Entitativity

In his or her social world, a person continually encounters collections of individuals in various social contexts. Sometimes a person perceives these other people to be a meaningful group; other times, as a mere aggregate of persons. What determines when a person sees other people as meaningful groups, and what are the consequences of perceiving people as a tightly knit group versus a loose collection of individuals?

In 1958, Campbell theorized about the nature of groupness, which he called entitativity. He proposed that groups could be considered meaningful entities if their members were similar and in close proximity and if they shared common goals and common outcomes. At an intuitive level, it seems obvious that individuals who are similar in some respect (e.g., skin color or nationality), in close proximity (e.g., neighbors), and who share a common fate (e.g., members of a basketball team) would be more likely to be perceived as a meaningful group. Yet empirical support for these ideas was not provided until decades after Campbell's original suppositions.

Although the factors proposed by Campbell seem important for perceiving groupness, there is such a diverse array of groups in one's social world that a more systematic differentiation and understanding of what entitativity means for each group seemed necessary. Research by Lickel and his colleagues in 2000 addressed this issue. Participants in their study rated a variety of different groups on different stimulus cues thought to be related to entitativity. Statistical analyses revealed that the extent to which the members were a meaningful group (entitative) was most closely [Page 301]related to the extent of interaction among group members, how important group membership was to them, whether the members shared similar goals and outcomes, and the extent of similarity among members.

When participants were asked to sort the groups into as many different categories as they wished, it was found that participants consistently sorted the various groups into four specific types, and each was characterized by a specific pattern of the aforementioned cues. The first group type, intimacy groups, consisted of family members and other small groups whose members interacted a lot and are very important to the members. The next type, task groups, comprised committees, coworkers, and other smaller interactive groups that exist to get a job done. The third group type, social categories, consisted of groups such as gender, racial, and national groups, which are large and whose members are similar but do not have extensive interaction. Finally, loose associations are made up of people who go to the same school and other groups that are large in size, easy to join or leave, and typically not as important to their members. In addition to the cues that characterize each group type, Lickel and his colleagues also found that the group types vary in level of perceived entitativity. Intimacy groups are perceived to be highest in entitativity, followed by task groups, social categories, and loose association groups.

As a person maneuvers through his or her social worlds, how might these factors influence the way the person perceives groups? Later research has shown that perceivers spontaneously categorize people into these group types and are more likely, for example, to confuse members of a task group (e.g., a jury member) with another task group member (e.g., a coworker) than to confuse a task group member with a social category member (e.g., a Presbyterian). These withingroup-type errors occur with each of the group types, suggesting that perceivers organize information about group members based on the type of group to which they belong.

...