ofentioffindings Thispattern that it about and for the more also polarizes judgments hypothesis specific tativity, we did notfind ofentitativity, theOther. Also,acrossourstudies anymaineffect is neither that good norbad perse. entitativity leadingus to conclude This conclusionis at odds with what has been suggested by Abelson, the result of an and Park, (1998). study experimental Describing Banaji Dasgupta, and theharmfulof fictional creatures was manipulated in whichtheentitativity these of fictional creatures another behavior toward ness of their assessed, group is seenas relatively that "theoutgroup authors concluded (i.e.,entihomogeneous more italics and added). tative) (p. 247; therefore judged negatively" and that between ourconclusion of Abelsonet theinconsistency To clarify which the was based. the details of data on latter it is to look into the al., necessary and Abelson These datawerepresented (1999, experiment by Dasgupta, Banaji, in thisstudy witha coverstory comwerepresented 2). Participants describing for a new humanoid called created creatures, Gs, allegedly puter-generated the movie.The participants wereadvisedthat sciencefiction although impression twokinds ofcreatures-the formation taskwouldfocuson theGs exclusively, Gs were then with and theHs-would appearin thefilm. an Participants presented a of of entitative of non-entitative or Gs. group Gs, group Gs, singleexemplars was manipulated thephysical (i.e.,color) similarity Groupentitativity byvarying of theGs. Resultsshowedthat whentheGs weredepicted as a highly entitative to be less likelyto engagein positive behavior (and group, theywereexpected morelikelyto engagein negative thanwhentheyweredepicted as a behavior) less entitative that Thisled Dasguptaandhercolleaguesto conclude entigroup. tative are perceived as "activeagents to engagein harmful actions groups ready outsiders" against (p. 1001). Thisconclusion is basedon theassumption that information about diagnostic theGs was absent from thecontext of theexperiment. In other Gs were words, notpresented as hostile or friendly to Hs. However, two features of theexperiments raisequestions as to whether theincreased was elicited negativity byentialone.First, a feature that have contributed to theresults obtained tativity might of entitativity. by Dasguptaet al. is thespecific manipulation Physical similarity, have activated some specific schemarelated to especiallyof skincolor,might racialantagonism, in Abelsonet al. (1998,p. 247). Moreimportant, as noted the nature ofthecoverstory that thetwogroups wereindeed very mayhaveimplied in conflict. Most sciencefiction TV and movieplotsarebased on conflict rather thancooperation between the and the humans in Star instance, (for groups Borg Trek). The idea thatgreater elicitsnegative of the Other entitativity perceptions is also challengedby the resultsof a studyby Susskind,Maurer, Thakkar, andSherman in thisstudy werepreHamilton, (1999,experiment 1). Participants sented withsentences behaviors a tightly describing performed by an individual, knit of or an of individuals group friends, (different aggregate persons randomly
462
Castano etal.
an impression of from a largestate selected university). Theywereaskedto form on a seriesof positive traits thetarget and to ratethetarget socia(intelligence, and athletics). Resultsshowedthat theindividual activism, target bility, political thanboththegroupand theaggregate; more was ratedmorehighly (positively) than the thegroup was rated more forourpurposes, highly (positively) important that can be considered as moreentitaTo theextent thegrouptarget aggregate. thisresult is notconsistent with theclaim of individuals, tivethantheaggregate to more leads be that the However, negatively. target group perceived entitativity it is consistent with ourpolarization hypothesis. aboutthe The two studieswe presented focusedon negative expectations arethemost to international relaOther's behavior. Suchexpectations problematic in general. the Other tionsandto intergroup relations Ourdatashowthat reifying as an enemy enhances which whenit is perceived clearly negative expectations, of can in turn a conflict (see Brubaker, 2002). promote spiral individuals whothink oftheOther Ourdataalso showthat as an ally, among led to its its actions as less harmful to the enhancing entitativity perceiving result that is consistent with our with the and ingroup-a polarization hypothesis his on results obtained Susskind and Future research this by colleagues(1999). and negative We wouldexpect topicshouldfocuson bothpositive expectations. levels of to increase the of as well. high entitativity degree positive expectations if attribution the effect of