types of ingroup identification as a function of group type

7/29/2019 Types of ingroup identification as a function of group type.

1/22

.

103

ANNUAIRE DE LUNIVERSITE DE SOFIA ST. KLIMENT OHRIDSKI

FACULTE DE PHILOSOPHIE

Livre PscholoieTome 103

119

TyPES OF INgROUP IDENTIFICATION AS A FUNCTION OF

gROUP TyPE

MILEN MILANOV*, MARK RUBIN**, STEFANIA PAOLINI**

* , ,

.

** , ,

* Department of General, Experimental, and Genetic Psychology, Soa University

** School of Psychology, University of Newcastle, Australia

Two empirical studies investiated the relation between different tpes of social roups andfour core tpes of inroup identication. It was hpothesized that particular tpes of roup wouldbe associated with particular tpes of inroup identication. With minor discrepancies acrosssamples, participants showed stroner social identication with social cateor roups, stronercommunal identication with intimac roups, and stroner interdependent identication withtask roups. The results conrmed predictions and provided sufcient evidence to conclude thatthe manifestation of different tpes of inroup identit varies as a function of the tpe of roup

that is most salient at the moment of identication.

. *, **, **. -

a . , -. , - , -

- -


2/22

120

. - , , - , - .

THEORETICAL BACKgROUND

The Group Type Hypothesis

Researchers have investiated different tpes of roups and proposed a raneof roup tpoloies (e.., Aharpour & Brown, 2002; Brewer, 2004; Caporael &Brewer, 1995; Deaux, Reid, Mizrahi, & Ethier, 1995; Lickel et al., 2000; Pickett,

Silver, & Brewer, 2002). For example, Deaux et al. (1995) identied ve distinctroup clusters based on personal relationships, vocations and hobbies, stima, po-litical afliation, and ethnicit or reliion. Caporael and Brewer (1995) proposeda four-level hierarchical model of roup structure distinuishin between dads,teams, demes, and tribes. More recentl, Lickel et al. (2000) found evidence forfour basic roup tpes: intimac roups, task roups, social cateor roups, andloose associations roups. Usin this roup tpolo, Johnson et al. (2006) exam-ined functional aspects of each tpe of roup and provided additional support forLickel et al.s (2000) distinction.

The above research suests that social roups differ alon a number of fac-tors, functions and relational principles in a relativel complex wa. Different tpesof roups possess different characteristics and serve different identit functions(Aharpour & Broun, 2002; Deaux et al., 1995) which will impact on the potentialfor havin different tpes of inroup identication with these roups. Consistentwith this idea, Leach et al. (2008) suested that individuals ma identif in dif-ferent was with different roups (p. 163), and Roccas, Saiv, Schwartz, Halev,& Eidelson (2008) proposed that people miht have a different prole of identi-cation with each roup (p. 295).

However, Leach et al. (2008) and Roccas et al. (2008) investiated and dis-cussed the constructs, or the modes, of inroup identication with larer, cateorbased roups (e.. Europeans, Dutch, Muslims, etc.). In contrast, the present re-search focuses on four different tpes of inroup identication (centralit, socialidentication, communal identication, and interdependent identication)and theirrelation with a variet of social roups that differ in size, meanin and purpose.

Centrality refers to the salience of the roup and the roup membership to-ether with the importance of the roup for an individuals self-concept. Socialidentication is based on the processes of self-cateorization and depersonaliza-

tion. Individuals who have a relativel hih level of social identication lose their


3/22

121

sense of individualit and perceive themselves as interchaneable members of theirroup. Communaland interdependentidentication, on the other hand, relate moreto the specic interpersonal processes throuh which roup members identif withother roup members without losin their sense of individualit. The ke aspectthat separates these two tpes of inroup identication is the particular tpe of

relationships (i.e., communal or exchane relationships) between the members ofthe roup. These relationships establish the nature of the interpersonal interactionin the inroup and determine individuals expectations that are associated with theroup membership (Clark & Mills, 1993; Mills & Clark, 1994).

Followin the above distinction between four core tpes of inroup identica-tion, we expected people to show stroner social identication with lare cateor-

based roups (e.., ethnicit, nationalit, reliion), because these roups bind in-dividuals toether based on perceived similarities and sense of interchaneabilit

between members. We also expected people to show stroner communal identica-

tion with intimac roups (e.., famil, close friendships), because these roupsbind individuals toether based on empath, close attachment, and stron sense ofcloseness between members. Finall, we expected people to show stroner interde-

pendent identication with task roups (e.., business partners, stud roups), be-cause roup members expect to receive comparable benets in return of the effortsthe invest in these tpes of roups.

In support of the above hpotheses, research b Lickel et al. (2006) and John-son et al. (2006) provided evidence that Lickel et al.s (2000) different tpes ofroups full conceptuall different pscholoical needs and are ruled b a concep-

tuall different relational models (as specied b Fiske, 1991).In particular, Lickel et al. (2000) revealed that people usuall distinuish be-

tween social cateories and dnamic roups (Wilder & Simon, 1998). Social cate-or roups are based on the perception of havin shared characteristics with otherinroup members, while dnamic roups are primaril associated with interper-sonal interaction and interdependence between the roup members. From the fourtpes of roup identication investiated in our research, onl social identicationinvolves the perception of similarit between roup members in the characteristicsthat the share. It could be expected then, that social identication will be most

stronl related to social cateories than to dnamic roups.Followin on Lickel et al.s (2000) work, Johnson et al. (2006) found that

intimac roups were to a lare extent related with the fullment of afliationneeds, while task roups were most stronl associated with the fullment ofachievement needs. However, their attempt to link social cateor roups withthe specic fullment of identication needs was unsuccessful because each ofthe investiated three tpes of roups appeared to satisf identit needs equallwell. These results are consistent with the main idea of the current work. Thesuest that all social roups full individuals identication needs and inroup

identication will occur with an roup in eneral. However, it is the focus of the


4/22

122

identication processes, and consequentl the tpe of identication, that mihtdiffer between roups. In other words, people will identif with their roup inorder to full their overall identit needs but some tpes of identication will

be more or less associated with the fullment of other particular needs (such asachievement or afliation) relative to the individuals specic roup membership.

The afliation needs are dened b emotional attachment and support betweenroup members and their fullment is most stronl related to intimac roup.given the specic characteristics of each of the investiated tpes of inroupidentication, it is communal identication then that should be primaril associ-ated with the fullment of such needs and, consequentl, with intimac roups.Membership in task roups, on the other hand, helps members full their needsof success and oal-achievement. Such motives and mechanisms are in the coreof interdependent identication, and therefore this tpe of identication should

be primaril associated with task roups.

In a stud aimin to further clarif the peculiarities of the roup clustersin Lickel et al.s (2000) roup taxonom, Lickel, Rutchick, Hamilton, & Sher-man (2006) investiated the relational principles (Fiske, 1991) that overn theinteractions in different tpes of roups. Based on the idea that tpe of membersinteraction is one of the main features that separate roup tpes, the researchers

proposed that participants perceptions of each roup tpe would be characterizedb a distinctive combination of relationship models. The four relational princi-ples, as specied b Fiske (1991) and used in Lickel et al.s (2006) research are:market pricin, equalit matchin, communal sharin, and authorit rankin. The

results of Lickel et al.s (2006) stud showed that intimac roups accounted forhiher levels of communal sharin and equalit matchin and low levels of mar-ket pricin. Task roups were associated with hiher market pricin and authoritrankin and lower communal sharin. Finall, social cateor roups were foundto have modest levels of equalit matchin and relativel low levels of otherrelational principles.

From the view point of the current work, two of the four relationship princi-ples: market pricin and communal sharin, are of a particular interest because thecorrespond to our concepts of interdependent and communal identication respec-

tivel. As Lickel et al.s (2006) pointed out, market pricin is uided b a calcula-tion of the utilit of the interaction (p. 29) while communal sharin is dened ba seless enerosit in the exchane of benets between roup members. Thesetwo different relational principles are consistent with previous research that drawsa distinction between exchane and communal relationships (Clark & Mills, 1979;Clark & Mills, 1993; Mills & Clark, 1994). In particular, the concept of communalsharin is relativel similar to the concept underlin communal relationships inClark and Mills (1979, 1993) work, while the concept of market pricin lies at thecore of exchane relationships. As discussed earlier, our distinction between com-

munal and interdependent identication is based on the distinction between com-


5/22

123

munal and exchane relationships. Communal identication is qualied in termsof close, communal relationships with the other roup members. Interdependentidentication is qualied b more instrumental, exchane-oriented relationshipswith other roup members. These theoretical connections between relational prin-ciples, tpes of relationships, and tpes of inroup identication once aain lead

to the conclusion that specic tpes of roups will be more or less associated withspecic tpes of inroup identication. In particular, iven the exact links betweenthe concepts explained above, task roups should be associated with hiher lev-els of interdependent identication and intimac roups should be associated withhiher levels of communal identication.

Finall, it should be noted that the intimac, task, and social cateor roupsused in this research are based on Lickel et al.s (2000) roup taxonom. However,we did not use a representative of Lickel et al.s loose associations roups (e..,

people waitin in a queue) because these roups have low levels of interaction, are

usuall short-lived, and tpicall function as a roup onl for purposes that are re-stricted in focus and onl temporar important (Lickel et al., 2006, p. 30). Hence,it is unlikel that people would be able to clearl identif with such roups.

Preliminary Studies and Findings

In two preliminar tests of the roup tpe hpotheses, we investiated therelationship between different tpes of roups and the four different tpes of in-roup identication (Milanov, Rubin & Paolini, 2010). In these studies, we used

the data from a sinle item that asked participants to tpe the top three roups thatthe thouht about as the completed a questionnaire related to roup identica-tion. Based on this item, we created three variables named intimac roup, taskroup and cateor roup. We then correlated these variables with four core tpesof inroup identication in order to reveal whether differences in the salience of

particular tpes of roups were related to differences in the extent of each tpe ofinroup identication.

Consistent with predictions, the results showed a sinicant positive correla-tion between communal identication and the extent to which people thouht about

intimac roups and a sinicant positive correlation between interdependent iden-tication and the extent to which people thouht about task roups. The results alsoshowed a sinicant neative correlation between interdependent identication andthe extent to which people thouht about intimac roups and a sinicant nea-tive correlation between communal identication and the extent to which peoplethouht about task roups. Finall, the results showed a sinicant positive cor-relation between intimac roups and centralit. These ndins provided prelimi-nar evidence that different tpes of roup are related to different tpes of inroupidentication.


6/22

124

STUDy 1

Overview

The current stud is a sstematic and extensive examination of the exact linkbetween different tpes of roups and different tpes of inroup identication. Inthe preliminar studies mentioned above, participants were able to consider varioustpes of roups simultaneousl when answerin the questionnaire. Participants inthese studies usuall identied with two or three different roups at the same timeand the roup related data needed to be processed and coded before analsis. In ad-dition, the correlational desin of the preliminar research lead to ambiuit aboutthe casual direction of the detected relationship between thinkin about differenttpes of roups and the strenth of different tpes of inroup identication. In con-

trast, in the present stud, we implemented three experimental between-subjectsconditions in which people were asked to think about onl one roup of a specictpe. Hence, each participant in the current stud identied with a sinle roup thatwas a representative of either intimac, task, or social cateor. This experimentalapproach allowed a clearer and more direct analsis of the effects of each rouptpe on different tpes of inroup identication.

Method

Participants. Durin a three-month period, we collected data from 143 par-ticipants. However, 14 participants did not full complete the questionnaire. Fol-lowin previousl adopted rules for such cases, these participant were consideredas havin withdrawn from the stud and their data was deleted. Furthermore, a ma-nipulation check item showed that some participants did not follow the instructionto think about the particular tpe of roup that the were asked to think about. Forexample, participants who were asked to think about one of their social cateorroups (e.., ender, reliion), reported that the would consider a task roup (e..,work colleaues, sport team) when completin the questionnaire. Based on the de-

tection of such a discrepanc, the data from 48 participants was excluded from theanalses. Hence, in this stud we analzed the data from 81 participants.Participants were 28 men and 53 women who raned in ae from 18 to 59

ears. The averae ae was 28.32 (SD = 10.36). Thirt eiht participants thouhtabout an intimac roup, 23 thouht about a task roup, and 20 thouht about asocial cateor roup.

Procedure and measures. The stud was presented on the internet usin com-puter-based software. The internet link for this stud was placed in a number ofwebsites that list online pscholoical surves (i.e., www.socialpscholo.or;

http://enpslab-wexlist.unizh.ch/; www.pschresearch.or.uk). People from all


7/22

125

over the world willin to participate were able to complete the questionnaire at antime from an computer with internet access. All participants completed a sinlequestionnaire consistin of the 20-item version of the Centralit, Social, Commu-nal and Interdependent Identication Scale-CSCIIS (Milanov, Rubin & Paolini,2010) that measures four different tpes of inroup identication simultaneousl.

Participants were randoml assined to different conditions and received one ofthree different instructions. Each instruction asked participants to consider eitheran intimac roup, a task roup, or a social cateor roup when answerin thequestionnaire. All three tpes of roups were rst identied and brie explained.

A manipulation check item after the instruction asked participants to tpe theexact roup that the would think about. The purpose of this item was to revealwhether or not participants had followed the received instruction and thouht aboutthe specic tpe of roup that the were asked to think about. It took participantsapproximatel 15 minutes to complete the research stud.

Results

To investiate the impact that thinkin about different tpes of roup had ondifferent tpes of inroup identication, we conducted a series of one-wa betweensubject ANOVAs with the tpe of roup as an independent variable and each tpeof identication as a dependent variable. As expected, different tpes of roup en-hanced different tpes of inroup identication.1

First, there was a sinicant effect of roup tpe on social identication,F(2,

78) = 8.54,p < .01, p= .18. Levenes test for homoeneit of variances revealed asinicant violation of the assumption of homoeneit of variance (p < .01). There-fore, we used games-Howells post hoc test in our follow-up analses because it isdesined for unequal variances and unequal sample sizes. Consistent with predic-tions, the results showed that participants had sinicantl hiher social identica-tion with social cateor roups (M= 3.51) compared to task roups (M= 2.50;p< .01) and intimac roups (M= 2.70;p < .05). There was no sinicant difference

between participants social identication with task roups (M= 2.50) and intimacroups (M= 2.70;p = .39). Fiure 1 illustrates the mean scores on social identica-

tion for the three different tpes of roups.

1 We also conducted a second series of ANOVAs that included the data from the 48participants who were initiall excluded from the analsis. These participants indicated in theiranswers that the would think about a roup that was different from the roup that the wereasked to think about. For the purpose of this additional investiation, participants answerswere coded accordin to the roup that the decided to think about, even if it did not matchthe instruction. In terms of the tpe of roup-tpe of identication relationships, the patternof results that emered from this analsis was identical to the pattern reported. All sinicanteffects of roup tpe on tpe of identication were the same.


8/22

126

Fig. 1. Differences in the mean scores of social identication as a function of roup tpe.

