2003, Castano et al, The perception of the other in IR.pdf

8/13/2019 2003, Castano et al, The perception of the other in IR.pdf

1/21

The Perception of the Other in International Relations: Evidence for the Polarizing Effect ofEntitativityAuthor(s): Emanuele Castano, Simona Sacchi and Peter Hays GriesReviewed work(s):

Source: Political Psychology, Vol. 24, No. 3 (Sep., 2003), pp. 449-468Published by: International Society of Political PsychologyStable 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 [email protected].

.

International Society of Political Psychologyis 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 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ispphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3792321?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3792321?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ispp


2/21

Politicalsychology,ol. 4,No.3,2003

ThePerceptionftheOthern nternationalRelations: vidence or hePolarizingffectofEntitativityEmanuele CastanoGraduate Faculty,New School UniversitySimona SacchiUniversitiiiMilano-BicoccaPeterHaysGriesUniversityfColorado tBoulder

In an internationalelationsontext,hemutualmagesheldby ctors ffectheirmutualexpectationsbout heOther's ehaviorndguide henterpretationf heOther's ctions.Here t s argued hat he ffectfthesemages smoderatedythedegree fentitativityoftheOther-thats,the xtento which t sperceiveds a realentity.wo tudies estedthishypothesisymanipulatinghe ntitativityftheEuropeanUnionEU) amongU.S.citizenswhose mages ftheEU varied longthe nemy/allyimension. esults fthesestudies ielded onvergingvidencensupport fthehypothesized oderatingffectfentitativity.pecifically,ntitativityhowed polarizing ffectn the elationshipetweenthemage fthe U and udgmentsfharmfulnessfactions arried utbytheEU.KEY WORDS: entitativity,gency, olarization,mage,ntergroupelations,nternationalelations

The newsmedia outinelynformsabout oreignountriesestingewbal-listicmissiles, eveloping ewairdefense ystems,enovatingheirubmarinefleets,r,more ecently,evelopingiologicalweapons.s this oodorbad news?The answer o this uestion epends, fcourse, ntheperceiveduality ftherelationsetween urowncountrynd theforeignountrynquestion.notherwords,tdepends nwhetherheotherountrys anallyor anenemy.f t s anenemy,hances re that newouldfeel hreatened;f t s anally, newould, nthe ontrary,eelsafeguarded.o the xtent hat ountriesan be orderedlong

4490162-895X 2003 Internationalociety f Political sychologyPublished yBlackwell ublishing.nc.,350 MainStreet, alden,MA02148,USA, and9600Garsingtonoad,Oxford, X4 2DQ

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:58:08 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/21

450 Castano tal.a continuumrom bsolute llyto absolute nemy,t seemsreasonableoarguethat linearrelationship ight xist between ne's perceptionf a foreigncountry's osition n this continuumnd theperceivedharmfulnesso one'scountryf an actionundertakenythat ountry:he more t is an enemy,hemore tsaction s likely o be perceiveds harmful.The othermportanteaturentheperceptionf a foreignountry'sctionsis itsstrength.learly, strongnemys more hreateninghan weakenemy.Friendliness/hostilitynd strength/weaknessonstitute,ccording o Boulding(1969),thebuilding locksof the mageof theOther. ouldings also creditedwithhaving sedthe ermmage- thetotal ognitive,ffective,nd evaluativestructuref the behavior nit, r its internal iewof itself nd its universe(p. 423)-to analyze nternationalystems.Buildingnthe sychologicalonceptf chemaFiske& Taylor,991),Her-rmann, oss, Schooler, nd Ciarrochi1997) haveproposed hatmagesoftheOther re not collection f unrelatedraits,utratherconstellationffeaturesthat lusterogethernmeaningfulays.Thepossibleways nwhichheyohere,accordingoHerrmannndhiscolleagues,redictatedy he nteractionfthreefactors: heperceivedelativeapabilityf the ctor,heperceivedhreatnd/oropportunityepresentedy that ctor, nd theperceived ulture f that ctor(Herrmannt l., 1997, .408;seealsoHerrmann,985).Theway nwhich eoplereact oan action arriedutbyanactor,aya foreignountry,illthen ependonwhichparticularmage s activated. eedless o say, he mageprovideshekey o nterpretinghe ction. he same ction anbeinterpreteds harmfulotheperceiver'sountryfthe ctor sperceiveds an enemy, otverymuch o if tis perceiveds a colony, ndpossiblywelcome f t s perceiveds an ally.The work fHerrmannndhiscolleagues nhancesurunderstandingfhowactors n internationalelations reperceived y looking t how theperceiverapprehendshecontent fthese ctors'mages.Thiswork s also originaln itssuggestionhat lustersfcontent orm uch magesseealsoAlexander, rewer,& Herrmann,999).Our aim n this aper s to nvestigatehe mpact f anotherfactorhat ould ffecthenterpretationf ctionsarried utby heOther. atherthan ocusingnthe haracteristicsfthe ontent, e look atwhatwebelieve obe an importanttructuralomponent,amely heperceivedntitativityf theactor.

Entitativity:riginsndCurrent esearchThe conceptof entitativity,eveloped by social psychologist onaldCampbell1958),referso the egree fhavinghenaturefanentity,fhavingrealexistence p. 17). Building nGestalt rinciples,ampbell uggestedhatsimilarity,roximity,ommon ate,ndboundednessould urn mere ggregateof ndividualsnto coherentroup ndmake ta realentity,t least nthe yeof theperceiver.



4/21

Entitativitynd Polarization 451Themultipleoutes ogauginghe ntitativityf a group rereflectedntheresearch hathas been inspired y Campbell'soriginalnsights. ollowingLewinian radition,ome authors ave shown ontinuityith arlier esearchon theconcepts f interdependence,ohesiveness,nd internal rganization,and haveemphasizedhe dea that ntitativityeads to unitye.g.,GaertnerSchopler,1998; Hamilton, herman,& Lickel, 1998; Insko, Schopler,&Sedikides, 998;Lickel etal., 2000).Thisperspectiveas furtheredurunder-standingfdifferencesntheperceptionsfgroupsnd ndividuals. amiltonndSherman1996) proposed hat ntitativitys themediatoresponsibleor hesedifferences.ccordingo these uthors,roups reperceiveds less entitativethanndividuals. onsequently,ess integrativeffort ouldbe put nto olving

