Running head: IDENTIFICATION, ENTITATIVITY AND BSE

Black sheep effect and the identification with group

Marika Rullo & Stefano Livi
Sapienza Universit di Roma

Correspondence should be addressed to Marika Rullo, Dipartimento di Psicologia dei Processi di

Sviluppo e Socializzazione. Via dei Marsi 78, I-00185 Roma (Italy): e-mail:
marika.rullo@uniroma1.it

Abstract
Previous research has suggested that the black sheep effect i.e. ingroup derogation
mainly occurs in members highly identified with groups or belonging to highly entitative groups.
The present study considered the conjoint effect of identification and entitativity on the ingroup
derogation, and in particular considering he moderation role of entitativity on the relationship
between identification and derogation of ingroup vs outgroup members. A sample of 169 high
school students took part in the study. Results showed that deviant ingroup members from high
entitativity groups was harshly evaluated especially from highly identified members than outgroup
deviant members. At the same time, a deviant from low entitativity group may pose a significant
threat to the highly identified members that still use derogation in order to restore a positive image
of the group.
Keywords: black-sheep effect; social identity; entitativity; ingroup bias; derogation

Not Every Flock has its Black Sheep: The Conjoint Effect of Identification and Entitativity in
Manifestations of the Black Sheep Effect

Although ingroup favouritism is robust (Brewer, 1979; Tajfel, Billing, Bundy & Flament, 1971;
Tajfel & Turner, 1979), a number of studies have demonstrated that people sometimes tend to
favour outgroup members and derogate ingroup members by judging an unfavourable ingroup
member more harshly than a similar unfavourable outgroup member (Branscombe, Wann, Noel &
Coleman, 1993; Marques, Abrams, Peaz & Hogg 2001).This phenomenon has been observed to
affect members who behave unpleasantly (Khan & Lambert, 1998; Marques, Yzerbit & Leyens,
1988), exhibit behaviours far from the values of the group (Abrams, Marques, Bown & Henson,
2000), unfairly (Branscombe, Wann, Noel & Coleman, 1993; Levine & Moreland, 2002), or
incompetent (Marques & Yzerbit, 1988). This particular ingroup bias is known as the Black Sheep
Effect (BSE, Marques, Yzerbit & Leyens, 1988) and has been mainly interpreted as a strategy used
to protect group image. According to the literature on BSE, ingroup derogation allows members to
exclude deviants in order to maintain the overall positivity of the group's image. In this sense BSE
was defined as a sort of sophisticated form of ingroup favoritism (Marques et al., 1988, p. 5).
Social identity theory (Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel & Turner, 1979) suggests that people favour
their ingroup members because part of their own identity is derived from group membership. The
ingroup is perceived as more positive than outgroup and this increase both self-esteem and self
identity. In this perspective a deviant member constitutes a threat to the personal self-image and
derogating him could represent an individual protection strategy (Eidelman & Biernat, 2002). In
fact, a number of studies have demonstrated that this pattern of behaviour tends to occur among
highly identified group members (Branscombe et al., 1993; Castano, Paladino, Coull & Yzerbyt,
2002). Others scholars (Doosje, Ellemers & Spears, 1995; Spears, Doosje & Ellemers, 1995)
suggested that people who feel greater attachment to the group, and derive a large part of self-

identity from its membership, are likely to be more affected by threats to the group values and
consequently are more motivated to restore the image of the group. In fact, ingroup derogation
emerges in particular in response to deviance from the norms and the core values of the group
(Mummenday & Schreiber, 1984). In this case, denigrating negative ingroup members represents a
way to restore the group distinctiveness and solidarity around their norms (Marques et al., 2001).
Nevertheless, also the characteristics of the group to which people belong may affect the
reactions of the members toward the deviant: A recent study by Lewis and Sherman (2010)
suggests that also entitativity is an antecedent of BSE. In fact, entitative groups play a larger role
in the social identification of their members (Sherman, Hamilton & Lewis, 1999) and in these
groups, ingroup members may be higly sensitive to the negative actions of a deviant member that
threatens the overall positivity of the group.
According to Campbell (1958), entitativity is defined as the degree to which a group has
the nature of an entity that is related to four different factors: common fate, similarity, salience
among members and the boundedness of the group. In addition to these factors, Lickel, Hamilton,
Wieczorkowska, Lewis, Sherman & Uhles (2000) argued that the perception of entitativity is also
determined by the degree of interaction among group members, the presence of common goals and
outcomes, and the importance of the group to its members (see also Lickel, Hamilton & Sherman,
2001). According to Lewis and Sherman (2010), these characteristics of perceived entitativity
represent a particular property of groups that might encourage or inhibit the manifestation of BSE.
In the aforementioned study, participants were told that their objective was to look for differences
in writing ability and were then faced with the embarrassing poor performance of their ingroup
members. High entitativity groups were fraternities and sororities, while low entitativity groups
were sections of introductory psychology. They found that ingroup bias (that is the black sheep
effect or ingroup favouritism) emerged only when the groups were more entitative and central to
the participants self-images.

