This question may seem strange at first, because you probably have an intuitive sense of what a group is. Are deadheads a group? You’d probably say “yes.” Is a soccer team a group? Certainly. But sometimes it is difficult to say for sure whether a collection of individuals makes up a group. Are Canadians a group? Are strangers in line at the movies a group? What about the students in your social psychology class?

Most people probably would agree with your intuitive answers to these questions (Lickel et al., 2000; Lickel et al., 2001). When study volunteers were asked to rate various collections of individuals, they consistently categorized them into four types of groups: intimacy groups (such as family, romantic partners, friends), task groups (committees, orchestras, teams), social categories (women, Americans, Jews), and loose associations (people in the same neighborhood, people who like classical music).

People also share the intuition that some groups are more, well, group-y than others. The formal term is entitativity, the degree to which a collection of people feels like a cohesive group (Campbell, 1958). For example, people consider intimacy groups to be more entitative than task groups.

What features of groups makes them seem more or less cohesive? One is the presence of a common bond, the degree to which group members interact with and depend on each other to meet their needs and attain their goals (Johnson et al., 2006; Prentice et al., 1994; Rabbie & Horwitz, 1988; Shaw, 1981). Sometimes these interactions are based on communal sharing—the sense that “What’s mine is yours” (Fiske, 1990). (For a refresher on this concept, go back to chapter 2, “How Individuals Relate to Each Other: Individualism/Collectivism.”) You probably interact in this way when you sit around with your closest group of friends from high school. Other types of interactions are based on market pricing: “I will wash your back if you wash mine.” This might be how you interact with classmates on an assignment, for example. The point is that both types of interactions can produce a strong sense of common bond (Clark & Mills, 1979; Lickel et al., 2006).

313

Feeling a strong common bond in a group creates a sense of cohesion (Cartwright & Zander, 1960), but this isn’t necessarily good. On the one hand, cohesive groups are more successful than less cohesive groups at reaching their goals. For instance, highly cohesive athletic teams perform better than less cohesive teams (Carron et al., 2002). However, high cohesiveness can sometimes undermine group performance: If group members are preoccupied with maintaining cohesion and getting along, they may be reluctant to share unpopular ideas out of fear of “rocking the boat,” even when those ideas might be helpful. Later, we’ll talk more about group decision making.

A second feature of groups that ups their entitativity is a common identity. Groups often form among individuals who share similar characteristics, and people also come to feel a certain “we-ness,” or shared attachment, to groups that they belong to (Prentice et al., 1994; Rabbie & Horwitz, 1988; Turner et al., 1987). But group members may also feel a common identity when they behave similarly, and even if they simply look alike (Ip et al., 2006). Sharing the same gender, race, or even clothing style can create a sense of common identity. So, too, can having a common bond and working closely on a shared goal. For instance, a team of medical researchers might form a strong group identity as they collaborate to develop a new medicine. In fact, they might take on a team name and logo and play together in the local kickball competition.

The perception of a common identity can also come from the presence of a shared threat or common challenge (Allport, 1954; James, 1906). For instance, families often experience a renewed sense of unity in the face of adversity. School spirit reaches its peak when athletic contests with the traditional rival approach. Citizens of a nation often come together in solidarity during times of war. For example, when United Airlines Flight 93 took off for San Francisco on the morning of September 11, 2001, the 37 passengers were just a loose collection of people. But when four men on board hijacked the plane with plans to crash it into either the White House or the U.S. Capitol, the other passengers began thinking and behaving in terms of “we” instead of “I.” Their coordinated assault against the hijackers successfully diverted the plane from its intended target. The group-binding power of a common enemy is so powerful that leaders sometimes invent an enemy figure—a “them”—in order to cement the perception of “us” and transform a collective into a group (Silverstein, 1992).

The feeling of being in a group can set in motion a number of psychological processes that strongly influence people’s thoughts and behavior. Even loose associations, such as people standing on a street corner looking up at the sky, can elicit conformity (chapter 7). Social categories such as race, ethnicity, and gender fuel stereotyping and prejudice (chapter 10). And much of our day-to-day experience is influenced by our intimate relationships with close others (chapter 15). In this chapter, we’ll stick mainly to task groups and loose connections—groups that people can choose to enter and exit. Our goal will be to understand how our attitudes and behavior changes when we are in these relatively small, face-to-face groups and collectives. But along the way, we will also make connections to other types of groups.

314