Second, there was a sinicant effect of roup tpe on interdependent identi-cation,F(2, 78) = 14.88,p < .01,

p= .28. Levenes test aain revealed a sinicant

violation of the assumption of homoeneit of variance (p < .01). Therefore, for thefollow-up analses we used games-Howells post-hoc test. Consistent with predic-tions, the results showed that participants had sinicantl hiher interdependentidentication with task roups (M= 2.99) compared to intimac roups (M= 1.92;

p < .01). The results also showed that participants had sinicantl hiher interde-pendent identication with social cateor roups (M= 2.55) than with intimacroups (M= 1.92; p < .01). There was no sinicant difference between partici-

pants interdependent identication with task roups (M= 2.99) and social cateorroups (M= 2.55;p = .15). Fiure 2 illustrates the mean scores on interdependent

identication for the three different tpes of roups.Finall, there was a sinicant effect of roup tpe on communal identica-

tion,F(2, 78) = 11.74,p < .01, p= .23. There was no violation of the assumption

of homoeneit of variances in this case (p = .52). Therefore, for further anal-sis we used Fishers (1935) Least Sinicant Difference post-hoc tests. Consist-ent with predictions, participants had sinicantl hiher communal identicationwith intimac roups (M= 4.22) compared to task roups (M= 3.38;p < .01) andsocial cateor roups (M= 3.85;p = .04). There was also a sinicant difference

between participants communal identication with social cateor roups (M=

3.85) and task roups (M= 3.38;p = .02). Fiure 3 illustrates the mean scores on


9/22

127

communal identication for the three different tpes of roups. The effect of rouptpe on centralit was not sinicant,F(2, 78) = 1.25,p = .29.

Fig. 2. Differences in the mean scores on interdependent identication as a function of rouptpe.

Fig. 3. Differences in the mean scores on communal identication as a function

of roup tpe


10/22

128

DISCUSSION

The group type hypothesis. The main aim of this stud was to investiatethe impact that thinkin about different tpes of roup has on different tpes ofinroup identication. We expected that (a) identifin with social cateor roups

would be associated with a relative increase in participants social identication,(b) identifin with task roups would be associated with a relative increase inparticipants interdependent identication, and (c) identifin with intimac roupswould be associated with a relative increase in participants communal identica-tion. The results supported the initial ndins from the analses conducted in the

preliminar studies and conrmed the above hpotheses. People who thouht aboutsocial cateor roups showed sinicantl hiher social identication than peoplewho thouht about intimac roup or task roup. This means that people were more

prone to perceive themselves as more tpical and interchaneable members of their

roup (i.e., social identication) in roups that were relativel lare, lon-lastin,more abstract, and enerall low in interaction (i.e., social cateor roups).People who thouht about task roups showed sinicantl hiher interde-

pendent identication than people who thouht about intimac roups. These re-sults mean that people were more prone to perceive themselves as havin instru-mental, exchane based relationships with other roup members (i.e., interdepend-ent identication) in roups that are relativel small, of modest duration, fairlhih in interaction and have shared common outcomes between members (i.e., taskroups). However, it should be noted here that the above conclusion was found to

be valid onl in comparison to intimac roups; the difference between partici-pants interdependent identication with task and with social cateor roups wasnot sinicant. Moreover, iven that the data revealed a sinicantl hiher inter-dependent identication with social cateor roups than with intimac roups,social cateor roups miht also been seen as enhancin exchane based form ofidentication when compared to intimac roups.

Finall, people who thouht about intimac roups showed sinicantl hihercommunal identication than people who thouht about task roups or social cat-eor roup. This means that people were more prone to perceive themselves to be

in ver close communal relationships that involve empath and carrin for the otherroup members (i.e., communal identication) in roups that are usuall small, lonlastin, ver hih in interaction, and difcult to join or leave (i.e., intimac roups).In addition, participants communal identication with social cateor roups wassinicantl stroner than their communal identication with task roups. This lastresult shows that compared to both, intimac and social cateor roups, identica-tion with task roups involves less close relationships between the roup members.

The interpretation of the above results, however, does not impl that identif-in with one specic roup will involve onl one tpe of identication. It means

that identifin with a roup will boost the tpe of identication that is primaril


11/22

129

associated with that roups tpe and this specic tpe of identication will becomestroner than the others. In some cases, this apparent increase could be due to de-creases in other tpes of identication. For example, identifin with an intimacroup would boost ones communal identication but it would also probabl lead tothe decrease in ones interdependent identication with that same roup. Consistent

with this idea, the results of the preliminar studies revealed a sinicant neativecorrelation between communal and interdependent identication.

Overall, the fact that participants social, communal, and interdependent iden-tication were found to increase in strenth separatel from each other dependinon the tpe of social roup that was made salient conrmed the validit of theseconstructs and supported the distinction between them. Consistent with predictions,this studs ndins showed that different tpes of roups are sinicantl con-nected with different tpes of inroup identication. Identifin with a particulartpe of roup usuall enhanced onl one tpe of identication that is most stronl

related to the tpe of roup in question. Further research in this direction couldexplore the interestin fact that social cateor roups in this stud are found to bemost closel related to participants in terms of depersonalization but at the sametime these roups appear to have less identit value and are less assessable whencompared to intimac and task roups

Study limitations. Two limitations of the present research should be pointedout. First, a relativel lare number of participants did not follow the studs maininstruction to think about an exact tpe of roup. Althouh an explanation of theused roup tpolo (intimac, task, social cateor) was iven, those participants

considered a roup that was not of the roup tpe the were asked to think about.Consequentl, we excluded data from 48 participants from our main analses. Oneof the reasons for this problem could be that the instructions for the stud were notclear enouh, and some participants had problems understandin and followinthem. Another possibilit is that the task was not as eas as it was supposed to beand, for some reason, participants found it difcult to think about certain tpes ofroups (social cateories in particular). In support of the last assumption, in a rouplistin experiment, Lickel et al. (2000) found that participants in their stud listedintimac and task roups much more frequentl than social cateor roups. In

addition, social cateor roups were listed at later point, after intimac and taskroups. In order to avoid similar problems, in the subsequent stud presented in thiswork participants will be provided with a specic roup to think about. This roupwill be clearl identiable as bein either, social cateor, intimac or task roup.

The second limitation concerns the size of the sample that had been emploedin this stud. The current research reports results of analses that use data from 81

participants and therefore some of the ndins need to be treated with caution. Itis commonl accepted that larer samples are needed to obtain reater statistical

power. Therefore, a relativel bier sample of participants needs to be recruited

in further studies.


12/22

130

STUDy 2

Previous Investigations of the Group Type Hypothesis

Membership in social roups is an important part of ones self denition (Deaux

et al., 1995). It is areed in the pscholo literature that social roups differ inman aspects and possess diverse identit functions. However, no research has

particularl focused on the relationship between different tpes of inroup identi-cation and a variet of distinct tpes of social roups.

Stud 1 of the present work was specicall desined to assess the relation-ships between different tpes of roups and four different tpes of inroup identi-cation. Participants in this stud were randoml assined to one of three roup tpeconditions: intimac roup, task roup, and social cateor roup. The were thenasked to think about onl one roup that represented the specic roup tpe condi-tion to which the had been allocated. This procedure allowed a more controlledand precise analsis of the effects that thinkin about different tpes of roups hason different tpes of inroup identication.

The results of Stud 1 supported preliminar ndins and were consistent withall three predictions in the roup tpe hpothesis. In particular, people who thouhtabout an intimac roup showed sinicantl hiher communal identication than

people who thouht about a task or social cateor roup. Furthermore, people whothouht about a task roup showed sinicantl hiher interdependent identica-tion than people who thouht about an intimac roup. Finall, people who thouhtabout a social cateor roup showed sinicantl hiher social identication than

people who thouht about an intimac or task roup.However, there was one limitation of Stud 1 that needed to be carefull con-

sidered. A relativel lare number of participants did not understand or had dif-culties followin the studs main instruction to think about one roup from theroup tpe the were iven. For example, participants who were asked to thinkabout one of their social cateor roups (e.., ender, reliion), reported that thewould think about a task roup (e.., work colleaues, sport team) when complet-in the questionnaire. As a consequence of this, 48 participants were excluded fromthe analses because their responses to the manipulation check item indicated thatthe considered a roup that was not representative of the roup tpe that thewere asked to think about. The exclusion of these 48 participants resulted in a lostof statistical power.

The Present Study

This stud is another, more precise, investiation of the hpothesis that think-in about different roups would be more or less associated with different tpes of

inroup identication. It was desined to overcome the problems encountered in


13/22

131

Stud 1 and aimed to provide clearer and stroner evidence for the expected rela-tionships between particular tpes of roups and particular tpes of inroup iden-tication. The research instructions and task were made easier for participants tounderstand and follow. Instead of assinin participants to one of the three broaderroup tpe conditions and then askin them to think about a roup of this tpe, par-

ticipants were simpl iven a roup of a particular tpe for consideration.Followin Wells and Windschitls (1999) advice reardin stimulus samplin,

we selected two specic social roups to represent each of three main roup tpesthat were investiated: Ae roup and ender roup represented lare-scale socialcateories, famil and roup of friends represented intimac roups, and courseand universit represented task-based roups. This approach was intended to un-confound the idiosncrasies of the specic roups that we used from the broaderroup tpe that each roup was intended to represent (i.e., samplin more than onestimulus to represent the independent variable). Consistent with Stud 1, the roup

tpes and the specic roups that represented each roup tpe were based on theorand research b Lickel et al. (2000, 2006).

In addition to the above methodoloical chanes, we made a few alterationsto the version of the CSCIIS that was used in this stud. In order to have an equalnumber of items in all subscales and to make the overall scale slihtl shorter andquicker to complete, we used a 16-item version of CSCIIS that excluded itemsmeasurin lobal identication and two of the four salience items associated withcentralit. Finall, the previousl used 5-point Likert-tpe response scale was re-

placed with a 7-point scale of the same tpe in order investiate the internal reli-

abilit of the CSCIIS with different response scales.

Method

Participants. Durin a two-week period, we collected data from 336 partic-ipants. All participants were rst ear underraduate pscholo students at theUniversit of Newcastle, Australia and all of them received course credit for their

participation in the research. Nineteen participants indicated that the did not wanttheir responses to be included in the analsis. The data from these 19 participants

was deleted. Hence, in this stud we analzed the data from 317 participants.Participants were 63 men and 254 women with an averae ae of 23.33 (SD =

8.55). Fift one participants were assined to think about their ae roup, 51 to thinkabout their ender roup, 58 to think about famil roup, 56 to think about a roup offriends, 52 to think about their course, and 49 to think about the universit.

Procedure and measures. The stud was presented on the internet usin com-puter-based software. Participation was anonmous. All participants completed asinle questionnaire consistin of the 16-item version of the CSCIIS. At the bein-nin of the research, a computer proram randoml assined participants to one

of six experimental conditions (ae roup, ender roup, famil, roup of friends,


14/22

132

course, and universit). Participants in different conditions responded to differentversions of the CSCIIS. Each version differed with respect to the tpe of roup thatwas referred to as the taret roup in each CSCIIS statement.

Participants were provided with one of six sets of instructions dependin onthe condition to which the had been randoml allocated. Each set of instructions

asked participants to consider onl one particular roup (i.e., ender roup, roupof friends, pscholo course) when answerin the questionnaire. The stud tookapproximatel 20 minutes to complete. Participants responded to all statementsusin a 7-point Likert-tpe scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 4 =Neutral, 7 = Strongly

Agree) and then provided their ae and ender.

Results

To investiate the impact that thinkin about different tpes of roup had on dif-

ferent tpes of inroup identication, we conducted two separate series of one-wabetween-subject ANOVAs. For the rst set of analses, we coded each of the six dif-ferent roups in the stud condition accordin to their broader roup tpe cateor.Famil and friends were coded as intimac roups, ae roup and ender were codedas social cateor roups, and course and universit were coded as task roups. Werefer to this set of analses as involvin broad group type. For the second set of anal-ses, we used all six specic roups without further codin. We refer to this second setof analses as involvinspecic group type. For both sets of analses, we conducteda series of one-wa between-subject ANOVAs with roup tpe as the independent

variable and each tpe of identication as a dependent variable.Broad group type. First, there was a sinicant effect of broad roup tpe on

communal identication, F(2, 314) = 38.52, p < .01, p = .20. For further analsis we

used Fishers (1935) Least Sinicant Difference post-hoc tests. Consistent with pre-dictions and Studs 1 ndins, the results showed that participants who thouht aboutintimac roups had sinicantl hiher communal identication (M = 5.76) than par-ticipants who thouht about task roups (M = 4.60; p < .01) or social cateor roups(M = 5.27; p < .01). The results also showed that participants who thouht about socialcateor roups had sinicantl hiher communal identication (M = 5.27) than

participants who thouht about task roups (M = 4.60; p < .01). Fiure 4 illustrates themean scores on communal identication for the three different tpes of roups.

Second, there was a sinicant effect of broad roup tpe on centralit,F(2,314) = 13.78, p < .01,

p = .05. Levenes test for homoeneit of variances re-

vealed a sinicant violation of the assumption of homoeneit of variance (p =.05). Therefore, we used games-Howells post hoc test in our follow-up analses

because it is desined for situations in which there are unequal variances and un-equal sample sizes. The results showed that participants who thouht about so-cial cateor roups scored sinicantl lower on centralit (M= 3.88) compared

to participants who thouht about intimac roups (M= 4.52; p < .01) and task


15/22

133

roups (M= 4.50;p < .01). There was no sinicant difference in centralit rat-ins between participants who thouht about intimac roups and participants whothouht about task roups. Fiure 5 illustrates the mean scores on centralit for thethree different tpes of roups. The effects of broad roup tpe on social identica-tion and on interdependent identication were not sinicant (ps > .40).

Fig.4. Differences in the mean scores on communal identication as a function of broad

roup tpe.

Fig. 5. Differences in the mean scores on centralit as a function of broad roup tpe.


16/22

134

Specic group type. In a second series of ANOVAs, we used all six differentroups as an independent variable and each of the investiated tpes of inroupidentication as dependent variables. Consistent with the broad roup tpe anal-ses, there was a sinicant effect of specic roup tpe on communal identication,F(5, 311) = 15.36, p < .01,

p = .20. For further analsis, we used Fishers (1935)

Least Sinicant Difference post-hoc tests. Consistent with predictions, partici-pants who thouht about their famil roup (M = 5.74) had sinicantl hihercommunal identication than participants who thouht about their ae roup (M =5.29; p = .02), ender roup (M = 5.25; p = .01), course roup (M = 4.55; p < .01),or universit roup (M = 4.65; p < .01). Furthermore, participants who thouhtabout their roup of friends (M = 5.78) had sinicantl hiher communal identi-cation than participants who thouht about their ae roup (M = 5.29; p < .01),ender roup (M = 5.25; p < .01), course roup (M = 4.55; p < .01), or universitroup (M = 4.65; p < .01). Consistent with the assumption that famil and roup

of friends provided comparable representations of intimac roups, there was nosinicant difference in communal identication between participants who thouhtabout their famil (M = 5.74) and roup of friends (M = 5.78, p = .81).

Interestinl, we also found a sinicant difference in communal identicationbetween participants who thouht about either of the social cateor roups (i.e.,ender and ae) and either of the task roups (i.e., course and universit). Partici-

pants who thouht about their ae roup had sinicantl hiher communal iden-tication (M= 5.29) than participants who thouht about their course (M= 4.55;

p < .01) and universit (M= 4.65;p < .01). Participants who thouht about their

ender roup also had sinicantl hiher communal identication (M= 5.25) thanparticipants who thouht about their course (M= 4.55;p < .01) and universit (M= 4.65;p < .01). No other sinicant differences in participants communal iden-tication were found (ps > .58). Fiure 6 illustrates the mean scores on communalidentication for each of the six different roups.

here was also a sinicant effect of specic roup tpe on centralit, F(5,311) = 12.52, p < .01,

p= .17. Levenes test for homoeneit of variances re-

vealed a sinicant violation of the assumption of homoeneit of variances (p .10). Fiure 8 illustrates the mean scoreson social identication for each of the six different roups.

Fig. 8. Differences in the mean scores on social identication as a function of specic rouptpe.