inconsistenciesorgroups hanfor ndividuals,nd less coherentmpressionswouldbe formed or heformerhan or he atter.n supportf this ationale,researchmanipulatingroup ntitativityas shown hatwhen he ntitativityfthegroup-targets increased,heperceiver rocesses he nformationbout hegroupna way imilar othat sedfor he ndividual-targetMcConnell,herman,& Hamilton, 994, 1997;Welbourne,999).Also,Pickett2001) showed hat,relative omembersfnon-entitativeroups,membersfhighlyntitativeroupsaresubject ogreaterntragroupomparison.ther uthors ave focused n theperceivedimilarityetweenxemplarsf thegroupBrewer,Weber, Carini,1995)or onthegroup rototypeBrewer Harasty,996), ndhave nterpretedentitativitys a measure fthepsychologicalxistence f thegroupCastano,inpress).Focusingon ingroup ntitativity,astano,Yzerbyt,nd Bourguignoninpress) manipulatedommon ate, imilarity,oundedness,nd salienceof theEuropeanUnion, nd found hat ll these omponentsfentitativityoderatethe evelof dentificationith heEU amongEuropean itizenssee also Lickelet al., 2000). Merging nsights rom errormanagementheoryGreenberg,Pyszczynski, Solomon,1986) and social identityheory Tajfel& Turner,1979),Castano,Yzerbyt, aladino, ndSacchi 2002) found hat heperceivedentitativityfone's nationnd dentificationith t ncreased hen articipants'need for ymbolicmmortalityas raisedbymakingalient he nevitabilityftheirwn death. heentitativityfone's nationlso seems o fulfill ore mme-diate ndpragmaticeeds.Usinga role-playituationn thecontext f a ficti-tiousinternationalcenario, acchi and Castano 2002, study2) foundthatparticipantshosehypotheticalountry aspresenteds beinghighnentitativ-ity erceivedt shavingmorententionality,hey eltmore ecure,nd hey xpe-rienced ess threatrom ther ountriesfor eviews,ee Castano, npress; eealsoYzerbyt, astano, eyens,& Paladino, 000).Finally, zerbytndhiscolleagues nvestigatedhe nterplayetweennti-tativityndessentialismYzerbyt, orneille, Estrada, 001; see alsoHaslam,Rothschild, Ernst, 000) andfound hat hebehavior f ndividualselongingtohighlyntitativeroupss more ikely obe attributedoenduringroup is-



5/21

452 Castano et al.positions,s comparedo the amebehavior isplayed ymembersf ess enti-tative roups Yzerbyt, ogier, Fiske,1998).Themessage mergingrom esearch nentitativitys that roups aryntheextent o which hey reperceiveds real entities. heperceived sychologicalexistence f a group,herefore,eemsnot o be an issue ofeither/or,utratherquestion fdegree; ndentitativitys itsmeasure.

TheEntitativityftheOthern nternationalelationsImage heorys concerned ith he ontentf chemas bout thers. hespe-cific haracteristicsfimagesof theOtherhave been shown oholdpredictive

powerwith espectothenature f tsperception,nd to the nterpretationf tsbehavior. heentitativityf theOther s a measure f the xtent o which t sperceiveds a real ntity.urcontentions that heperceptionfthe existenceof theOther houldnotbe taken or rantedrperceiveds an issue of either/or.Ifso,non-existencesunproblematic.xistence,n the ther and,would implybe a necessaryondition or nyexpectationsoemerge,nd thequality f theimage f theOther eldbytheperceiver ould ufficeo makepredictionsbouttheOther's ehavior.f,bycontrast,arying egrees fexistence anbeascribedto theOther,xistenceecomes nimportantactor oconsider-especiallyf, swe argue,thelps npredictinghedegree f these xpectations.Usinga vector nalogyfor, ay,theperceived armfulnessf a foreigncountry,ecould aythatmages redicthedirection,hereasntitativityightbe a measure fitsstrength. e thereforergue hat ntitativityightct as amoderatorftherelationshipetween he mageoftheOther nd theperceptionand nterpretationf tsbehavior. urspecificontentions that hemoderatingroleofentitativityakes heform f a polarizingffect.To showpolarization,ne needs oshow hat hempact fxony s strength-enedathigher aluesofthepolarizingariable ,and that he ame s reducedtlowervalues ofz. Furthermore,hen hepredictorariable is bipolar,ntita-tivityhould e positivelyelated oyat onepoleofx andnegativelyelatedoitattheopposite oleofx.To illustrateurrationale,et'sconsider ne of thesimplest redictionsfimagetheory-thatheactions f a foreignountry ill be perceiveds moreharmfulysomeonewhoholds nenemy mage f tthan ysomeonewhoholdsan ally mage.To the xtent hat he nemy/allyimensionan be conceived sa continuum,e can think ftherelationshipetween t andperceived armful-nessas a linear ne. fentitativity,s wesuggest,as a polarizingffect,his ela-tionshiphouldbe strongerhen he ntitativityf theforeign ountrys high,andweakerwhen tsentitativitys low.Furthermore,ecause xpectationsboutthebehavior f anenemy ountryre ikely o be negative,ncreasingtsentita-tivityhould ead toa perceptionf ncreased armfulness. henoneholdsanally mage f a country,owever,xpectationsbout hebehavior fthat ountry



6/21

Entitativitynd Polarization 453tend o bepositive. herefore,ncreasinghe ntitativityfanally ountryhouldlead to theperceptionf morefriendliness.hesehypotheses ere nvestigatedin twostudies.

Overviewfthe tudiesParticipantsnboth tudieswereAmericantudents;heoutgroup as theEuropeanUnion EU).' In both tudies,he ntitativityf theEU was manipu-lated nd the mageof theEU heldbyparticipantsas assessed, ither efore(Study1) or afterStudy ) theentitativityanipulation.he perceived arm-fulness fEU actions onstitutedhemaindependentariable.Becauseofthemultipleoots fentitativity,e tested urhypothesessingtwodifferentanipulationsfentitativityo be sure hatntitativity,ndnot neof ts omponentsnly,wasresponsibleor he ffectsbserved.ntitativityasmanipulatedy usingperceptualuesinStudy andsimilaritynStudy . As ameasurefentitativity,e usedshorterersions fanentitativitycaledevelopedbyCastano,Yzerbyt,nd Bourguignon1999), which ncludes tems appingcommon ate, imilarity,nddistinctivenesssee alsoCastano tal.,2002).Ourmainpredictionentered n aninteractionetween he mage f theEUheldbyparticipantsndthemanipulationfentitativity.pecifically,eexpectedonly hoseparticipantsho viewed heEU as anenemy f theUnited tates ojudgetheactions f theEU as moreharmfulo theUnited tates nthehigh-entitativityonditionhan nthe ow-entitativityondition. orthose articipantswho viewed heEU as an ally, tshigherntitativityhouldhave ed to theper-ception f theEU as lessharmful.lso,we expected oobserve strongerela-tionshipetween hemage f he U andthe erceived armfulnessf he ctionsoftheEU among articipantsnthehigh-entitativityonditionomparedothoseinthe ow-entitativityondition.

Study1Method

Participants. ifty-seventudentsnrolledn an introductorysychologycourse ookpartnthe xperimentnexchange or ourse redit.Procedurendmaterials.articipantsrrivedtthe ab ngroups ffour ndwererandomlyssigned oone ofthe woexperimentalonditionshighvs. lowentitativity).articipantsat inseparate ubicles ndwereunable o communi-Because theEU is becomingnimportantctor nthe nternationalrena,nvestigationfthe ela-tions etweenheUnited tates nd theEU has anappliednterest,ot nly theoreticalne.Also,theEU is a group boutwhich urparticipantsad ittle nowledge, akinghe ntitativityanip-ulation elativelyasyto mplement.



7/21

454 Castano tal.catewith achother.heyweregiven bookletndwere sked oread he nstruc-tions arefullyeforensweringarious uestions. nthe irstageofthe ooklet(a constantnthe wo onditions),articipantsespondedofour tatementsimedat assessing he mageof the EU. The statements ere TheEuropeanUnionvaluescooperativeolutions oproblemsnd tries o avoidconflict, TheEuro-peanUnionwill notexploit ur trustn them ut nstead eciprocatend con-tributeheir air hare, TheEuropeanUnion'sobjectivesre self-centeredndharmfulo us (i.e., theUnited tates), nd The EuropeanUnionwould takeadvantage f anyeffortsn ourpart o cooperate ndtheywould eventry oexploit s (i.e.,theUnited tates). The first wo temswereusedto assess theally mageand theothers o assess the enemy mage see Alexander tal.,1999).On the econdpage,a manipulationfEU entitativityas introduced.hisconsistedolely fa mapof theEU (Figure ). In thehigh-entitativityondition,themapdid not how he nternalorders fthe15 EU countries.llofthe oun-triesweredepictedn thesame color blue) and 12yellow tarsweresuperim-posedon themtheEU flag s bluewith12yellow tars).nthe ow-entitativitycondition,he ame 15countries eredepicted sing ordersnddifferentolors.

' Ai

:: . .

a eFigure1. Entitativityanipulation:A) lowentitativity,B) high ntitativity.



8/21

Entitativitynd Polarization 455Participantshen espondedothree tatements easuringheperceivedntita-tivityf theEU (see theAppendix)ndtotwostatementseasuringheharm-fulnessfthe U to theUnited tates TheEuropean nionmayput n eopardythe world ommercialupremacyf theUnited tates nd The commercialsupremacyftheUnited tatesmaybe threatenedytheEuropean nion ).Par-ticipantsnsweredll questions sing 7-pointcale 1, not t all/Idisagree; ,verymuch/Igree).Afterompletionf thequestionnaire,heyweredebriefed,thanked,ndreleased.

ResultsTo assessthe ffectivenessfthe ntitativityanipulation,e created com-posite core M = 3.97,SD = 1.21)byaveraginghe hreetemsmeasuringnti-tativityCronbach's = .77).A t test erformedn this core howed hat n thehigh-entitativityondition,heEU wasperceivedobe more ntitativeM = 4.21)than nthe ow-entitativityonditionM = 3.71) [t(55)= 1.58,p < .05].2Simi-larly,fterppropriateeversal f the wonegativetems,hefour tems ssess-ingthe mageoftheEU were veragedCronbach's = .75) tocreate scorerepresentinghe mageof theEU (M = 4.77,SD = 1.01).We refero this actoras IEU (ImageoftheEuropeanUnion).HigherEU values meanperceptionfthe EU as an ally;conversely,ower coresmeanperceptionf theEU as anenemy. inally,hetwo temsmeasuringerceived armfulnessereaveragedtogetherr= .91,p < .001) into composite armfulnesscore M = 3.36,SD =1.64).Higher alueson this coremeanhigher erceived armfulness.The mpact fentitativityhigh s. ow;recoded and0,respectively),EU,and theirnteractionnperceived armfulnessas tested ia a hierarchical ul-tiple egression,nteringhe womain ffectsnthefirsttep ndthe nteractiontermsnthe econd tep.Previous o these nalyses,EU wascenteredi.e.,the

meanof thevariablewas substractedyeachscore; ee Cohen& Cohen,1983).Results re shownnTable1.Table 1. SummaryfHierarchicalegression nalysis orVariables redictingerceivedHarmfulnessStudy1,N = 57)

Variable B SE B pStep1Entitativity .38 .41 .11IEU -.55 .21 -.34*Step2EntitativityIEU -1.43 .38 -.68**Note.R2= .12 for tep1; AR2 .19 for tep2 (ps < .001).*p< .01,**p .001.2Formanipulationheck nly, ne-tailedestswereused.



9/21

456 Castano et al.As expected, hereasEU was a reliable redictorfharmfulness,ntitativ-itywas not.The more heEU wasperceiveds anally, he ess it wasperceivedas harmfulo theUnited tates.More mportant,he nteractionetween hese

twovariableswassignificant.he nteractionas then ecomposedn twoways.First, imple lopeswerecomputedor inglevalues of EU. Following ohenandCohen 1983),thevaluesofone standardeviationbove ally)andonestan-darddeviation elow themean enemy)were selected.Results f these impleslopes ndicatedhat or nally mage,high ntitativityriggeredheperceptionof essharmfulnessP = -.34, t(53)= -2.02,p < .05].Bycontrast,or nenemyimage,high ntitativityriggeredheperceptionfgreaterarmfulnessP= .55,t(53)= 3.38,p < .005].Wealso looked t the ffectf EU for he wo ntitativityonditions. iventhat he ow-entitativityondition as given hevalue0, themain ffect f EUfor his ondition as givenbythe EU coefficientn themodelwith he nter-action ermseeAiken& West, 991).This wasnot ignificantP = .19,t(53)=1.04,p < .30]. The effect orthehigh-entitativityonditionwas obtained yrecomputinghe nteractionfterwitchinghe oding o that igh ntitativity0 and owentitativity1. Thisrevealed significantffect or EU [P = -.69,t(53)= -4.68,p < .001];hence, thighevels fentitativity,hemore heEU wasperceiveds anally, he essharmfulnessasperceivedn ts ctions.3ThefindingsfStudy showed he xpectedmpact f EU on harmfulnessand,more mportant,hepredictedmoderatingffectfEU entitativityn thisrelation. he shapeoftheobserved nteractionmplies hat herelation etweenthe mage ndtheperceived armfulnessas strong hen ntitativityashigh,butwasnon-significanthen ntitativityas low.4Thispatternf results eemstosupporturconjecturehat ntitativityolarizes herelationshipetweenheimageof theOther ndthe xpectationsbout t.

