The central role of entitativity in stereotypes of social categories and task groups.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research indicates that people's intuitive beliefs about groups are organized according to a group typology (B. Lickel, D. L. Hamilton, & S. J. Sherman, 2001). In Study 1, the authors compared and contrasted people's spontaneous cognitive representations of two group types, task groups and social categories. Analyses revealed significant differences as well as commonalities in people's beliefs about the group types. Notably, perceivers used more abstract, enduring language and contextually rich descriptors when characterizing social categories than when describing task groups. In Study 2, the authors investigated the differential roles of distinct group perception variables (entitativity, homogeneity, essence, role differentiation, and agency) as predictors of stereotyping for the different group types. Entitativity and all of the group perception variables significantly predicted stereotyping for both social categories and task groups. However, perceptions of entitativity mediated the association between the group perception variables and stereotypic judgments. These findings demonstrate that laypeople hold stereotype-like mental representations of group types other than social categories and that entitativity plays a crucial mediating role in stereotyping across different types of groups.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".