I Continue to Feel So Good About Us: In-Group Identification and the Use of Social Identity—Enhancing Strategies to Reduce Intragroup Dissonance

Abstract

The present research examined the relation between in-group identification and the use of social identity- enhancing strategies for dealing with the discomfort associated with inconsistency between personal beliefs and in-group behavior (intragroup dissonance). Consistent with the hypothesis that social identity-enhancing strategies would be more effective at reducing intragroup dissonance for those highly identified with the in-group, Experiment 1 demonstrated that level of group identification moderated the effectiveness of group affirmation for reducing psychological discomfort associated with intragroup dissonance, but not the effectiveness of self-affirmation. In Experiment 2, which manipulated level of group identification, participants in a high-identification condition, relative to those in a low-identification condition, were more likely to choose to reduce intragroup dissonance with a strategy that enhanced social identity (i.e., out-group derogation) over a strategy less effective at social identity enhancement (i.e., activism to change the behavior of the group). Implications for intergroup relations are discussed.

Motivated Shifting of Justice Standards

“…Thus, in Study 2 we manipulated the strength of the participants' group identification and measured its effect on injustice standards, judgments of harm, and collective guilt. We modified a group identification manipulation employed by Glasford, Dovidio, and Pratto (2009) and The conditions were coded as: 1 = no affirmation, 2 = self-affirmation. †p < .10.…”

The threat vs. challenge of car parking for women: How self- and group affirmation affect cardiovascular responses

“…We argue, however, that perceptions of social identity threat can be altered in such a way that they elicit challenge (see also Alter, Aronson, Darley, Rodriguez, & Ruble, 2010). The current study addresses this issue by comparing how two strategies designed to reduce social identity threat, namely self-affirmation (Steele, 1988) and group affirmation (Derks, Van Laar, & Ellemers, 2009;Glasford, Dovidio, & Pratto, 2009;Sherman, Kinias, Major, Kim, & Prenovost, 2007), impact on cardiovascular performance under social identity threat.…”

“…Self-affirmation has been shown to effectively reduce the negative effects of social identity threat on psychological well-being and performance (Cohen, Garcia, Apfel, & Master, 2006;Glasford et al, 2009;Martens, Johns, Greenberg, & Schimel, 2006;Sherman & Cohen, 2002). No research to date has, however, examined whether self-affirmation is able to transform the malign cardiovascular threat response that is triggered by social identity threat into the more adaptive cardiovascular challenge response.…”

“…In the same vein, Stapel and Van Der Linde (submitted for publication) found that different types of affirmation (i.e., value affirmation vs. self-worth affirmation) produce different effects (i.e., increasing self-clarity vs. self-esteem), and are therefore effective in reducing different types of threat (i.e., dissonance threats vs. threatening upward comparisons). Building on these recent developments, the current study aims to extend self-affirmation theory by testing whether high identifiers are more able to deal with social identity threat on the level of their social identity -re-affirming the value of the group ("group affirmation"; Derks et al, 2009;Glasford et al, 2009;Sherman et al, 2007) -rather than on the level of their personal identity (i.e., by re-affirming the value of the personal self).…”

Sizing fish and ponds: The joint effects of individual- and group-based feedback

“…With respect to the second strategy-attempting to change the group's behavior to bring it closer to the self-the empirical evidence is less consistent. Glasford and colleagues (Glasford, Dovidio & Pratto, 2009;Glasford, Pratto, & Dovidio, 2008) demonstrate that highly identified group members are less likely to attempt changes at a group level when alternative strategies (e.g., outgroup derogation) are available. In contrast, Packer (2009;Packer & Chasteen, 2010) suggests that high-identifiers may be more motivated to advocate group-level changes than low-identifiers when they see their group's performance diverging from what they perceive as ideal.…”