entitaHowever, specific trigger polarizing processes an between and tivity, asymmetry positive negative expectations might emerge, becausethelatter are knownto elicitmorecausal attribution (Wong& Weiner, 1981). TheRelationship Between theEntitativity and theImageoftheOther Ourtwostudies used minimal ofperceptual features and simmanipulations of the exemplars the Otherthatmade no reference to the ilarity constituting content oftheimageoftheOther cultural characteristics, etc.).Yet (goals,intents, harmfulness of theOther occurred as a consequence of changesin theperceived these factors. Thisfinding is consistent with ourclaimthat (interaction involving) moderates-that in producing is, interacts entitativity with-imagesof theOther aboutitsbehavior. One couldargue, is actuthat however, expectations entitativity This is an important theoretical issue. allya partof theimageof theOther. Whether or notentitativity of theimageof theOther is part on the depends the conceptof image.Boulding'sdefinition of image reported way we define aboveis notparticularly informative in thisrespect. Moreuseful forourpurposes is an examination ofthethree mentioned that about themore factors, earlier, bring recent of imagesproposedby Herrmann and his colleagues(1997, taxonomy relative of theactor, theperceived threat pp. 407-408): theperceived capability and/or and theperceived culture of that opportunity represented by thatactor, actor.Still,none of thesefactors seem to us to correspond to the degreeof
463
tothis should oftheOther. definition, Therefore, entitativity according entitativity as a component of image. notbe treated is orthogonal to these three factors. Thisis notto saythat Indeed, entitativity as of theOther to go handin handwiththeperception certain imagesare likely that thisis thecase. Forinstance, and someevidence entitative, suggests strongly andBuidin(2001) manipintwooriginal Corneille, Yzerbyt, Rogier, experiments, an extreme oftheelectorate ulatedtheproportion political right-wing supporting or so as to maketheparty (40% of support) threatening appearas highly party was that a highly threatenWhatthey observed (4% of support). non-threatening within levelsofconsensus was perceived as enjoying greater party ingright-wing of latter theparty as well as beingmorehomogeneous-the beingan indicator et al., 1995; Judd & Park,1988). (see also Brewer entitativity inCorneille etal.'s study whether theextent ofthesupport One mayquestion ofentitativity a manipulation itself. couldbe considered Although minority groups thanmajority are considered morehomogeneous groups (e.g., Simon& Brown, does not reallyexist, 1987), one may arguethata groupwith4% of support whereas one with 40% of support does.This,rather than threat, mayhavecaused entiin perceived our data showthat theincrease Although clearly homogeneity. of harmthe link between the the Other and the image tativity perceived polarizes to the ingroup, we believe thatincreasing fulnessof its actions(say, threat) threat Increased friendliness, perceived mayalso increase perceived entitativity. the same effects. The however, relationship among perceived may produce of the Otherdeservesfurther threat/friendliness, image, and the entitativity investigation. PossibleMediators oftheEffects ofEntitativity theextent to Entitativity maycause theobserved polarization by moderating is as a of which theOther perceived having distinct set intentions. Someevidence exists that this in an international relations scenario, supports conjecture. Working Sacchi andCastano(2002) showed that thehigher theentitativity oftheingroup, thestronger theattribution of intentionality see Castano, in press). (fora review, thepattern of findings in thelow-entitativity we observed condition Therefore, be due to less perceived might intentionality. An alternative focuses ontheextent towhich theperceiver makes explanation an "agent'sreasons"explanation of reasons" (as opposedto a "causal histories to account for ofa target. thebehavior reasons explanation) Agent's explanations are considered the initiating cause in a causal chain involving intentions and actions(reasons-> intention When an individual action; Malle, 1999). pro--> videsan agent'sreasonsexplanation, he or she is assuming thatwhileperformtheagentis awareof thereasonsfordoingso, and thatthese ing thebehavior a rational forforming theintention to act (O'Laughlin& Malle, provide ground theperception of agencyin theactor, 2002). Such an explanation presupposes
464
Castano et al.
