37:". For example, one may pass by a bus stop and perceive a group of people waiting for a bus but the same people sitting around a table together at a cafe, sharing pastries, and interacting would be much "groupier." Entitativity is the variance of a person's perception of not very much a group (the bus stop) to very much a group (the cafe). Entitativity is necessary for people to experience outcomes (e.g., satisfaction) and enact group processes (e.g., conflict resolution). For example, bus stop satisfaction is not as common of a concern for social and organizational psychologists as social group or workgroup satisfaction. Entitativity is highest for
92:
fate, similarity, and proximity. Common fate may be something like the group all getting up and leaving together while talking or laughing amongst themselves. Similarity could be as simple as noticing that they are all using the same textbooks or notes, or that they happen to be wearing the same t-shirts to organizations (i.e., fraternity, university group). Finally, their physical proximity to one another (i.e., moving to sit closer) would be the final characteristic to judge that you are witnessing individuals with entitativity.
45:, lower yet for social categories (e.g., people of the same religion), and lowest for transitory groups, such as people waiting at the same bus stop. Lickel and colleagues further examined ratings of group entitativity to determine that sports fans, families, and rock bands have the highest entitativity; juries, student study groups, and coworkers have a moderate amount of entitativity; and citizens of a country, professional groups, and people waiting for a bus stop have the lowest levels of entitativity.
91:
To illustrate how we make those judgments, consider the example of people sharing a table at a library. They could be friends who are studying together, or they may also be strangers happening to share the same table. If you're wondering whether this is an actual group, you would examine their common
79:
revitalized the study of entitativity, they identified interaction, importance, goals, outcomes, similarity, duration, permeability, and size as characteristics of people's perceptions of groups. After Lickel et al.'s work, additional researchers focused primarily on interactivity and similarity as
55:
in order to explain why some groups are considered real groups while others are thought to be mere aggregates of individuals. He suggested that people rely on certain perceptual cues as they intuitively determine which aggregations of individuals are groups, and which are not (e.g. Spectators at a
84:
suggested that these characteristics are actually antecedents of entitativity and developed measures of entitativity, interactivity, similarity of goals, similarity of characteristics, and history of interactions to advance the study of entitativity.
246:
Blanchard, Anita L.; Caudill, Leann E.; Walker, Lisa
Slattery (2020). "Developing an entitativity measure and distinguishing it from antecedents and outcomes within online and face-to-face groups".
325:
Wai-man Ip, Grace; Chiu, Chi-yue; Wan, Ching (2006). "Birds of a feather and birds flocking together: Physical versus behavioral cues may lead to trait- versus goal-based group perception".
88:
Outcomes of entitativity include identification with the group, group satisfaction, and group commitment. These outcomes are why entitativity is considered important to group members.
296:
Crump, Sara A.; Hamilton, David L.; Sherman, Steven J.; Lickel, Brian; Thakkar, Vinita (2010). "Group entitativity and similarity: Their differing patterns in perceptions of groups".
429:
56:
football game may seem like a disorganized collection of people, but when they shout the same cheers or express similar emotions, this gives them entitativity.
382:
110:, sociopolitical phenomenon where individuals become aware of how their shared group identification impacts them and then pursue shared interests
121:, sociopolitical phenomenon where individuals who perceive their fates to be intertwined with others in a group pursue the group's interests
275:
Campbell, Donald T. (1958). "Common fate, similarity, and other indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities".
125:
107:
410:
363:
147:, awareness of shared interests, objectives, and sympathies creating a psychological sense of unity of groups or classes
460:
428:
Lickel, Brian; Hamilton, David L.; Wieczorkowska, Grazyna; Lewis, Amy; Sherman, Steven J.; Uhles, A. Neville (2000).
383:"Elements of a Lay Theory of Groups: Types of Groups, Relational Styles, and the Perception of Group Entitativity"
129:, a 2002 American court decision that described when two organizations should be regarded as the same legal entity
38:
394:
42:
68:(the extent to which the individuals display the same behaviors or resemble one another), and
138:
132:
64:(the extent to which individuals in the aggregate seem to experience interrelated outcomes),
486:
8:
481:
60:
emphasized three cues that individuals can use to make judgments regarding entitativity:
141:, a fallacy of ambiguity when an abstraction is treated as if it were a physical entity
113:
101:
48:
452:
416:
406:
369:
359:
342:
313:
263:
20:
444:
398:
334:
305:
284:
255:
402:
448:
338:
186:
184:
475:
456:
420:
373:
346:
317:
267:
259:
181:
288:
118:
144:
34:
309:
211:
358:(5th ed.). Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
381:
Lickel, Brian; Hamilton, David L.; Sherman, Steven J. (May 2001).