Moreover, the positive correlation between entitativity and identification has already been
reported in past researches (Castano, Yzerbyt, Paladino & Sacchi, 2002; Castano, Yzerbyt and
Bourguignon 2003; Lickel et al., 2000) For example, Castano and colleagues (Castano et al., 2003)
illustrate the role of entitativity in mediating the relationship between characteristics of groups
such as the perceived similarity between the members and the permeability of group boundaries
and the degree of attachment to the group. Moreover, other studies have found that entitative
groups (e.g. intimacy group or task group; for a review, see Lickel et al., 2000) meet the members'
needs better than simple aggregate or social categories (Johnson, Crawford, Sherman, Rutchick,
Hamilton, et al., 2006; Crawford & Salaman, 2012). The study of Johnson and colleagues
(Johnson et al., 2006) have showed that social categories, low entitativity groups, better satisfy
needs related to identity than other needs (like affiliation and achievement). This means that the
feeling of being member of a social categories is highly related to identitys dimensions.
Furthermore the identification has been found to mediate the relationship between entitativity and
the perception of fulfilment of needs in a group (Crawford & Salaman, 2012). This result suggests
that when people feel a strong identification with a group and are motivated to achieve a strong
and positive identity, the entitativity of the group goes in background. In this perspective since the
black sheep effect is a strategy that relies on the motivation to defend the social identity, we cant
exclude that the identification with the group elicits the desire to denigrate the ingroup negative
member in order to restore a positive social identity even if the deviant belongs to a low
entitativity group. Worth to note, members in entitative groups are not only perceived as physically
more similar but also as more psychologically homogeneous among each other. In these
conditions, a negative behaviour from an ingroup member may elicit stronger judgments simply
because it could be perceived as representative of all the members (Dasgupta, Banaji & Abelson,
1999). Thus, derogation of an ingroup deviant allows members to classify her/him as a black sheep
especially when group is highly entitative in order to psychologically remove him from the

overall evaluation of the group. In this way, group members place a distance between themselves
and the negative behaviour of the deviant as the derogated member poses no threat to the other
group members positivity (Castano et al., 2002).
Although past studies have revealed the emergence of the BSE in cases of both high
identification (Branscombe et al.,1993; Biernat, Vescio & Billings, 1999; Castano et al., 2002) and
high entitativity, no study has investigated the relative importance of entitativity and identity
together. For this reason, our research is aimed to investigate the black sheep effect, and the
moderational role played by the entitativity on the relationship between the degree of identification
on the ingroup and outgroup derogation.
For these reasons we will investigate the black sheep effect in two groups differing on their
degree of perceived entitativity (Lickel et al., 2000) and with different degree of identification
among participants. We hypothesize that the black sheep effect emerges when members are
strongly identified with the group both in low and high entitativity groups, but that evaluations are
more harsh when the target comes from a highly entitative group. Nevertheless, we do not expect
such influence of entitativity when members are low in identification, as these members are less
interested in the protection of groups image. Interestingly, the relationship between identification
and entitativity does not exclude that when people are highly identified with the ingroup the black
sheep effect could also be observed in low entitativity groups. Clearly in this case as well as in
each of the other combinations of the levels of the two factors, the BSE effect may have different
size. Thus, the hypothesis of multiplicative effect of identification and entitativity make the
analysis of the black sheep effect even more compelling as their joint effect raises the need to
explain how the effect of these factors combine each other to predict and stimulate discrediting
behaviours toward the ingroup or the outgroup.
Method
Participants