and seems to be used more for behaviorsperformed thanby by entitative non-entitative in our groups (O'Laughlin& Malle,2002). Hence,theparticipants studies who werepresented witha non-entitative EU maynothave engagedin suchexplanation, and thisin turn in a less extreme mayhave resulted judgment of thetarget. The process does notneedtobe mediated implied bysuchan account byperceivedintentionality; it is thenature of thisintentionality thatmayvary. rather, Abelsonandhiscolleagues'(1998) definition of "activity" is enlightening in this to theseauthors, "elicits an inference that theactoris respect. According activity of goal satisfaction" it is engagedin activepursuit (p. 248). It maywell be that the "activepursuit" of goal satisfaction thatis undermined whenthe precisely actor lacksentitativity. In other thegroup as lacking the words, maybe perceived awareness anddeliberation to and Malle charthat, (2002), according O'Laughlin acterize reasons anddifferentiate them from causalhistories agent's explanations of reasonsexplanations. Those American who saw the EU as an participants oftheUnited States not have harmfulness initscomenemy might perceived great mercial if had this behavior was not motivated treaty they thought by a specific butrather was theoutcome of a seriesofcircumstances. reason, thatindividuThus,O'Laughlinand Malle's (2002) workseemsto suggest als provide of a different nature for entitative versus non-entitative explanations showsthat of a group'sactions groups.Our own research polarized judgments when the is as in Future research should emerge group perceived high entitativity. the between these on the of investigate interplay phenomena, focusing concept an Such would benefit from the crossagency. inquiry insights providedby cultural research on theperception of agencyand theattribution of causality at thecollective level (e.g., Menon,Morris, & which can Chiu, Hong,1999), help us better assesstheperspectives ofculturally different actors in international scenarios.For instance, Griesand Peng (2002) have suggested thatdifferences in ChineseandAmerican tocausalattribution exacerbated theresolution approaches ofan already difficult situation theHainanIslandspyplanecollision of following April2001. Conclusions We have provided some evidencethatthe social-psychological conceptof has thepotential to enhance thestudy ofinternational relations. Moreentitativity a further forcross-fertilization between thesetwo over,we believethat potential fieldsof research exists(see Alexander et al., 1999). Our findings shouldcontribute to social-psychological on intergroup relations our theory by improving of the relationship intenunderstanding amongperceived entitativity, activity, and agencyat thecollective level. Our hope is thatsuchinterdisciplitionality, research will also be able to inform and influence nary practice policymaking. Silverstein to take on thechallenge of helping (1989) invited psychologists to changedangerous imagesof the Otherthatguided,and misled,Cold War
465
actors'mutual theworldclose to nuclearwar.We need to perceptions, taking in addition to these moresubtle factors that, acknowledge images, mayinfluence ourinterpretation of theOther'saction.This mayalso help to hinder spiralsof in international conflict relations. For instance, whenreporting abouttheOther, thechoiceof nounsmaybe important. It is one thing that "The Russian to state decided ... but another to assert that "Russiafeels ," Foreign Ministry altogether or "Moscow The is routine of nations lends ." angry." anthropomorphization them If thesenations are seenas enemies, suchlanguage can greater entitativity. increase threat and conflict. perception, pavingthewayformisperception APPENDIX Scale Entitativity in common. have many characteristics *Europeans share a common *Europeans pastexperience. have a senseof common fate. *Europeans Thereare strong tiesamongEuropeans. The European Unionhas realexistence as a group. The European Unionis just an abstraction. have a characteristic nature. Europeans Thereare strong similarities between Europeans. Thereis no doubtabouttheexistence oftheEuropean Union. have characteristics. Europeans specific used in Study1. *Items ItemsUsed toAssesstheImageoftheEU in Study 2 The European Unionhas goals that are incompatible with thoseof theUS. The European Unionis an allyof theUS. The European Unioncooperates with theUS. In thenextdecades,theEuropean Unionmaybecomean antagonist of theUS. The European Unionis friendly towards theUS. The European Unionis trustworthy. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank Ned LebowandRichard Herrmann for their ourstay support during at theMershon Center at Ohio StateUniversity, wherethisresearch originated; Brewer forherinsightful remarks aboutourresearch Marilynn paradigm; Mary Hoevelerand Caren Rabbinoforediting and Rupert Brownand suggestions; DominicAbrams, theeditors, andthree reviewers fortheir construcanonymous tive comments. this article should be sent to Correspondence concerning
