Entitativity, an individual’s recognition of a social unit as a group, is a fundamental group characteristic. However, past entitativity measures have not demonstrated their psychometric validity. We create and demonstrate initial psychometric validity for a new measure of entitativity as well as several of its antecedents. We demonstrate convergent and divergent validity of our entitativity measure (and the antecedents) in three studies of online and face-to-face groups in which people either observe a group or are members of a group. Results demonstrate that our measures of entitativity and its antecedents are robust across different group contexts. We also discuss the implications of the results of this research to advance entitativity theory.
AshforthB. E. (2016). Distinguished scholar invited essay: Exploring identity and identification in organizations: Time for some course corrections. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 23, 361–373. doi:10.1177/1548051816667897
2.
AshforthB. E.HarrisonS. H.CorleyK. G. (2008). Identification in organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34, 325–374. doi:10.1177/0149206308316059
3.
AskayD.BlanchardA. L.StewartO. J. (2013). Managing entitativity through social media. In BondaroukT.Olivas-LujánM. R. (Eds.), Social media in human resources management (pp. 143–165). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
4.
BaymN. (1995). The emergence of community in computer mediated communication. In JonesS. G. (Ed.), Cybersociety: Computer mediated communication and community (pp. 35–68). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
5.
BlanchardA. L.MarkusM. L. (2004). The experienced “sense” of a virtual community: Characteristics and processes. ACM SIGMIS Database: The Data Base for Advances in Information Systems, 35, 64–79. doi:10.1145/968464.968470
6.
BlanchardA. L.RashotteL. S. (2010). The role of technology in the development of group trust. In LatusekD.GerbasiA. (Eds.), Trust and technology in a ubiquitous modern environment: Theoretical and methodological perspectives (pp. 245–256). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
7.
BrewerM. B.HongY.LiQ. (2004). Dynamic entitativity. In YzerbytV.JuddC. M.CorneilleO. (Eds.), The psychology of group perception: Perceived variability, entitativity, and essentialism (pp. 19–29). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
8.
CampbellD. T. (1958). Common fate, similarity, and other indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities. Behavioral Scientist, 3, 14–25. doi:10.1002/bs.3830030103
9.
CastanoE.YzerbytV.BourguignonD. (2003). We are one and I like it: The impact of ingroup entitativity on ingroup identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 735–754. doi:10.1002/ejsp.175
10.
CraigT. Y.KellyJ. R. (1999). Group cohesiveness and creative performance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 3, 243–256. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.3.4.243
11.
CrawfordM. T.SalamanL. (2012). Entitativity, identity, and the fulfilment of psychological needs. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 726–730. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.12.015
12.
CrockerL.AlginaJ. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
13.
CronbachL. J.MeehlP. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302. doi:10.1037/h0040957
14.
CrumpS. A.HamiltonD. L.ShermanS. J.LickelB.ThakkarV. (2010). Group entitativity and similarity: Their differing patterns in perceptions of groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 1212–1230. doi:10.1002/ejsp.716
15.
DemoulinS.LeyensJ.-P.YzerbytV. (2006). Lay theories of essentialism. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9, 25–42. doi:10.1177/1368430206059856
16.
EvansN. J.JarvisP. A. (1980). Group cohesion: A review and reevaluation. Small Group Research, 11, 359–370. doi:10.1177/104649648001100401
17.
GaertnerL.IuzziniJ.WittM. G.OriñaM. M. (2006). Us without them: Evidence for an intragroup origin of positive in-group regard. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 426–439. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.90.3.426
18.
GaertnerL.SchoplerJ. (1998). Perceived ingroup entitativity and intergroup bias: An interconnection of self and others. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 963–980. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(1998110)28:6<963::AID-EJSP905>3.0.CO;2-S
19.
GossettL. M.KilkerJ. (2006). My job sucks: Examining counterinstitutional web sites as locations for organizational member voice, dissent, and resistance. Management Communication Quarterly, 20, 63–90. doi:10.1177/0893318906291729
20.
