What makes entitativity different from homogeneity? An empirical contribution to the debate
What makes entitativity different from homogeneity? An empirical contribution to the debate

Summary/Abstract: In line with the argument that entitativity does not equate homogeneity, we ran three studies based on a same paradigm where participants were presented with the positions of the members of hypothetical groups on attitude scales. The first study confirmed that perceived entitativity decreases with intra-group variability and increases with extremity of groups' mean position. Moreover, as expected from Moscovici's analysis of social change (1976), supportive groups were perceived as more entitative than oppositional ones. The second study examined the effects of these cues on perceived homogeneity. It was expected that perceived homogeneity should depend only on intra-group variability. Results confirmed that perceived homogeneity decreases with variability and does not depend on favourability, but unexpectedly showed an effect of extremity. The third study replicated the first one in an intergroup context, where groups display an out-group effect. It was expected that in-groups, if perceived differently from out-groups, should be perceived as more entitative than outg-roups. Data displayed the same overall pattern as in study 1, but in-groups did not differ from out-groups. Considered together, these studies support the non-equivalence of entitativity and homogeneity: first, cues for perceived entitativity (study 1) may be different from cues for perceived homogeneity (study 2), and, second, greater homogeneity does not necessarily lead to greater entitativity (study 3).

• Details
• Contents