2016
DOI: 10.1080/15298868.2016.1185462
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

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

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
12
0
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
0
12
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The results obtained by Bruner et al, extend the results of previous studies, emphasizing the benefits of social identity for team members behavior and team effectiveness, and demonstrate how social identity can contribute to positive self-attitude and attitude towards other people. An empirical study by Hohman et al (2016) extends previous work on social identity. The results of the study showed that people with a low level of social identity are more likely to identify themselves with a highly attractive group, and people with a high level of social identity are more likely to identify themselves with an insufficiently attractive group.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 52%
“…The results obtained by Bruner et al, extend the results of previous studies, emphasizing the benefits of social identity for team members behavior and team effectiveness, and demonstrate how social identity can contribute to positive self-attitude and attitude towards other people. An empirical study by Hohman et al (2016) extends previous work on social identity. The results of the study showed that people with a low level of social identity are more likely to identify themselves with a highly attractive group, and people with a high level of social identity are more likely to identify themselves with an insufficiently attractive group.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 52%
“…Participants’ HR and SCL were measured concurrently during the writing task (constituting T1). Next, participants were randomly assigned to read about Texas Tech University being high or low in entitativity (the entitativity manipulation; see Appendix and Hohman et al., 2016). Participants in the high entitativity condition read a short essay highlighting the entitative characteristics of Texas Tech University; participants in the low entitativity condition read a short essay highlighting the non‐entitative characteristics of Texas Tech University.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To verify that the entitativity manipulation increased perceptions of entitativity, we measure self‐reported entitativity after the entitativity manipulation. Participants completed a validated 8‐item entitativity scale (Hohman et al., 2016), for example, “how organized is the group?” (7‐point scale from “not at all” to “very much”), M = 4.69, SD = .81, α = .76.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Hohman, Dahl and Grubbs state that "group entitativity is not an objective assessment of cohesiveness but is the perception of the degree of cohesiveness" [38]. In order to measure entitativity, one can ask an observer how cohesive a group appears (group-level variable).…”
Section: How To Operationalize Concepts Of I-c-ementioning
confidence: 99%