ticipantslick

ElementsofaLayTheoryofGroups:TypesofGroups,RelationalStyles,andthePerceptionofGroupEntitativityBrianLickelandDavidL.
HamiltonDepartmentofPsychologyUniversityofCalifornia,SantaBarbaraStevenJ.
ShermanDepartmentofPsychologyIndianaUniversityDiscussioninthisarticleisontheelementsofperceivers'intuitivetheoryofgroups.
Thefirstelementofthetheoryconcernsperceivers'intuitivetaxonomyofdifferenttypesofgroups.
Wediscussresearchexaminingthisintuitivetaxonomy,aswellasthegrouppropertiesthatdefinedifferenttypesofgroupswithinthetaxonomy.
Asecondimportantelementinthelaytheoryconcernsperceivers'beliefsabouthowpeoplewithindifferenttypesofgroupsregulatesocialinteractionswithoneanother.
Wedis-cussresearchexaminingtherelationbetweenperceivers'beliefsaboutdifferenttypesofgroupsandhowpeoplewithinthosegroupsareexpectedtorelatetoeachother.
Finally,wediscusshowpeopleusetheirintuitivetheoryofgroupswhenmakingsocialjudgmentspertainingtogroups.
Imaginethefollowingscene:Whileeatinginares-taurantyouobservefourmen,each20to30yearsofage,eatinglunchtogether.
Theirdiscussionisani-matedandfulloflaughter.
Whenthebillisbroughttothetable,theyeachtakeabrieflookatthebillandthenthrowinequalamountsofmoneytobeleftonthetableforthewaiter.
Astheyleave,youoverhearonesaytotheothers,"So,areyouguysupforcardsnextweekIt'smyturntohaveyouguysover.
"Theothermenseemtoagreethatthisisagoodidea,andastheyleavetherestaurantyoucanhearthemsaygoodbyetoeachotheruntilnextweek.
DoyouhaveasenseofthenatureofthisgroupItislikely,forexample,thatyouhaveinferredthatthesemenarefriends,andhavebeensoforsometime,thatthereislittleformalorganizationinthegroup,andthatthereisnoclearleader.
Youmightalsobeabletomakeinferencesabouthowsimilarthepersonalitiesofthemenarelikelytobeandhowmuchthemenvaluetheirmembershipinthisgroup.
Yettheactualinformationonwhichyoucanbaseyourimpressionisquitemod-est.
HowareyouabletotakethebitsofinformationaboutthesemenanddevelopacoherentandelaboratedimageoftheirgroupInthisarticle,wesuggestthatyourelyonanintuitivetheoryofgroupsthatallowsyoutoassembletheinformationinthesceneandmakeinferencesbeyondwhatyouobserved.
Anintuitivetheoryisasystemofinterconnectedbe-liefsthatlaypeopleholdaboutsomedomain.
Peopleusethesetheoriestounderstandeventsandtomakein-ferencesabouttheworldaroundthem.
Psychologistshaveinvestigatedtheintuitivetheoriesheldbyperceiversinawiderangeofpsychologicaldomains.
Forexample,thereisevidencethatpeoplehaveanin-tuitivetheoryofphysicsthatguidestheirinterpretationofphysicalevents(Carey&Spelke,1994).
Thereisalsoevidenceforanimplicitpersonalitytheorythatguidespeople'sinferencesaboutthenatureofperson-alitytraitsandtherelationsamongpersonalitytraitsthatapersonmightpossess(Dweck,Chiu,&Hong,1995;Schneider,1973).
Developmentalpsychologistshaveextensivelyexaminedhowchildren(andadults)makesenseofotherpeople'smindsandareabletomakeinferencesaboutpeople'sbeliefs,desires,andintentionsbasedonthescantbehavioraldatathatareavailableduringsocialinteractions(Gopnik&Meltzoff,1997;Wellman,1990).
Socialpsychologists(e.
g.
,Heider,1958;Ross,1977)alsodiscussedthein-129PersonalityandSocialPsychologyReviewCopyright2001by2001,Vol.
5,No.
2,129–140LawrenceErlbaumAssociates,Inc.
ThisarticlewassupportedbyNationalInstituteofMentalHealthGrantMH–40058toDavidL.
HamiltonandStevenJ.
Sherman.
BrianLickelisnowattheUniversityofSouthernCalifornia.
WegratefullyacknowledgeDanielAmes,Chi-yueChiu,LowellGaertner,NickHaslam,Ying-yiHong,SheriLevy,ToniSchmader,EliotSmith,andWendyWood,whoreadandcommentedonanear-lierdraftofthisarticle.
RequestsforreprintsshouldbesenttoBrianLickel,DepartmentofPsychology,UniversityofSouthernCalifornia,LosAngeles,CA90089.
E-mail:lickel@usc.
edutuitivetheoriesthatlaypeopleusetomakecausalattri-butionsforevents.
Thus,psychologistshaveveryusefullyappliedtheideaoflaytheoriestomanydo-mainsofhumanjudgment.
Previouswritershavealsoappliedtheideaoflaythe-oriestogroups.
Forexample,anumberofresearchershavehypothesizedthatperceiverspossessatheoryofgroupessentialism.
Thisresearchhasexaminedperceivers'beliefsthatcertaingroupspossessabiologi-caloressentialnatureandhasconsideredtheconse-quencesofthesebeliefs(e.
g.
,Haslam,Rothschild,&Ernst,2000;Hirschfeld,1995a,1995b;Rothbart&Tay-lor,1992;Yzerbyt,Rocher,&Schadron,1997).
Otherauthorshaveconsideredtheextenttowhichthereareculturaldifferencesinbeliefsaboutgroupagency(i.
e.
,theextenttowhichgroupsareconsideredtobecoherent,agenticunits)andexaminedtheconsequencesoftheseculturaldifferencesoncausalanddispositionaljudg-mentspertainingtogroups(e.
g.
,Menon,Morris,Chiu,&Hong,1999;Morris&Peng,1994).
Inthisarticle,wedescribeelementsofperceivers'intuitivetheoryofgroupsthatextendbeyondthecon-ceptsconsideredinpastwork.
Inmakingtheargumentthatlaypeoplepossessanintuitivetheoryofgroups,whatsortofclaimarewemakingDrawingonpastdiscussionsoflaytheories(e.
g.
,Gopnik&Wellman,1994;Morris,Ames,&Knowles,2000;Murphy&Medin,1985),wehighlightseveralcriteriathatseemparticularlyimportantfordefiningthecontentofanin-tuitivetheoryofgroups.
First,intuitivetheoriescontainanontologyortax-onomyofdiscreteentitiesthatdefineagivenpsycho-logicaldomain.
Inimplicitpersonalitytheory,forexample,perceiverspossessbeliefsaboutthespecificpersonalitytraits(e.
g.
,friendly,smart)humanscanexhibit.
Withregardtogroups,wediscussresearch(Lickel,Hamilton,Wieczorkowska,etal.
,2000;Sherman,Castelli,&Hamilton,2001)indicatingthatperceiversdistinguishbetweenseveralqualitativelydifferenttypesofgroups.
Thecomponentsofperceivers'intuitivetaxonomy(i.
e.
,typesofgroups)aredefinedbydescriptiveproperties(e.
g.
,thegroup'ssize,itsduration,thedegreeofinteractionobservedamonggroupmembers,etc.
)thatareob-servabletoperceivers.
Basedonourresearch,wede-scribeperceivers'beliefsaboutthepropertiesthatdefineandcharacterizethedifferenttypesofgroupsinthetaxonomy.
Asecondelementofmanyintuitivetheoriesisthattheydescribehowcomponentsofthetaxonomy(inthiscase,typesofgroups)operate.
Thus,wealsodiscussperceivers'beliefsabouthowdifferenttypesofgroupsoperateandtheirrelationalfeatures;thatis,howpeoplewithindifferenttypesareexpectedtorelatetoonean-other(Clark&Mills,1979;Fiske,1991).
Withregardtothisaspectofthelaytheory,wealsodiscussevidencethatpeople'stheoryofgroupsassumesaninterconnec-tionbetweenthepropertiesthatdefinedifferenttypesofgroupsandhowpeoplewithineachdifferenttypeofgroupareexpectedtorelatetooneanother.
Thefinalimportantfeatureofintuitivetheoriesistheirusebylaypeopletomakeinferences.
Theoriesareinterpretivedevicesthatpeopleusetopredict,ex-plain,andjustifyeventsthatoccurintheworld.
Thus,anintuitivetheoryofgroups,reflectingrichconcep-tionsofvarioustypesofgroups,canbeusedtointer-pretinformationobservedandacquiredaboutgroupsandtoguidejudgmentsandbehaviortowardmembersofgroupsaperceiverencounters.
VarietiesofSocialGroupsSocialpsychologistsusethewordgrouptodescribeastaggeringlywidearrayofsocialentities.
