Intuitive theories of group types and relational principles

Three studies investigated perceivers’ beliefs about the principles by which different kinds of social groups govern interactions among group members. In Study 1, participants rated a sample of 20 groups on a set of group properties, including measures of relational principles used within groups. Results showed that people believe that interactions in different types of groups are governed by different blends of relational principles unique for each type of group. Study 2 experimentally demonstrated that perceivers could use minimal group property characteristics of different types of groups (i.e., extent of group member interaction, group size, duration, and permeability) to make inferences about the relational principles used in different types of groups. Study 3 demonstrated that relational style information influences people’s judgments of a group’s entitativity and collective responsibility.     

Group entitativity and similarity: Their differing patterns in perceptions of groups

Three studies were conducted to investigate the relation between perceptions of group entitativity and group similarity. The first two studies tested whether entitativity and similarity would be perceived differently in participants' ingroups and outgroups. Across several different group types, we found that, in comparison to outgroups, ingroups were perceived to be relatively more entitative than outgroups, whereas outgroup members were perceived to be highly similar in comparison to ingroup members. The results of Study 3 showed that manipulation of group entitativity influenced perceptions of group entitativity but not of group similarity, whereas manipulation of similarity influenced perceptions of group similarity but not of group entitativity. The results of these studies provide support for the contention that entitativity and similarity are distinct (though related) concepts that function differently in group perception. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Varieties of groups and the perception of group entitativity

Three studies examined perceptions of the entitativity of groups. In Study 1 (U.S.) and Study 2 (Poland), participants rated a sample of 40 groups on 8 properties of groups (e.g., size, duration, group member similarity) and perceived entitativity. Participants also completed a sorting task in which they sorted the groups according to their subjective perceptions of group similarity. Correlational and regression analyses were used to determine the group properties most strongly related to entitativity. Clustering and multidimensional scaling analyses in both studies identified 4 general types of groups (intimacy groups, task groups, social categories, and loose associations). In Study 3, participants rated the properties of groups to which they personally belonged. Study 3 replicated the results of Studies 1 and 2 and demonstrated that participants most strongly valued membership in groups that were perceived as high in entitativity.     

Implicit theories about groups and stereotyping: the role of group entitativity

The consequences of holding an entity (i.e., the belief that a group's characteristics are fixed) or incremental (i.e., the belief that a group's characteristics are malleable) implicit theory about groups was examined for stereotyping and perceptions of group entitativity. Two studies showed that implicit theories about groups affect stereotyping by changing perceptions of group entitativity. Study 1 found that entity theorists were more likely to stereotype than incremental theorists and that perception of group entitativity significantly accounted for this relation. In Study 2, implicit theories of groups were manipulated via instruction set and entity theorists stereotyped more and perceived groups as more entitative than incremental theorists. Again, the effect of implicit theory was significantly, although partially, mediated by perceptions of group entitativity. The roles of implicit theories about groups and perceptions of group entitativity are discussed regarding stereotyping.     

Perceiving one's nation: entitativity, agency and security in the international arena

The perception of groups as real entities rather than mere aggregates of individuals has important consequences on intergroup relations. Social psychological research, in fact, shows that it affects stereotyping, identification process, and intergroup bias. Previous research has also shown that group entitativity is not a positive or negative group attribute per se; rather, it depends on the context and the relationship between the perceiver and the group. While enhancing entitativity leads to worse expectations about the out‐group actions, high entitativity is a valued characteristic when associated with an ally or with the in‐group. Indeed, enhancing in‐group entitativity leads to stronger in‐group identification. The specific reasons for why this is the case, however, remain to be ascertained. What is good about in‐group entitativity? In the present contribution we propose that in‐group entitativity may lead to perceive the group as a real entity provided with intentions and capacity for planned actions, notably ensuring the safety of its members by protecting them against external threats. We report two correlational studies conducted with American citizens (Study 1) and Italian citizens (Study 2), showing that in‐group entitativity is associated with a higher level of identification, attribution of intentionality, and perceived security provided by the in‐group. These findings were replicated in a third study—conducted with a role‐play method on a fictitious scenario—in which entitativity was manipulated rather than measured. Study 3 also shows that artificially increasing the perception of in‐group entitativity enhances perceived safety in an international context and reduces the perception of threat from an out‐group. Findings are discussed in terms of possible implications for intergroup and international relations.     

The fundamentality of group principles and perceived group entitativity

We argue that the level of consensus about a set of social identity principles, and their perceived fundamentality, can influence the degree to which members perceive their group as an entity. This idea was explored through an experiment in which participants judged the entitativity of specific (in)groups on the basis of the distribution of the opinions held by their members about three identity-related principles that participants had previously rated for fundamentality. The results demonstrated that the more fundamental a principle was judged to be in comparison to other principles, the more important consensus about that principle was for producing group entitativity, relative to consensus about other principles.     