For this study, we recruited 169 students (87 males, 51.3%, and 82 females, 48.7%, mean
age = 18.3; S.D.=1.24) from the last two years of a senior high school. Participants were randomly
assigned to conditions in a 2 (target: ingroup and outgroup) by 2 (perceived entitativity of groups:
low vs. high) by 2 (identification: low vs. high). The target factor was treated as a within
participant factor while perceived entitativity and identification to the ingroup were betweensubject factors. All participants completed the survey individually in their classrooms and were
informed that the survey examined how some students behaviours were assessed among different
groups.
Materials and Procedure
Participants were instructed to read a scenario and then answered to a questionnaire that
varies depending on the condition of entitativity to which they were assigned to: half of the
respondents referred to the group classroom and the other half referred to the group school.
Participants evaluated a list of six groups according to their entitativity level, using a nine-point
Likert scale, from 1 (is not at all a group) to 9 (is certainly a group). The six groups included were:
school, group friends, family, citizens, classroom and music band. These measures of perceived
entitativity were obtained in order to verify the manipulation of entitativity between classroom and
school. A t-test has shown that these two groups were differentiated based on their degree of
perceived entitativity (for school, M = 5.37 and for classroom, M=7.10; = -1.87; t = 69.65; p
<.001). In the same questionnaire, participants also reported their level of identification in their
school group or in their classroom, according to the entitativity condition. Finally, participants
were asked to evaluate the behaviour shown by members of a class (their own class or a class of
another similar school) or members of a school (their own school or another similar school),
before reading a brief scenario which described a student in a negative behaviour scenario.
Behaviours described in the scenario were selected after a pre-test of open-ended questions to
forty students of the same institute, asking for which behaviours were perceived as the most

disgraceful and deprecable. For the chosen scenarios, the behaviours that were cited most, and thus
considered the most deviant and furthest from students norms, were individualism, disloyalty and
lack of cooperation. The scenario described a student of their/other class or school who does not
share knowledge or objects with other students, refusing help and directing his/her behaviour at
making a good impression on teachers to detriment of other students. In the low perceived
entitativity condition, the described student was currently enrolled in a high school. In the high
perceived entitativity condition, the described student was enrolled in a class of their own school
(their own class for the ingroup condition or another one for the outgroup condition).
Target group membership. Target group membership was manipulated using the
membership of the described student in the scenario. Each participant read the scenario of both the
ingroup and outgroup conditions. After reading each (scenario), participants were asked to
evaluate the student's behaviour. The order of targets (i.e. ingroup, outgroup) was counterbalanced.
After rating the second scenario, participants were debriefed and asked not to discuss the details of
the study with other participants.
Identification. The degree of identification with group was obtained by adapting Mael and
Ashforths (1992) six-item version identification scale to the scholar context. Examples of items
included When I talk about my school, I say we rather than they. Each of the six items was
measured on a seven-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The
overall reliability was satisfactory both for school ingroup identification (=.86) and for class
ingroup identification (=.93).
Derogation Index. Two items were used to assess the target behaviours by asking how
deprecable are these behaviours? and how negatively do you judge this person? All responses
were made on ten-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 10 (completely). The two items were

highly correlated (r = .70; p <.001) and were thus combined to form an overall derogation index
(=.85).
Results
A correlational analysis was conducted before investigating if identification and the
entitativity manipulation predicted ingroup/outgroup derogation. As shown in Table 1,
Identification was positively and significantly associated with Entitativity (r = 0.28, p < 0.01, N =
169) and both with ingroup and outgroup derogation (respectively r = -0.40, p < 0.01; r = 0.21, p <
0.01, N = 169 ). While entitativity was positively and significantly correlated only with ingroup
derogation (r = .18, p < 0.05, N = 169) but not with outgroup derogation. Finally ingroup and
outgroup derogation were positively and significantly related (r = 0.72, p < 0.01, N=169).
Table 2 shows the results of the regression analysis of Identification and Entitativity on ingroup derogation. Overall the regression equation explained about 61% of the total variance (F
(1,164) = 63.62, p < 0.01). The effects of outgroup derogation were entered as covariates. The
main effect of entitativity (the moderator) on ingroup derogation was marginally statistically
significant (b = 0.473, p < 0.065), as was the main effect of identification (b = 0.333, p < 0.01). As
predicted, the two-way interaction effect was significant (b = 0.381, p < 0.05) and worth of note
the R square change obtained by adding the interaction term was significant (R2 change = 0.014, F
(1,164) = 5.70, p < 0.05).
We investigated the interaction term with the simple slopes analysis (Aiken and West,
1991) to decompose and interpret the effects. In particular, we were interested in how the effect of
Identification on ingrouop derogation was moderated by the entitativity (high vs low, i.e. 1 SD).
The results indicated that identification did not predict ingroup derogation when entitativity was
low (-1 SD), (b = 0.146, p = 0.22), whereas for high values of entitativity (+1 SD), identification
significantly predicted ingroup derogation (b = 0.527, p < 0.01) (see Figure 1).

