Perceiving individuals and groups: expectancies, dispositional inferences, and causal attributions.

By J. Susskind, Kristin L. Maurer, Vinita Thakkar, D. Hamilton, Jeffrey W. Sherman. 1999

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciences (2017, background): “ssumption) and on the grounds of which (rationality assumption) the agent acted. Thus, reasons imply intentionality, subjectivity, and rationality. 3.4. Individual vs. Group Behaviour Susskind et al. [167] investigated how people ascribe causes to groups rather than individuals, focusing on traits. ”
How people explain actions performed by groups and individuals. (2002, background): “Recent work on group perception primarily aligns with this paradigm by describing people’s impressions and attributions of group behavior in terms of traits (e.g., Susskind et al., 1999; Yzerbyt, Rogier, & Fiske, 1998).”
One or Many? The Influence of Episodic and Thematic Climate Change Frames on Policy Preferences and Individual Behavior Change (2011, background): “Single individuals serve as coherent psychological units, and individuals are more likely to make more extreme attributions and make a requested judgment faster and with greater confidence for individuals compared with groups (Hamilton & Sherman, 1996; Susskind et al., 1999).”
The singularity effect of identified victims in separate and joint evaluations (2005, methodology): “According to this research (Hamilton & Sherman, 1996; Sherman, Beike, & Ryalls, 1999; Susskind, Maurer, Thakkar, Hamilton, & Sherman, 1999 ) a single individual, unlike a group of individuals, is viewed as a psychologically coherent unit.”
“If I look at the mass I will never act”: Psychic numbing and genocide (2007, unknown): “Studies by Hamilton and Sher-man (1996) and Susskind et al. (1999) ﬁnd that a single individual, unlike a group, is viewed as a psychologically coherent unit.”
More for the Many: The Influence of Entitativity on Charitable Giving (2013, background): “The key consequence for the purposes of our work is that high-entitativity groups tend to elicit stronger, more extreme judgments than low-entitativity groups, with magnified attributions and trait inferences (Dasgupta, Banaji, and Abelson 1999; Geier, Rozin, and Doros 2006; Raghubir and Srivastava ”