Thus,women,afamily,GeneralMotors,HarvardUniversitystudents,andpeoplewholikethepaintingsofKandinskycanallbereferredtoasgroups,eventhoughthesegroupsdifferfromeachotherinwaysthatseemquitefundamental.
Previouswritershavesug-gestedsomeconceptualdistinctionsamongdifferenttypesofgroups.
Lewin(1948),forexample,arguedthatsocialcategories(e.
g.
,AfricanAmericans)wereaqualitativelydifferentkindofgroupthandynamicgroups,suchasfamiliesandworkgroups.
However,relativelylittleresearchhasexaminedhowlaypeoplethinkaboutthebroadspectrumofgroupsthattheyen-counterineverydaylifeandwhatdistinctions,ifany,theymakeamonggroups(Wilder&Simon,1998).
Ourcontentionisthatpeople,aseverydayperceiversofarichandcomplexsocialworld,mayhaveintuitivetheoriesaboutgroupssuchthatthegenericconceptofgroupisdifferentiatedintoseveraltypesofgroupsthatdifferintheirproperties,functions,stylesofinterac-tion,andthelike.
Ifso,thenitislikelythatthesetheo-riesofgroupswouldinfluenceotherprocesses,suchasjudgmentsofgroupsandbehaviordirectedtowardgroupmembers,dependingonthenatureofthegroup.
Thus,inourview,understandingthedistinctionsthatlaypeoplemakeamongdifferenttypesofgroupsandthepropertiestheyassociatewiththosedifferenttypesmayhaveimportantimplicationsforavarietyofcon-cernsinvolvingperceptionsofgroups,behaviorwithingroups,andrelationsbetweengroups.
Theseissueshavebeenthefocusofsomeofourre-centwork(Lickeletal.
,2000).
Specifically,intwoparallelstudies(oneconductedintheUnitedStates,thesecondinPoland)weinvestigatedthedistinctionsthatperceiversmakeamonggroups.
Wedidsousingtwodifferentmethods.
First,participantsinthesestud-iesratedasampleof40groupsonasetofeightgroupproperties.
Thesepropertiesincludedgroupmember130LICKEL,HAMILTON,&SHERMANsimilarity,theamountofinteractionamonggroupmembers,theextenttowhichmemberssharedcom-mongoalsandoutcomes,theimportanceofthegrouptoitsmembers,groupsize,thedurationofthegroup'sexistence,andgrouppermeability(i.
e.
,theeaseofen-tryandexitfromthegroup).
Thepropertyratingsas-signedtoeachgroupwerethenusedstatisticallytoidentifyclustersofgroupswithsimilarpropertypro-files.
Thesecondmethodusedtoidentifydifferenttypesofgroupswasasortingtaskinwhichparticipantssortedthesampleof40groupsintocategoriesbasedontheirownintuitiveperceptionsofwhichgroupswenttogetherasadistincttype.
Clusteranalyseswerethenconductedbasedonparticipants'sortingresponses.
Interestingly,thesetwomethodsproducedverysimilarresults,generatingthesamebasicclustersofgroups.
Theseclustersconsistedofintimacygroups(e.
g.
,family,friends,romanticpartners),taskgroups(e.
g.
,aworkteam,ajury),socialcategories(e.
g.
,women,Blacks),andlooseassociations(e.
g.
,peoplewholikeclassicalmusic,peopleinlineatabank).
Fur-thermore,whenwesubsequentlyconductedclusteringanalysesbasedontheratingsofgroupstowhichpartic-ipantspersonallybelonged(Lickeletal.
,2000,Study3),thesamefourbasicclusters—intimacygroups,taskgroups,socialcategories,andlooseassocia-tions—wereagainidentified.
Bothofthetasksusedinthisresearchreliedonfairlyexplicit,consciouslydriventaskstoderivethestructureoflaypeople'sintuitivetaxonomyofgroups.
However,Shermanetal.
(2001)recentlydemonstratedthatthisgrouptypologyisspontaneouslyandimplic-itlyusedwhenencodingsocialinformation.
Usingavariantoftherecognitionmemoryparadigmdevel-opedbyTaylor,Fiske,Etcoff,andRuderman(1978),theyfoundthatperceiversimplicitlyorganizeinforma-tioninmemoryaccordingtothetypeofgroupthatisbeingperceived.
Forexample,whenrecallingfacesofindividualsbelongingtodifferenttypesofgroups,par-ticipantsweremorelikelytomakeidentificationerrorswithinaparticulartypeofgroupthanbetweendiffer-entgrouptypes(Shermanetal.
,2001,Study1).
Thus,forexample,afacepairedwiththelabelFrenchman(asocialcategory)wouldbemorelikelytobemisidenti-fiedlaterasPresbyterian(anothersocialcategory)thanasamemberofajury(ataskgroup)oramemberofafamily(anintimacygroup).
Insum,thereisevidenceusingbothsomewhatex-plicitmeasures(Lickeletal.
,2000)andamoreimplicitmeasure(Shermanetal.
,2001)thatlaypeoplepossessanintuitivetaxonomyofgroupsconsistingofintimacygroups,taskgroups,socialcategories,andlooseasso-ciations.
Inourview,thesegrouptypescomprisethestructuralcomponentsofpeople'sintuitivetheoryofgroups.
Theevidencethattheyaremanifestedinbothdeliberativeandspontaneoustasksprovidessomecon-fidencethatthesetypesaredistinct,widelyshared,andbroadlyusedinperceivingandcomprehendingsocialbehaviorwithingroupcontexts.
TheLickeletal.
(2000)studiesalsoprovideevi-denceconcerningaproposedaspectofthelaytheoryofgroupsthatweintroducedearlier,specifically,thateachtypeofgrouphascertainpropertiesassociatedwithit,propertiesthatdifferentiateitfromothertypesofgroups.
Specifically,evidencefromthegroupratingtaskindicatedthatintimacygroupswereperceivedashavingalongduration;asbeingsmallandimperme-able;andashavinghighlevelsofinteraction,commongoals,commonoutcomes,importance,andgroupmembersimilarity.
Socialcategorieswerealsoper-ceivedashavinglongdurationandlowpermeabilitybutwereratedasverylargeinsizeandfairlylowingroupmemberinteraction,commongoals,commonoutcomes,importance,andgroupmembersimilarity.
Taskgroupswereperceivedassmallinsize;moderateindurationandpermeability;andmoderatelyhighininteraction,commongoals,commonoutcomes,impor-tance,andsimilarity.
Finally,looseassociationsweremarkedbyveryhighpermeability;fairlyshortdura-tion;andlowlevelsofinteraction,commongoals,commonoutcomes,importance,andsimilarity.
Thus,distinctbutrelativelycomplexpatternsofgroupprop-ertiesdefinedthedifferenttypesofgroups.
Thefourdifferenttypesofgroupsalsodifferedintheextenttowhichtheywereperceivedaspossessingentitativity(Brewer&Harasty,1996;Campbell,1958;Hamilton&Sherman,1996;Hamilton,Sherman,&Lickel,1998;Lickeletal.
,2000),theextenttowhichagroupisperceivedasbeingacoherentunitinwhichthemembersofthegrouparebondedtogetherinsomefashion.
ParticipantsinLickeletal.
's(2000)studiesratedeachofthe40groupsontheextenttowhichitqualifiedasagroup,ameasureofperceivedentitativityinthesestudies(forconvergingevidenceusingothermeasures,seeLickel,2000;Thakkar,2000).
ParallelanalysesofthestudiesconductedintheUnitedStatesandPolandrevealedverysimilarfind-ings.
Analysesofparticipants'ratingsofentitativitydemonstratedthatintimacygroupswerehighestinentitativity,followedbytaskgroups,socialcategories,andlooseassociations.
Thus,differenttypesofgroupsalsovaryintheextenttowhichtheyareperceivedtopossessthequalityof"groupness.
"Inthisresearch,wealsoexaminedtheextenttowhichparticularpropertiesofgroupspredictedper-ceptionsofentitativity.
Correlationalanalysesforbothsamplesshowedthatgroupmemberinteraction,commongoalsamonggroupmembers,commonout-comesamonggroupmembers,groupimportance,andgroupmembersimilaritywereallstronglycorrelatedwithperceivedentitativity.
Groupsize,duration,andpermeabilityhadweakerrelationstoperceived131LAYTHEORYOFGROUPSentitativity.
Regressionanalysesinbothstudiesindi-catedthatperceptionsofthedegreeofgroupmemberinteractionwasthesinglestrongestpredictorofper-ceivedgroupentitativity.
GroupTypesandRelationalStylesThefindingssummarizedthusfarestablishthatperceiversdevelopandusedistinctionsamongdiffer-enttypesofgroups(intimacy,task,socialcategories,looseassociations)thatareviewedashavingdifferentpatternsofattributes(e.
g.