Discussion

The group type hypothesis. The main purpose of this stud was to investiatethe relationship between different tpes of roups and different tpes of inroupidentication. The results full supported Stud 1s ndins related to communalidentication. As expected, participants in the broader intimac roup condition(famil and roup of friends) showed sinicantl hiher communal identicationthan participants in the broader social cateories condition (ender and ae) or the

task roup condition (course and universit). The second analsis that used the six


19/22

137

specic roups as an independent variable revealed that participants who thouhtabout their famil or their friends scored sinicantl hiher on communal iden-tication than participants who thouht about an of the other four roups. Thissupported the initial idea that communal identication is primaril associated withintimac roups, and identifin with such a roup/s will sinicantl enhance

onl this particular tpe of identication in comparison to the others.The pattern of results for social identication was not as clear as the pattern for

communal identication. The effect of broad roup tpe on social identication wasnot sinicant. However, the specic roup tpe analsis provided partial supportfor predictions concernin social identication. Consistent with these predictions,

participants who thouht about their ender roup had sinicantl hiher socialidentication than participants who thouht about either their roup of friends ortheir course. Surprisinl, the results also showed hiher social identication withender roups compared to ae roups. Such ndins suest that these two roups

were not equall representative of social cateories, at least in terms of the socialidentication that the promote. This diverence between ender and ae roupsma explain the null ndins in the broad roup tpe analsis, where these tworoup tpes were coded as social cateories. Future research ma wish to consideran alternative representative to ae as an instance of a social cateor (such as raceor reliion for example).

In addition to the above ndins related to social and communal identication,the current stud revealed a sinicant effect of roup tpe on centralit. Thesendins suest that some tpes of roups are more or less salient than others, and

that people usuall perceive these roups as more or less important for the self. Inparticular, participants in the broader social cateor roup condition scored si-nicantl lower on centralit than participants who thouht about intimac or taskroups. This result is consistent with Lickel et al.s (2000) ndins which showedthat people valued their memberships in a social cateor roups less than theirmemberships in task or intimac roups.

In summar, the results of the current stud conrmed our prior ndins thatidentifin with a roup of a particular tpe will usuall account for an increase ofone particular tpe of inroup identication. Participants communal and, in most

cases, social identication were once aain found to be sinicantl hiher withintimac and social cateor roups respectivel. Althouh no evidence for the

previousl detected sinicantl stroner interdependent identication with taskroups (Stud 1) was found in this stud, the present results are larel consistentwith the predictions of the roup tpe hpothesis.

Study limitations. Two limitations of the current research should be consid-ered. One limitation concerns the specic roups that were selected to representthe three broader roup tpes. It was initiall assumed that both roups in each

pair will be equall representative of one broader roup tpe. However, there were

some discrepancies in the results particularl related to the tpe of inroup identi-


20/22

138

cation that some of these specic roups promoted. Future research miht need toselect a wider rane of roups to represent each cateor.

Second, we should note here that Lickel et al. (2000) listed students at a uni-versit as a loose association roup. However, iven the student sample of partici-

pants emploed in this stud, we believed that this specic roup is better conceived

as a task roup. Unlike Lickel et al.s (2000, 2006) denition that loose associationsroups are of short duration, have transient importance and are limited in focus, theuniversit for a universit student is relativel lon-lastin, fairl important, andmainl task oriented social unit. Hence, in this particular stud, universit was usedas representative of the task roup cateor. In support of this decision, the resultsof the analses showed that participants who thouht about their universit scoredsinicantl hiher on centralit than participants who thouht about their roup offriends. Such ndins suest that universit was perceived to be more than simplloose association roup.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

A ke aim of the present research was to investiate whether the variet of so-cial roups that shape individuals social life would be associated with variations inmanifested tpes of inroup identication. Lickel et al. (2000) proposed that peopleenerall distinuish between social cateories (e.., nationalit, reliion), intimacroups (e.., famil, close friends), and task roups (e.., juries, stud roups). In acomparison of identication amon intimac, task, and social cateor roups, John-

son et al. (2006) found that all three roup tpes served identit needs equall well(p. 717). However, one important question stemmin from this line of research waswhether or not the same mechanisms underlie identication with different tpes ofsocial roups. Researchers have suested that tpe of identication ma differ be-tween roups and that individuals identication proles ma be different for eachroup that the consider to be relevant for themselves (Leach et al., 2008; Roccas etal., 2008). The majorit of previous research in the area, however, has assessed lobalroup identication in eneral or different tpes of identication in relation to broad,cateor-based social roups. In contrast, our research looked at four different tpes

of roup identication and examined their variations as a function of three particularroup tpes that differed in a number of characteristics.

We proposed that identifin with different tpes of social roups would beassociated with hiher levels of particular tpes of inroup identication with theseroups. More specicall, we hpothesized that people would have stroner socialidentication with social cateor roups, stroner communal identication withintimac roups, and stroner interdependent identication with task roups. Theresults of preliminar tests of the above hpotheses conrmed prediction with re-ards to communal and interdependent identication. Scores on communal iden-

tication were positivel correlated with the extent to which participants thouht


21/22

139

about intimac roups and scores on interdependent identication were positivelcorrelated with the extent to which participants thouht about task roups. Think-in about intimac roups was also positivel correlated with centralit. However,there were some discrepancies in the ndins. This was probabl because or pre-liminar tests were not specicall desined to investiate the tpe of roup-tpe

of identication relationship and at the moment of assessment participants in eachstud thouht about at least three roups of different tpes. In contrast, the pri-mar aim of Studies 1 and 2 reported in this paper, was to examine the effectsthat particular tpes of roups had on particular tpes of inroup identication.Once aain, however, the ndins slihtl differed between the two studies. Theresults of Stud 1 supported all initial hpotheses reardin social, communal andinterdependent identication. Unexpectedl, the results of Stud 2 full supported

predictions onl in relation to centralit and communal identication and partiallsupported predictions concernin social identication.

