Entitativity of social groups

In social psychology , Entitativity describes the extent to which a collection of individuals is perceived as a coherent social unit. This can refer to the perception of the respective individuals as well as to those of outsiders.

definition

The term was coined in 1958 by Donald T. Campbell to illustrate why some groups are viewed as groups, while others are viewed as a loose collection of individuals. A high degree of Entitativität therefore means that a certain grouping is clearly perceived as a coherent social group . Entitativity can therefore be defined as “perception as a group” or “group-like”. This property can be used as part of the definition of a social group.

Entitativity is a property that is based solely on subjective perception and consequently cannot be determined objectively. People intuitively decide whether a certain collection of people is a group or not. In doing so, they are guided by certain instructions. For example, the spectators of a soccer game in the stadium are initially only viewed as a collection of individuals. When these finally begin to express similar feelings and sing the same chants, they are more likely to be perceived as a group, that is, the Entitativität increases.

Entitativity of different social groups

Different types of social groups differ in terms of their degree of Entitativität. Intimate groups, such as families, generally have the highest level of Entitativity. In contrast, working groups are somewhat less entitative. Social categories, such as members of a certain religious community, show an even lower level of Entitativität. Temporary groups, such as people waiting at a bus stop or moviegoers, have the lowest level of Entitativität.

Lickel et al. (2000) asked 199 students at the University of California how they rate the Entitativity of 40 different groups. The respondents rated each of the groups on a scale from 1 (no group at all) to 9 (very strongly a group). The following table illustrates some of the results:

group	Entitativity
Members of a professional sports team	8.27
Members of a rock band	8.16
family members	8.16
Friends who do things together	7.75
Members of a local environmental organization	7.28
Members of an orchestra	7.21
Members of the flight crew of an airline	6.54
roommate	5.62
Members of the same political party	5.59
Local restaurant employee	5.55
Women	5.16
University students	4.75
doctors	4.39
Polish citizens	4.36
People who like classical music	3.93
Movie viewer	3.27
People at a bus stop	2.75
People in a queue in a bank	2.40

Table 1: Mean Entitativität of selected groups (data taken from Lickel et al. 2000: 227)

Relationship between Entitativity and group-related characteristics

In accordance with this, a positive correlation with the Entitativität was found with regard to the duration of a grouping . According to the results of studies by Lickel et al. (2000), there is also a strong positive correlation between the Entitativität and the degree of interaction between group members. There are contradicting findings regarding the relationship between group size and Entitativität. It could not be clearly established whether larger groups have a higher or lower level of entitativity than smaller ones.

According to Campbell (1958), the entity of a group is promoted when the relevant people are similar in relevant points, experience a shared fate and spatial proximity. Similarity refers to the personal characteristics or behavior of the group members. A shared fate exists as long as the events experienced by the various people are linked to one another. These three characteristics can be illustrated by a group of students sitting together at a table. The similarity of the students is, for example, that they all read the same textbook or wear T-shirts with the university logo. A shared fate can be based on the fact that the students get up together and go to the classroom, while they talk to each other. The spatial proximity exists because they sit or walk close together. In contrast to Campbell (1958), Brewer and Harasty (1996) rate a perceived similarity of the members of a group as a preceding condition for the entitativity rather than its consequence.

The Entitativität influence how much capacity a group is awarded as a unit. Groups are considered more influential and dangerous when they have a higher level of Entitativity. Entitativity also influences how individuals rate their membership in social groups. Individuals value their own membership most in those groups to which they attach strong Entitativity. Are also more likely to groups with high Entitativität stereotypes formed as less entitative groupings.

literature

• RP Abelson, N. Dasgupta, J. Park, MR Banaji: Perceptions of the collective other. In: Personality and Social Psychology Review. 2 (1998), pp. 243-250.
• MB Brewer, AS Harasty: Seeing groups as entities: The role of perceived motivation. In: ET Higgins, RM Sorrentino (Ed.): Handbook of motivation and cognition. 3 (1996), pp. 347-370, Guilford Press, New York.
• DT Campbell: Common fate, similarity, and other indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities. In: Behavioral Science. 3 (1958), pp. 14-21.
• DR Forsyth: Group Dynamics 5th Edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 2010, ISBN 978-0-495-80491-8 .
• DL Hamilton, SJ Sherman: Perceiving persons and groups. In: Psychological Review. 103 (1996), pp. 336-355.
• B. Lickel, DL Hamilton, G. Wieczorkowska, A. Lewis, SJ Sherman, AN Uhles: Varieties of groups and the perception of group entitativity. In: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 78 (2) 2000, pp. 223-246.
• C. McGarty, BA Haslam, JK Hutchinson, DM Grace: Determinants of perceived consistency: The relationship between group entitativity and the meaningfulness of categories. In: British Journal of Social Psychology. 34: 237-256 (1995).
• B. Mullen: Group composition, salience, and cognitive representations: The phenomenology of being in a group. In: Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 27 (1991), pp. 297-323.
• C. Stangor: Social Groups in Action and Interaction. Psychology Press, New York 2004, ISBN 1-84169-407-X .

Individual evidence

1. ↑ Abelson et al. 1998; Campbell 1958; Hamilton and Sherman 1996.
2. ↑ Stangor 2004.
3. ^ Campbell 1958.
4. ↑ Stangor 2004: 22.
5. ↑ Stangor 2004.
6. ↑ McGarty among others 1995th
7. ^ Forsyth 2010.
8. ↑ Lickel et al. 2000.
9. ↑ Lickel et al. 2000: 227.
10. ↑ Lickel et al. 2000.
11. ↑ Lickel et al. 2000.
12. ↑ see: McGarty et al. 1995; Mullen 1991.
13. ^ Campbell 1958.
14. ^ Campbell 1958.
15. ↑ Brewer and Harasty 1996th
16. ↑ Abelson et al. 1998.
17. ↑ Lickel et al. 2000.
18. ↑ Stangor 2004.