The second multiple regression was performed with the outgroup derogation as dependent
variable with the same predictors introduced in the first regression but with ingroup derogation as
covariate. As predicted, the main effect of entitativity in this case was not significant (b = - 0.426,
p = 0.13) as the main effect of identification (b = -0.086, p = 0.35). Only the two- way interaction
was statistically significant (b= 0.777, p < 0.044). As for the first regression, also in this case the
R square change obtained by adding the interaction term was significant (R2 change = 0.011, F
(1,164) = 4.09, p < 0.05). In the simple slopes analysis the moderator (entitativity) showed a
similar pattern as shown in the previous regression, but with reverse sign. In particular, it was
found that identification negatively predicted outgroup derogation (b = -0.264, p = 0.05) at high
levels of entitativity (1 SD) while when entitativity was low (-1 SD), the effect of identification on
outgroup disappeared (b = 0.085, p = 0.51) (Figure 2).
Discussion
Lewis and Sherman (2010) have found that ingroup extremity members evaluations
(positive and negative) emerged only when the groups were more entitative. On the other hand,
previous research by Branscombe and colleagues (1993) has demonstrated that ingroup derogation
is a strategy used only by members that are highly identified. Our results show not only the main
effects previously found, but more importantly that perceived entitativity interacts with social
identity by boosting the intensity of the black sheep effect. In this sense, we think that these results
improve and clarify the aforementioned evidences found by Castano et al. (2001): In fact, even if
the BSE tends to occur mostly as a function of identification, our results showed also that targets
from highly perceived entitativity groups are evaluated more harshly than members of groups with
low perceived entitativity. Therefore, when strongly identified participants evaluate a negative
ingroup member of a high entitative groups, they will denigrate him/her, showing a more negative
ingroup bias as a sort of outgroup favouritism, although this latter denigration effect is attenuated
in the low entitative group condition. This results' pattern are efficiently outlined by the

moderational effect of the entitativity on identification with simple slopes going in opposite
directions as function of the target membership evaluated: When both the entitativity and
identification were high, the derogation increases when the member is ingroup and decreases when
is outgroup (compared to the other conditions).
As already discussed, ingroup derogation takes place in the presence of a deviant member
who threatens the image of the group (Marques et al., 1998; Marques, Abrams, Paez, & MartinezTaboada, 1998). However, as our results showed, this threat becomes more salient when members
belong to groups for which the impact of deviance on social identity and self-esteem is particularly
relevant, like in high entitative groups. In this sense, denigrating a deviant ingroup member is
useful for restoring the positive perception that members have of their own group, in terms of both
entitativity and coherence (Sherman, Hamilton & Lewis, 1999; Castano et al., 2001), and in
maintaining a positive image of the group and the members self-esteem. This motivational drive
is obviously stronger in people who derive most of their self-esteem from group membership and
can therefore adopt more sophisticated and complex forms of ingroup favouritism like the black
sheep effect. In contrast, when a value of the group is under threat, less identified members defend
their self-esteem by distancing themselves from the group and by modifying the corresponding
representation accordingly (Biernat et al., 1999; De Cremer & Vanbeselaere, 1999; Marques &
Paez, 1994; Marques & Yzerbyt, 1988).
Moreover, Coull and colleagues (1999) have shown that identified members invest more
cognitive resources than less identified members in order to exclude the deviant and reclassify him
as atypical. This is a normative behaviour endorsed in order to favour the ingroup (Horwtiz &
Rabbie, 1992), while ingroup derogation or outgroup favouritism is not. Hence the black sheep
effect has a price that, obviously increases according to the importance people give to the group
and to the features of the group. Our results seem to support this point of view as from our study
emerged that participants consider less important the "low-entitativity" ingroup members

