How Are We Similar? Group Level Entitativity in Work and Social Groups

Abstract

Entitativity is essential for individuals to experience a grouping of people as a “group.” However, entitativity is primarily studied at the individual level. If it is truly a fundamental component of group outcomes and processes, it should be considered a group-level construct. We establish that group members can share entitativity perceptions. We propose that entitativity develops in work and social groups through different self-categorization processes. Social groups can take advantage of top-down processes to establish similarity of goals and characteristics. Workgroups use both top-down and bottom-up processes with differing effects on these two forms of similarity. We propose that shared entitativity affects individual level attitudes and behavior. Results support our theoretical model. Shared entitativity explains between 2% and 11% of outcome variance in workgroups and 3% to 14% of the outcome variance in social groups. Shared similarity relates to shared entitativity differently for social and workgroups. Shared entitativity is theoretically and practically important for successful groups.

Performing in diverse settings: A diversity, equity, and inclusion approach to culture

“…Thus, future research should empirically test the relative impact of each CCP component on the different outcomes and what patterns of the integration of cultures exist across units. Relatedly, Blanchard et al (2022) have recently shown the variability that is explained by entitativity, a similarly higher-level phenomenon. Furthermore, there may be a potential need for further training to integrate other cultures when the composition of the unit changes.…”

Our group is worth the fight: Group cohesion is embedded in willingness to fight or die for relatively deprived political groups during national elections.

“…The parameters used in the sensitivity power analyses can be found on the OSF page. We conducted a sensitivity power analysis using the pwr2ppl package in R (Aberson, 2022; R Core Team, 2023), finding at least 80% power to detect an indirect effect based on correlations between study variables that are comparable to previous research and the theoretical relationship between the variables (Blanchard et al, 2022; Effron & Knowles, 2015; Hogg et al, 2012; Kunst & Obaidi, 2020).…”

“…First, this work integrates research on leader prototypicality (e.g., Haslam et al, 2020; Hogg, 2001; Hogg et al, 2012; Steffens et al, 2021) and group entitativity (e.g., Campbell, 1958; Lickel et al, 2000). Despite being theoretically related (e.g., Blanchard et al, 2022), to the authors’ knowledge there is no published research examining whether perceptions of leader prototypicality bolster perceptions of group entitativity. By observing that leader prototypicality positively predicts perceived political group entitativity, we could fully (Study 1) or partially (Study 2) explain the relationship between perceived political leader prototypicality and willingness to violently defend the in-group from political rivals.…”

“…Entitative groups provide a clear collective self-definition that overlaps in-group members' sense of self with one another and promotes feelings of warmth and affiliation between in-group members (Gaffney & Hogg, 2017, 2022. The extent to which a political leader conveys that their followers share important similarities, a common fate, a sense of cohesion, and clear differences from out-groups should contribute to group members' perceptions of entitativity in a deductive, "top-down" process (Blanchard et al, 2022;Brewer & Harasty, 1996;Haslam et al, 2011;Hogg et al, 2012;Postmes et al, 2011;Steffens et al, 2021). By definition, prototypical leaders perform this identity function for their group members through the self-categorization process (Hogg et al, 2012;Turner et al, 1987).…”