,degreeofinteractionamongmembers,sharedgoalsandoutcomes,durationofthegroup,groupsize,permeabilityofgroupmembership).
Thesedistinctionsformthefoundationcomponentsofperceivers'intuitivetheoryofgroups.
Aswenotedinanearliersection,alaytheoryofgroupswouldalsoin-cludeperceivers'beliefsaboutthewayinwhichpeo-plewithingroupsrelatetooneanother.
Wenowturntothatquestionregardingperceivers'beliefsaboutdif-ferenttypesofgroups.
Asindicatedearlier,theextentofinteractionamonggroupmembersisoneofthekeyvariablescontributingtoperceptionsofgroupentitativity.
Moreover,partici-pantsintheLickeletal.
(2000)studiesviewedthefourtypesofgroupsasdifferingsystematicallyintheextenttowhichgroupmemberinteractionwascharacteristicofthegroup(intimacygroupswereperceivedtohavehighlevelsofinteraction,followedbytaskgroups,so-cialcategories,andlooseassociations).
Thus,theex-tentofinteractionamonggroupmembersappearstobeanimportantfeatureusedbylaypeoplewhenperceiv-inggroups.
Beyondthemerequantityofinteractionamonggroupmembers,itmaybethatthequalityorstyleofin-teractionisalsoanimportantelementofpeople'sintu-itivebeliefsaboutdifferenttypesofgroups.
Thequalityorstyleofaninteractionisreflectedintheprinciplesbywhichpeopleregulatetheinteraction(Deutsch,1975;Fiske,1991).
Forexample,whenonepersononastockexchangesellsstockinacompanytoasinglebidder(outofmany)whoiswillingtobuythestockatthehighestpriceamongallbidders,heorsheisattemptingtomaxi-mizepersonaloutcomesfromtheinteraction.
However,whenachildasksaparentforfoodandheorshegivesittohim,theparentisactingoutofloveandgenerosityratherthaneconomiccalculation.
Forperceivers,observingthewayinwhichpeopleinagroupregulatetheirinteractionswithoneanothermaybeasubstantialsourceofinformationabouttheentitativityofthegroup.
Moreover,perceiversmayas-sumethereisanassociationbetweenthewayinwhichpeopleinagrouprelatetoeachother(i.
e.
,therela-tionalstylethatisused)andthenatureofthatgroupanditsproperties.
Becauseofthisassumption,differ-enttypesofgroupsmaybeperceivedasbeingregulatedbydifferentrelationalstyles.
Wehaverecentlyconductedseveralstudiesinvesti-gatingtheseideas.
However,beforedescribingthesestudies,webrieflyreviewpastworkonrelationalstyles,particularlytheframeworkofFiske(1991,1992)thatwehaveemployed.
Researchershavedevel-opedanumberofconceptsandframeworksforde-scribinghowhumansorganizetheirrelationshipsandinteractionswithoneanother.
FoaandFoa(1974,1981)arguedthatsocialinteractionsareorganizedaroundthesatisfactionofasetofbasicneeds(love,status,information,money,goods,andservices)andthatsocialinteractionsandrelationshipscouldbecate-gorizedaccordingtotheneed(s)served.
Deutsch(1975)suggestedthatpeopleusequalitativelydiffer-entsocialrulesininteractionsdependingontheinteractants'goals.
Forexample,ifproductivityisthegoalthenequityprinciplesshouldguidetheinterac-tion,whereasagoalofharmonywouldevokeanequal-ityrule.
Clark(1984;Clark&Mills,1979)arguedthatthereareatleasttwobasicsocialrelationships(ex-changevs.
communal)aroundwhichhumansorganizesocialinteractions.
Recently,Fiske(1991,1992)synthesizedmuchofthepasttheoreticalandempiricalworkregardingtypesofsocialrelationshipsanddevelopedaframeworkinwhichheproposedfourbasicmodelsofhowhumansorganizesocialinteractions.
Theserelationalmodels(or,aswerefertothem,relationalstyles)arecommu-nalsharing,equalitymatching,marketpricing,andau-thorityranking.
Communalsharing,accordingtoFiske(1991),ismarkedbyafusionoftheselftothegroup.
Incom-munalsharingrelationships,individualityislessenedandthegroup,asaunit,ispsychologicallydominant.
Workisregulatedbya"pitchinandhelp"attitudeinwhichindividualcontributionsarenothighlymoni-tored.
Exchangeisregulatedsimplythroughgroupmembership.
Ifyouareamemberofthegroup,youareabletousetheresourcesyouneedwithoutexpec-tationthatyouwillreturnresourcesofgreaterorequalvalue.
Decisionsaremadeaccordingtoaprin-cipleofunity;initsidealizedformthegoalindeci-sionmakingisunanimity.
Equalitymatching,asthenamesuggests,ismarkedbyaprincipleofmatching.
Intrade,thegoalistobal-anceexchangesbetweenindividuals.
Thismatchingneednottakeplaceimmediately,butmayinsteadcon-sistofturn-takingbehaviorovertime.
Equalitymatch-ingistosomedegreecapturedinwhatAmericanscall"neighborliness.
"Yousimplyarenotagoodneighborifyouarenotwillingtoletothersborrowabitofflouroratoolwhentheyneedit.
Likewise,itwouldbestrangetorequestorevenacceptpaymentfortheuseofthesethings.
Thephrase"itallevensoutintheend"132LICKEL,HAMILTON,&SHERMANcapturesthespiritofthesetrades.
Yet,andthisisim-portanttonote,thisisdifferentfromcommunalshar-ing.
Ifaneighborrepeatedlyasksforthings,consumingtheproductsofyourhouseholdwithoutsomehowmatchingwhattheyborrow,youresentitinawaythatyoudonotwhenyoursonconstantlycon-sumeshouseholdresources.
Marketpricingismarkedbyacalculatedefforttomaximizethevalueofexchange,work,andotherinter-actions.
Efficiencyandmaximization,ratherthanunityorequality,arethekeymotivations.
Althoughpeoplemayengageinaseriesoftradesovertime,mar-ketpricinginteractionsdifferfromequalitymatchinginteractionsinthatparticipantsattempttomaximizetheirindividualoutcomesfromtheseinteractionsratherthanseekingtomatchtheiroutcomestothatoftheotherperson.
Authorityrankingismarkedbythepresenceofstatusdifferencesbetweenindividualsthatareusedasabasisforregulatingsocialinteractions.
High-rankingindividualsmaytakewhattheywishfromthosebelowthem,buttheyarealsoexpectedtocareforandprotectthosebelowthem.
Superiorsdirectandcontroltheworkofunderlingsanddeterminethedistributionofrewards.
Decisionmakingisaccom-plishedthroughachainofcommand,withdirectivescomingasadecreefromtheleader.
Thosewhoarelowerinstatusobeythosewhoareofhigherstatus.
Fiske(1991)arguedthatitisincorrecttoviewau-thorityrankingascoercive.
Peopleoftenseektocre-atesocialstructuresbasedonauthorityranking.
TheuseofbruteorcoercivepowertocontrolthebehaviorofothersistreatedbyFiskeasasocialratherthanso-cialbehavior.
InadditiontoFiske's(1990,1991)extensiveethnographicanalysisoftheMooseculture(aWestAfricanculturalgroup),anumberofempiricalstudieshaveprovidedsupportforFiske'smodel.
Mostrele-vantforthisarticleisresearchshowingthatthefourre-lationalstylesareusedtocognitivelyorganizeinformationaboutsocialrelationships.
Forexample,Fiske,Haslam,andFiske(1991)examinednaturaler-rorsthatpeoplemadewhentheycalledsomeonebyanincorrectname,incorrectlyrememberedwithwhomtheyhadengagedinasocialinteraction,ordirectedanactionatanincorrectperson.
Theyfoundthat,whenpeoplemadethesenaturalerrors,therewasastrongtendencytoerrbyinterjectinganotherpersonwithwhomtheparticipantsharedthesamebasictypeofre-lationship.
Thus,peoplewithwhomtheparticipantssharedacommunalsharingrelationshipwouldbein-correctlyinterjectedwithanotherpersonwithwhomthespeakeralsohadacommunalsharingrelationship(forotherempiricalinvestigationsofFiske'sframe-workseeFiske,1993;Fiske&Haslam,1997;Haslam,1994;Haslam&Fiske,1992).
LinksBetweenRelationalStylesandOtherGroupPropertiesThestudiesbyFiskeetal.
(1991)onnaturalsubsti-tutionerrorsprovideausefulparalleltotheresearchbyShermanetal.
(2001)summarizedearlier.
Thesetwosetsofstudiesusedthesamegeneralparadigm,andthespontaneousnatureofthe(mis)identificationsob-servedinthisparadigmisparticularlyinformative.