466
Castano et al.
New School University, EmanueleCastano,Graduate 65 Fifth Avenue, Faculty, New York, NY, 10003,USA. E-mail:castanoe@newschool.edu. REFERENCES
of thecollective other. Abelson,R. P., Dasgupta,N., Park,J.,& Banaji,M. R. (1998). Perceptions and Social Psychology 2, 243-250. Review, Personality and probing interactions. London: Aiken,L. S., & West,S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing Sage. M. B., & Herrmann, A functional M. G., Brewer, R. K. (1999). Imagesand affect: Alexander, analysis of out-group and Social Psychology, Journal 77, 78-93. ofPersonality stereotype. K. (1956). Theimage.AnnArbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Boulding, K. (1969). National In J.N. Rosenau(Ed.), International Boulding, imagesandinternational systems. politicsandforeign policy(pp. 422-431). New York:FreePress. M. & A. S. (1996). Seeinggroups as entities: The roleofperceiver motivation. Brewer, B., Harasty, In E. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins(Eds.), Handbookof motivation and cognition (vol. 3, pp. 347-370). New York:Guilford. M. B., Weber, J. G., & Carini, B. (1995). Personmemory in intergroup contexts: Brewer, Categorization versusindividuation. Journal and Social Psychology, 69, 29-40. ofPersonality R. (2002). Ethnicity without Archives de Sociologie,XLIII, 163Brubaker, groups. Europdennes 189. and other indicesof the status of aggregates of Campbell,D. T. (1958). Commonfate,similarity, as social entities. Behavioral Science,3, 14-25. person and ingroup identification: On the value of reification. Castano,E. (in press).Ingroup entitativity In V. Y. Yzerbyt, M. C. Judd, & O. Corneille(Eds.), The psychology of groupperception: Contributions to thestudy and essentialism. London:Psychology of homogeneity, entitativity, Press. V. Y., & Bourguignon, D. (1999). Measuring manuCastano,E., Yzerbyt, entitativity. Unpublished CatholicUniversity of Louvain,Belgium. script, V. Y., & Bourguignon, D. (in press).We are one and I like it: The impact of Castano,E., Yzerbyt, on ingroup identification. Journal ingroup entitativity European ofSocial Psychology. V. Y., Paladino, therefore I exist:Ingroup Castano,E., Yzerbyt, M.-P.,& Sacchi,S. (2002). I belong, andingroup bias. Personality and Social Psychology identification, Bulletin, ingroup entitativity, 28, 135-143. P. (1983). Applied sciCohen,J.,& Cohen, multiple regression/correlation analysis forthebehavioral ences(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum. V. Y., Rogier, G. (2001). Threat andthegroupattribution error: Corneille, A., & Buidin, O., Yzerbyt, Whenthreat elicits of extremity and homogeneity. and Social Psycholjudgments Personality 27, 437-446. ogyBulletin, R. P. (1999). Groupentitativity andgroup AssoN., Banaji,M. R., & Abelson, Dasgupta, perception: ciationsbetweenphysicalfeatures and psychological Journal and judgment. of Personality Social Psychology, 77, 991-1003. New York:Random House. Fiske,S. T., & Taylor, S. (1991). Social cognition. H. (1998). Perceived and bias: An interconGaertner, L., & Schopler, ingroup entitativity intergroup nection of selfand others. Journal 28, 963-980. European ofSocial Psychology; of theneedfor J.,Pyszczynski, T., & Solomon, S. (1986). The causes and consequences Greenberg, self-esteem: A terror In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Publicselfandprivate management theory. self (pp. 189-212). New York:Springer-Verlag.
467
clash?Apologieseast and west.Journal Gries,P. H., & Peng,K. (2002). Culture of Contemporary China,11, 173-178. D. L., & Sherman, S. J.(1996). Perceiving andgroups. Review, 103, Hamilton, Psychological persons 336-355. D. L., Sherman, S. J.,& Lickel,B. (1998). Perceiving socialgroups: The importance ofthe Hamilton, In C. Sedikides, continuum. J.Schopler, & C. A. Insko(Eds.), Intergroup cognition entitativity and intergroup behavior NJ:Erlbaum. (pp. 47-74). Mahwah, D. (2000). Essentialist beliefsaboutsocial categories. British Haslam,N., Rothschild, L., & Ernst, Journal 39, 113-127. ofSocial Psychology, R. K. (1985). Perceptions and behavior in Soviet of Herrmann, foreign policy.Pittsburgh: University Press. Pittsburgh R. K., Voss, J. F., Schooler, T. Y. E., & Ciarrochi, J. (1997). Images in international Herrmann, An experimental relations: testof cognitive schemata. International StudiesQuarterly, 41, 403-433. C. (1998). Differential distrust of groups and individuals. In Insko,C. A., Schopler, J.,& Sedikides, C. Sedikides, J.Schopler, & C. A. Insko(Eds.), Intergroup and intergroup behavior cognition