Groups perceived as highly unified are treated like individual persons in impression formation.

Evidence

This analysis was a comparison between two different types of targets—persons and groups. 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

• DEFINE: Defines entitativity via Campbell (1958) as the degree to which a group is perceived as having unity and coherence, and shows how it extends person-perception principles to groups.