However, despite the lack of full consistenc across studies with reards tocentralit and interdependent identication, the research provided sufcient evi-dence to conclude that the manifestation of different tpes of identication variesas a function of the tpe of roup that is most salient at the particular moment. Theresults could be seen as compatible with the idea that roups often serve a varietof identit functions (Aharpour & Brown, 2002), and one roup miht have a dif-ferent role and meanin for the identifin individuals. Hence, dependin on the

particular situation, it is sometime possible that people identif in a relativel dif-ferent wa with roups of the same tpe (Roccas et al., 2008). For example, an ae

roup for an underraduate student miht include some of his/her friends, makin itboth a social cateor and an intimac roup. Such a possibilit would make iden-tication with that roup a complex manifestation of more than one tpe of inroupidentication (i.e., social and communal in this case). In support of this assumption,

participants (all underraduate students) who thouht about social cateor roups(ae and ender) in Stud 2 had sinicantl hiher communal identication than

participants who thouht about task roups. Similar interactions between socialcontext and other particular roups in the student sample of Stud 2 could possiblexplain the discrepancies between the results of the two studies that specicall

tested the tpe of roup hpothesis.Past research in this area has focused on the properties and functions of dif-

ferent tpes of roups and investiated their relations with various processes andphenomena such as self-esteem, interroup conict, discrimination, prejudice, androup identication in eneral (e.., Aharpour & Brown, 2002; Deaux et al., 1995;Johnson et al., 2006; Lickel et al., 2006, Prentice, Miller, & Lihtdale, 1994). How-ever, to our knowlede, the present work is the rst to explore the link between par-ticular tpes of roups and four distinct tpes of inroup identication. The resultsdemonstrated the important role that tpe of roup can pla in promotin different

mechanisms of identication with the inroup.


22/22

140

REFERENCES

Aharpour, S., & Brown, R. (2002). Functions of roup identication: An explorator analsis.Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 15, 157186.

Brewer, M. B. (2004). Takin the Social Oriins of Human Nature Seriousl: Toward a More

Imperialist Social Pscholo.Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 107113.Carporael, L., & Brewer, M. (1995). Hierarchical evolutionar theor: There is an alternative

and its not creationism.Psychological Inquiry, 6, 3134.Clark, M., & Mills, J. (1993). The difference between communal and exchane relationships:

What it is and is not.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 684691.Clark, M., & Mills, J. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchane and communal relationships.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1224.Deaux, K., Reid, A., Mizrahi, K., & Ethier, K. A. (1995). Parameters of social identit.Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 280291.Fiske, A. P. (1991). Structures of social life: The four elementar forms of human relations:

Communal sharin, authorit rankin, equalit matchin, market pricin. New york: FreePress.

Johnson, A., Crawford, M., Sherman, S., Rutchick, A., Hamilton, D., Ferreira, M., & Petrocelli,J. (2006). A functional perspective on roup memberships: Differential need fulllment ina roup tpolo.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 707719.

Leach, C., van Zomeren, M., Zebel, S., Vliek, M. L., Pennekamp, S. F., Doosje, B., et al. (2008).group-level self-denition and self-investment: A hierarchical (multicomponent) modelof in-roup identication.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 144165.

Lickel, B., Hamilton, D. L., Wieczorkowska, G., Lewis, A., Sherman, S. J., & Uhles, A. N.(2000). Varieties of roups and the perception of roup entitativit.Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 78, 223246.

Lickel, B., Rutchick, A. M., Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, S. J. (2006). Intuitive theories of rouptpes and relational principles.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 2839.Milanov, M., Rubin, M., & Paolini, S. (2010). Different tpes of inroup identication as a

function of culture, roup status, attachment stle, and roup tpe. Australian DigitalTheses. http://hdl.handle.net/1959.13/44661.

Mills, J. & Clark, M., S. (1994). Communal and exchane relationships: Controversies andresearch. In R. Erber, & R gilmour (Eds), Theoretical frameworks for personal relation-ships (pp. 2942). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Pickett, C., Silver, M., & Brewer, M. (2002). The impact of assimilation and differentiationneeds on perceived roup importance and judments of inroup size.Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin, 28, 546558.

Prentice, D., Miller, D., & Lightdale, J. (1994). Asmmetries in attachments to roups and totheir members: Distinuishin between common-identit and common-bond roups.Per-sonality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 484493.

Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S., Halevy, N., & Eidelson, R. (2008). Toward a unifin modelof identication with roups: Interatin theoretical perspectives.Personality and SocialPsychology Review, 12, 280307.

Wells, G. L., & Windschitl, P. D. (1999). Stimulus samplin and social pscholoical experi-mentation.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 11151125.

Wilder, D., & Simon, A. F. (1998). Cateorical and dnamic roups: Implication for socialperception and interroup behavior. In C. Sedikides, J. Schopler, & C. Insko (Eds.),Inter-group cognition and intergroup behavior(pp. 2744). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

types of ingroup identification as a function of group type

Documents