Study2Study wasdesignedoreplicatendexpand he esults fStudy . Inaddi-tion oa low- andhigh-entitativityondition, third ondition as includednwhich he ntitativityf theoutgroupi.e.,theEU) was notmanipulated. dif-ferentmanipulationfentitativityas used.Thisconsistedftwoversionsfafictional rticle n theEU. The first ersionhighlightedimilaritiesnd thecommon ate fEU countriesi.e.,twofactorseading operceptionsfgroup

entitativity);he econdversion ighlightedifferencesnd thedisparateates fAnalternativenalytical trategyould onsist fcomputingimple egressions ithharmfulnessas criterionnd EU as predictor,or he wo onditionseparately.heserevealed he amepatternas the nalyses escribed,nd are notreportedere.4 The standard eviations f IEU and harmfulness erecomparable:92 and 1.54 in the ow-entitativityondition,nd 1.10and 1.75 nthehigh-entitativityondition.



10/21

Entitativitynd Polarization 457EU memberountries. longer ersion f the ntitativitycale wasused, swellas a longercaleassessinghe mage ftheEU. Thedependentariables fStudy2 were lso slightly odified.Whereas nStudy the mpact fentitativityasassessedexclusivelyn theperceived armfulnessf theoutgroup ith espectto commercialssues,Study looked t thisdimensionlusanotherimensionrelevantnaninternationalelationsetting, amelyhemilitary.he use oftwotopics upports eneralizinghese indings.As inStudy ,weexpectedn interactionffect etweenntitativityndtheimage f theEU on thedependentariable, erceived armfulness.heonlydif-ferencenourpredictionsoncernedhepresencef a controlondition,nwhichentitativityas notmanipulatedtall. To corroborateur claimconcerninghepolarizingffect f entitativity,heslopeforthe control onditionhouldbemidway etweenhat or he ow-andhigh-entitativityonditions.

MethodParticipants.ne hundrednd seventeen tudentsnrolledn an introduc-tory sychologyourse ookpartnthe xperimentnexchange or ourse redit.Procedurend materials. ponarrival t the ab,participantsere andomlyassigned o oneof the hree onditionshigh ntitativitys. control s. low enti-tativity).heyweregiven booklet nd askedto readthe nstructionsarefully.The firstask onsisted freadingndunderstandingnternationalews: We askyoutocarefullyeadthebrief rticle hat ollows, oretainhemost mportantpoints,ndespecially o form n impressionbout heEuropeanUnion.Do nothesitateounderlinehepointshateem mportantoyou.You willbe askedyourimpressionf theEuropeanUnion. Participantserethen skedtoproceed othenext ageto read he rticle. he articlentroducedhe U countriesndspec-

ified hat thenow 15 and n thenearfuture9 members f theEuropeanUnionshare vs.do not hare] common ast. Theopinion fa Europeaneaderwasalso reporteduggestinghat we [Europeans]re so similar o [vs.so differentfrom]achother. he article id notmentionheUnited tates, ordid tspeakabout he ssueson which hedependentariables ocused.Participantshen espondedothe ntitativitycale for heEU, followed ya scaleassessingheirmage ftheEU (both calesare n theAppendix). inally,participantsere old hat hemembersfthe U weregoing omeetn 2monthsto makedecisions oncerningcommercialreaty ith heUnited tates ndthecreation f a European rmy. hedependentariables omprisedwoquestions:To what xtent o youthink hisEuropean ommercialreatys likely obeharmfulor heU.S. economy? nd Towhat xtent oyouthinkhis uropeanarmys tobe perceived threat? articipantsespondedo all questions n 7-point cales.Afterompletionfthe uestionnaire,heyweredebriefed,hanked,and released.



11/21

458 Castanoetal.Results

Anentitativityndexwas created y averaginghe 10 items f theEU enti-tativitycale (Cronbach's = .71). An analysis f varianceANOVA) on thisscore,using ntitativityHighvs. Control s. Low) as thebetween-participantsfactor, as significantF(2, 114)= 10.45,p < .001].As expected,nthehigh-entitativityonditionM = 4.94, SD = .67,N = 39),participantsudgedtheEUas more ntitativehann thecontrol onditionM = 4.66, SD = .65,N = 40),which,nturn,coredhigherhan he ow-entitativityonditionM= 4.24,SD =.69,N = 38) (all pairwise omparisonsignificanttp < .03or ess,one-tailed).Afterppropriateeversalf henegativetems,he temsssessinghemageoftheEU were veragednto compositecore a = .82,M = 4.63,SD = .82).Weagainrefero this core s IEU (ImageoftheEuropean nion).Higher alueson this coremeanperceptionftheEU as anally; onversely,ower coresmeanperceptionf theEU as anenemy. nANOVA ndicatedhatEU was not nflu-encedbythemanipulationfentitativityF(2, 114)= 2.10,n.s.].Participants'nswers o theperceived armfulnesstems or he ommercialtreatyndarmyssues r= .56,p < .001)were veragednto single erceived-harmfulnessndexM= 3.66,SD = 1.28).Higher alues n this coremeanhigherperceived armfulness.This ndexwas used as a criterionariable n a hierarchical ultipleegres-sion.Given hat ntitativityad threeevels,werecodedt nto wovariables: l(control 0, high ntitativity1,lowentitativity-1) andX2 (control -2,high ntitativity1, owentitativity1) (seeWest,Aiken,& Krull, 996).Wethen reated wo dditional ariables ymultiplyingach ofthem ythevariableIEU. The predictors ereusedin thehierarchical ultiple egressionnalysis,withX1,X2, and EU enterednstep1 andX1 x IEU and X2 x IEU instep2.Previous o computinghemultiple egression,EU was centered. esults reshownnTable2.5As expected, lthough eitherf the wocontrast ariables epresentingheeffect fentitativityas a reliable redictorfharmfulness,EU was. ThemoretheEU wasperceiveds anally, he ess twasperceivedsharmfulotheUnitedStates.More mportant,lthough 2 did not nteractignificantlyithEU, Xldid, uggestinghepresencef a linear ffectfentitativity.he effectf X1 onharmfulnessas then omputedor wo ingle aluesof EU: onestandard evi-ation bovethemean ally)and onestandard eviation elowthemean enemy).When he mageof theEU was that f anally,higherevelsofentitativityedtotheperceptionf ess harmfulnessP= -.32, t(113)= -2.91,p < .005].This ffect

Thechangen R2Obtainednstep wasdueexclusivelyothe ignificantnteractionfXI x IEU.Alternative odelsn which he erm 2 x IEU wasenteredeparatelyonfirmedhat tdidnot on-tributeoexplainingnynoticeablemount fvariance.



