Introduction
“Brewer (1991, 1993a, 1993b; Brewer & Pickett, 1999)
points out that the need for assimilation and the need for differentiation work
in opposition to each other. Thus, at high levels of group inclusiveness (i.e.,
groups that contain a large number of members), there will be very little arousal
of the need for assimilation but high arousal of the need for differentiation.
At very low levels of group inclusiveness, there will be very little arousal of
the need for differentiation but high arousal of the need for assimilation. Movement
toward extreme deindividuation of the self (which should be more likely for a
member of a highly inclusive group) should activate the drive for
differentiation and movement toward extreme individuation should activate the
need for assimilation.” (p. 546)
“Integral to ODT (Brewer, 1991) is the idea that one way
that humans go about satisfying their assimilation and differentiation needs is
by identifying with social groups. Individuals seek social assimilation and
group inclusion to alleviate or ward off the isolation or stigmatization that
may result from being highly individuated. When we adopt a particular social
identity, our sense of self is extended beyond the individual level.”
The basic premise is that when people feel more of a need
for assimilation, people should be drawn to inclusive groups (large groups).
Moreover, they should pick more inclusive ingroup identities (e.g.,
nationality) compared with more exclusive ingroup identities.
“[T]he importance attached to a particular social group
identity should vary as a function of the relative strength of assimilation and
differentiation needs and the level of inclusiveness of the social group.” (p.
547)
“The research reviewed also indicates that differentiation
need arousal leads to responses that decrease the number of similar others
(Simon et al., 1997) or enhance intergroup distinctiveness (via intragroup
similarity and enhanced stereotypical perceptions of the ingroup and outgroup).
These responses can help individuals achieve a sense of distinctiveness at the
group level, thereby satisfying the need for differentiation.” (p. 548)
Pilot Study
“Participants were randomly assigned to receive one of three
types of feedback regarding a personality test that they had taken at the
beginning of the school term. In the differentiation need condition,
participants were told that they were chosen to be part of the study because
their personality test indicated that they fell into a very common personality
category. In the assimilation need condition, participants were told that they
were selected for the study because they fell into a very rare personality category.
In the no need arousal condition, participants were simply told that they were
asked to participate in order for the experimenter to get a representative sample
of the various personality types in the population. After receiving this
feedback, participants then were asked to indicate their level of
identification with one very inclusive identity (“people your own age”) and one
relatively exclusive identity (chosen idiosyncratically for each participant).
Results of this study revealed a significant interaction between need state and
group inclusive- ness, which indicated that participants who received
differentiation need feedback exhibited significantly greater identification
with their exclusive ingroup identity than did assimilation need and no need
arousal participants. The results of this pilot study are informative because
they suggest that need arousal may indeed be an important determinant of the
types of group identities that individuals find most important and satisfying
at a particular time.”
NOTE: Importantly, this shows that the need for
distinctiveness is subject to arousal, and may not represent a more stable
property of an individual.
Study 1:
Need state manipulations: Subjects (students) were
asked to recall two instances from their past where they felt either extremely
individuated, extremely deindividuated, or neither. Subjects were then asked to
rate 10 groups (from family and friends to co-workers to national identities to
fellow students in general) on a 9-pt scale of how important they perceived the
group to be to them. In a second questionnaire, they were asked about the same
groups in terms of how group-like (or entitative) they perceived the group.
Results: Strong effect of group type. Intimacy
groups very important, followed by task groups, social categories, and weak
social relationships. Very little effect of need state – no effect for
exclusive social groups (intimacy relations, task groups). Effect on inclusive
groups (social categories, weak social relationships) – individuals with
increased need for differentiation indicated these groups were less important
to them.
Study 2:
“[We] investigate whether assimilation and differentiation needs would motivate individuals to change their current ingroup to be more inclusive or exclusive. … we predicted that arousal of differentiation need would lead to greater agreement with the perception that the ingroup is too large and a greater desire to restrict ingroup membership. In addition, we predicted that differentiation need arousal would result in distortions in perceived group size such that individuals would underestimate the size of the group and perceive the ingroup as being too inclusive.”
Manipulations
Participants were first asked on a 9-pt scale how much they identified as OSU students. Only those who scored over 5 (strong identification) were used in the analysis.
The they took a self-attribution questionnaire (SAQ), and were presented with information about their score and OSU students in general.
No need condition: they were told they score average (1 pt away from mean) for OSU and that OSU was very different from other colleges.
Need for assimilation: Same info about OSU vs. other schools, but they were told their score was 12 pts away from the OSU mean.
Need for differentiation: Given a score 1 pt away from mean of OSU students but were also told that OSU students and other colleges do not differ on their SAQ scores.
Dependent measures:
(1) Estimated group size: students guessed size of ingroup (number of students at OSU).
(2) Perceived ingroup inclusiveness: students asked if the number of students at OSU was too many, too few, or just right (1 = not enough, 5 = too many).
(3) Desire to restrict ingroup membership: asked if they agreed that it should be easier for people to get into OSU.
Results:
(1) no need students were accurate in their estimates. Need for assimilation overestimated, need for differentiation underestimated.
(2) All conditions averaged above midpoint, indicating that there were too many OSU students. However, need for assimilation decreased this perception, and need for differentiation increased it. The only significant different is between the two manipulation conditions.
(3) Desire to restrict ingroup membership effects were non-significant, but trended in the predicted way.
Correlation…
…between estimated ingroup size and the desire to restrict ingroup size: Correlation was negative for the need for assimilation group and positive for the need for distinctiveness group.
…between estimated ingroup size and perceived ingroup inclusiveness: Correlation was positive for need for assimilation.
…between desire to restrict ingroup and perceived ingroup inclusiveness: Correlation was positive for need for differentiation.
Relationship between estimated ingroup size, condition, and perceived inclusiveness scale. Those who scored 3 on perceived inclusiveness rated the size of the group as “just right.” For the estimated size of the group, the averages across conditions were:
need for assimilation: 44,286
no arousal: 31,324
need for differentiation: 22,883.
No comments:
Post a Comment