In-groups can cohere by homogeneity or by shared structure

Evidence

The different conceptualizations of in-groups by Westerners and East Asians correspond to two different modes of group entitativity. The term entitativity denotes the degree to which a social collective is viewed as an entity unto itself (Campbell, 1958). The depersonalized and intergroup view of in-group, proposed to be predominant among Westerners, should correspond to similarity-based or homogeneity-based entitativity (Brewer & Harasty, 1996). On the contrary, the network and interpersonal view of in-group, which I propose to be prevalent among East Asians, should correspond to the organizational and structural view of group entitativity (Hamilton, Sherman, & Lickel, 1998; see also Prentice, Miller, & Lightdale, 1994, for a similar distinction between common-identity and common-bond groups). — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1620

Categorization

• DEFINE: Entitativity split into homogeneity-based vs. structural modes explains divergent in-group cognition.
• XREF: Maps onto common-identity vs. common-bond group distinction; relevant to whether prejudice targets categories or networks. — connects to: Homogenization renders others interchangeable resources to be managed — Rebecca A. Martusewicz, Jeff Edmundson, and John Lupinacci, EcoJustice Education: Toward Diverse,…, 593
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1620