The Psychological Effects and Influencing Factors Of Common Ingroup Identity

Zhu Ting; Li Lingzhi; Wen Fangfang; Zuo Bin; Ju Yiyan; Long Jiahui

doi:10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20240222

PDF(503 KB)

Journal of Psychological Science ›› 2024, Vol. 47 ›› Issue (2) : 440-449. DOI: 10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20240222

Social, Personality & Organizational Psychology

The Psychological Effects and Influencing Factors Of Common Ingroup Identity

Zhu Ting^1,2, Li Lingzhi^1,2, Wen Fangfang^1,2, Zuo Bin^3,1, Ju Yiyan^1,2, Long Jiahui^1,2

Author information +

History +

Abstract

Social categorization is a labeling cue for identity in people's lives, and it is also a way for people to develop psychological identity. When individuals gain membership in a group, they tend to compare their in-group with out-group, identify positively with the group they belong to, and give more positive evaluations to in-group members. Common ingroup identity is the positive identification emotion that group members feel toward the new superior group after constructing a new superior group for members of different groups. It can produce positive effects such as promoting psychological integration, reducing intergroup prejudice, and increasing prosocial behavior. Yet, some studies have also found that the effects of common ingroup identity can be short-lived in the face of categorizations that have strong social identity significance (e.g., race and religion). However, previous studies have mostly focused on the positive effects of common ingroup identity, its negative effects have been less addressed. Therefore, this paper summarizes the different effects of common ingroup identity from both positive and negative perspectives, explores the various factors that influence its role, and puts forward directions for future research on common ingroup identity in the context of Chinese ethnic groups.
Common ingroup identity is the positive feeling of identification with a new group, which is the result of the process of reclassifying individuals who were previously viewed as members of different groups into a common and superior in-group identity. On the one hand, this reclassification of groups has been shown to be positive. It promotes intergroup psychological integration and thus, increases satisfaction with each other. It plays an important role in reducing intergroup prejudice and easing intergroup relations. It also increases prosocial and helping behaviors. On the other hand, common ingroup identity can also be negative. There is evidence that it can reduce trust, increase intergroup hostility and prejudice, and reduce prosocial behavior due to the emergence of superiority complexes. Based on the two diametrically opposite effects, and combined with some perspectives from ongoing research by related scholars in recent years, the key influences on shared in-group identity are further summarized: individual psychological attributes such as perceived similarity to different groups and motivation to form common ingroups, group attributes such as group size and group status, different situation types, and the methods of reclassification.
Common in-group identity provides an important pathway for promoting positive interactions between groups, but it can have both positive and negative effects under different conditions. We need to further advance and explore the areas related to common ingroup identity in the future. We should repeatedly test the contradictory results of the common ingroup identity effect in the and explore the causes behind it. Future studies could explore the interaction of various factors to find the boundary point for different effects and could adopt a new reclassification method to study the important direction of the common group identity of the floating population in combination with the current realistic background.

Key words

common ingroup identity / recategorization / intergroup relationship / positive effect / negative effect

Cite this article

EndNote

Ris (Procite)

Bibtex

Download Citations

Zhu Ting, Li Lingzhi, Wen Fangfang, Zuo Bin, Ju Yiyan, Long Jiahui. The Psychological Effects and Influencing Factors Of Common Ingroup Identity[J]. Journal of Psychological Science. 2024, 47(2): 440-449 https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20240222

