The same group can be perceived either categorically or dynamically

Evidence

Extending this line of reasoning, Rutchick et al. (2008) further developed the notion that groups can be construed in alternate ways, demonstrating that perceivers can judge the group’s entitativity on the basis of different group properties. Their analysis rests not on differences in types of groups (as in Lickel et al., 2000) but in ways of thinking about groups. They distinguished between categorical and dynamic ways of thinking about a group (Wilder & Simon, 1998), a distinction not unlike Brewer et al.’s (2004) essence and agency theories. Rutchick et al. argued that any group can be construed in alternate ways. A group can be thought of categorically, with a focus on similarities and differences among group members, or dynamically, with a focus on its actions as a unit, its goals, and its achievements. — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 230

Categorization

• XREF: Relates to how the perceiver’s own interpretive lens — not the group’s objective properties — determines perceived groupness; connects to framing/priming literature in perception more broadly.
• QUESTION: What determines which mode of construal a perceiver adopts? This framework doesn’t yet specify the situational triggers.