Group essence theories differ from similarity-based entitativity by treating groups as natural kinds

Evidence

Brewer et al. (2004) refer to their first intuitive theory of entitativity by the term essence. It is clear that, in their usage, this term refers to similarities in attributes and consistencies in behavior. Other usages of the same term carry much more extensive meaning (Gelman, 2003; Haslam et al., 2004; Rothbart & Taylor, 1992). This usage typically refers to a person endowing some object, person, or group with an inner essence such that the target of perception is viewed as a natural kind, a category (or category member) whose defining attributes are perceived as having their basis in nature and are inalterable. — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 242

Categorization

• DEFINE: Distinguishes the limited ‘essence’ usage in entitativity research (shared attributes) from the stronger natural-kind essence meaning in Gelman/Haslam tradition.