Two studies sought to validate the distinction between common-identity groups, which are based on direct attachments to the group identity, and common-bond groups, which are based on attachments among group members. Study 1 focused on members of selective and nonselective university eating clubs. Study 2 focused on members of a diverse sample of campus groups. Both studies revealed asymmetries in group and member attachments: Individuals in common-identity groups were more attached to their group than to its members, whereas individuals in common-bond groups were as attached to the members as to the group (or more so). Study 2 also demonstrated that attachment to the group was more strongly related to various evaluations of individual group members in common-bond than in common-identity groups. The authors discuss the implications of these results for the development of groups over time and speculate on how the dynamics of the two types of groups might differ.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allport, F. H. (1924). Social psychology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
2.
Allport, F. H. (1962). A structuronomic conception of behavior: Individual and collective. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 64, 3-30.
3.
Aronson, E. , & Mills, J. (1959). The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59, 177-181.
4.
Billig, M. G. , & Tajfel, H. (1973). Social categorization and similarity in intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 27-52.
5.
Blumer, H. (1953). Collective behavior. In A. Lee (Ed.), Principles of sociology (pp. 167-222). New York: Barnes & Noble.
6.
Carron, A. V. , & Chelladurai, P. (1981). The dynamics of group cohesion in sports. Journal of Sport Psychology, 3, 123-139.
7.
Coser, L. (1956). The functions of social conflict. New York: Free Press.
8.
Festinger, L. , Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social pressures in informal groups. New York: Harper & Row.
9.
Gerard, H. , & Matthewson, G. (1966). The effects of severity of initiation on liking for a group: A replication. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 278-287.
10.
Hogg, M. A. (1993). Group cohesiveness: A critical review and some new directions. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 85-112). Chichester, England: Wiley.
11.
Hogg, M. A. , & Abrams, D. (1989). Social psychology: A social identity perspective. London: Methuen.
12.
Hogg, M. A. , & Hardie, E. A. (1991). Social attraction, personal attraction, and self-categorization: A field study. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 175-180.
13.
Hogg, M. A. , & Turner, J. C. (1985a). Interpersonal attraction, social identification and psychological group formation. European journal of Social Psychology, 15, 51-66.
14.
Hogg, M. A. , & Turner, J. C. (1985b). When liking begets solidarity: An experiment on the role of interpersonal attraction in psychological group formation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 267-281.
15.
Jennings, H. H. (1947). Sociometric differentiation of the psychegroup and the sociogroup. Sociometry, 10, 71-79.
16.
Kanter, R. (1972). Commitment and community: Communes and utopias in sociological perspective. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
17.
Karasawa, M. (1991). Toward an assessment of social identity: The structure of group identification and its effects on in-group evaluations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 293-307.
18.
Lerner, M. (1974). The justice motive: "Equity" and "parity" among children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 539-550.
19.
Lerner, M. , & Lerner, S. (1981). The justice motive in social behavior. New York: Plenum.
20.
Locksley, A. , Ortiz, V., & Hepburn, C. (1980). Social categorization and discriminatory behavior: Extinguishing the minimal intergroup discrimination effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 773-783.
21.
Lott, A. J. , & Lott, B. E. (1965). Group cohesiveness as interpersonal attraction: A review of relationships with antecedent and consequent variables. Psychological Bulletin, 64, 259-309.
22.
Lott, B. E. (1961). Group cohesiveness: A learning phenomenon. Journal of Social Psychology, 55, 275-286.
23.
Miller, C. , & Felicio, D. (1990). Person-positivity bias: Are individuals liked better thangroups? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 408-420.
24.
Moreland, R L. (1987). The formation of small groups. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 80-110.
25.
Newcomb, T. (1961). The acquaintance process. New York: Holt.
26.
Newcomb, T. (1968). Interpersonal balance. In R. Abelson, E. Aronson, W. McGuire, T. Newcomb, M. Rosenberg, & P. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Theories of cognitive consistency: A sourcebook. Chicago: Rand McNally.
27.
Piper, W. E. , Marrache, M., Lacroix, R., Richardsen, A. M., & Jones, B. D. (1983). Cohesion as a basic bond in groups. Human Relations, 36, 93-108.
28.
Scott, A. (1990). Ideology and the new social movements. London: Unwin Hyman.
29.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30.
Triandis, H. C. , McCusker, C., & Hui, C. H. (1990). Multimethod probes of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1006-1020.
31.
Turner, J. C. , Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
32.
Turner, J. C. , Sachdev, I., & Hogg, M. A. (1983). Social categorization, interpersonal attraction, and group formation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 227-239.
33.
Turner, R. , & Killian, L. (1957). Collective behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