compared to the "high-entitativity" ingroup and this leads the high identified members to simply
care less about deviants (because the cost of their denigration is lower) in the low-entitativity
condition. Nonetheless, excluding a deviant member may represents a possible breach in the wall
of the group that can lead to a reconsideration of internal dynamics between members. Hence,
when the member is actually rejected, the group has to face also the evaluations of external
observers in addition to its own evaluation, and these observers can judge less favourably a group
that acted treacherously against one of its members (Van Leeuwen, Van Den Bosch, Castano &
Hopman, 2009).
In conclusion, other than what has been already reported by the many empirical studies
discussed above, there is still much to elaborate on the BSE topic. The present study analysed the
antecedents of the black sheep effects at individual and group levels. However, its implications
in relation to the impact of an unfavourable comparison with a salient outgroup on the single
members self-identity threat, or more generally to the impact of a comparison on the group
reaction to deviants are still to be thoroughly investigated. Thus, it represents a promising and
stimulating research field to explore.
Following previous literature, our study has observed only negative ingroup bias and not
positive ingroup bias. We used negative behaviour scenarios to manipulate deviant ingroup
members in order to explore the black sheep effect in its most particular form ingroup
derogation. However, a measure of positive ingroup bias would be useful also in order to verify
the combined effect of identification and entitativity on ingroup bias in general. Future research
should add this positive norms deviant in order to understand the role of personal threats in giving
rise to the black sheep effect. A related concern is that we did not control the self-esteem of
participants, which can be viewed as further check that the black sheep targets are denigrated
especially by virtue of an individual level threat. By considering the self-esteem in future

researches it will be possible to perform intergroup comparisons of negative performance or

embarrassing behaviours that could deeply affect peoples self image and positivity.

References
Abrams, D., Marques, J. M., Bown, N., & Henson, M. (2000). Pro-norm and anti-norm
deviance within and between groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), 906.
Bettencourt, B., Dill, K. E., Greathouse, S. A., Charlton, K., & Mulholland, A. (1997).
Evaluations of ingroup and outgroup members: The role of category-based expectancy violation.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33(3), 244-275.
Biernat, M., Vescio, T. K., & Billings, L. S. (1999). Black sheep and expectancy violation:
Integrating two models of social judgment. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29(4), 523542.
Branscombe, N. R., Wann, D. L., Noel, J. G., & Coleman, J. (1993). In-Group or OutGroup Extemity: Importance of the threatened social identity. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 19(4), 381-388.
Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitivemotivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 307-324.
Campbell, D. T. (1958). Common fate, similarity, and other indices of the status of
aggregates of persons as social entities. Behavioral Science, 3(1), 14-25.
Castano, E., Paladino, M. P., Coull, A., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2002). Protecting the ingroup
stereotype: Ingroup identification and the management of deviant ingroup members. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 41(3), 365-385.
Castano, E., Yzerbyt, V., & Bourguignon, D. (2003). We are one and I like it: The impact of
ingroup entitativity on ingroup identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(6), 735754.
Castano, E., Yzerbyt, V., Bourguignon, D., & Seron, E. (2002). Who may enter? The
impact of in-group identification on in-group/out-group categorization. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 38(3), 315-322.

