The Impact of Assimilation and Differentiation Needs on Perceived Group Importance and Judgments of Ingroup Size

Abstract

At the heart of optimal distinctiveness theory is the idea that a group’s level of inclusiveness is a significant determinant of how well that group can meet members’ needs for assimilation and differentiation. In two studies, this principle was demonstrated by experimentally manipulating both needs and examining their effects on perceptions of ingroup size and on the perceived importance of ingroups that vary in level of inclusiveness. It was predicted that assimilation need would lead to a preference for inclusive ingroups and the tendency to overestimate ingroup size, whereas differentiation need would lead to a preference for exclusive ingroups and the tendency to underestimate ingroup size. Support for these predictions was found across both studies. The results support the hypothesis that the arousal of assimilation and differentiation needs interacts with ingroup inclusiveness to determine optimal social identities.

The context of intergroup belief cross wherein minority members maintain consistency: Belief minority and majority in a categorical in‐group and out‐group1

“…According to optimal distinctive theory (Brewer, 1991;Pickett et al, 2002), individuals are hypothesized to have the following two choices in order to satisfy needs for assimilation. First, they will shift their belief to be admitted into the majority within the in-group.…”

“…Optimal distinctive theory (Brewer, 1991;Pickett, Silver, & Brewer, 2002) asserts that ingroup biases or identities are decided by two motivations: assimilation and differentiation. Individuals have to satisfy their need for assimilation when they associate with a minority in a categorical in-group.…”

Social Identification in Sports Teams

“…personal identity motive) but also varies in response to changes in the features of the group (i.e. social identity motive) (see also Baumeister & Leary, 1995;Pickett, Silver & Brewer, 2002;Vignoles, Chryssochoou, & Breakwell, 2000). Spears et al (2009) used an experimental design that manipulated the meaningfulness of minimal groups, demonstrating that group meaning (i.e.…”

“Who identifies with which group?” The motive‐feature match principle and its limitations

“…In several studies, Brewer and colleagues have tested and found an interaction of the distinctiveness motive with one indicator of distinctiveness, group size (e.g., Brewer et al, 1993;Pickett, Silver, & Brewer, 2002). For example, Pickett et al instructed participants to think of a situation where they felt similar to others.…”

“…Although this distinction has not been explicitly made in social identity research before, it is evident in the operationalization of the belonging motive in some studies (e.g., see Pickett et al, 2002, as discussed above) and parallels Mael and Ashforth's (2001) distinction between the social identity functions of depersonalized belonging (''the sense of community based on the perception of common identity'') and personalized belonging (''attachment based on interpersonal attraction'', p. 201).…”