Bothsetsoffindingsareindicativeofperceivers'spontaneousorganizationofsocialinformation,andtheseresultsrevealeffectsofperceivers'theoriesaboutthenatureofsocialgroups.
Thatis,Shermanetal.
's(2001)findingssupporttheideathatperceiversspontaneouslyencodegroups(andgroupmembers)intermsofthetypeofgrouptowhichtheybelong,andFiskeetal.
'sresultssuggestthatperceiversintuitivelycomprehendinteractionsamonggroupmembersintermsofcertainrelationalrulesbywhichthoseinterac-tionsaregoverned.
Thus,bothoftheseframeworksmayrepresentcomponentsofperceivers'intuitivethe-oryofgroups.
Inournextstudies,wesoughttodeter-minetherelationsbetweenthesecomponents.
Inthesestudies(Lickel,Hamilton,Sherman,&Rutchick,2001),weinvestigatedtheextenttowhichperceiversbelievedthatthedifferenttypesofgroups(i.
e.
,intimacygroups,taskgroups,socialcategories,andlooseassociations)identifiedinourpastworkwereassociatedwithparticularrelationalstyles.
Wehypothesizedthatthefourtypesofgroupsidentifiedinourpastresearchwoulddifferinthewayinwhichperceiversbelievethatinteractionsineachtypeofgroupareregulated.
Intheabsenceofspecificallyrele-vanttheory,ourhypothesesweresomewhattentativeandwerebasedtosomedegreeonintuition.
Becauseintimacygroupsgenerallyconsistoflong-lastinggroupsinwhichthemembersarehighlyinterdependent,theywerepredictedtobeperceivedasparticularlyhighincommunalsharing,moderateinequalitymatchingandauthorityranking,andlowinmarketpricing.
Taskgroups—becausemanyarehier-archicallyorganizedandbecausemembershipinmanyisbasedaroundemployment—werehypothesizedtobehighonauthorityrankingandalsomarketpricing,butlowoncommunalsharing.
Socialcategorieswerehypothesizedtohavemoderatelevelsofalltherela-tionalstyles,withthepossibleexceptionofauthorityrankingbecausemanysocialcategorieshaveleadersthatareeitherelected(e.
g.
,thePresidentleadstheciti-zensoftheUnitedStates)orordained(e.
g.
,thePopeleadsCatholics).
Finally,becauseoftheirlowlevelsofgroupmemberinteractionandtheirgenerallyperme-ableandtransientnature,itwasexpectedthatlooseas-sociationswouldbeperceivedasusinglowlevelsofalltheFiskerelationalstyles,withthepossibleexceptionofmarketpricing.
Ingeneralterms,thesehypotheses133LAYTHEORYOFGROUPSwerealsoconsistentwithFiske's(1992)hypothesisthatpeopletendtoincreasetheiruseofcommunalsharing(anddecreasetheiruseofmarketpricing)asthedurationandthedegreeofinteractioninarelation-shipincreases.
Effectsofgrouppropertiesonperceptionsofrelationalstyles.
If,aswehaveargued,peoplepos-sessanintegratedtheoryofgrouptypes,perceiversshouldbeabletomakeinferencesaboutthenatureofthesocialrelationswithinthosetypesofgroupsbasedonanabstractdescriptionofagroup'sproperties.
Thatis,whengivenadescriptionofagroupintermsofitsbasicproperties,peopleshouldbeabletomakeinfer-encesabouthowpeopleinthegrouparelikelytorelatetoeachother.
Totesttheseideas,participantswerepresentedwithdescriptionsoffourgroups,eachofwhichwasdescribedintermsoffourgroupproperties(size,du-ration,permeability,anddegreeofgroupmemberin-teraction).
Thesedescriptionsweredesignedtoberoughlyequivalenttothepatternofthesevariablesobservedforthefourdifferenttypesofgroupsidenti-fiedintheLickeletal.
(2000)research.
Thus,forex-ample,oneofthegroupswasdescribedasbeingsmall,impermeable,longinduration,andhighingroupmemberinteraction.
Thiscorrespondstothepatterninthesevariablesthatwasassociatedwithin-timacygroups.
Asecondgroupwasdescribedasbe-ingofsmallsize,ofmoderatepermeabilityandduration,andhighinteraction(thepatternofproper-tiescorrespondingtothepropertyprofileassociatedwithtaskgroups).
Athirdgroupwasdescribedasbe-ingverylargeinsize,lowinpermeabilityandlonginduration,andashavingmoderatelevelsofinterac-tion,whichisthepatternofpropertiesassociatedwithsocialcategories.
Finally,afourthgroupwasde-scribedintermsofthepropertyprofileoflooseasso-ciations(i.
e.
,smallinsize,shortinduration,highlypermeable,andlowingroupmemberinteraction).
Eachparticipantreaddescriptionsofallfourgroups(theorderofpresentationwascounterbalancedacrossparticipants).
Afterreadingeachdescription,partici-pantsevaluatedhowtheythoughtpeopleinthegroupwouldrelatetooneanotherbycompletingaratingscalethatwasdevelopedbyHaslam(1994)toidentifythefourrelationalstyles.
Thisratingscaleconsistedof24items,6ofwhichindexedeachofthefourrelationalstyles.
Forexample,itemsdesignedtoindexcommu-nalsharingconsistedofstatementssuchas"Apersoninthegroupwouldbelikelytogivetheshirtoffhisbackforanothermemberofthegroup.
"Equalitymatchingwasindexedbystatementssuchas"Therela-tionshipbetweenpeopleinthegroupislikelytobeor-ganizedona50:50basis.
"Itemsdesignedtoindexmarketpricingconsistedofstatementssuchas"Peopleinthegrouparelikelytoacttowardeachotherinapurelyrationalway.
"Finally,itemsdesignedtoindexauthorityrankingconsistedofstatementssuchas"Onepersoninthegroupwouldprobablytendtolead.
"Foreachtargetgroup,compositemeasuresofcommunalsharing,equalitymatching,marketpricing,andau-thorityrankingwerecreatedbyaveragingparticipants'responsestothesixitemsdesignedtoindexeachrela-tionalstyle.
Analysesoftheserelationalstylemeasuresindi-catedthatthemanipulationofthegrouppropertyin-formationdidinfluenceparticipants'inferencesaboutthewayinwhichpeoplewithineachofthegroupswouldbelikelytorelatetooneanother.
Describingagroupwithpropertiesthatcharacterizeintimacygroupsledparticipantstoratethegroupasveryhighintheextenttowhichpeopleinthegroupwouldre-lateusingcommunalsharing.
Thistargetgroupwasalsoratedmoderatelywithregardtotheextenttowhichpeopleinthegroupwoulduseequalitymatch-ing,butmuchlowerinmarketpricingandauthorityranking.
Thetargetgroupdescribedwiththepropertyprofilecorrespondingtoataskgroupresultedinaquitedifferentpatternofrelationalstyleratings.
Thisgroupwasratedasbeingmostlikelytoberegulatedaccordingtoauthorityranking,withmoderatelevelsofequalitymatchingandmarketpricingandlowlev-elsofcommunalsharing.
Thetargetgroupdescribedwiththepropertyprofilecorrespondingtosocialcate-goriesdidnotshowcleardifferentiationwithregardtotherelationalstyleslikelytobeusedwithinthegroup(allfourrelationalstyleswereratedasmoder-atelylikelytoregulateinteractionswithinthistypeofgroup).
Finally,thetargetgroupdescribedwiththepropertyprofileofalooseassociationwasratedasbeingmostlikelytoberegulatedaccordingtomarketpricing,withmoderatelevelsofequalitymatchingandauthorityrankingandlowlevelsofcommunalsharing.
Thus,thisstudyindicatesthatpeoplehavesomecapacitytomakeinferencesabouttheextenttowhichaparticularrelationalstyleisusedinagroupbasedonknowingafewgeneralfeatures(i.
e.
,size,duration,permeability,anddegreeofinteraction)ofthegroup.
1134LICKEL,HAMILTON,&SHERMAN1Wehavealsoconductedastudyinwhichparticipantsratedtherelationalstylesofspecificgroupsbelongingtoeachofthefourdif-ferenttypesofgroups(drawnfromthesampleusedinLickeletal.
,2000).
Relationalstyleratingsofthedifferenttypesofgroupsinthistaskwerequitesimilar(withsomedifferencesindegree)totherat-ingsfromtheexperimentinwhichabstractdescriptionsofeachtypeofgroupwereprovided.
Thus,perceiversmaderelativelysimilarre-lationalstyleinferenceswhenjudgingabstractgroupdescriptionsaswhenjudgingconcreteexemplars.
Effectofrelationalstylesonperceptionsofgroupproperties.
Thepreviousstudyshowedthat,givenknowledgeofagroup'sproperties,people'sintuitivetheoryofgroupspermitsinferencesaboutthekindsofinteractionrulesthatarelikelytogovernbehaviorinthegroup.
