Varieties of groups and the perception of group entitativity.

By Brian Lickel, D. Hamilton, G. Wieczorkowska, A. Lewis, Steven J. Sherman, A. Neville Uhles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2000

863 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1851cabadb143b651d59a17d8206ac6f79290137

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Uncertainty, entitativity, and group identification (2007, background): “Groups vary in entitativity (e.g., Hamilton, Sherman, & Rodgers, 2004; Lickel et al., 2000), and under self-uncertainty, people prefer to identify with or identify more strongly with high than low entitativity groups.”
The Positivity Effect in Perceptions of Services: Seen One, Seen Them All? (2003, background): “Lickel, Brian, David Hamilton, Grazyna Wieczorkowska, Amy Lewis, Steven Sherman, and A. Neville Uhles (2000), “Varieties of Groups and the Perception of Group Entitativity,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78 (February), 223–246.”
Organizational network perceptions versus reality: A small world after all? ☆ (2008, background): “Friendship groups may be associated in cognition with kinship groups in terms of perceived intimacy (Lickel et al., 2000) and in the assumption that friendship, like kinship, involves the avoidance of careful counting of benefits given and received (see Silk, 2003, for a review of ‘‘the puzzle of fr”
Uncertain Self in a Changing World: A Foundation for Radicalisation, Populism, and Autocratic Leadership (2020, background): “One such property, which is a significant moderator of the uncertaintyidentification relationship (Hogg, 2004), is entitativity (e.g. Hamilton & Sherman, 1996; Lickel et al., 2000).”
Internal Status Sorting in Groups: The Problem of too many Stars (2005, background): “The term entitativity (Campbell, 1958; Hamilton & Sherman, 1996) refers to a perceiver’s sense of the group’s social integration, and is determined by the degree of perceived similarity and common fate among members (Hamilton & Sherman, 1996; Lickel et al., 2000).”
The Impact of Assimilation and Differentiation Needs on Perceived Group Importance and Judgments of Ingroup Size (2002, methodology): “The development of the intimacy and task group indexes was based on previous research (Lickel et al., 2000) where the types of groups included in these indexes were found to cluster together.”
Lay Theories of Essentialism (2006, positive): “In a series of recent studies, Lickel and colleagues (Lickel et al., 2000) supported this perspective, showing that entitativity (i.e. groupness) is highly correlated with the perception of interaction, common goals, common outcomes, group members’ similarity, and importance of the group for its…”
“Mixed” Results (2015, background): “…it is clear that not only for the multiracial population but for anyone with multiple social identities (e.g., race, gender, age, occupation; see Lickel et al., 2000), context can greatly sway how a person chooses to identify, which in turn significantly affects the distinction between “we” and…”
Group-level self-definition and self-investment: a hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group identification. (2008, background): “This component of in-group identification is related to, but different from, the degree to which individuals perceive their entire group as sharing commonalities (e.g., Doosje, Ellemers, & Spears, 1995; Lickel et al., 2000) that make the group relatively homogeneous (for reviews, see Oakes et al.”