1. A Measure of Entitativity: The “Groupness” of Groups and Teams
Sandra Carpenter
Department of Psychology
The University of Alabama in Huntsville

2. 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

3. 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)

4. 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)

5. Entitativity Scale Items
7 items rated on 5-point Likert-type scales
Taken from Campbell; Hamilton & Sherman
Different members of the group have different “jobs” as members (roles, tasks).
If something good or bad happens to one member, it affects all members.
This group is a coherent entity, rather than just a bunch of individuals.

6. Entitativity Scale Items
4. The group has an organized structure.
Group members stick together and remain united.
Group members are interdependent, depending on each other.
The group resists any forces attempting to disrupt it.

7. 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)

8. 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

9. Study 3: Social Categories Carpenter & 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 = , p < .0001
Interpersonal groups M = 4.23, SD = 0.50
Collective groups M = 2.86, SD = 0.88
Correlation with allocentrism = .38, p < .01

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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”