12/21

Entitativitynd Polarization 459Table 2. Summaryf Hierarchical egression nalysis orVariables redictingerceivedHarmfulnessStudy ,N = 117)

Variable B SE B pStep1XI -.09 .14 -.06X2 -.04 .08 -.04IEU -.51 .14 -.32*Step2XIx IEU -.57 .16 -.31X2 x IEU -.03 .09 -.02Note. R'2= .11 forstep 1; AR2 = .10 forstep 2 (ps < .001).*p< .001.wasreversed hen he mageof theEU was that fanenemy, ithhigh ntita-tivityeading o theperceptionf moreharmfulnessP = .28, t(113)= 2.27,p < .02].Simple lopes nwhichEU predictedarmfulnessere btained or he hreelevelsofentitativity.iven hat ntitativitys an ordinal ariable,hevaluescor-respondingohigh,ontrol,nd owentitativityere hosen1,0,and 1, respec-tively) s singlevalues.6Whenentitativityas high, EU reliably redictedperceived armfulness:hemore heEU was perceiveds an ally, he ess itsactionswereperceiveds harmfulP= -.67, t(113)= -5.40,p < .001].This wasalso the ase at mediumevelsofentitativityp= -.31, t(113)= -3.67,p < .001],butnot t ow evels fentitativityp = .06,t< 1).The results re hownnFigure2,which llustrateshepolarizingffect fentitativity.

DiscussionClassic work n mage heoryBoulding, 956,1969)as well as more ecentresearche.g.,Herrmanntal., 1997),hasproducednexcellent ccount f thewayperceiverspprehendheOthern nternationalelations.pecifically,magesoftheOther uch s enemy,lly, olony,nddegenerateot nlyhavebeenfoundtooperate s schemata,hus nfluencinghe nterpretationf events oncerningtheOther,uthavealsoprovenffectivenpredictingolicy hoices Herrmannetal., 1997).Theimplicitssumptionfthework n mage heoryas been hatheOtherexists.Whatwe proposehere s that heOther anexist, ntheeyeoftheper-

ceiver,more rless.Specifically,uildingn the ocial-psychologicaliterature,wearguedhat ountriesanvarynthe xtent o which heyre eenas real nti-ties. We called themeasure fthisvariationntitativityCampbell, 958).The6 As inStudy seenote ),wecomputedimple egressionsor he hreeonditionseparately.heserevealed he amepatterns the nalyseswedescribe,ndare notreportedere.



13/21

460 Castanoetal.

S.--. --------- --- low ntitativity--- - -. --- control-. -- highntitativity0

(enemy) IEU (ally)Figure2. RelationshipetweenmageoftheEuropeanUnion IEU) andperceived armfulnessfits actions o theUnited tates s a functionf the hree xperimentalonditions.

reasonfor akingntoconsiderationhis structural imension,n addition odimensionselated o content, s that heexpectationshat ne derives romimage theorymight e moderatedy thisstructuralimension.We thusputforwardpolarizationypothesis.As a preliminaryest fthishypothesis,e concentratedn therelationshipbetween heperceptionf the Other longtheenemy/allyontinuumnd theperceptionf harmfulnessf its actionsto the ingroup. his relationshipsfairly traightforward,ll elsebeing qual:ThemorehostileheOthers thoughtto be to one's owncountry,hemoreharmfulhe actions fthe Otherwill beperceivedobe.Conversely,hemore riendlyheOthersthoughtobe,themorebeneficial he ctions f theOtherwill be perceivedo be.We then arriedut wo xperimentsnwhich ll else was not qual.Namely,we varied heentitativityf the Other hroughxperimental anipulation.spredicted yourpolarizationypothesis,ntitativityoderatedherelationshipdescribed bove. When the EU was made highly ntitativen the eyes ofAmericantudents,he mage ftheEU was a very trongredictorfperceivedharmfulness. hen he ntitativityf theEU was reduced,he mageno longerpredictedheperceived armfulness.oreover, hen he ntitativityftheEUwasmoderate,he loperepresentinghe mpact f mage nperceived armful-ness andedpreciselyetweenhe wootheronditionsStudy ).Among articipantsho heldan imageoftheEU as an ally,high ntitativ-ity edto theperceptionf ts ctions s less harmfulo theUnited tates.Amongparticipantshoheld an imageoftheEU as an enemy,heoppositewas true.



14/21

Entitativitynd Polarization 461Thispatternffindings akes convincingase for hemoderatingffectfenti-tativity,nd lsofor hemore pecific ypothesishat tpolarizesudgmentsbouttheOther. lso,across ur tudieswe did notfindnymain ffect fentitativity,leading s to conclude hat ntitativitys neitheroodnorbadper e.This conclusion s at odds with what has been suggested y Abelson,Dasgupta, ark,ndBanaji 1998).Describinghe esult fanexperimentaltudyin which he ntitativityffictionalreatures asmanipulatednd theharmful-nessof their ehavior owardnotherroup f fictionalreaturesssessed, heseauthorsoncludedhat the utgroups seen s relativelyomogeneousi.e.,enti-tative) ndthereforeudgedmorenegativelyp. 247; italics dded).To clarifyhe nconsistencyetween ur conclusionndthat f Abelson tal., t snecessaryo ook nto hedetails fthedata nwhich he atter as based.These data werepresentedy Dasgupta, anaji, nd Abelson 1999,experiment2). Participantsnthis tudywerepresented ith cover tory escribingom-puter-generatedumanoid reatures,alled Gs, allegedlycreatedfor a newscience iction ovie.Theparticipantsere dvised hat lthoughhempressionformationaskwouldfocus n theGsexclusively,wokinds fcreatures-the sand theHs-would appear n thefilm. articipantsere hen resented ith nentitativeroup fGs, a non-entitativeroup fGs,orsingle xemplarsfGs.Group ntitativityasmanipulatedyvaryinghephysicalimilarityi.e., color)of theGs. Results howed hatwhen heGs weredepicteds a highlyntitativegroup, heywere xpected o be less likely oengage npositive ehaviorandmore ikely oengage nnegative ehavior) hanwhen heyweredepicteds aless entitativeroup. his edDasgupta nd her olleagues oconclude hat nti-tative roups reperceiveds active gents eady oengage nharmfulctionsagainst utsiders p. 1001).Thisconclusionsbasedon the ssumptionhat iagnosticnformationbouttheGs was absent romhecontext fthe xperiment.n otherwords,Gs werenotpresenteds hostile rfriendlyoHs. However,wofeaturesfthe xperi-ments aisequestionss to whetherhe ncreased egativityas elicited yenti-tativitylone.First, featurehatmight ave contributedotheresults btainedbyDasgupta t al. is the pecificmanipulationfentitativity.hysical imilarity,especially f skincolor,might ave activated omespecific chemarelated oracial ntagonism,s notednAbelson t al. (1998,p. 247).More mportant,hevery ature fthe over torymayhave mpliedhat he wogroupswere ndeedinconflict. ost sciencefictionV and movieplots rebased on conflictatherthan ooperationetween roupsfor nstance,heBorgandthehumans nStarTrek).The idea thatgreaterntitativitylicitsnegative erceptionsf the Otheris also challenged y theresults f a studyby Susskind,Maurer, hakkar,Hamilton,ndSherman1999,experiment).Participantsnthis tudy erepre-sentedwith entencesescribingehaviors erformedyanindividual, tightlyknit roup ffriends,r an aggregatef ndividualsdifferentersons andomly