Wealsoaskasecondquestionregardingpeo-ple'sbeliefsabouttherelationbetweengrouptypesandinteractionstyles:Doestheintuitivetheoryofgroupsenableperceiverstomoveinferentiallyintheoppositedirection,fromrelationalstyletogrouptypeThatis,whenaperceiverobservesthatthemembersofagrouphaveusedaparticularrelationalstyle,doestheperceiverthenmakeinferencesaboutotherfeaturesofthegroup,suchasthenatureofthegroupanditsproperties,aswellasthedegreetowhichthegroupisacoherententityToinvestigatethesequestions,participantsinasec-ondstudywerepresentedwithdescriptionsoffourdif-ferentgroupsinwhicheachgroupwasportrayedasusingoneofthefourdifferentrelationalstyles.
ThesegroupdescriptionswereadapteddirectlyfromtheitemsinthesurveyusedtoidentifythefourdifferentrelationalstylesdevelopedbyHaslam(1994)thatwasdescribedinthepriorstudy.
However,ratherthanus-ingtheseitemsasdependentmeasures,theitemswereusedasgroupdescriptions.
Thus,onegroupwaschar-acterizedbysixstatementsthatreflectcommunalshar-ing(e.
g.
,"Apersoninthegroupwouldbelikelytogivetheshirtoffhisbackforanothermemberofthegroup.
").
Correspondingly,eachofthethreeothergroupswasdescribedwithsixitemsreflectingoneoftheotherthreeotherrelationalstyles.
Eachparticipantreaddescriptionsofallfourgroups(theorderofpre-sentationwascounterbalancedacrossparticipants).
Wewereinterestedintheextenttowhichthismanipu-lationofrelationalstyleinformationwouldinfluenceperceivers'inferencesaboutthepropertiesofthegroup(e.
g.
,itssize,degreeofinteraction,etc.
)aswellasthegroup'sentitativity.
Theresultsindicatedthatthemanipulationofrela-tionalstyleinformationdidinfactinfluenceperceivers'inferencesabouttheotherpropertiesofthegroup.
Forexample,participantsratedthelikelyde-greeofinteractionamongthemembersofthegroupquitedifferentlydependingonhowpeopleinthegroupwereportrayedtorelatetoeachother.
Thegroupde-scribedintermsofcommunalsharingwasratedasbe-inglikelytohavehigherlevelsofinteractionthanthegroupdescribedintermsofequalitymatchingorau-thorityranking,which,inturn,wereratedashigherininteractionthanthegroupdescribedintermsofmarketpricing.
Likewise,participantsmadedifferentinfer-encesaboutthelikelysizeandpermeabilityofthegroupdependingonwhichrelationalstylewasusedtodescribethegroup.
Thetargetgroupdescribedintermsofcommunalsharingwasratedasbeingsmallerandlesspermeablethanthegroupsdescribedwiththeotherrelationalstyles.
Thegroupdescribedintermsofmarketpricing,ontheotherhand,wasratedasbeinglargerinsizeandmorepermeablethanthetargetgroupsdescribedwiththeotherrelationalstyles.
Participantsalsomadedifferentinferencesabouttheentitativityofthetargetgroupdependingonthere-lationalstyleusedtodescribethegroup.
Describingthegroupintermsofcommunalsharingledtohigherratingsofentitativity(asassessedbyseveralmeasuressuchasqualifyingasagroupandbeingaunifiedgroup)comparedtodescriptionsofthegroupintermsofequalitymatchingorauthorityranking.
Groupsde-scribedintermsofequalitymatchingorauthorityrankingwereinturnratedhigherinentitativitythangroupsdescribedintermsofmarketpricing.
Theresultsofthethesestudiesindicatethatlaypeo-pleareabletomakefairlyrichconnectionsbetweenthepropertiesdefiningdifferenttypesofgroupsandthewayinwhichgroupmembersarelikelytorelatetooneanother.
Moreover,theseconnectionscanbethebasisforinferencesinabidirectionalmanner.
Ontheonehand,differenttypesofgroups(evenwhende-scribedwithaveryabstractdescriptionconsistingofthetargetgroup'ssize,duration,permeability,andde-greeofgroupmemberinteraction)areperceivedtoberegulatedaccordingtodifferentrelationalstyles.
Ontheotherhand,perceiversarealsoabletomakeinfer-encesaboutthestructuralpropertiesofagroupandthegroup'sentitativitywhentheylearninformationaboutthewayinwhichpeopleinthegrouprelatetoonean-other.
Thus,perceivers'intuitivetheoryofgroupsin-cludesnotonlydifferentiationamongtypesofgroupsandtheirpropertiesbutalsobeliefsaboutthestylewithwhichpeopleindifferenttypesofgroupsarelikelytointeractwithoneanother.
InfluenceoftheIntuitiveTheoryonJudgmentsofResponsibilityTothispoint,wehavedescribedsomeofthecon-tentofpeople'sintuitivetheoryofgroups.
However,forthemostpart,wehavenotdiscussedhowpeoplemayusetheirtheoryofgroupstomakesocialjudg-mentsthataretypicallythefocusofsocialpsychologi-calresearch.
Oneofourmajorassumptionsisthatpeopleusetheirintuitivetheoryofgroupstohelpthempredict,interpret,explain,andjustifyeventsthatoccurinthesocialworldaroundthem.
Thus,itislikelythatthisintuitivetheoryisusedbyperceiversinmanydo-mainsofsocialjudgment.
Forexample,thereissub-stantialevidencethatperceivers'beliefsaboutthecoherence,orentitativity,ofagroupinfluencehowtheyprocessbehavioralinformationandmaketraitjudgmentsaboutmembersofthatgroup(forareview,seeHamilton,Sherman,&Castelli,inpress).
Inthisar-135LAYTHEORYOFGROUPSticle,wediscussanotherdomaininwhichperceivers'intuitivetheoryofgroupsappearstostronglyinfluencehowtheymakejudgments.
Thisconcernshowpeoplemakejudgmentsofcollectiveresponsibility.
Collec-tiveresponsibilityoccurswhenthemembersofagroupareheldresponsibleandaresanctionedfortheactionsofasinglememberofthegroup.
Forexample,ifonememberofagroupoffriendsstartsafistfight,theothermembersofthatgroupmaybeconsideredresponsible(andperhapsevenbeattacked)foractionsoftheirfel-lowgroupmember.
Recently,we(Lickel,2000;Lickel,Schmader,&Hamilton,2001)haveinvestigatedpeople'sjudgmentsofcollectiveresponsibility.
Withregardtotheintuitivetheoryofgroupsthatwehavediscussedinthisarticle,oneimportantissueconcernstheextenttowhichperceiversbelievethatmembersofdifferenttypesofgroupsshouldbeheldresponsiblewhenanothermem-berofthegroupcommitsawrongdoing.
Toinvestigatethis,Lickel(2000,Study1)hadparticipantsrateasam-pleof30groupsontheextenttowhichmembershipineachgroupshouldentailcollectiveresponsibilityifonememberofthegroupcommittedawrongdoing.
Partici-pantsalsoratedthesegroupsonavarietyofothergroupproperties,includingthoseexaminedintheLickeletal.
(2000)researchdescribedearlier.
Clusteringanalysesbasedontheparticipants'ratingsofthegroupsrepli-catedtheclustersidentifiedinpastresearch(Lickeletal.
,2000).
Furthermore,analysesindicatedsignificantdifferencesbetweenthedifferenttypesofgroupsintheextenttowhichgroupmembershipentailscollectivere-sponsibility.
Intimacygroupswereratedbyfarthehigh-estincollectiveresponsibility,followedbytaskgroups.
Participantsratedbothsocialcategoriesandlooseasso-ciationsasentailinglowerlevelsofcollectiveresponsi-bilitythantaskgroups.
Thus,thegrouptypologywehavediscussedhereisstronglyrelatedtoperceivers'be-liefsaboutcollectiveresponsibility—thefourtypesofgroupssystematicallydifferintheextenttowhichperceiversjudgethatgroupmembershipentailscollec-tiveresponsibility.
ButwhydoperceiversbelievethatgroupsdifferinthisrespectInattemptingtoanswerthisquestion(aswellasunderstandingtheprocessbywhichcollectiveresponsibilityjudgmentsaremade),wehavefounditparticularlyimportanttoinvestigateperceivers'beliefsabouttheextenttowhichmembersofgroupsareinter-personallyinterdependentwithoneanother.
Severalaspectsofinterpersonalinterdependenceamongmem-bersofagroup(e.
g.
,interaction,communication,be-havioralinfluence,commongoals,commonoutcomes,interpersonalbonds)arefeaturesofgroupsthatpastre-searchhasidentifiedasparticularlyimportantwithre-gardtotheperceivedentitativityofgroups(Gaertner&Schopler,1998;Lickeletal.
