200 likes | 631 Views
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
E N D
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 • 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.
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.
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 GroupsCarpenter & 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”