15/21

462 Castano t al.selected rom large tate niversity).heywere sked o formn mpressionfthe argetnd to rate he argetn a series fpositive raitsintelligence,ocia-bility, olitical ctivism,ndathletics). esults howed hat he ndividualargetwasratedmorehighlypositively)han oth hegroup nd the ggregate;moreimportantor urpurposes,hegroupwas ratedmorehighlypositively)han heaggregate.o the xtenthat hegroup argetan be considered s more ntita-tive han he ggregatef ndividuals,his esult s not onsistent ith he laimthat ntitativityeadsthe arget roup obeperceivedmorenegatively.owever,it s consistent ith urpolarization ypothesis.The two studieswe presentedocused n negative xpectationsbout theOther's ehavior. uch xpectationsre hemost roblematico nternationalela-tions ndto ntergroupelationsngeneral. urdata how hat eifyingheOtherwhen t s perceiveds anenemy learly nhances egativexpectations,hichcan inturn romote spiral fconflictsee Brubaker,002).Ourdata lso show hatmongndividuals hothink ftheOthers anally,enhancingts entitativityed to perceivingts actions s less harmful o theingroup-aresult hat s consistent ith urpolarizationypothesisndwith heresults btained ySusskind ndhiscolleagues 1999). Future esearchnthistopic hould ocus n bothpositivendnegative xpectations. ewould xpecthigh evelsofentitativityo ncrease hedegree fpositive xpectationss well.However,fspecificttributionrocesses riggerhepolarizingffect f entita-tivity,n asymmetryetween ositive ndnegative xpectations ight merge,becausethe atter reknown o elicitmore ausalattributionWong& Weiner,1981).

TheRelationshipetween heEntitativitynd the mageoftheOtherOurtwo tudies sedminimalmanipulationsfperceptualeaturesndsim-

ilarity f theexemplars onstitutingheOther hatmadeno referenceo thecontentfthe mage ftheOthergoals, ntents,ulturalharacteristics,tc.).Yetchangesntheperceived armfulnessf theOther ccurred s a consequencef(interactionnvolving)hese actors. hisfindingsconsistent ith ur laim hatentitativityoderates-thats, nteracts ith-imagesoftheOthernproducingexpectationsbout tsbehavior. ne could rgue, owever,hatntitativitysactu-allya part f the mageoftheOther. his s animportantheoreticalssue.Whether rnot ntitativitys part fthe mageof theOther epends nthewaywe define heconcept f image.Boulding'sdefinitionf image reportedabove snotparticularlynformativenthis espect.Moreuseful or urpurposesisanexaminationfthe hree actors, entionedarlier,hat ringbout hemorerecent axonomyf imagesproposed yHerrmannnd his colleagues 1997,pp.407-408): theperceived elativeapabilityfthe ctor,heperceivedhreatand/orpportunityepresentedythat ctor, ndtheperceivedulture fthatactor. till,none of these factors eem to us to correspondo thedegreeof



16/21

Entitativitynd Polarization 463entitativityftheOther. herefore,ccordingo this efinition,ntitativityhouldnotbe treateds a componentf mage.This s not osaythat ntitativitysorthogonalo these hree actors.ndeed,certainmages re ikely ogo hand nhandwith heperceptionf theOther sstronglyntitative,nd some vidence uggestshat his s the ase. For nstance,intwo riginal xperiments,orneille,zerbyt, ogier,ndBuidin2001)manip-ulated heproportionfthe lectorateupportingn extremeight-wingoliticalpartyo as tomakethepartyppear s highlyhreatening40% ofsupport)rnon-threatening4% ofsupport).What hey bservedwas that highlyhreaten-ingright-wingarty asperceiveds enjoyingreaterevelsofconsensuswithinthepartys well as beingmorehomogeneous-theatter eing n indicator fentitativitysee alsoBrewer tal., 1995;Judd Park, 988).Onemay uestionwhetherhe xtent fthe upportn Corneille tal.'s studycouldbeconsideredmanipulationf ntitativitytself. lthough inorityroupsare consideredmorehomogeneoushanmajority roups e.g.,Simon& Brown,1987),one may argue hat groupwith4% of support oes notreally xist,whereas ne with 0% ofsupportoes.This, atherhan hreat, ayhavecausedthe ncreasenperceived omogeneity.lthoughurdataclearlyhow hat nti-tativityolarizes he ink etween he mage ftheOther ndtheperceived arm-fulness f its actions say,threat) o theingroup,we believe that ncreasingperceivedhreatmayalso increase erceived ntitativity.ncreased riendliness,however,may producethe same effects. he relationshipmongperceivedthreat/friendliness,mage,and the entitativityf the Otherdeservesfurtherinvestigation.

PossibleMediators ftheEffectsfEntitativityEntitativityay ause the bserved olarizationy moderatinghe xtent o

which heOthersperceiveds having distinctetof ntentions.ome evidenceexists hatupportshis onjecture. orkingnan nternationalelationscenario,Sacchi andCastano2002) showed hat hehigherhe ntitativityfthe ngroup,the trongerhe ttributionf ntentionalityfor review,eeCastano,npress).Therefore,hepatternffindings e observednthe ow-entitativityonditionmight e due to essperceivedntentionality.An alternativexplanationocuses n the xtento which he erceiver akesan agent's easons xplanationas opposedto a causal histories f reasonsexplanation)oaccount or hebehaviorf a target. gent's easons xplanationsare considered heinitiatingause in a causal chain nvolvingntentionsndactions reasons > intention--> ction;Malle, 1999).When n individual ro-vides an agent's easons xplanation,eor she s assuminghatwhileperform-ingthebehavior heagent s aware of thereasons ordoing o, andthat heseprovide rational round or orminghe ntentiono act O'Laughlin& Malle,2002). Such an explanationresupposesheperceptionfagency n theactor,



