Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

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.

Keywords

entitativity multilevel modeling similarity workgroups social groups identification prosocial behavior self-categorization social identity

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allen

J. A.

Rogelberg

S. G.

(2013). Manager-led group meetings: A context for promoting employee engagement. Group and Organization Management, 38(5), 543–569. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601113503040

Allen

N. J.

O’Neill

T. A.

(2015). The trajectory of emergence of shared group-level constructs. Small Group Research, 46(3), 352–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496415584973

Allport

(1961). The contemporary appraisal of an old problem. Contemporary Psychology, 6(6), 195–196.

Ashforth

B. E.

Harrison

S. H.

Corley

(2008). Identification in organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34(3), 325–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316059

Ashforth

B. E.

Rogers

K. M.

Corley

K. G.

(2011). Identity in organizations : Exploring cross-level dynamics. Organization Science, 22(5), 1144–1156.

Bergeron

D. M.

(2007). The potential paradox of organizational citizenship behavior: Good citizens at what cost? Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1078–1095. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2007.26585791

Berson

Halevy

Shamir

Erez

(2015). Leading from different psychological distances: A construal-level perspective on vision communication, goal setting, and follower motivation. Leadership Quarterly, 26(2), 143–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.07.011

Blanchard

A. L.

Allen

J. A.

(2022). The entitativity underlying meetings: Meetings as key in the lifecycle of effective workgroups. Organizational Psychology Review. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866221101341

Blanchard

A. L.

Caudill

L. E.

Walker

L. S.

(2020). Developing an entitativity measure and distinguishing it from antecedents and outcomes within online and face-to-face groups. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 23(1), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217743577

10.

Bliese

P. D.

(2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In Klein

K. J.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

(Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349–381). Jossey-Bass.

11.

Brewer

M. B.

Harasty

A. S.

(1996). Seeing groups as entities: The role of perceiver motivation. In Sorrentino

R. M.

Higgins

E. T.

(Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: The interpersonal context (Vol. 3, pp. 347–370). Guilford Press.

12.

Cammann

Fichman

Jenkins

Klesh

(1983). Assessing the attitudes and perceptions of organizational members. In Seashor

Lawler

Mirvis

Cammann

(Eds.), Assessing organizational change: A guide to methods, measures, and practices (pp. 71–138). Wiley.

13.

Campbell

D. T.

(1958). Common fate, similarity and other indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities. Behavioral Scientist, 3(1), 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830030103

14.

Chan

(1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 234–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.234

15.

Conway

J. M.

Lance

C. E.

(2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(3), 325–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9181-6

16.

Crump

S. A.

Hamilton

D. L.

Sherman

S. J.

Lickel

Thakkar

(2010). Group entitativity and similarity: Their differing patterns in perceptions of groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(7), 1212–1230. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.716

17.

Evans

M. B.

Graupensperger

Benson

A. J.

Eys

Hastings

Gottschall

J. S.

(2019). Group structure and entitativity in group fitness: Considering groupness at within- and between-group levels. Psychology and Health, 34(6), 715–732. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2019.1566548

18.

Gaertner

Schopler

(1998). Perceived ingroup entitativity and intergroup bias: An interconnection of self and others. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28(6), 963–980. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(1998110)28:6<963::AID-EJSP905>3.0.CO;2-S

19.

Hamilton

D. L.

Sherman

S. J.

Lickel

(1998). Perceiving social groups: The importance of the entitativity continuum. In Sedikides

Schopler

Insko

C. A.

(Eds.), Intergroup cognition and intergroup behavior (pp. 47–74). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

20.

Hitt

M. A.

Texas

Jackson

S. E.

Zurich

(2007). Building theoretical and empirical bridges across levels: Multilevel research in management Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1385–1399.

21.

Hogg

M. A.

Abrams

Otten

Hinkle

(2004). The social identity perspective: Intergroup relations, self-conception, and small groups. Small Group Research, 35(3), 246–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496404263424

22.

Hogg

M. A.

Reid

S. A.

(2006). Social identity, self-categorization, and the communication of group norms. Communication Theory, 16(1), 7–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00003.x

23.

Hogg

M. A.

Sherman

S. J.

Dierselhuis

Maitner

A. T.

Moffitt

Sherman

Dierselhuis

Maitner

A. T.

(2007). Uncertainty, entitativity, and group identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(1), 135–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.12.008

24.

Hogg

M. A.

Terry

D. J.

(2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(1), 121–140. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2004.13670967

25.

G. W.

Chiu

Wan

(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(3), 368–381. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.368

26.

Jans

Postmes

van der Zee

K. I.

(2011). The induction of shared identity: The positive role of individual distinctiveness for groups. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(8), 1130–1141. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211407342

27.