NJ:Erlbaum. (pp. 75-107). Mahwah, C. M., & Park,B. (1988). Out-group of variability at theindividual Judd, homogeneity: Judgments and group levels.Journal and Social Psychology, 54, 778-788. ofPersonality D. L., Wieczorkowska, S. J.,& Uhles,A. N. (2000). Lickel,B., Hamilton, G., Lewis,A., Sherman, Varieties of groups and theperception of groupentitativity. Journal and Social ofPersonality 78, 223-246. Psychology, A new theoretical framework. and Malle, B. M. (1999). How people explainbehavior: Personality Social Psychology Review, 3, 23-48. A. R., Sherman, S. J.,& Hamilton, D. L. (1994). On-line and memory-based McConnell, aspectsof individual and grouptarget Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 67, judgments. 173-185. A. R., Sherman, S. J.,& Hamilton, D. L. (1997). Target cohesiveness: for McConnell, Implications information aboutindividual and grouptargets. Journal and Social processing of Personality 75, 750-762. Psychology, M. W.,Chiu,C., & Hong,Y. (1999). Culture and theconstrual of agency: AttriMenon,T., Morris, bution to individual versusgroupdispositions. Journal and Social Psychology, of Personality 76, 701-717. M. J.,& Malle,B. M. (2002). How peopleexplain actions andindiO'Laughlin, performed bygroups viduals. Journal and Social Psychology, 82, 33-48. ofPersonality C. L. (2001). The effects of entitativity beliefson implicit betweengroup Pickett, comparisons members. and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 515-525. Personality is beautiful. The importance Sacchi, S., & Castano,E. (2002, June).Entitative the of perceiving as a real entity. at thegeneral of theEuropean Association of ingroup Paperpresented meeting Social Psychology, San Sebastian, Experimental Spain. B. (1989). Enemyimages:The psychology of U.S. attitudes and cognition Silverstein, the regarding SovietUnion.American 44, 903-913. Psychologist, R. J.(1987). Perceived in minority-majority Simon,B., & Brown, contexts. intragroup homogeneity Journal and Social Psychology, 53, 703-711. ofPersonality D. L., & Sherman, J.W. (1999). Perceiving Susskind, J.,Maurer, K., Thakkar, individV.,Hamilton, uals and groups:Expectancies, and causal attributions. Journalof inferences, dispositional and Social Psychology, 76, 181-191. Personality & J. C. An ofintergroup H., Turner, relations. In W. G. Austin & S. (1979). integrative Tajfel, theory Worchel relations CA: Brooks/Cole. (Eds.), Psychology ofintergroup (pp. 33-47). Monterey,
468
etal. Castano
J.L. (1999). The impact of perceived on inconsistency forgroups resolution Welbourne, entitativity and individuals. Journal Social Psychology, 35, 481-508. ofExperimental cateWest,S. G., Aiken,L. S., & Krull,J.L. (1996). Experimental personality designs: Analyzing variable interactions. Journal 64, 1-48. goricalby continuous ofPersonality, B. (1981). Whenpeople ask "why"questions, and theheuristics of attribuWong,P. T., & Weiner, tionalsearch. Journal and Social Psychology, 40, 650-663. ofPersonality V. Y., Castano, & Paladino, M.-P.(2000). The primacy oftheingroup: The E., Leyens, J.-P., Yzerbyt, ofentitativity and identification. Review 11,257-295. interplay European ofSocial Psychology, V. Y., Corneille, C. (2001). The interplay of subjective essentialism andentiYzerbyt, O., & Estrada, in theformation of stereotypes. and Social Psychology Review, tativity 5, 141-155. Personality V. Y., Rogier, and social attribution: On transA., & Fiske,S. T. (1998). Groupentitativity Yzerbyt, constraints intostereotypes. and Social Psychology Bulletin, latingsituational 24, Personality 1090-1104.

2003, Castano Et Al, The Perception of The Other in IR PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

2003, Castano Et Al, The Perception of The Other in IR PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The Perception of the Other in International Relations: Evidence for the Polarizing Effect of Entitativity Author(s): Emanuele Castano,

Vol. Political 24,No.3,2003 Psychology,

in International oftheOther The Perception forthePolarizing Relations: Evidence Effect ofEntitativity

Simona Sacchi di Milano-Bicocca Universitii PeterHays Gries University of Coloradoat Boulder

and Polarization Entitativity

and Polarization Entitativity

(B) highentitativity. (A) low entitativity, Figure 1. Entitativity manipulation:

and Polarization Entitativity

*p< .01,**p< .001.

checkonly, one-tailed tests wereused. manipulation

and Polarization Entitativity

and Polarization Entitativity

lowentitativity --- control -- high entitativity

and Polarization Entitativity

and Polarization Entitativity

and Polarization Entitativity

and Polarization Entitativity

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen