Proposal of group formation process model by group identity development: From multilevel viewpoint

Ozeki, Miki; Yoshida, Takemi

doi:10.2130/jjesp.51.130

Cited by 6 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Specifically, GGI had a positive influence on the three indicators of group formation-interaction, interdependence, and the emotional bondamong group members at the group-level, in both existing social groups and experimental groups. Taken together, the results of the current study and of previous studies suggest that GGI is foundational in group norms (Ozeki et al, 2013) and that it enhances group entitativity at the group level (Ozeki & Yoshida, 2012); therefore, GGI is an essential element for a collection of people to be a group. More precisely, the development of each group member's group identity causes an aggregate of people to become a group.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…GGI cannot be treated in an empirical study using ML-SEM when the ICC is not significant, which means that the purpose of this component of the study could not be accomplished in its originally intended formulation. This was so because the operational definition of GGI in the multilevel approach to group identity is a group-level component in ML-SEM (Ozeki & Yoshida, 2012). Therefore, ICC(1) values for each item included in the group identity scale were calculated, and items whose ICC(1) value was significant and greater than .10 were used in the analysis.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They cannot be applied to groups with abstract boundaries owing to a methodological limitation of ML-SEM, whereby each group must be specifically identified. Such groups with fuzzy boundaries remain as a future challenge in using the multilevel approach to group identity (Ozeki & Yoshida, 2012).…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In recent group dynamics studies, a new challenge has arisen regarding group identity from a multilevel perspective (Jans, Leach, Garcia, & Postmes, 2015; Leach et al, 2008; Ozeki & Yoshida, 2009, 2012; Postmes, Baray, Haslam, Morton, & Swaab, 2006; Swaab, Postmes, & Spears, 2008), about a quarter-century after Hogg (1992) proposed the basic idea of group-level group identity (GGI), in which he observed merely that a group whose members have a strong group identity is more cohesive. As yet, however, studies in social identity theory have failed to provide a full understanding of the concept of GGI.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Group-level group identity as a basis of a group.

Ozeki¹

2015

Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to examine group-level group identity (GGI), which is defined as group identity within a whole group and which may be an essential element for a collection of people to be a group. Multilevel structural equation modeling (ML-SEM) was used to test the prediction that GGI would have a positive effect on interaction, emotional bond, and interdependence among group members in the grouplevel model. If so, GGI could be considered as an essential element for a collection of people to be a group. University students (137 men, 104 women) completed a questionnaire (Study 1) and took part in an experiment in which 32 experimental groups (37 men, 55 women) were formed (Study 2). The results supported the prediction in both studies: GGI had positive influences on interactions, emotional bonds, and interdependence among group members.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Group-level group identity as a basis of a group.

Ozeki¹

2015

Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This desire to maintain consensus applies especially to those who value cohesion and to those who are highly identified with the group [41,42]. These are essentially collective concerns about the preservation of unity of the group or society.…”

Section: Motives For Speaking Out: Reputation and Consensusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Private-Public Opinion Discrepancy

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In many Western societies there are rising concerns about increasing polarization in public debate. However, statistics on private attitudes paint a different picture: the average attitudes in societies are more moderate and remain rather stable over time. The present paper presents an agent-based model of how such discrepancies between public opinion and private attitudes develop at the scale of micro-societies. Based on social psychological theorizing, the model distinguishes between two types of agents: a) those seeking to gain or maintain a good reputation and status, and b) those seeking to promote group harmony by reaching consensus. We characterized these different types of agents by different decision rules for either voicing their opinion or remaining silent, based on the behavior of their proximal network. Results of the model simulations show that even when the private attitudes of the agents are held constant, publicly expressed opinions can oscillate and (depending on the reputational concerns of individual actors) situations can occur in which minorities as well as majorities are silenced. We conclude that the macro-level consequences of micro-level decisions to either voice an opinion or remain silent provide a foundation for better understanding how public opinions are shaped. Moreover, we discuss the conditions under which public opinion could be considered a good representation of private attitudes in a society.

show abstract

Untitled

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Proposal of group formation process model by group identity development: From multilevel viewpoint

Cited by 6 publications

References 17 publications

Group-level group identity as a basis of a group.

Group-level group identity as a basis of a group.

Private-Public Opinion Discrepancy

Untitled

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About