Jans

Postmes

van der Zee

K. I.

(2012). Sharing differences: The inductive route to social identity formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(5), 1145–1149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.04.013

28.

Klein

H. J.

Cooper

J. T.

Molloy

J. C.

Swanson

J. A.

(2014). The assessment of commitment: Advantages of a unidimensional, target-free approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(2), 222–238. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034751

29.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

Chao

G. T.

Grand

J. A.

Braun

M. T.

Kuljanin

(2013). Advancing multilevel research design: Capturing the dynamics of emergence. Organizational Research Methods, 16(4), 581–615. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428113493119

30.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

Klein

K. J.

(2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In Klein

K. J.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

(Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). Jossey-Bass.

31.

LeBreton

J. M.

Senter

J. L.

(2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 815–852. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106296642

32.

Lepine

J. A.

Erez

Johnson

D. E.

(2002). The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 52–65. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.52

33.

Lickel

Hamilton

D. L.

Sherman

S. J.

(2001). Elements of a lay theory of groups: Types of groups, relational styles, and the perception of group entitativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(2), 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0502_4

34.

Mael

F. A.

Ashforth

B. E.

(1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 103–123. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.4030130202/abstract

35.

Maltarich

M. A.

Thatcher

S. M. B.

Schepker

D. J.

Park

(2021). Perceived faultlines in group dynamics: An individual-level perspective. Small Group Research, 52(5), 565–599. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496420986870

36.

Moreland

R. L.

Levine

J. M.

McMinn

J. G.

(2001). Social identity processes in organizational contexts. In Hogg

M. A.

Terry

D. J.

(Eds.), Social identity processes in organizational contexts (pp. 87-100). Sheridan Books.

37.

Penner

L. A.

Dovidio

J. F.

Piliavin

J. A.

Schroeder

D. A.

(2005). Prosocial behavior: Multilevel perspectives. Annual Review of Psychology, 56(1), 365–392. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070141

38.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Paine

J. B.

Bachrach

D. G.

(2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513–563. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600307

39.

Postmes

Spears

Lee

A. T.

Novak

R. J.

(2005). Individuality and social influence in groups: Inductive and deductive routes to group identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(5), 747–763. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.5.747

40.

Roberson

Q. M.

(2019). Diversity in the workplace: A review, synthesis, and future research agenda. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6(1), 69–88. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012218-015243

41.

Simons

T. L.

Peterson

R. S.

(2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 102–111. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10740960

42.

Spector

P. E.

(2019). Do not cross me: Optimizing the use of cross-sectional designs. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34(2), 125–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-09613-8

43.

Tajfel

(1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 26(1), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.33.020182.000245

44.

Tepper

B. J.

Duffy

M. K.

Hoobler

Ensley

M. D.

(2004). Moderators of the relationships between coworkers’ organizational citizenship behavior and fellow employees’ attitudes. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 455–465. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.455

45.

Thompson

Fine

G. A.

(1999). Socially shared cognition, affect, and behavior: A review and integration. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(4), 278–302. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0304_1

46.

Turner

J. C.

Reynolds

K. J.

(2012). Self-categorization theory. In van Lange

P. A. M.

Kruglanski

A. W.

Higgins

E. T.

(Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 399–417). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249222.n46

47.

Vanderstukken

Schreurs

Germeys

van den Broeck

Proost

(2019). Should supervisors communicate goals or visions? The moderating role of subordinates’ psychological distance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 49(11), 671–683. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12626

48.

van Veelen

Otten

Hansen

(2013). Social identification when an in-group identity is unclear: The role of self-anchoring and self-stereotyping. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52(3), 543–562. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2012.02110.x

49.

Woehr

D. J.

Loignon

A. C.

Schmidt

P. B.

Loughry

M. L.

Ohland

M. W.

(2015). Justifying aggregation with consensus-based constructs: A review and examination of cutoff values for common aggregation indices. Organizational Research Methods, 18(4), 704–737. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115582090

50.

Woznyj

H. M.

Dunn

A. M.

Shanock

L. R.

Heggestad

E. D.

Ordóñez

Uhrich

(2017). How far can support go? Supported supervisors’ performance and subordinate dedication. Journal of Business and Psychology, 32(6), 627–639. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-016-9472-7

51.

Zaccaro

S. J.

Dubrow

Torres

E. M.

Campbell

L. N. P.

(2020). Multiteam systems: An integrated review and comparison of different forms. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 7, 479–503. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012119-045418

52.

Zhang

Chiu

C. Y.

(2012). Goal commitment and alignment of personal goals predict group identification only when the goals are shared. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 15(3), 425–437. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430211415440

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

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References