References

[1] 丁川. (2019). 群际威胁引发攻击行为: 内群体认同的调节作用 (硕士学位论文). 上海师范大学.
[2] 高承海, 万明钢. (2018). 群际接触减少偏见的机制: 一项整合的研究. 心理科学, 41(4), 922-928.
[3] 管健, 方航. (2020). 铸牢中华民族共同体意识的结构面向与心理路径. 西北民族研究, 4, 17-21.
[4] 管健, 荣杨. (2020). 共同内群体认同:建构包摄水平更高的上位认同. 西北师大学报(社会科学版), 57(1), 39-49.
[5] 黄殷, 寇彧. (2013). 群体独特性对群际偏差的影响. 心理科学进展, 21(4), 732-739.
[6] 金瑞秸. (2018). 共同内群身份影响群际态度及其神经机制: 姓名的启动效应 (硕士学位论文). 西北师范大学, 兰州.
[7] 梁芳美. (2022). 共同内群体认同: 群体心理融合的机制. 心理学进展, 12(2), 574-581.
[8] 梁芳美, 肖子伦, 包燕, 赵玉芳. (2020). 共同内群体认同对心理融合的促进效应及其机制. 心理科学, 43(5), 1147-1153.
[9] 秦向荣. (2005). 中国11至20岁青少年的民族认同及其发展 (硕士学位论文). 华中师范大学, 武汉.
[10] 王俊秀, 周迎楠, 裴福华. (2021). 社会心理服务体系建设视角下铸牢中华民族共同体意识的路径——基于共同内群体认同理论. 民族学刊, 12(5), 17-23.
[11] 王沛, 刘峰. (2007). 社会认同理论视野下的社会认同威胁. 心理科学进展, 15(5), 822-827.
[12] 王亚如, 王晓明, 许云鹏. (2021). 积极想象接触可改善青少年的外群体态度: 再范畴化的中介作用. 心理研究, 14(4), 350-358.
[13] 温芳芳, 柯文琳, 何赛飞, 佐斌, 李兰心, 马书瀚, 王晶. (2022). 群体身份变换性对老年人印象更新的影响: 共同内群体认同的中介作用. 心理学报, 54(9), 1059-1075.
[14] 温芳芳, 佐斌. (2019). 社会分类的概念、线索及影响机制. 心理科学, 42(2), 395-401.
[15] 杨晓莉, 刘力. (2015). 藏族大学生的群体认同对跨民族交往的影响. 湖北民族学院学报(哲学社会科学版), 33(6), 163-167.
[16] 赵玉芳, 梁芳美. (2019). 共同内群体认同促进民族心理融合: 双向度测量与SC-IAT检验. 西北师大学报(社会科学版), 56(3), 99-107.
[17] 周天爽. (2017). 共同内群体认同下城市儿童群际帮助意愿的影响路径 (硕士学位论文). 华东师范大学, 上海.
[18] 周天爽, 胡琴, 崔丽娟. (2018). 共同内群体认同与群际帮助意愿: 群际威胁的中介作用. 心理研究, 11(4), 333-342.
[19] Aron A., Aron E. N., & Smollan D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 596-612.
[20] Bilancini E., Boncinelli L., Capraro V., Celadin T., & Di Paolo R. (2020). “Do the right thing” for whom? An experiment on ingroup favouritism, group assorting and moral suasion. Judgment and Decision Making, 15(2), 182-192.
[21] Bogardus, E. S. (1925). Measuring social distances. Journal of Applied Sociology, 9, 299-308.
[22] Brewer, M. B. (1996). When contact is not enough: Social identity and intergroup cooperation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20, 291-303.
[23] Brewer, M. B., & Gaertner, S. L. (2001). Toward reduction of prejudice: Intergroup contact and social categorization. In R. Brown & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intergroup processes (pp. 451-474). Blackwell Publishers.
[24] Brochu P. M., Banfield J. C., & Dovidio J. F. (2020). Does a common ingroup identity reduce weight bias? Only when weight discrimination is salient. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 3020.
[25] Brown, R. (1984). The Effects of Intergroup Similarity and Cooperative versus Competitive Orientation on Intergroup Discrimination. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23(1), 21-33.
[26] Çakal H., Eller A., Sirlopú D., & Pérez A. (2016). Intergroup relations in Latin America: Intergroup contact, common ingroup identity, and activism among indigenous groups in Mexico and Chile. Journal of Social Issues, 72(2), 355-375.
[27] Crisp R. J., Stone C. H., & Hall N. R. (2006). Recategorization and subgroup identification: Predicting and preventing threats from common ingroups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(2), 230-243.
[28] Cunningham, G. B. (2005). The importance of a common in-group identity in ethnically diverse groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 9(4), 251-260.
[29] Dale, K. R., & Moyer-Gusé, E. (2021). Interdependence in mediated intergroup contact: Exploring the common ingroup identity model in a fictional narrative. Journal of Media Psychology, 33(1), 5-15.
[30] Dovidio J. F., Gaertner S. L., & Saguy T. (2007). Another view of “we”: Majority and minority group perspectives on a common ingroup identity. European Review of Social Psychology, 18(1), 296-330.
[31] Dovidio J. F., Gaertner S. L., & Saguy T. (2009). Commonality and the complexity of “we”: Social attitudes and social change. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(1), 3-20.
[32] Dovidio J. F., Gaertner S. L., Ufkes, E. G. Saguy, T., & Pearson A. R. (2016). Included but invisible? Subtle bias, common identity, and the darker side of “we”. Social Issues and Policy Review, 10(1), 6-46.
[33] Dovidio J. F., Saguy T., Gaertner S. L. (2010). Appreciating the role of the “individual mind” in diversity science: Commonality, harmony, and social change. Psychological Inquiry, 21(2), 108-114.
[34] Drèze, X., & Nunes, J. C. (2009). Feeling superior: The impact of loyalty program structure on consumers' perceptions of status. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(6), 890-905.
[35] Fischer P., Greitemeyer T., Omay S. I., & Frey D. (2007). Mergers and group status: The impact of high, low and equal group status on identification and satisfaction with a company merger, experienced controllability, group identity and group cohesion. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 17(3), 203-217.
[36] Gaertner S., Guerra R., Rebelo M., Dovidio J., Hehman E., & Deegan, M. (2016). The common ingroup identity model and the development of a functional perspective: A cross-national collaboration. In J. Vala, S. Waldzus, & M. M. Calheiros (Eds.), The social developmental construction of violence and intergroup conflict (pp. 105-120). Springer International Publishing AG.
[37] Gaertner S. L.,& Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model Psychology Press The common ingroup identity model. Psychology Press.
[38] Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2005). Understanding and addressing contemporary racism: From aversive racism to the common ingroup identity model. Journal of Social Issues, 61(3), 615-639.
[39] Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2012). The common ingroup identity model. In P. A. M. van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 439-457). Sage Publications Ltd.
[40] Gaertner S. L., Dovidio J. F., Anastasio P. A., Bachman B. A., & Rust M. C. (1993). The common ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. European Review of Social Psychology, 4(1), 1-26.
[41] Gaertner S. L., Dovidio J. F., Nier J. A., Banker B. S., Ward C. M., Houlette M., & Loux S. (2000). The Common Ingroup Identity Model for reducing intergroup bias: Progress and challenges. In D. Capozza & R. Brown (Eds.), Social identity processes: Trends in theory and research (pp. 133-148). Sage Publications Ltd.
[42] Gómez Á., Dovidio J. F., Huici C., Gaertner S. L., & Cuadrado I. (2008). The other side of we: When outgroup members express common identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(12), 1613-1626.
[43] Guerra R., Waldzus S., Lopes D., Popa-Roch M., Lloret B., & Gaertner S. L. (2021). Little “we’s”: How common identities improve behavior differently for ethnic majority and minority children. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 24(3), 488-510.
[44] Hooghe, M., & Stiers, D. (2021). Regional identity and support for restrictive attitudes on immigration. Evidence from a household population survey in Ghent (Belgium). Ethnic and Racial Studies, 44(4), 698-717.
[45] Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000). Subgroup relations: A comparison of mutual intergroup differentiation and common ingroup identity models of prejudice reduction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(2), 242-256.
[46] Hu Y. Y., ul Hasan Abbasi N., Wang S., Zhou Y., Yang T., & Zhang Y. (2017). Implicit and explicit attitudes of Chinese youth toward the second-generation rich. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 45(3), 427-440.
[47] Jetten J., Spears R., & Postmes T. (2004). Intergroup distinctiveness and differentiation: A meta-analytic integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(6), 862-879.
[48] Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P. (1975). Joining together: Group theory and group skills. Prentice Hall.
[49] Klar, S. (2018). When common identities decrease trust: An experimental study of partisan women. American Journal of Political Science, 62(3), 610-622.
[50] Kunst J. R., Thomsen L., Sam D. L., & Berry J. W. (2015). “We are in this together”: Common group identity predicts majority members' active acculturation efforts to integrate immigrants. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(10), 1438-1453.
[51] Lemay E. P., Jr., & Ryan J. E. (2021). Common ingroup identity, perceived similarity, and communal interracial relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(6), 985-1003.
[52] Leung X. Y., Kim J., & Heitman S. (2022). Rethinking common ingroup identity model in minority restaurant messages: The moderating role of moral identity. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 107, Article 103352.
[53] Levine M., Prosser A., Evans D., & Reicher S. (2005). Identity and emergency intervention: How social group membership and inclusiveness of group boundaries shape helping behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(4), 443-453.
[54] Lin T., Ankudowich E., & Ebner N. C. (2017). Greater perceived similarity between self and own-age others in older than young adults. Psychology and Aging, 32(4), 377-387.
[55] López-Rodríguez L., Cuadrado I., & Navas M. (2017). I will help you because we are similar: Quality of contact mediates the effect of perceived similarity on facilitative behaviour towards immigrants. International Journal of Psychology, 52(4), 273-282.
[56] Loughnane J., Roth J., Rauner M., & Strack F. (2021). From student to employee: Group compatibility predicts group identification and intergroup attitudes. Identity, 21(2), 131-143.
[57] Moss S.,M. (2016). “Country first, politics later” reasons for dual recategorization in Zanzibari Narratives. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 22(4), 318-328.
