A Measure of Entitativity:The “Groupness” of Groups and Teams

Sandra Carpenter

Department of Psychology

The University of Alabama in Huntsville

Person and Group Processing

• Entitativity = degree of being a unity, coherent whole; interdependence

• Entitativity cues for person perception (Campbell, 1958)– Similarity– Common fate– Proximity– Goodness of form– Resistance to intrusion

Entitativity Continuum

• Variability of perceptions (Hamilton, Sherman, & Lickel, 1998)

• Types of Groups (Hamilton, Sherman, & Castelli, 2002)– Intimacy– Task-oriented– Social categories– Loose Associations

• Differentiation from Homogeneity (Hamilton and colleagues)

Potential Influences of Perceived Entitativity

• Perception by group members– Increased team efficacy– Increased team cooperation– Improved performance

• Perception by those outside the group– Increased stereotyping– Greater likelihood of responsiveness to

requests or demands; collective action(Castano, Yzerbyt, & Bourguignon, 2003)

Entitativity Scale Items

• 7 items rated on 5-point Likert-type scales• Taken from Campbell; Hamilton & Sherman

1.Different members of the group have different “jobs” as members (roles, tasks).

2. If something good or bad happens to one member, it affects all members.

3.This group is a coherent entity, rather than just a bunch of individuals.

Entitativity Scale Items

4. The group has an organized structure.

5. Group members stick together and remain united.

6. Group members are interdependent, depending on each other.

7. The group resists any forces attempting to disrupt it.

Study 1: Social Categories

• 84 undergraduate psychology students

• Rated their own gender and ethnic group

• Cronbach’s alpha = .84

• Means & Standard deviations– Gender 3.16 (.51)– Ethnicity 3.04 (.60)

Study 2: Task-related Groups

• 55 engineering students working on a class project across the semester rated their own team at end of the semester

• Cronbach’s alpha = .81• Correlation with allocentrism = .51, p < .01• Allocentrism (similar to collectivism)

– Preference for cooperation/harmony in groups– Giving group goals priority over personal

goals

Study 3: Social CategoriesCarpenter & Radhakrishnan, PSPB, 2002

• 198 students (Anglo and Hispanic) rated– Interpersonal groups (family,friends)– Collective groups (age, gender, ethnic,

students at own university)

• Mean comparison: t = 480.20, p < .0001– Interpersonal groups M = 4.23, SD = 0.50– Collective groups M = 2.86, SD = 0.88

• Correlation with allocentrism = .38, p < .01

Study 4: Task-related Groups Carpenter & Radhakrishnan, PSPB, 2002

• 90 psychology students formed 30 ad hoc decision-making teams

• Performed “Lost on the Moon” task

• Cronbach’s alpha = .80

• Correlation with allocentrism = .48, p < .05

Study 5: Task-related Groups

• 127 members of intact interdependent groups engaged in a short game– Work teams– Sport teams– Faculty committees

• Cronbach’s alpha = .80

• Correlation with allocentrism = .43, p < .01

Study 6: Hypothetical Intimacy Groups vs. Loose Associations

• 88 students read descriptions of people who were described as either members of a college course or members of a family

• Family was expected to be perceived as more entitative than class, even though descriptions were identical

• Cronbach’s alpha: family = .80, class = .67• Ratings: family (M = 4.20) > class (M = 2.89)• t (86) = 2.73, p < .01

Study 7: Hypothetical Task Groups

• 170 students read descriptions of 4 work teams & rated each team’s entitativity

• Group Entitativity Measure (GEM; Gaertner & Schopler, 1998) correlated .50 with the Entitativity Scale

Conclusions

• Entitativity Scale is reliable and valid, as evidenced by 7 studies (experimental and correlational)

• Within and between subjects designs showed expected patterns

• Research indicates that the measure can apply to all types of groups: intimacy groups, social categories, task-related groups, and loose associations

Uses of the Entitativity Scale

• Short, easy to administer

• Can be used to evaluate work groups– Team development processes– Extremes: dysfunctional vs. groupthink

• Can be used to evaluate team processes in research or in team training

• Can be used to identify individual differences in perceptions of “groupness”