Agency Through the We: Group-Based Control Theory

Abstract

How do people maintain a sense of control when they realize the noncontingencies in their personal life and their strong interdependence with other people? Why do individuals continue to act on overwhelming collective problems, such as climate change, that are clearly beyond their personal control? Group-based control theory proposes that it is social identification with agentic groups and engagement in collective action that serve to maintain and restore people’s sense of control, especially when their personal control is threatened. As a consequence, group-based control may enable people to act adaptively and stay healthy even when personal control seems futile. These claims are supported by evidence showing increased in-group identification and group-based action intentions following reminders of low personal control. Furthermore, these responses of identifying with agentic in-groups increase people’s perceived control and well-being. This article succinctly presents group-based control theory and relevant empirical findings. It also elaborates on how group-based control relates to other social-identity motives and how it may explain social phenomena.

United as One_Preprint

“…People favor their group and show hostility towards other groups, especially in times of danger and conflict (Branscombe et al, 1999;Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Global threats in the contexts of an economic crisis, pandemic or global warming enhanced ingroup bias, prejudice and blaming of certain outgroups (Becker et al, 2011;Bianchi et al, 2018;Bukowski et al, 2017;Fritsche, 2022;Lu et al, 2021). Why do global threats fuel social divisions?…”

“…Threats to personal motives do not inevitably lead to distancing and confronting others but, on the contrary, they might activate approach motivation and a tendency to coordinate with other people and groups (Dovidio et al, 2020;Greenaway, 2020). Failure to satisfy basic psychological needs, such as personal control, is related to a shift towards social interdependence, communality and a superordinate level of self-categorization (from "Me" to "We"; Fritsche, 2022;Orehek & Kruglanski, 2018). For example, existential threat (i.e., aversive feelings of lacking control when faced with one's own mortality) enhanced reliance on salient similarities between the in-and outgroup and thereby reduced ingroup bias (Giannakakis & Fritsche, 2011).…”

Political change as group-based control: Threat to personal control reduces the support for traditional political parties

“…Personal control has been defined as the extent to which a person can produce desired outcomes and prevent undesired ones [ 5 ] and it is considered to be a basic human need [ 6 , 7 ]. When personal control is threatened, people are motivated to reestablish the belief that the world is controlled through their autonomous self [ 8 , 9 ]. According to group-based control theory [ 8 ], this applies to both representations of the self as an individual person (e.g., as “I”) and definitions of the self as a collective agent (e.g., as “We”; social identity ) [ 10 , 11 ].…”

“…When personal control is threatened, people are motivated to reestablish the belief that the world is controlled through their autonomous self [ 8 , 9 ]. According to group-based control theory [ 8 ], this applies to both representations of the self as an individual person (e.g., as “I”) and definitions of the self as a collective agent (e.g., as “We”; social identity ) [ 10 , 11 ]. Accordingly, people desire control, or agency, for their own self (“I”) as well as for their self-defining ingroups (“We”).…”

“…Additionally, it opposes notions of the compensatory control model, which argues that when personal control is threatened, people try to preserve a sense of order by defending the legitimacy of different sociopolitical institutions [ 20 ]. To integrate the theories of group-based control and compensatory control [ 8 , 21 ], it has been proposed that group-based control represents people’s primary response to threatened personal control. Only when collective routes to control seem futile do people resort to reducing uncertainty and, thus, rejecting change.…”