Castano, E., Yzerbyt, V., Paladino, M. P., & Sacchi, S. (2002). I belong, therefore, I exist:
Ingroup identification, ingroup entitativity, and ingroup bias. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 28(2), 135-143.
Coull, A., Yzerbyt, V. Y., Castano, E., Paladino, M. P., & Leemans, V. (2001). Protecting
the ingroup: Motivated allocation of cognitive resources in the presence of threatening ingroup
members. Group processes & Intergroup Relations, 4(4), 327-339.
Crawford, M. T., & Salaman, L. (2012). Entitativity, identity, and the fulfilment of
psychological needs. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(3), 726-730
Dasgupta, N., Banaji, M. R., & Abelson, R. P. (1999). Group entitativity and group
perception: Associations between physical features and psychological judgment. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5), 991
Doosje, B., Ellemers, N., & Spears, R. (1995). Perceived intragroup variability as a
function of group status and identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31(5),
410-436.
Eidelman, S., Silvia, P. J., & Biernat, M. (2006). Responding to deviance: Target exclusion
and differential devaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(9), 1153-1164.
Johnson, A. L., Crawford, M. T., Sherman, S. J., Rutchick, A. M., Hamilton, D. L.,
Ferreira, M. B., & Petrocelli, J. V. (2006). A functional perspective on group memberships:
Differential need fulfillment in a group typology. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
42(6), 707-719.
Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (2002). Group reactions to loyalty and disloyalty.
Advances in Group Processes, 19, 203-228.
Lewis, A. C., & Sherman, S. J. (2010). Perceived Entitativity and the Black-Sheep Effect:
When Will We Denigrate Negative Ingroup Members? The Journal of Social Psychology, 150(2),
211-225.

Lickel, B., Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, S. J. (2001). Elements of a lay theory of groups:
Types of groups, relational styles, and the perception of group entitativity. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 5(2), 129-140
Lickel, B., Hamilton, D. L., Wieczorkowska, G., Lewis, A., Sherman, S. J., & Uhles, A. N.
(2000). Varieties of groups and the perception of group entitativity. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 78(2), 223-246.
Marques, J. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (1988). The black sheep effect: Judgmental extremity
towards ingroup members in interand intragroup situations. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 18(3), 287-292.
Marques, J. M., Abrams, D., Pez, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2001). Social categorization, social
identification, and rejection of deviant group members. Blackwell handbook of social psychology:
Group processes, 400-424.
Marques, J. M., Robalo, E. M., & Rocha, S. A. (1992). Ingroup bias and the black
sheepeffect: Assessing the impact of social identification and perceived variability on group
judgements. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22(4), 331-352.
Marques, J. M., Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Leyens, J. P. (1988). The black sheep effect: Extremity
of judgments towards ingroup members as a function of group identification. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 18(1), 1-16.
Marques, J., Abrams, D., & Serodio, R. G. (2001). Being better by being right: Subjective
group dynamics and derogation of in-group deviants when generic norms are undermined. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(3), 436.
Marques, J., Abrams, D., Paez, D., & Martinez-Taboada, C. (1998). The role of
categorization and in-group norms in judgments of groups and their members. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 75(4), 976.

Sherman, S. J., Hamilton, D. L., & Lewis, A. C. (1999). Perceived entitativity and the
social identity value of group memberships. In D. Abrams & M. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity and
Social cognition (pp. 80110). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Spears, R., Doosje, B., & Ellemers, N. (1997). Self-stereotyping in the face of threats to
group status and distinctiveness: The role of group identification. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 23(5), 538-553.
Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology
of intergroup relations. New York: Academic Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G.
Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey,
CA: Brooks/Cole.
Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and
intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149-178.

Table 1 Descriptive statistics (Mean, SD) and Pearson correlations among Identification,
Entitativity and in-group and out-group derogation.

1. Entitativity

SD

2. Identification 3.90 1.61

0.280**

3. Ingroup

6.88 2.49

0.186*

0.403**

5.90 2.50

0.048**

0.211

0.724**

derogation
4. Outgroup
derogation
N = 169; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05

Table 2 Main and interaction effects of Identification, Entitativity and their two way interactions
on in-group and out-group derogation.
Ingroup derogation

Outgroup derogation

Beta

Beta

--

0.777**

0.674**

--

0.474a

-0.426

Identification

0.333**

-0.086

Identification *Entitativity

0.381*

-0.348*

63.62** (4, 164)

49.69** (4, 164)

0.608

0.548

5.70* (1,164)

4.09* (1,164)

0.014*

0.011*

Ingroup derogation
Outgroup derogation
Entitativity

F (d.f.)
R

F-change
R2-change
** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05; a p < 0.10

Figure 1. Moderational effect of Entitativity on the relationship between Identification and Ingroup
derogation.

Figure 2. Moderational effect of Entitativity on the relationship between Identification and

Outgroup derogation.