17/21

464 Castano et al.and seems to be used more for behaviors erformedy entitativehanbynon-entitativeroups O'Laughlin& Malle,2002).Hence, heparticipantsnourstudieswho werepresented ith non-entitativeU maynothaveengagednsuchexplanation,nd this nturnmayhave resultedn a lessextremeudgmentof the arget.Theprocess mplied ysuch n account oes notneed o be mediatedyper-ceived ntentionality;ather,t s thenature f this ntentionalityhatmayvary.Abelson nd hiscolleagues' 1998)definitionf activity s enlighteningnthisrespect. ccordingo these uthors,ctivityelicits ninferencehat he ctor sengagednactivepursuitfgoal satisfactionp. 248). Itmaywell be that t spreciselyhe activepursuit fgoal satisfactionhat s undermined hen heactor acks ntitativity.notherwords,hegroupmaybeperceiveds lackingheawareness nddeliberationhat,ccordingoO'Laughlin ndMalle 2002),char-acterizegent's easons xplanationsnd differentiatehem rom ausalhistoriesof reasons xplanations.hoseAmerican articipantsho saw theEU as anenemyftheUnited tatesmight othaveperceivedreat armfulnessn ts om-mercial reatyfthey adthoughthisbehaviorwas notmotivatedya specificreason, utrather as theoutcome f a series fcircumstances.Thus,O'Laughlin nd Malle's (2002) work eems osuggesthatndividu-als provide xplanationsf a differentature or ntitativeersusnon-entitativegroups.Our own researchhowsthat olarizedudgmentsf a group's ctionsemergewhen hegroupsperceivedshighnentitativity.utureesearchhouldinvestigatehe nterplayetween hesephenomena,ocusingn theconcept fagency. uch an inquirywould benefit rom heinsights rovided y cross-culturalesearch n theperceptionfagency nd the ttributionfcausalitytthe ollective evel e.g.,Menon,Morris, hiu,& Hong,1999),which anhelpus betterssess theperspectivesfculturallyifferentctors n nternationalce-narios.Forinstance, riesandPeng 2002) havesuggestedhat ifferencesnChinese ndAmericanpproacheso causalattributionxacerbatedhe esolutionofanalready ifficultituationollowingheHainan sland pyplane ollision fApril 001.

ConclusionsWe haveprovidedomeevidence hat hesocial-psychologicaloncept fentitativityas thepotentialoenhance he tudyf nternationalelations. ore-over,webelieve hat furtherotentialor ross-fertilizationetweenhese wofields fresearchxists see Alexander t al., 1999).Ourfindingshould on-tributeo social-psychologicalheoryn intergroupelationsyimprovingurunderstandingf therelationshipmongperceived ntitativity,ctivity,nten-tionality,ndagency tthecollectiveevel. Ourhope s that uch nterdiscipli-nary esearch ill alsobe able to nformracticend nfluenceolicymaking.Silverstein1989) invited sychologistso takeon thechallenge fhelpingto changedangerousmagesof the Other hatguided, ndmisled,Cold War



18/21

Entitativitynd Polarization 465actors'mutual erceptions,aking he world lose to nuclearwar.We needtoacknowledgehat,n additiono thesemages,more ubtle actorsmay nfluenceour nterpretationf theOther's ction.Thismayalso helpto hinderpirals fconflictninternationalelations. or nstance, henreportingbout heOther,the hoiceofnounsmaybe important.t is onethingo state hat TheRussianForeignMinistryecided .. , but notherltogethero asserthat Russiafeels. or Moscow s angry. heroutinenthropomorphizationf nationsendsthem reaterntitativity.f thesenations re seen as enemies,uch anguage anincrease hreaterception,aving hewayformisperceptionndconflict.

APPENDIXEntitativitycale

*Europeans avemany haracteristicsncommon.*Europeanshare common ast xperience.*Europeans ave a senseof common ate.There restrongies mong uropeans.TheEuropeanUnionhas realexistence s a group.TheEuropeanUnion s ustanabstraction.Europeans ave a characteristicature.There restrongimilaritiesetween uropeans.There s nodoubt bout he xistenceftheEuropeanUnion.Europeans avespecificharacteristics.*Items sed nStudy .ItemsUsedtoAssessthe mageoftheEU inStudy

TheEuropeanUnionhasgoalsthat re ncompatibleith hose ftheUS.TheEuropeanUnion s anallyof theUS.TheEuropeanUnion ooperates ith heUS.In thenext ecades, heEuropeanUnionmaybecome nantagonistftheUS.TheEuropeanUnion s friendlyowardsheUS.TheEuropeanUnion s trustworthy.ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Wethank edLebow andRichard errmannor heirupport uringur tayattheMershon enter tOhio StateUniversity,here his esearchriginated;Marilynnrewer orher nsightfulemarksboutourresearch aradigm;MaryHoeveler nd CarenRabbinoforediting uggestions;ndRupert rownandDominicAbrams,he ditors,nd threenonymouseviewersor heironstruc-tive comments. orrespondenceoncerninghis article shouldbe sent to



19/21

466 Castano et al.EmanueleCastano,Graduate aculty, ew SchoolUniversity,5 Fifth venue,NewYork,NY, 10003,USA. E-mail: [email protected].

REFERENCESAbelson,R. P.,Dasgupta,N., Park,J.,& Banaji,M. R. (1998). Perceptionsf thecollective ther.Personalitynd Social Psychologyeview, , 243-250.Aiken, . S., & West, . G. (1991).Multiple egression: estingndprobingnteractions.ondon:Sage.Alexander, . G., Brewer,M. B., & Herrmann,. K. (1999). Images nd affect: functionalnaly-sis ofout-grouptereotype.ournal f PersonalityndSocial Psychology,7,78-93.Boulding, . (1956). The mage.AnnArbor,MI: UniversityfMichigan ress.Boulding, . (1969).Nationalmages nd nternationalystems.n J.N. Rosenau Ed.), nternationalpolitics ndforeign olicy pp.422-431). New York:FreePress.Brewer,M. B., & Harasty, . S. (1996). Seeinggroups s entities: he roleofperceivermotivation.In E. M. Sorrentino E. T. Higgins Eds.), Handbook fmotivationnd cognitionvol. 3,pp.347-370).New York:Guilford.Brewer,M. B., Weber, .G., & Carini, . (1995). Personmemoryn intergroupontexts: atego-rization ersus ndividuation.ournal fPersonalityndSocial Psychology,9,29-40.Brubaker, . (2002). Ethnicity ithout roups.Archives uropdennese Sociologie,XLIII, 163-189.Campbell,D. T. (1958). Common ate, imilarity,ndother ndices f thestatus f aggregatesfperson s social entities. ehavioral cience, , 14-25.Castano,E. (in press). ngroup ntitativitynd ingroupdentification:n thevalue ofreification.In V. Y. Yzerbyt,M. C. Judd, O. CorneilleEds.), Thepsychologyf groupperception:Contributionso the tudy f homogeneity,ntitativity,nd essentialism.ondon:PsychologyPress.Castano,E., Yzerbyt, .Y., & Bourguignon,. (1999).Measuring ntitativity.npublished anu-script, atholicUniversityfLouvain,Belgium.Castano,E., Yzerbyt, . Y.,& Bourguignon,. (in press).We are one and like t: The impact fingroupntitativityningroupdentification.uropeanJournal fSocial Psychology.Castano, ., Yzerbyt, .Y., Paladino,M.-P.,& Sacchi, . (2002). I belong, hereforeexist: ngroupidentification,ngroupntitativity,nd ngroupias.PersonalityndSocialPsychologyulletin,28, 135-143.Cohen,J.,& Cohen, . 1983).Appliedmultipleegression/correlationnalysis or he ehavioral ci-ences 2nd ed.). Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.Corneille, .,Yzerbyt, .Y.,Rogier, .,& Buidin,G. (2001).Threat nd thegroup ttributionrror:When hreatlicitsudgmentsfextremityndhomogeneity.ersonalityndSocial Psychol-ogyBulletin,7,437-446.Dasgupta,N.,Banaji,M. R.,& Abelson, . P. 1999).Group ntitativityndgroup erception:sso-ciationsbetween hysical eatures nd psychologicaludgment. ournal fPersonalityndSocial Psychology,7, 991-1003.Fiske, . T.,& Taylor,. (1991). Social cognition. ew York:RandomHouse.Gaertner,., & Schopler, . (1998). Perceivedngroupntitativitynd ntergroupias: Anintercon-nectionf self nd others. uropeanJournal fSocialPsychology;8,963-980.Greenberg,.,Pyszczynski,.,& Solomon, . (1986). The causesandconsequencesftheneedforself-esteem: terror anagementheory.n R. F.BaumeisterEd.),Public elf ndprivate elf(pp. 189-212).NewYork: pringer-Verlag.