Group entitativity and group perception: associations between physical features and psychological judgment

Two experiments tested whether the perceived entitativity of groups (i.e., cohesiveness) influences judgments about those groups, in terms of both their observable physical properties and underlying psychological traits. Entitativity was manipulated with groups whose members were similar or dissimilar in skin color. Experiment 1 demonstrated that beliefs about entitativity elicited more accurate judgments of skin color for entitative than nonentitative social groups, although memory for individual members of entitative groups was relatively impoverished. Experiment 2 revealed that entitative groups were viewed as not only physically similar but also psychologically homogeneous and elicited strong negative trait and behavioral judgments. Together, these findings suggest that physical properties (e.g., similarity) can create perceptions of psychological "groupness" that have important consequences for group perception.     

We are one and I like it: The impact of ingroup entitativity on ingroup identification

It is argued that the entitativity of the ingroup moderates the level of identification with the ingroup. Specifically, that high levels of entitativity are conducive to strong identification, whereas low levels of entitativity reduce identification with the ingroup. These hypotheses were tested across four studies using the European Union (EU) as the reference group. The four studies manipulated four different factors that, according to Campbell (1958), impact on group entitativity: common fate (Study 1), similarity (Study 2), salience (Study 3), and boundedness (Study 4). Across the four studies, we found evidence for the impact of these factors on the level of identification with the EU among European citizens holding moderate attitudes toward the EU but not (or much less) for citizens holding more extreme attitudes towards the EU. Mediational analyses further confirmed the viability of an entitativity‐based interpretation of the impact of the manipulations on the level of identification. The findings are discussed in light of the current debate on the concept of entitativity, the motives for social identification, and the reduction of ingroup bias. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Perceptions of entitativity and attitude change

The current work explored the properties of groups that lead them to be persuasive and the processes through which such persuasion occurs. Because more entitative groups induce greater levels of information processing, their arguments should receive greater elaboration, leading to persuasion when members of groups present strong (vs. weak) counter attitudinal arguments. Experiment 1 explored these hypotheses by examining if idiosyncratic perceptions of group entitativity and manipulations of argument strength affect attitude change and argument elaboration. Experiment 2 experimentally manipulated group entitativity and argument strength independently to examine the causal relationship between entitativity, attitude change, and argument elaboration. In both experiments, it was found that groups greater in entitativity were more persuasive when presenting strong (vs. weak) arguments and induced greater argument elaboration. Implications for our understanding of entitativity, persuasion, and information processing about social groups are discussed.     

Perceived entitativity,stereotype formation,and the interchangeability of group members

The authors investigated the effects of perceived entitativity of a group on the processing of behavioral information about individual group members and the extent to which such information was transferred to other group members. The results of 3 experiments using a savings-in-relearning paradigm showed that trait inferences about a group member, based on that member's behavior, were stronger for low entitative groups and for collections of individuals. However, the transference of traits from 1 group member to other members of the group was stronger for high entitative groups. These results provide strong evidence that the perception of high entitativity involves the abstraction of a stereotype of the group and the transfer of that stereotype across all group members. Implications for group impression formation and stereotyping are discussed.     

Perceived ingroup entitativity and intergroup bias: an interconnection of self and others

Campbell's (1958) concept of ingroup entitativity is reformulated as a perceived interconnection of self and others. A 2 (intergroup relations: competitive, neutral)×3 (intragroup interaction: low, medium, high) between-subjects design was used to examine (1) the effects of intergroup and intragroup relations on perceived ingroup entitativity and (2) the relation between ingroup entitativity and intergroup bias. Regardless of the relations between groups, members who experienced intragroup interaction had stronger perceptions of ingroup entitativity and stronger representations of the aggregate of ingroup and outgroup members as two separate groups than members who lacked intragroup interaction. Furthermore, perceptions of ingroup entitativity mediated the effect of the salience of the intergroup boundary on behavioral intergroup bias. These results call into question the ‘intergroup’ nature of group based phenomena. An ingroup entitativity framework is presented that locates the source of group-based phenomena (e.g. intergroup bias) in intragroup processes. Copyright © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The induction of shared identity: the positive role of individual distinctiveness for groups

This article examines inductive processes of social identity formation, the bottom-up processes by which individual group members influence a social identity, integrating it with work on entitativity. Three studies tested the prediction that feelings of individual distinctiveness mediate the relation between inductive social identity formation and entitativity and that entitativity in turn predicts identification. The studies provided consistent support for this theoretical model over alternative models, using a range of different social groups and methods. Study 1 found support for the model in self-selected small groups. Study 2 supported it with a much broader set of groups that were not self-selected. Finally, Study 3 varied levels of inductive social identity formation systematically by varying group size and provided direct support for the hypothesized causal relations.     