HamiltonD. L.ShermanS. J.LickelB. (1998). Perceiving social groups: The importance of the entitativity. In SedikidesC.SchoplerJ.InskoC. A. (Eds.), Intergroup cognition and intergroup behavior (pp. 47–74). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
21.
HamiltonD. L.ShermanS. J.Spencer-RodgersJ. (2004). Perceiving the groupness of groups: Entitativity, homogeneity, essentialism and stereotypes. In YzerbytV.JuddC.CorneilleO. (Eds.), The psychology of group perception: Perceived variability, entitativity, and essentialism (pp. 39–60). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
22.
HoggM. A.ShermanD.DierselhuisJ.MaitnerA.MoffittG. (2007). Uncertainty, entitativity, and group identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 135–142. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2005.12.008
23.
IgarashiT.KashimaY. (2011). Perceived entitativity of social networks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 1048–1058. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.04.008
IpG. W.ChiuC.WanC. (2006). Birds of a feather and birds flocking together: Physical versus behavioral cues may lead to trait- versus goal-based group perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 368–381. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.90.3.368
26.
JansL.PostmesT.van der ZeeK. I. (2011). The induction of shared identity: The positive role of individual distinctiveness for groups. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1130–1141. doi:10.1177/0146167211407342
27.
JonesQ. (1997). Virtual-communities, virtual settlements & cyber-archaeology: A theoretical outline. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00075.x
28.
KleinH. J.CooperJ. T.MolloyJ. C.SwansonJ. A. (2014). The assessment of commitment: Advantages of a unidimensional, target-free approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 222–238. doi:10.1037/a0034751
29.
KleinH. J.MolloyJ. C.ThomasS. (2012). Reconceptualizing workplace commitment to redress a stretched construct: Revisiting assumptions and removing confounds. Academy of Management Review, 37, 130–151. doi:10.5465/amr.2010.0018
30.
LeachC. W.van ZomerenM.ZebelS.VliekM. L.PennekampS. F.DoosjeB.. . . SpearsR. (2008). Group-level self-definition and self-investment: A hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 144–165. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.144
31.
LickelB.HamiltonD. L.ShermanS. J. (2001). Elements of a lay theory of groups: Types of groups, relational styles, and the perception of group entitativity. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 5, 129–140. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0502_4
32.
LickelB.HamiltonD. L.WieczorkowskaG.LewisA.ShermanS. J.UhlesA. N. (2000). Varieties of groups and the perception of group entitativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 223–246. doi:10.1037//0022–3514.78.2.223
33.
McGartyC. (1999). Categorization in social psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
34.
RheingoldH. (1993). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Boston, MA: Addison Wesley.
35.
RutchickA. M.HamiltonD. L.SackJ. D. (2008). Antecedents of entitativity in categorically and dynamically construed groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 921, 905–921. doi:10.1002/ejsp
36.
SaniF.TodmanJ.LunnJ. (2005). The fundamentality of group principles and perceived group entitativity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 567–573. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2004.11.003
37.
Spencer-RodgersJ.HamiltonD. L.ShermanS. J. (2007). The central role of entitativity in stereotypes of social categories and task groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 369–388. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.92.3.369
38.
SuddabyR. (2010). Editor’s comments: Construct clarity in theories of management and organization. Academy of Management Review, 35, 346–357. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25682418
39.
WaltherJ. B. (1995). Relational aspects of computer-mediated communication: Experimental observations over time. Organization Science, 6, 186–203. doi:10.1287/orsc.6.2.186
40.
WestS. G.TaylorA. B.WuW. (2012). Model fit and model selection in stuctural equation modeling. In HoyleR. H. (Ed.), Handbook of stuctural equation modeling (pp. 209–231). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
41.
YzerbytV.JuddC. M.CorneilleO. (2004). Perceived variability, entitativity, and essentialism introduction and overview. In YzerbytV.JuddC. M.CorneilleO. (Eds.), The psychology of group perception: Perceived variability, entitativity, and essentialism (pp. 1–18). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