,2000;Welbourne,1999).
Furthermore,highlevelsofinterpersonalinterdepen-denceparticularlycharacterizeintimacygroups,thetypeofgroupthatperceiversrateasentailingthehigh-estdegreeofcollectiveresponsibilityforwrongdoingscommittedbygroupmembers.
Wepredictedthatcollectiveresponsibilitywouldbegreatestwhenmembersofagroupareperceivedtobehighlyinterdependentwitheachother.
However,con-gruentwithourcurrentdiscussionofhowpeopleusein-tuitivetheoriestointerpreteventsinthesocialworld,wefurtherhypothesizedthatperceptionsofinterdepen-dencewouldinfluencejudgmentsofcollectiverespon-sibilitybecausetheseperceptionsinfluencehowperceiversconstrueandmakeinferencesaboutsitua-tionsinwhichcollectiveresponsibilitymightapplytoaparticulartargetgroup.
Ourresearchhasfocusedontwoinferencesthatlaypeoplemayrelyonwhenmakingajudgmentofcollectiveresponsibility.
Thefirstisanin-ferenceofresponsibilitybycommission.
Commissionreferstoaninferencethatmembersofthegroupmayhaveencouragedortacitlyfacilitatedtheactcommittedbytheirfellowgroupmember.
Torefertotheearlierex-ample,friendsofthepersonwhostartedthefistfightmaybeheldresponsibleinpartbecausetheyareper-ceivedtosharetheattitudesoftheirfellowgroupmem-berandmayhaveindirectlyencouragedhimtobeginthefight.
Thesecondinferenceisaninferenceofresponsi-bilitybyomission.
Omissionreferstoafailureofthemembersofthegrouptopreventtheirfellowgroupmemberfromengagingintheact.
Toagainrefertotheexampleofthefistfight,membersofthegroupmaybeheldresponsiblefornotrestrainingtheirfriendandpre-ventinghimfromstartingthebrawl.
Theextenttowhichperceiversmaketheseinfer-encesofcommissionandomissionishypothesizedtobeinfluencedbyperceptionsofinterpersonalinterde-pendenceamongmembersofthetargetgroup.
Inturn,theseinferencesofcommissionandomissioninflu-encetheextentofcollectiveresponsibilityassignedtomembersofthegroup.
Thus,therelationbetweenper-ceptionsofinterdependenceandjudgmentsofcollec-tiveresponsibilityishypothesizedtobemediatedbyinferencesofcommissionandomission.
Severalstudiessupportthisproposedmodelofhowperceiversmakecollectiveresponsibilityjudgments.
First,inthecorrelationalstudydescribedearlier(Lickel,2000),participantsratedgroupswithregardtocollectiveresponsibility,perceivedinterdependence,andtheextenttowhichinferencesofcommissionandomissioncouldbeappliedtoeachofthegroupswhenawrongdoingwascommittedbyasinglegroupmember.
Resultsofthisstudyshowedthatperceptionsofinter-dependencewerehighlypredictiveofcollectivere-sponsibilityand,furthermore,thatinferencesofcommissionandomissionlargelymediatedthisrela-tion.
Anexperimentalstudy(Lickel,2000,Study2)demonstratedthatmanipulatingperceptionsofinterde-136LICKEL,HAMILTON,&SHERMANpendencehadaneffectoncollectiveresponsibilityjudgmentsandthatthiseffectwaslargelymediatedbyparticipants'inferencesofcommissionandomission.
Furthermore,themodelhasbeenfoundtobeusefulinmakingsenseofpeople'scollectiveresponsibilityjudgmentsforareal-worldevent.
Inthisresearch(Lickel,Schmader,&Hamilton,2001),weassessedparticipants'reactionstotheshootingsthatoccurredatColumbineHighSchoolinLittleton,Colorado,duringApril1999.
Inonestudy,participantsevaluated14groupsthatmediareportsindicatedmightbeconsid-eredbyperceiverstosharesomeresponsibilityfortheevent.
Foreachgroup,participantsratedtheextenttowhichthemembersofthegroupwereinterpersonallyinterdependentwiththeshooters,mayhavecontrib-utedinsomewaytothekillings(commission),shouldhavepreventedthekillings(omission),andshouldbeheldaccountableandresponsibleforthekillings(col-lectiveresponsibility).
Analysesofthesedatarevealedanumberofinterestingfindings.
Asweexpected,peo-plewhosharedanintimacy-typegroupmembership(specifically,familyandfriends)withthekillerswereconsideredmostresponsibleforthekillers'acts.
Usingamorefine-grainedanalysis,wefoundthatperceivers'judgmentsofgroupresponsibilityfortheColumbineshootingswerestronglypredictedbytheextenttowhichmembersofeachgroupwereperceivedtobein-terpersonallyinterdependentwiththekillers.
Further-more,regressionanalysesindicatedthattherelationbetweeninterdependenceandresponsibilitywasstronglymediatedbyperceivers'inferencesofcom-missionandomissionwithregardtothekillings.
Al-thoughmuchremainstobeunderstoodconcerningjudgmentsofcollectiveresponsibility,itseemsclearthatperceivers'intuitivetheoryofgroupsplaysastrongroleintheprocessbywhichjudgmentsofcol-lectiveresponsibilityaremade.
SummaryandFurtherQuestionsOurgoalinthisarticlewastodescribesomeele-mentsoflaypeople'sintuitivetheoryofgroups.
Wedescribedseveralproposedfeaturesofthisintuitivetheoryanddiscussedresearchexaminingthosefea-tures.
Althoughmuchremainstobeinvestigatedre-gardingtheseissues,somefindingsseemfairlyclear.
First,researchdoesindicatethatlaypeoplepossessanintuitivetaxonomyofgroups,andthatthesegroupsaredefinedbydifferentproperties(Lickeletal.
,2000;Shermanetal.
,2001).
Second,evidencealsosuggeststhatpeoplehaveanintuitiveunderstandingofhowpeoplewithinthesedifferenttypesofgroupsarelikelytorelatetooneanother.
Aswediscussed,perceiversareabletomakeinferencesabouttherelationalstylesusedwithinagroupwhenprovidedwithanabstractde-scriptionofthegeneralpropertiesofthegroup.
Fur-thermore,perceiversarealsoabletomakeinferencesaboutthepropertiesofagroupwhentheylearnhowpeopleinthegroupgenerallyrelatetooneanother(Lickel,Hamilton,Sherman,etal.
,2001;seealsoGreenberg,1983).
Thus,thereappeartoberichinter-connectionsbetweenpeople'sbeliefsaboutdifferenttypesofgroupsandtheirbeliefsaboutthevariouswaysinwhichpeoplecanregulateinteractionswithoneanother(i.
e.
,relationalmodels;Fiske,1991,1992).
Finally,peopleclearlyusetheirintuitivebeliefsaboutgroupswhenmakingsocialjudgments,includ-ingtraitjudgmentsandmoraljudgmentssuchasjudg-mentsofcollectiveresponsibility.
However,muchremainstobeunderstoodregardingthenatureanduseofperceivers'intuitivetheoryofgroups.
Inwhatfol-lows,wediscussseveralkeyissuesthatremainforfu-tureinvestigation.
Oneimportantissueconcernstherangeofpsycho-logicalphenomenathatmaybeinfluencedbyperceivers'understandingofthedifferenttypesofgroups.
Aswediscussed,relativelylittleresearchhasexaminedthewayinwhichintragroupandintergroupphenomenaareinfluencedbythetypeofgroupsthatisinvolved.
Forexample,considertheissueofinter-groupconflict.
Researchfromdiversetraditionsdem-onstratesthatrelationsbetweengroupsarerifewithconflict(e.
g.
,Brewer&Campbell,1976;Insko&Schopler,1998;Sherif,Harvey,White,Hood,&Sherif,1961;Tajfel,Billig,Bundy,&Flament,1971).
However,weareawareofnoresearchthathassystem-aticallyinvestigatedtheextenttowhichconflictbe-tweengroupsoccursbecauseofthesamereasons,orthroughthesameprocesses,whenthetwogroupsthatareengagedintheconflictareofadistincttype.
Thus,understandingtheextenttowhichconflictbetweentwotaskgroupsispsychologicallyequivalenttocon-flictbetweentwointimacygroupsorbetweentwoso-cialcategorieswouldseemtobeofconsiderablepracticalandtheoreticalvalue.
Otherissues,suchasthesocialidentityvalueofdifferenttypesofgroups(Sherman,Hamilton,&Lewis,1999),wouldalsoap-peartobenefitfromaconsiderationofthepsychologi-caldistinctionsthatlaypeoplemaymakeamongdifferenttypesofgroups.