[58] Montoya R. M., Horton R. S., & Kirchner J. (2008). Is actual similarity necessary for attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25(6), 889-922.
[59] Morton, T. A., & Postmes, T. (2011). Moral duty or moral defence? The effects of perceiving shared humanity with the victims of ingroup perpetrated harm. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(1), 127-134.
[60] Mullen B., Brown R., & Smith C. (1992). In-group bias as a function of salience, relevance, and status: An integration. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22(2), 103-122.
[61] Peltokorpi, V. (2020). Host country national employees' prosocial behavior toward expatriates in foreign subsidiaries: A common ingroup identity model perspective. International Business Review, 29(2), Article 101642.
[62] Phinney, J. S. (1992). The multigroup ethnic identity measure. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7(2), 156-176.
[63] Rios K., Halper L. R., & Scheitle C. P. (2022). Explaining anti-atheist discrimination in the workplace: The role of intergroup threat. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 14(3), 371-380.
[64] Rosenberg, A. S., & Treviño, L. K. (2003). A proposed model of between-group helping: An identity-based approach. Journal of Managerial Issues, 15(2), 154-174.
[65] Roth J., Steffens M. C., & Vignoles V. L. (2018). Group membership, group change, and intergroup attitudes: A recategorization model based on cognitive consistency principles. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 479.
[66] Rutchick, A. M., & Eccleston, C. P. (2010). Ironic effects of invoking common ingroup identity. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 32(2), 109-117.
[67] Sachdev, I., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1991). Power and status differentials in minority and majority relations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 1-24.
[68] Saguy T., Dovidio J. F., & Pratto F. (2008). Beyond contact: Intergroup contact in the context of power relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(3), 432-445.
[69] Shi Y. Y., Dang J. N., Zheng W. W., & Liu L. (2017). Dual identity and prejudice: The moderating role of group boundary permeability. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 195.
[70] Tajfel, H. (1972). Social categorization. English manuscript of “La categorisation sociale”. In S. Moscovici (Ed.), Introduction a la psychologie sociale (pp. 272-302). Larousse.
[71] Tajfel H., Billig M. G., Bundy R. P., & Flament C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149-178.
[72] Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Brooks/Cole.
[73] Toprakkiran, S., & Gordils, J. (2021) The onset of COVID-19, common identity, and intergroup prejudice. The Journal of Social Psychology, 161(4), 435-451.
[74] van Hoye, G., & Turban, D. B. (2015). Applicant-employee fit in personality: Testing predictions from similarity-attraction theory and trait activation theory. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 23(3), 210-223.
[75] van Leeuwen, E., & Mashuri, A. (2012). When common identities reduce between-group helping. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(3), 259-265.
[76] van Leeuwen, E., & Täuber, S. (2011). Demonstrating knowledge: The effects of group status on outgroup helping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(1), 147-156.
[77] Vezzali L., Stathi S., Crisp R. J., Giovannini D., Capozza D., & Gaertner S. L. (2015). Imagined intergroup contact and common ingroup identity. Social Psychology, 46(5), 265-276.
[78] Vorauer, J. D., & Sasaki, S. J. (2009). Helpful only in the abstract?: Ironic effects of empathy in intergroup interaction. Psychological Science, 20(2), 191-197.
[79] Wenzel M., Mummendey A., & Waldzus S. (2007). Superordinate identities and intergroup conflict: The ingroup projection model. European Review of Social Psychology, 18(1), 331-372.
[80] West T. V., Magee J. C., Gordon S. H., & Gullett L. (2014). A little similarity goes a long way: The effects of peripheral but self-revealing similarities on improving and sustaining interracial relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(1), 81-100.
[81] West T. V., Pearson A. R., Dovidio J. F., Shelton J. N., & Trail T. E. (2009). Superordinate identity and intergroup roommate friendship development. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(6), 1266-1272.
[82] Williams, M. J., & Eberhardt, J. L. (2008). Biological conceptions of race and the motivation to cross racial boundaries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(6), 1033-1047.
[83] Yao S. X., Ewoldsen D. R., Ellithorpe M. E., van Der Heide B., & Rhodes N. (2022). Gamer girl vs. girl gamer: Stereotypical gamer traits increase men's play intention. Computers in Human Behavior, 131, Article 107217.