Group interaction as the crucible of social identity formation: A glimpse at the foundations of social identities for collective action

Abstract

Many of the world's biggest problems are being tackled through the formation of new groups yet very little research has directly observed the processes by which new groups form to respond to social problems. The current paper draws on seminal research by Lewin (1947) to advance a perspective as to how such identities form through processes of small group interaction. Multi-level structural equation modelling involving 58 small group discussions (with N = 234) demonstrates that focused group discussion can boost the commitment to take collective action, beliefs in the efficacy of that action and members' social identification with other supporters of the cause. The results are consistent with the new commitment to action flowing from emergent social identities.Keywords: Social identity formation, small group interaction, collective action. THE FOUNDATIONS OF IDENTITY AND ACTION 3 Group Interaction as the Crucible of Social Identity Formation: A Glimpse at the Foundations of Social Identities for Collective ActionIn order to effect large scale social change we clearly need to do more than focus individual minds on the future. Instead, we need large sections of the public to embrace sustainable solutions collectively. To promote collective action of this kind, we need to fuse individual orientations toward the future with social identities that have the capacity to engender and sustain positive action. (Postmes, Rabinovich, Morton, & van Zomeren, 2012, p.194) The field of social psychology is filled with research on attitude change, prejudice, self-concept formation, stereotyping, and emotions, most of which has ignored how these processes operate in small groups. This neglect means that many questions central to the human social experience have not been investigated. (Wittenbaum & Moreland, 2008, p.188) In 1947 Kurt Lewin, one of the founders of modern social psychology, published findings of research into what he termed 'group decision'. Charged with the task of finding ways to change attitudes towards serving offal as a family meal as part of the World War II effort, Lewin compared the effects of listening to a lecture, with the effects of group discussion on samples of women who made food purchasing decisions for their families. The findings were striking. Of the women who had listened to the lecture, only 3% went on to prepare offal. Conversely, of those who had participated in a group discussion (about difficulties facing women in serving offal), 32% subsequently served offal to their families. Lewin (1958, p.202) concluded that "discussion, if conducted correctly, is likely to lead to a much higher degree of involvement". THE FOUNDATIONS OF IDENTITY AND ACTION 4The legacies of this study were twofold. Lewin was the first to demonstrate the powerful effects of group interaction on changing attitudes and behaviour, findings that were mirrored some years later with the advent of the group polarization phenomenon (Moscovici & Zavalloni, 1969;Myers & Bishop, 1970). Lewin (1947, p. 150) was als...

Investigating the Evolution of Ingroup Favoritism Using a Minimal Group Interaction Paradigm: The Effects of Inter- and Intragroup Interdependence

“…They found higher levels of cooperation among randomly assigned interacting than randomly assigned minimal groups. These results support other research that shows that interaction promotes a sense of groupness, which can affect behavioral outcomes [39, 40]. …”

Giving versus acting: Using latent profile analysis to distinguish between benevolent and activist support for global poverty reduction

“…However, governments of industrialized nations can also support recovery from poverty. It follows that citizens can support humanitarian justice by pressuring their governments to commit to aid and development, and to make equitable aid, trade, and debt relief arrangements (‘acting’; Darnton & Kirk, ; see also Thomas, McGarty, Reese, Berndsen & Bliuc, ). Consistent with this view, the Make Poverty History movement eschewed charity and instead asked adherents to pressure political leaders through united, socio‐political action (Mandela, , above).…”

Bringing together humanistic and intergroup perspectives to build a model of internalisation of normative social harmdoing

“…This idea has been captured indirectly in the emerging literature on group dissent, norm contest (e.g., Packer, ), and group schisms (e.g., Sani & Reicher, ). Globally, this literature attributes a highly proactive role to group members in shaping and modifying their ingroup's norms, rather than viewing them as passive recipients of group norms through a top‐down process (e.g., Thomas, McGarty, & Louis, ; Thomas, McGarty & Mavor, ). Similarly, work on opinion groups' activism has documented how new (sub)groups can form around a new, emergent norm for action based on important values for the group (McGarty, Bliuc, Thomas, & Bongiorno, ), and how these norms can be both “nice” (prosocial) or “nasty” (hostile; Thomas et al, ).…”