Inconsideringtheprecedingissues,anotherimpor-tantconcernisraised,namelytherelationbetweenthetypesofgroups(intimacy,task,socialcategories,andlooseassociations)identifiedinour(Lickeletal.
,2000)pastworkandtherelationalmodels(marketpricing,equalitymatching,communalsharing,andau-thorityranking)identifiedbyFiske(1991,1992).
Ourrecentresearch(Lickel,Hamilton,Sherman,etal.
,2001)indicatesthatthereclearlyisanassociationbe-tweenthesetwosetsofpsychologicalconstructs,butthisrelationdoesnotappeartobeasimpleone.
Itdoes137LAYTHEORYOFGROUPSnotappeartobethecase,forexample,thateachtypeofgroup(e.
g.
,socialcategories,intimacygroups)ispre-dominantlyassociatedwithasinglerelationalstyle.
However,thefullinterplaybetweenthesetwosetsofpsychologicalconstructsisnotcurrentlywellunder-stood.
Forexample,Shermanetal.
(2001)demon-stratedthatperceivers'organizationofinformationaboutindividualpersonswasinfluencedbythetypeofgroup(taskgroupvs.
intimacygroupvs.
socialcate-gory)thatwasassociatedwiththatpersonalinforma-tion.
ThisissimilarinsomewaystotheresultsofFiskeetal.
(1991),whofoundthatwhenpeoplemadesocialsubstitutionerrorsitwascommontoerrbyinterjectinganotherpersonwithwhomtheparticipantsharedthesamebasictypeofrelationship.
Thus,bothdifferenttypesofgroupsanddifferentrelationalmodelsappeartoinfluencehowsocialinformationisstoredinmem-ory.
Understandingtheinterplaybetweenpeople'sun-derstandingofthedifferentkindsofsocialgroupsandthedifferentrelationalmodelsisacrucialissueforfu-tureresearch.
Arelatedissueconcernstheroleofrelationalstyleinformationintheperceptionofgroupentitativity.
Asindicatedbyresearchdiscussedinthisarticle,thereap-pearstobeanassociationbetweenpeople'spercep-tionsoftherelationalstyleusedinagroupandtheirperceptionsoftheentitativityofthatgroup(Lickel,Hamilton,Sherman,etal.
,2001).
However,muchmoreremainstobeunderstoodabouthowthisinfor-mationisused.
Inparticular,itisimportanttounder-standtheextenttowhichthedegreeversusthequalityofinteractioniscausallyimportantinperceptionsofentitativity.
Pastresearch(Lickeletal.
,2000)hasshownastrongassociationbetweenthedegreeofin-teractionamongmembersofagroupandtheperceivedentitativityofthatgroup.
Ourmorerecentresearch(Lickel,Hamilton,Sherman,etal.
,2001)hasalsoshownastrongrelationbetweenperceptionsofthere-lationalstyleusedinagroupandperceptionsofentitativity.
However,itisnotcurrentlyknownwhichoftheseelementsofinteraction(quantityvs.
quality)ismostimportantindeterminingperceptionsofentitativity.
Forexample,ifthemembersofagroupareportrayedtousecommunalsharingtogovernalloftheirinteractions,doestheactualquantityofinterac-tion(extensivevs.
sporadic)haveanyeffectontheper-ceivedentitativityofthegroupGiventheimportantroleofentitativityinjudgmentsofgroups,understand-ingtheanswerstosuchquestionsiscrucial.
Finally,webelievethatitiscrucialtoinvestigatetheextenttowhichthereareculturaldifferencesinpeople'sintuitivetheoryofgroups.
Clearly,oneim-portantculturaldifferenceconcernsthemannerinwhichsocialgroupsareperceivedtoorganizesociallifeincollectivisticandindividualisticcultures.
Growingevidenceindicatesthatthereareimportantdifferencesinpeople'sunderstandingofsocialgroupsinsuchcultures.
Forexample,Menonetal.
(1999)demonstratedthatpeopleincollectivistculturesaremorelikelytomakedispositionalinferencespertain-ingtogroups(ratherthanindividualpersons),whereaspeopleinindividualisticculturesaremorelikelytomakedispositionalinferencestoindividuals(ratherthantogroups).
However,muchmoreremainstobeunderstoodabouthowthisculturaldifference(andoth-ers)influencespeople'sjudgmentsofgroups.
Forex-ample,doculturaldifferencesindispositionalattributionstogroupsappearforalltypesofgroups,ordothesedifferencesappearforonlycertaintypesofgroups(oronlyforgroupswithaparticularlevelofentitativity)Anotherimportantquestionconcernstheextenttowhichperceiversindifferentculturesbasetheirperceptionsofgroupentitativityonthesamefea-turesofgroups.
Forexample,isthedegreeofinterac-tionamongmembersofagroupanequallyimportantfactorindeterminingperceptionsofentitativityincol-lectivistandindividualisticculturesAddressingques-tionssuchasthesewillallowsocialpsychologiststobetterunderstandthemechanismsbywhichperceiversemployintuitivetheoriesofgroupsduringsocialper-ceptionandthemannerinwhichthesemechanismsmaybemodifiedbyculturaldifferences(e.
g.
,Chiu,Morris,Hong,&Menon,2000).
Astheresearchpresentedinthisarticleillustrates,peoplehaverichintuitiveideasaboutsocialgroups.
Peoplehavebeliefsaboutthepropertiesofdifferentkindsofgroupsandhowpeoplewithindifferenttypesofgroupsarelikelytorelatetooneanother.
People'sbeliefsabouttheseaspectsofgroupsarerichlyinter-connectedandareusedtoguideinferencesaboutmanyphenomena,suchascollectiveresponsibility.
Muchremainstobeunderstoodaboutthecontent,structure,andfunctionoflaypeople'sintuitivetheoryofgroups.
Hopefully,thisarticleisafruitfulsteptowardthisgoal.
ReferencesBrewer,M.
B.
,&Campbell,D.
T.
(1976).
Ethnocentrismandinter-groupattitudes:EastAfricanevidence.
NewYork:Sage.
Brewer,M.
B.
,&Harasty,A.
S.
(1996).
Seeinggroupsasentities:Theroleofperceivermotivation.
InR.
Sorrentino&E.
T.
Hig-gins(Eds.
),Handbookofmotivationandcognition(Vol.
3,pp.
347–370).
NewYork:Guilford.
Campbell,D.
T.
(1958).
Commonfate,similarity,andotherindicesofstatusofaggregatesofpersonsassocialentities.
BehavioralScience,3,14–25.
Carey,S.
,&Spelke,E.
(1994).
Domain-specificknowledgeandcon-ceptualchange.
InL.
A.
Hirschfeld&S.
A.
Gelman(Eds.
),Mappingthemind:Domainspecificityincognitionandculture(pp.
169–200).
NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Chiu,C.
Y.
,Morris,M.
W.
,Hong,Y.
Y.
,&Menon,T.
(2000).
Moti-vatedculturalcognition:Theimpactofimplicittheoriesondispositionalattributionvariesasafunctionofneedforclosure.
JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,78,247–259.
138LICKEL,HAMILTON,&SHERMANClark,M.
S.
(1984).
Recordkeepingintwotypesofrelationships.
JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,47,549–557.
Clark,M.
S.
,&Mills,J.
(1979).
Interpersonalattractioninexchangeandcommunalrelationships.
JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,37,12–24.
Deutsch,M.
(1975).
Equity,equality,andneed:WhatdetermineswhichvaluewillbeusedasthebasisofdistributivejusticeJournalofSocialIssues,31,137–149.
Dweck,C.
S.
,Chiu,C.
,&Hong,Y.
(1995).
Implicittheoriesandtheirroleinjudgmentsandreactions:Aworldfromtwoperspectives.
PsychologicalInquiry,6,267–285.
Fiske,A.
P.
(1990).
RelativitywithinMoose("Mossi")culture:Fourincommensurablemodelsforsocialrelationships.
Ethos,18,180–204.
Fiske,A.
P.
(1991).
Structuresofsociallife:Thefourelementaryformsofhumanrelations:Communalsharing,authorityranking,equalitymatching,marketpricing.
NewYork:FreePress.
Fiske,A.
P.
(1992).
Thefourelementaryformsofsociality:Frame-workforaunifiedtheoryofsocialrelations.
PsychologicalRe-view,99,689–723.
Fiske,A.
P.
(1993).
Socialerrorsinfourcultures:Evidenceaboutuniversalformsofsocialrelations.
JournalofCross-CulturalPsychology,24,463–494.
Fiske,A.
P.
,&Haslam,N.
(1997).
Thestructureofsocialsubstitu-tions:Atestofrelationalmodelstheory.
EuropeanJournalofSocialPsychology,27,725–729.
Fiske,A.
P.
,Haslam,N.
,&Fiske,S.
T.
(1991).
Confusingonepersonwithanother:Whaterrorsrevealabouttheelementaryformsofsocialrelations.
JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,60,656–674.
Foa,U.
R.
,&Foa,E.
B.
(1974).
Societalstructuresofmind.
Spring-field,IL:Thomas.
Foa,U.
R.
,&Foa,E.
B.
(1981).
Resourcetheory:Interpersonalbe-haviorasexchange.
InK.
J.
Gergen,M.
S.
Greenberg,&R.
H.
Willis(Eds.
),Socialexchange:Advancesintheoryandre-search(pp.
77–94).
NewYork:Plenum.
Gaertner,L.
,&Schopler,J.
(1998).
Perceivedingroupentitativityandintergroupbias:Aninterconnectionofselfandothers.
Eu-ropeanJournalofSocialPsychology,28,963–980.
Gopnik,A.
,&Meltzoff,A.
N.
(1997).
Words,thoughts,andtheories.
Cambridge,MA:MITPress.
Gopnik,A.
,&Wellman,H.
M.
(1994).
Thetheorytheory.
InS.
A.
Gelman&L.
A.
Hirschfeld(Eds.
),Mappingthemind:Domainspecificityincognitionandculture(pp.
257–293).
NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Greenberg,J.
(1983).
Equityandequalityascluestotherelationshipbetweenexchangeparticipants.
EuropeanJournalofSocialPsychology,13,195–196.
Hamilton,D.
L.
,&Sherman,S.
J.
(1996).
Perceivingpersonsandgroups.
PsychologicalReview,103,336–355.
Hamilton,D.
L.
,Sherman,S.
J.
,&Castelli,L.
(inpress).
Agroupbyanyothername:Theroleofentitativityingroupperception.
InW.
Stroebe&M.
Hewstone(Eds.
),Europeanreviewofsocialpsychology(Vol.
12).
NewYork:Wiley.
Hamilton,D.
L.
,Sherman,S.
J.
,&Lickel,B.
(1998).
Perceivingso-cialgroups:Theimportanceoftheentitativitycontinuum.
InC.
Sedikides,J.
Schopler,&C.
A.
Insko(Eds.
),Intergroupcogni-tionandintergroupbehavior(pp.
47–74).
Mahwah,NJ:Law-renceErlbaumAssociates,Inc.
Haslam,N.
(1994).
Categoriesofsocialrelationship.
Cognition,53,59–90.
Haslam,N.
,&Fiske,A.
P.
(1992).
Implicitrelationshipprototypes:Investigatingfivetheoriesofthecognitiveorganizationofso-cialrelationships.
JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology,28,441–474.
Haslam,N.
,Rothschild,L.
,&Ernst,D.
(2000).
Essentialistbeliefsaboutsocialcategories.
BritishJournalofSocialPsychology,39,113–127.
Heider,F.
(1958).
Thepsychologyofinterpersonalrelations.
NewYork:Wiley.
Hirschfeld,L.
A.
(1995a).
DochildrenhaveatheoryofraceCogni-tion,54,209–252.
Hirschfeld,L.
A.
(1995b).
Theinheritabilityofidentity:Children'sunderstandingoftheculturalbiologyofrace.
ChildDevelop-ment,66,1418–1437.
Insko,C.
A.
,&Schopler,J.
(1998).
Differentialdistrustofgroupsandindividuals.
InC.
Sedikides,J.
Schopler,&C.
A.
Insko(Eds.
),Intergroupcognitionandintergroupbehavior(pp.
75–108).
Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates,Inc.
Lewin,K.
(1948).
Resolvingsocialconflicts.
NewYork:Harper.
Lickel,B.
(2000).
Perceptionsofinterdependenceandjudgmentsofcollectiveresponsibility.
Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation,UniversityofCalifornia,SantaBarbara.
Lickel,B.
,Hamilton,D.
L.
,Sherman,S.
J.
,&Rutchick,A.
(2001).
Theassociationofrelationalstylesandgrouppropertiesintheperceptionofgroupentitativity.
Unpublishedmanuscript,Uni-versityofCalifornia,SantaBarbara.
Lickel,B.
,Hamilton,D.
L.
,Wieczorkowska,G.
,Lewis,A.
,Sherman,S.
J.
,&Uhles,A.
N.
(2000).
Varietiesofgroupsandtheperceptionofgroupentitativity.
JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,78,223–246.
Lickel,B.
,Schmader,T.
,&Hamilton,D.
L.
(2001).
Acaseofcollec-tiveresponsibility:WhoelseistoblamefortheColumbineHighSchoolshootingsUnpublishedmanuscript,UniversityofCali-fornia,SantaBarbara.
Menon,T.
,Morris,M.
W.
,Chiu,C.
Y.
,&Hong,Y.
Y.
(1999).
Cul-tureandtheconstrualofagency:Attributiontoindividualver-susgroupdispositions.
JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsy-chology,76,701–717.
Morris,M.
W.
,Ames,D.
R.
,&Knowles,E.
D.
(2000).
Whatwetheo-rizewhenwetheorizethatwetheorize:The"laytheory"con-structindevelopmental,social,andculturalpsychology.
InG.
Moskowitz(Ed.
),Futuredirectionsinsocialcognition.
Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates,Inc.
Morris,M.
W.
,&Peng,K.
(1994).
Cultureandcause:AmericanandChineseattributionsforsocialandphysicalevents.
JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,67,949–971.
Murphy,G.
L.
,&Medin,D.
L.
(1985).
Theroleoftheoriesinconcep-tualcoherence.
PsychologicalReview,92,289–316.
Ross,L.
D.
(1977).
Theintuitivepsychologistandhisshortcomings:Distortionsintheattributionprocess.
InL.
Berkowitz(Ed.
),Ad-vancesinexperimentalsocialpsychology(Vol.
10,pp.
173–220).
SanDiego,CA:Academic.
Rothbart,M.
,&Taylor,M.
(1992).
Categorylabelsandsocialreality:DoweviewsocialcategoriesasnaturalkindsInK.
Fiedler&G.
R.
Semin(Eds.
),Language,interactionandsocialcognition(pp.
11–36),NewburyPark,CA:Sage.
Schneider,D.
J.
(1973).
Implicitpersonalitytheory:Areview.
Psy-chologicalBulletin,79,294–309.
Sherif,M.
,Harvey,O.
J.
,White,B.
J.
,Hood.
,W.
E.
,&Sherif,C.
W.
(1961).
Intergroupconflictandcooperation:Therobberscaveexperiments.
Norman:UniversityofOklahomaPress.
Sherman,S.
J.
,Castelli,L.
,&Hamilton,D.
L.
(2001).
Thespontane-oususeofagrouptypologyasanorganizingprincipleinmem-ory.
Unpublishedmanuscript,IndianaUniversity,Bloomington.
Sherman,S.
J.
,Hamilton,D.
L.
,&Lewis,A.
(1999).
Perceivedentitativityandthesocialidentityvalueofgroupmember-ships.
InD.
Abrams&M.
Hogg(Eds.
),Socialidentityandsocialcognition(pp.
80–110).
Oxford,England:Blackwell.
139LAYTHEORYOFGROUPSTajfel,H.
,Billig,M.
G.
,Bundy,R.
P.
,&Flament,C.
(1971).
Socialcategorizationandintergroupbehavior.
EuropeanJournalofSocialPsychology,1,149–178.
Taylor,S.
E.
,Fiske,S.
T.
,Etcoff,N.
L.
,&Ruderman,A.
J.
(1978).
Cat-egoricalandcontextualbasesofpersonmemoryandstereotyp-ing.
JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,36,778–793.
Thakkar,V.
(2000).
Theroleofentitativityinjudgmentsaboutgroups.
Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation,UniversityofCali-fornia,SantaBarbara.
Welbourne,J.
L.
(1999).
Theimpactofperceivedentitativityonin-consistencyresolutionforgroupsandindividuals.
JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology,35,481–508.
Wellman,H.
M.
(1990).
Thechild'stheoryofmind.
Cambridge,MA:MITPress.
Wilder,D.
,&Simon,A.
F.
(1998).
Categoricalanddynamicgroups:Implicationsforsocialperceptionandintergroupbehavior.
InC.
Sedikides,J.
Schopler,&C.
A.
Insko(Eds.
),Intergroupcog-nitionandintergroupbehavior(pp.
27–44).
Mahwah,NJ:Law-renceErlbaumAssociates,Inc.
Yzerbyt,V.
Y.
,Rocher,S.
,&Schadron,G.
(1997).
Stereotypesasex-planations:Asubjectiveessentialisticviewofgroupperception.
InR.
Spears,P.
Oakes,N.
Ellemers,&A.
Haslam(Eds.
),Thepsychologyofstereotypingandgrouplife(pp.
20–50).
London:BasilBlackwell.
140LICKEL,HAMILTON,&SHERMAN