Groups high in entitativity are processed like individual persons

Evidence

Hamilton and Sherman (1996) then noted that there obviously is variation within each of these types—among individuals and among groups—in the extent to which they are perceived as having unity and coherence. Some individuals are perceived as having well-integrated personalities, while others are seen as more scattered, less well organized; similarly, some groups are seen as being highly organized and tightly knit, whereas others are perceived as having less unity. This variation among groups, they noted, corresponds to what Campbell (1958) referred to as entitativity (and in fact, Campbell had specifically stated that groups vary in the extent to which they possess this property). Hamilton and Sherman proposed that, for groups that are perceived as being high in entitativity, the same assumptions would be made as are held about an individual target (organization, consistency, inferred dispositions, and resolution of inconsistencies). — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 213

Categorization

• XREF: Central to the prejudice-psychology thread: high-entitativity outgroups (e.g., ‘the Jews’, ‘Muslims’ as monolithic) would be attributed unity, consistency, and dispositional essence — the mechanism underwriting essentialist antisemitism.
• DEFINE: Operationalizes entitativity as the perceived unity/coherence of a group, from Campbell 1958.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 213