The development of group influence on in-group identification: A multilevel approach

Abstract

Research on in-group identification typically focuses on differences in individuals' identification at the individual level of analysis. We take a multilevel approach, examining the emergence of group influence on identification in newly formed groups. In three studies, multilevel confirmatory factor analysis confirmed two dimensions of identification-self-definition and self-investment (Leach et al., 2008)-at both the individual and the group level. As expected, the group had greater influence on individuals' identification the more group members interacted with each other. This was shown in experiments with varying amounts of real interaction (Study 1), in a longitudinal study of student project groups (Study 2), and in a longitudinal study that experimentally mimicked the development of online communities (Study 3). Together, these studies support a developmental model of identification at the group level that has implications for the understanding of social identity and small-group dynamics.

The Role of Political Activity in the Formation of Online Identity Bubbles

“…Online groups have become increasingly relevant references for social identification, as researchers have noted (Lehdonvirta & Räsänen, 2011;Mikal, Rice, Kent, & Uchino, 2015). People who strongly identify with their online social networks also tend to socially categorize; in other words, in their online interactions, they perceive themselves as online community members instead of as having a personalized identity (Jans, Leach, Garcia, & Postmes, 2014).…”

Explaining different orientations to the 2013 Gezi Park demonstrations in Istanbul, Turkey

“…Indeed, a growing body of work shows that the experience of participating in the collective action of protest can affect people in psychologically profound ways by increasing feelings of synchrony in solidarity (e.g., Klandermans, 1997;P aez et al, 2015) and collective empowerment (e.g., Drury & Reicher, 2009). Co-acting together in a group activity is also a basis for investing oneself in the group, and over time, it produces more similar levels of such self-investment within groups (Jans, Leach, Garcia, & Postmes, 2015). Thus, participating in a demonstration is likely to be most tied to an experience of collective empowerment.…”

The polarizing effects of group discussion in a negative normative context: Integrating societal‐, group‐, and individual‐level factors

“…The influence of a group on its members becomes evident through two complementary processes: consensualization and polarization (cf. Jans, Leach, Garcia, & Postmes, 2015). On the one hand, people consensualize their views when making judgements in a group (Sherif, 1936), both on their own group's stereotypes and norms (Bliuc, McGarty, Reynolds, & Muntele, 2007;McGarty et al, 2009;Meeussen, Delvaux, & Phalet, 2014), but also on stereotypes about, and hostility towards, other groups (Greijdanus et al, 2015;Haslam, Turner, Oakes, McGarty, & Reynolds, 1997;Smith & Postmes, 2009).…”

“…Importantly, we compared the consequences of group discussion with the consequences of individual rumination and predicted a unique catalysing role of local group discussion in attitude polarization (Hypothesis 3). The current research tested these hypotheses with a relatively novel analytic approach, using variance in individualand multilevel designs as a statistical proxy for polarization (see also Jans et al, 2015;Kuppens & Yzerbyt, 2014). As we will outline in detail below, we operationalized polarization as the post-discussion difference between local majority groups in attitudes towards a minority group (member).…”

“…Because we are primarily concerned with polarization, we focus on comparing between-group variances (s) per condition (see Table 2; cf. Jans et al, 2015).…”