Movement synchrony and perceived entitativity

Movement synchrony has been theoretically linked to the emergence of a social unit. To empirically investigate whether similar movement rhythms are an antecedent of perceived entitativity, movement rhythms were experimentally manipulated in four studies. Using this novel approach, stick figures waving in synchrony were found to be rated higher on entitativity than stick figures waving in different rhythms (Study 1), and this effect was extended to interactional synchrony, where different movements are performed in the same rhythm (Study 2). Objective differences in movement rhythms are linearly related to ratings of perceived entitativity, and this relationship is partially mediated by the subjectively perceived similarity of movement rhythms (Study 3). These results also held for entitativity judgments for videotaped individuals waving rhythmically (Study 4). These results support the hypothesis that movement rhythms are an important source of information which observers use to infer the extent to which individuals are a social unit.     

A case of collective responsibility: who else was to blame for the Columbine high school shootings?

Two studies examined perceptions of collective responsibility for the April 20, 1999, shootings at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. Collective responsibility refers to the perception that others, besides the wrongdoers themselves, are responsible for the event. In Study 1, the authors assessed perceptions of the shooters' parents and their peer group (the Trenchcoat Mafia), whereas Study 2 tested perceptions of collective responsibility across a range of groups. In both studies, perceptions of a target group's entitativity predicted judgments of collective responsibility. This relationship was mediated by two situational construals that justify applying collective responsibility: responsibility by commission (encouraging or facilitating the event) and responsibility by omission (failing to prevent the event). Study 2 also determined that perceptions of authority predicted judgments of collective responsibility for the Columbine shootings and was mediated by inferences of omission. Future directions in collective responsibility research are discussed.     

Uncertainty, entitativity, and group identification

Two studies examined the effects of self-uncertainty and ingroup entitativity on group identification. From uncertainty reduction theory (Hogg, 2000), it was hypothesized that people would identify most strongly with their group if they felt self-conceptually uncertain and the group was highly entitative. Study 1 was a field experiment (N = 114) in which the perceived entitativity of participants’ political party was measured, and self-uncertainty was primed (high vs. low). Study 2 was a laboratory experiment (N = 89) with ad hoc non-interactive groups. Uncertainty was primed as in Study 1, but perceived entitativity was manipulated. In both cases the dependent variable was a multi-item measure of group identification. The hypothesis was fully supported in both studies—participants identified more strongly when they were uncertain and the group was highly entitative. Implications of this research for the role of uncertainty and social identity in extremism, orthodoxy, and ideological belief systems are discussed.     

Emotional ties that bind: the roles of valence and consistency of group emotion in inferences of cohesiveness and common fate

In three studies, observers based inferences about the cohesiveness and common fate of groups on the emotions expressed by group members. The valence of expressions affected cohesiveness inferences, whereas the consistency of expressions affected inferences of whether members have common fate. These emotion composition effects were stronger than those due to the race or sex composition of the group. Furthermore, the authors show that emotion valence and consistency are differentially involved in judgments about the degree to which the group as a whole was responsible for group performance. Finally, it is demonstrated that valence-cohesiveness effects are mediated by inferences of interpersonal liking and that consistency-common fate effects are mediated by inferences of psychological similarity. These findings have implications for the literature on entitativity and regarding the function of emotions in social contexts.     

Entitativity,identity, and the fulfilment of psychological needs

Social groups provide many benefits to the individual and some groups are better able to meet the needs of their group members. The current research examines the impact of perceived entitativity on the degree to which groups are able to fulfil the psychological needs of individual members. Participants listed ingroups based on the group typology of Lickel et al. (2000) and rated characteristics of the group, level of identification, and the degree to which the group met a series of needs. The results indicate that increased entitativity predicts greater perceived relative need fulfilment and that this effect is mediated by level of identification with the group. These results extend our understanding of the functions that different group types serve and the consequences of ingroup entitativity perceptions for the individual.     

Entitativity and social identity complexity: The relationship between group characteristics and personal characteristics on group identification

The current study extends previous works on group identification by focusing on how social identity complexity and entitativity interact to impact group identification. The purpose of the current study is to test the hypothesis that people with a simple social identity identify more strongly with a highly entitative group and people with complex social identity identify more strongly with a group low in entitativity. Participants’ social identity complexity and entitativity about a group were manipulated, and with that group was measured. Results demonstrated that participants primed with a simple social identity identified more strongly with a more highly entitative group, whereas identification with the high and low entitativity groups did not differ for participants primed with a complex social identity.