157:
427:
190:
76:
24:
430:"Varieties of groups and the perception of group entitativity"
223:
295:
217:
245:
163:
81:
380:
201:
199:
72:(the distance between individuals in the aggregate).
104:, the level of perceived unity within a social group
169:
196:
324:
229:
23:. For the more general concept of an entity, see
473:
437:Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
327:Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
248:Group Processes & Intergroup Relations
135:, a debate about the reality of categories
80:the key characteristics of entitativity.
33:is the perception of a social unit as a "
387:Personality and Social Psychology Review
274:
175:
57:
354:Forsyth, Donelson R. (March 19, 2009).
353:
205:
126:Netscape Communications Corp. v. Konrad
108:Group consciousness (political science)
16:Consideration of something as an entity
474:
82:Blanchard, Caudill & Walker (2020)
19:This article is about entitativity in
298:European Journal of Social Psychology
164:Blanchard, Caudill & Walker 2020
13:
14:
498:
41:, such as the family, lower for
230:Wai-man Ip, Chiu & Wan 2006
1:
238:
151:
7:
403:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0502_4
395:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
95:
10:
503:
449:10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.223
339:10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.368
18:
393:(2). Mahwah, New Jersey:
260:10.1177/1368430217743577
51:(1958) coined the term
289:10.1002/bs.3830030103
139:Reification (fallacy)
133:Problem of universals
77:Lickel et al. (2000)
277:Behavioral Science
191:Lickel et al. 2000
114:Holon (philosophy)
102:Group cohesiveness
49:Donald T. Campbell
412:978-0-8058-9714-2
365:978-0-495-59952-4
218:Crump et al. 2010
21:Social Psychology
494:
467:
466:on July 7, 2011.
465:
459:. Archived from
434:
424:
377:
350:
321:
310:10.1002/ejsp.716
304:(7): 1212–1230.
292:
271:
233:
227:
221:
215:
209:
203:
194:
188:
179:
173:
167:
161:
502:
501:
497:
496:
495:
493:
492:
491:
472:
471:
470:
463:
432:
413:
366:
241:
236:
228:
224:
216:
212:
204:
197:
189:
182:
174:
170:
162:
158:
154:
98:
58:Campbell (1958)
39:intimacy groups
28:
17:
12:
11:
5:
500:
490:
489:
484:
469:
468:
443:(2): 223–246.
425:
411:
378:
364:
356:Group dynamics
351:
333:(3): 368–381.
322:
293:
272:
242:
240:
237:
235:
234:
222:
210:
195:
180:
168:
155:
153:
150:
149:
148:
142:
136:
130:
122:
116:
111:
105:
97:
94:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
499:
488:
485:
483:
480:
479:
477:
462:
458:
454:
450:
446:
442:
438:
431:
426:
422:
418:
414:
408:
404:
400:
396:
392:
388:
384:
379:
375:
371:
367:
361:
357:
352:
348:
344:
340:
336:
332:
328:
323:
319:
315:
311:
307:
303:
299:
294:
290:
286:
282:
278:
273:
269:
265:
261:
257:
254:(1): 91–108.
253:
249:
244:
243:
231:
226:
219:
214:
207:
202:
200:
192:
187:
185:
177:
176:Campbell 1958
172:
165:
160:
156:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
128:
127:
123:
120:
117:
115:
112:
109:
106:
103:
100:
99:
93:
89:
86:
83:
78:
73:
71:
67:
63:
59:
54:
50:
46:
44:
40:
36:
32:
26:
22:
461:the original
440:
436:
390:
386:
355:
330:
326:
301:
297:
283:(1): 14–25.
280:
276:
251:
247:
225:
213:
206:Forsyth 2009
171:
159:
124:
90:
87:
74:
69:
65:
61:
53:entitativity
52:
47:
31:Entitativity
30:
29:
487:Abstraction
397:: 129–140.
119:Linked fate
62:common fate
43:task groups
482:Perception
476:Categories
239:References
145:Solidarity
66:similarity
457:1939-1315
421:1088-8683
374:318104476
347:1939-1315
318:0046-2772
268:1368-4302
152:Citations
70:proximity
96:See also
455:
419:
409:
372:
362:
345:
316:
266:
25:Entity
464:(PDF)
433:(PDF)
75:When
35:group
453:ISSN
417:ISSN
407:ISBN
370:OCLC
360:ISBN
343:ISSN
314:ISSN
264:ISSN
445:doi
399:doi
335:doi
306:doi
285:doi
256:doi
478::
451:.
441:78
439:.
435:.
415:.
405:.
389:.
385:.
368:.
341:.
331:90
329:.
312:.
302:40
300:.
279:.
262:.
252:23
250:.
198:^
183:^
447::
423:.
401::
391:5
376:.
349:.
337::
320:.
308::
291:.
287::
281:3
270:.
258::
232:.
220:.
208:.
193:.
178:.
166:.
27:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.