20/21

Entitativitynd Polarization 467Gries,P. H., & Peng,K. (2002). Culture lash?Apologies ast andwest.Journal fContemporaryChina,11,173-178.Hamilton,. L.,& Sherman,. J. 1996). Perceiving ersonsndgroups. sychological eview, 03,

336-355.Hamilton,. L., Sherman,. J.,& Lickel,B. (1998). Perceivingocialgroups: he mportanceftheentitativityontinuum.nC. Sedikides, .Schopler, C. A. Insko Eds.), ntergroupognitionand intergroupehaviorpp.47-74). Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum.Haslam,N., Rothschild,., & Ernst, . (2000). Essentialist eliefs bout ocialcategories. ritishJournal fSocial Psychology,9, 113-127.Herrmann,. K. (1985). Perceptionsnd behavior n Soviet oreign olicy. ittsburgh:niversityfPittsburghress.Herrmann,. K., Voss,J.F., Schooler, . Y. E., & Ciarrochi, . 1997). Images n internationalrelations: n experimentalestof cognitive chemata. nternationaltudiesQuarterly,1,403-433.Insko,C. A., Schopler, .,& Sedikides, . (1998). Differentialistrustfgroups nd ndividuals.nC. Sedikides, .Schopler, C. A. Insko Eds.),Intergroupognitionnd intergroupehavior(pp.75-107). Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum.Judd, . M., & Park,B. (1988). Out-group omogeneity:udgmentsfvariabilityt the ndividualandgroupevels.Journal fPersonalityndSocial Psychology,4,778-788.Lickel,B., Hamilton, . L.,Wieczorkowska,., Lewis,A., Sherman,. J.,& Uhles,A. N. (2000).Varieties fgroups nd theperceptionfgroup ntitativity.ournal f PersonalityndSocialPsychology,8,223-246.Malle,B. M. (1999). Howpeopleexplainbehavior: new theoreticalramework.ersonalityndSocial Psychologyeview, , 23-48.McConnell, . R., Sherman,. J.,& Hamilton, . L. (1994). On-line ndmemory-basedspects findividual nd grouptargetudgments. ournal f Personalitynd Social Psychology,7,173-185.

McConnell, . R., Sherman,. J.,& Hamilton, . L. (1997). Target ohesiveness:mplicationsorinformationrocessingbout ndividual ndgroup argets. ournal f Personalitynd SocialPsychology,5,750-762.Menon, .,Morris,M. W.,Chiu,C., & Hong,Y. (1999). Culture nd the onstrual fagency:Attri-bution o individual ersus roup ispositions.ournal fPersonalitynd Social Psychology,76,701-717.O'Laughlin,M.J.,& Malle,B. M. (2002).Howpeople xplain ctions erformedygroupsnd ndi-viduals.Journal fPersonalityndSocial Psychology,2,33-48.Pickett, . L. (2001). The effects f entitativityeliefson implicit omparisons etweengroupmembers.ersonalitynd Social Psychologyulletin,7,515-525.Sacchi,S., & Castano,E. (2002, June).Entitatives beautiful. he importancefperceivingheingroups a realentity.aperpresentedtthegeneralmeetingf theEuropean ssociation fExperimentalocialPsychology,an Sebastian,pain.Silverstein,. (1989). Enemymages:ThepsychologyfU.S. attitudesndcognitionegardingheSovietUnion.American sychologist,4, 903-913.Simon,B., & Brown, . J. 1987). Perceivedntragroupomogeneitynminority-majorityontexts.Journal fPersonalityndSocial Psychology,3,703-711.Susskind, .,Maurer, .,Thakkar, .,Hamilton,. L., & Sherman, .W. 1999). Perceivingndivid-uals and groups:Expectancies, ispositionalnferences,nd causal attributions.ournal fPersonalityndSocial Psychology,6, 181-191.Tajfel,H.,& Turner,.C. (1979).Anintegrativeheoryf ntergroupelations.n W.G.Austin S.WorchelEds.),Psychologyf ntergroupelationspp.33-47). Monterey,A: Brooks/Cole.



21/21

468 Castano tal.Welbourne,.L. (1999). Theimpact fperceivedntitativityninconsistencyesolutionorgroupsand ndividuals.ournal fExperimentalocial Psychology,5,481-508.West, . G.,Aiken, . S., & Krull,J.L. (1996). Experimentalersonalityesigns:Analyzingate-

gorical ycontinuousariable nteractions.ournal fPersonality,4, 1-48.Wong, .T.,& Weiner, . (1981). Whenpeopleask why uestions,ndtheheuristicsfattribu-tional earch.Journal fPersonalityndSocial Psychology,0,650-663.Yzerbyt, .Y.,Castano, ., Leyens, .-P., Paladino,M.-P. 2000).Theprimacyfthe ngroup:heinterplayfentitativitynd dentification.uropeanReview fSocial Psychology,1,257-295.Yzerbyt, .Y., Corneille, .,& Estrada, . (2001).The nterplayfsubjectivessentialismndenti-tativityntheformationfstereotypes.ersonalitynd SocialPsychologyeview,, 141-155.Yzerbyt, .Y.,Rogier, .,& Fiske, . T. (1998). Group ntitativityndsocialattribution:n trans-lating ituationalonstraintsnto tereotypes.ersonalityndSocial Psychologyulletin,4,1090-1104.

Documents

2003, Castano et al, The perception of the other in IR.pdf