On the psychological function of flags and logos: Group identity symbols increase perceived entitativity.

Abstract

Group identity symbols such as flags and logos have been widely used across time and cultures, yet researchers know very little about the psychological functions that such symbols can serve. The present research tested the hypotheses that (a) simply having a symbol leads collections of individuals to seem more like real, unified groups, (b) this increased psychological realness leads groups to seem more threatening and effective to others, and (c) group members therefore strategically emphasize symbols when they want their group to appear unified and intimidating. In Studies 1a–1c, participants perceived various task groups as more entitative when they happened to have a symbol. In Study 2, symbols not only helped groups make up for lacking a physical characteristic associated with entitativity (physical similarity), but also led groups to seem more threatening. Study 3 examined the processes underlying this effect and found that group symbols increase entitativity by increasing perceived cohesiveness. Study 4 extended our results to show that symbols not only shape the impressions people form of novel groups, but also change people’s existing impressions of more familiar and real-world social groups, making them seem more entitative and competent but also less warm. Finally, Studies 5a and 5b further expand our understanding of the psychological function of symbols by showing that group members strategically display symbols when they are motivated to convey an impression of their group as unified and threatening (vs. inclusive and cooperative). We discuss implications for understanding how group members navigate their social identities.

Support for National Flag‐Displays in Times of Change: A Question of National Identification?

“…Glorifying identifiers’ overt support for flag‐displays that communicate clear prejudice is a remarkable finding because it is often thought that blatant racism is decreasing and that subtle or modern racism is growing (e.g., Eibach & Ehrlinger, ). Moreover, our finding is consistent with that of Callahan and Ledgerwood () who demonstrated that group members can use the flag as a tool to communicate that their group identity advocates exclusion of other groups. Excluding others through national flag‐displays can be considered as a social identity based prescription of how one should behave toward unwanted minorities (Reicher & Hopkins ().…”

“…(), this is likely because attached identifiers consider flag‐displays by European‐Australians as “perceived” group projection where European‐Australians try to impose their superior, prejudiced values onto all Australians. As such, our research supports Callahan and Ledgerwood's () argumentation that the national flag can convey blatant racism (i.e., “It is unacceptable that European‐Australians use the Australian flag to exclude other groups”) when it is used to exclude others who are considered to be different.…”

Flagging difference: Identification and emotional responses to national flags

“…These findings can be seen as consistent with the position that flags can unite the national group (Chan, ; O’Donnell et al, ). Mirroring the power of the emblem to represent the richness and variability of large nation states, exposure to flags has been argued to results in greater group coherence (Callahan & Ledgerwood, ; Hassin et al, ). For example, recently Von Scheve, Beyer, Ismer, Kozłowska, and Morawetz () demonstrated that emotional engagement during a football tournament influenced group‐related attitudes and solidarity beyond the tournament, which in turn subsequently enhanced the emotional significance attached to one's own national flag.…”

“…Flags are seen as important tools of national mobilization not least because political leaders use patriotism and national allegiance to mobilize support for particular political positions (Becker et al, ; Reicher & Hopkins, ) and the nation is routinely mobilized to achieve political aims and objectives. Callahan and Ledgerwood () in a series of studies suggest that flags are particularly used strategically in threatening contexts to facilitate group solidarity. A key assumption of the historical conceptualizations of a nation state can be seen as cultural homogeneity (Schnapper, ).…”

When Your Kind Cannot Live Here: How Generic Language and Criminal Sanctions Shape Social Categorization

“…Simply marking category boundaries (e.g., associating groups with colored t-shirts) elicits in-group preferences and increases children’s and adults’ willingness to reject or withhold resources from outsiders (Callahan & Ledgerwood, 2016; Diesendruck & Menahem, 2015; Killen, Mulvey, & Hitti, 2013; Rhodes, Leslie, Saunders, Dunham, & Cimpian, 2017; Tajfel, 1982). Still, recent studies suggest limits when categorization invokes negative outcomes.…”