Group entitativity and similarity: Their differing patterns in perceptions of groups

Abstract

Three studies were conducted to investigate the relation between perceptions of group entitativity and group similarity. The first two studies tested whether entitativity and similarity would be perceived differently in participants' ingroups and outgroups. Across several different group types, we found that, in comparison to outgroups, ingroups were perceived to be relatively more entitative than outgroups, whereas outgroup members were perceived to be highly similar in comparison to ingroup members. The results of Study 3 showed that manipulation of group entitativity influenced perceptions of group entitativity but not of group similarity, whereas manipulation of similarity influenced perceptions of group similarity but not of group entitativity. The results of these studies provide support for the contention that entitativity and similarity are distinct (though related) concepts that function differently in group perception.

Entitativity, identity, and the fulfilment of psychological needs

“…Although their contention is probably correct, using homogeneity as a proxy for entitativity (see also Pickett & Brewer, 2001) somewhat clouds the relationship as more recent research has quite clearly shown that these concepts are separable. For example, Crump, Hamilton, Sherman, Lickel, and Thakkar (2009) showed that, even though entitativity and similarity are related (i.e., perceived similarity is one of the antecedents of entitativity), they represent distinct concepts that have different effects on how groups are perceived.…”

Homogeneity of Prototypical Attributes in Soccer Teams

“…It has been demonstrated that men and women differ in respect to the attribution of emotional and social competencies (Taylor & Hood, 2011) as well as in risk behavior, empathy, and attitudes toward competition (Croson & Gneezy, 2009). Moreover, it has been demonstrated that women are perceived to be more homogeneous in respect to social attributes than men (Crump, Hamilton, Sherman, Lickel, & Thakkar, 2010). With these gender differences in mind, it is plausible to assume that even homogeneous perceptions of specific prototypical attributes will differ between men and women.…”

Do terrorist threat alerts increase perception of threat and legitimization of in‐group's wars? The moderating role of perceived in‐group homogeneity

“…Perceptions of in-group homogeneity are important for mobilizing the in-group to engage in collective action to protect from outgroup threats (Simon & Klandermans, 2001;Stott & Drury, 2004). Achieving group mobilization might be easier when group members are similar to each other (i.e., share similar thoughts and goals; Crump, Hamilton, Sherman, Lickel, & Thakkar, 2010). In addition, group members who perceive the in-group as homogenous might be more likely to view the in-group as a resource for social support (Doosje, Ellemers, & Spears, 1995).…”