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.

This article analyzes the similarities and differences in forming impressions of individuals and in developing conceptions of groups. In both cases, the perceiver develops a mental conception of the target (individual or group) on the basis of available information and uses that information to make judgments about that person or group. However, a review of existing evidence reveals differences in the outcomes of impressions formed of individual and group targets, even when those impressions are based on the very same behavioral information. A model is proposed to account for these differences. The model emphasizes the role of differing expectancies of unity and coherence in individual and group targets, which in turn engage different mechanisms for processing information and making judgments. Implications of the model are discussed.

No abstract

In 2 laboratory experiments, the tendency to stereotype oneself in terms of one's group membership as a function of the social context was examined. Experiment 1 examined the effects of relative in-group size on self-stereotyping. The results confirmed the prediction that minority members are more likely than majority members to stereotype themselves. Experiment 2 examined the interactive impact of relative in-group size and in-group status. As predicted, a high (relative to a low) status of the in-group increased self-stereotyping primarily for minority members, but not for majority members. Moreover, analyses of the differences in perceived in-group and out-group homogeneity suggest that the in-group homogeneity effect should also be interpreted in terms of self-stereotyping processes. Finally, the interplay between cognitive and motivational determinants of self-stereotyping is discussed as well as a possible distinction between self-stereotyping effects on individual level versus group level self-representations.

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.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract