Group members often adopt various identity enhancement strategies to improve their unfavorable situations and achieve a positive image. Research on identity enhancement strategy determinants has been conducted mainly from an intergroup perspective, overlooking the role of fundamental group characteristics. To fill this gap, three studies (two preregistered) examined the effects of entitativity on individual mobility and social competition strategies. Across these studies, we manipulated ingroup entitativity and measured self-reported intentions (Studies 1 and 2) and behavioral choices (Study 3) relating to individual mobility and social competition. Results indicated that high (vs. low) entitativity group members were less likely to adopt individual mobility strategies and more likely to adopt social competition strategies. Importantly, these effects were observed in both intergroup comparison (Studies 1 and 3) and nonintergroup comparison contexts (Studies 2 and 3). These findings advance research on identity enhancement strategies and offer practical implications for group improvement and intergroup relations.
AbramsD.MarquesJ. M.de MouraG. R.HutchisonP.BownN. J. (2004). The maintenance of entitativity: A subjective group dynamics approach. In YzerbytV. Y.JuddC. M.CorneilleO. (Eds.), The psychology of group perception: Contributions to the study of homogeneity, entitativity, and essentialism (pp. 361–381). Psychology Press.
2.
BarretoM.EllemersN. (2000). You can’t always do what you want: Social identity and self-presentational determinants of the choice to work for a low-status group. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 891–906. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672002610001
3.
BeckerJ.WrightS. C. (2011). Yet another dark side of chivalry: Benevolent sexism undermines and hostile sexism motivates collective action for social competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 62–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022615
4.
BelavadiS.RinellaM. J.HoggM. A. (2020). When social identity-defining groups become violent: Collective responses to identity uncertainty, status erosion, and resource threat. In IrelandC. A.LewisM.LopezA. C.IrelandJ. L. (Eds.), The handbook of collective violence current developments and understanding (pp. 17–30). Routledge.
5.
BlairI. V.JostJ. T. (2003). Exit, loyalty, and collective action among workers in a simulated business environment: Interactive effects of group identification and boundary permeability. Social Justice Research, 16, 95–108. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024271019738
BlondéJ.Falomir-PichastorJ. M. (2021). Smoker identity and resistance to antismoking campaigns: The role of group entitativity. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 24, 160–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430219884633
8.
BranscombeN. R.SpearsR.EllemersN.DoosjeB. (2002). Intragroup and intergroup evaluation effects on group behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 744–753. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202289004
9.
BrewerM. B.HongY. Y.LiQ. (2004). Dynamic entitativity: Perceiving groups as actors. In YzerbytV.JuddC. M.CorneilleO. (Eds.), The psychology of group perception (pp. 25–38). Psychology Press.
10.
BrewerM. B.KramerR. M. (1986). Choice behavior in social dilemmas: Effects of social identity, group size, and decision framing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 543–549. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.543
11.
CallahanS. P.LedgerwoodA. (2016). On the psychological function of flags and logos: Group identity symbols increase perceived entitativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 528–550. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000047
12.
CampbellD. T. (1958). Common fate, similarity, and other indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities. Behavioral Sciences, 3, 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830030103
13.
CardN. A. (2011). Applied meta-analysis for social science research. Guilford Press.
14.
CartwrightD.ZanderA. (1960). Group dynamics. Harper & Row.
15.
CastanoE.YzerbytV.BourguignonD. (2003). We are one and I like it: The impact of ingroup entitativity on ingroup identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 735–754. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.175
16.
CastanoE.YzerbytV.PaladinoM. P.SacchiS. (2002). I belong, therefore, I exist: Ingroup identification, ingroup entitativity, and ingroup bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 135–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202282001
17.
CavazzaN.PagliaroS.GuidettiM. (2014). Antecedents of concern for personal reputation: The role of group entitativity and fear of social exclusion. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 36, 365–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2014.925453
18.
ChayinskaM.MinescuA.McGartyC. (2019). “We fight for a better future for our country”: Understanding the Ukrainian Euromaidan movement as the emergence of a social competition strategy. British Journal of Social Psychology, 58, 45–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12283
19.
CrawfordM. T.SalamanL. (2012). Entitativity, identity, and the fulfilment of psychological needs. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 726–730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.12.015
20.
DangJ.LiuL. (2020). When peer norms work? Coherent groups facilitate normative influences on cyber aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 46, 559–569. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21920
21.
DangJ.LiuL. (2022). How to be “groupy” matters: Groups with shared traits and shared goals engender distinct patterns of social judgments. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 25, 44–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220942294
22.
DangJ.LiuL.RenD.SuQ. (2018). Polarization and positivity effects: Divergent roles of group entitativity in warmth and competence judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 74, 74–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.09.003
23.
DangJ.LiuL.ZhangQ.LiC. (2019). Leaving an attacked group: Authoritative criticism decreases ingroup favoritism. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 13, Article e7. https://doi.org/10.1017/prp.2019.5
24.
da Silva FrostA.LedgerwoodA. (2020). Calibrate your confidence in research findings: A tutorial on improving research methods and practices. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 14, Article e14. https://doi.org/10.1017/prp.2020.7
25.
DerksB.van LaarC.EllemersN.RaghoeG. (2015). Extending the Queen Bee effect: How Hindustani workers cope with disadvantage by distancing the self from the group. Journal of Social Issues, 71, 476–496. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12124
26.
Di BernardoG. A.VezzaliL.StathiS.McKeownS.CoccoV. M.SaguyT.DixonJ. (2021). Fostering social competition among advantaged and disadvantaged group members: Integrating intergroup contact and social identity perspectives on collective action. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 24, 26–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430219889134
27.
DitrichL.GedeonE. Z.SassenbergK. (2021). Favouring a disunited kingdom? How negative perceptions of the EU-referendum relate to individual mobility and collective action considerations. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 9, 37–51. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.5547
28.
EffronD. A.KakkarH.KnowlesE. D. (2018). Group cohesion benefits individuals who express prejudice, but harms their group. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 79, 239–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.08.002
29.
EffronD. A.KnowlesE. D. (2015). Entitativity and intergroup bias: How belonging to a cohesive group allows people to express their prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108, 234–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000020
30.
EllemersN. (1993). The influence of socio-structural variables on identity management strategies. In StoebeW.HewstoneM. (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 27–57). Wiley.
31.
EllemersN.HaslamS. A. (2012). Social identity theory. In van LangeP. A. M.KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 379–398). Sage.
32.
EllemersN.SpearsR.DoosjeB. (1997). Sticking together or falling apart: Ingroup identification as a psychological determinant of group commitment versus individual mobility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 617–626. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.72.3.617
EllemersN.van KnippenbergA.WilkeH. (1990). The influence of permeability of group boundaries and stability of group status on strategies of individual mobility and social change. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 233–246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1990.tb00902.x
35.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA. GBuchnerA. (2007). G*power 3: A fexible statisticalpower analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2),175–191.https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
36.
GaertnerL.IuzziniJ.WittM. G.OriñaM. M. (2006). Us without them: Evidence for an intragroup origin of positive ingroup regard. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 426–439. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.426
37.
GohJ. X.HallJ. A.RosenthalR. (2016). Mini meta-analysis of your own studies: Some arguments on why and a primer on how. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10, 535–549. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12267
38.
GrandeyA. A.KrannitzM. A.SlezakT.HurrellJ. J.ChenP. (2015). On the front lines: Stakeholder threat cues determine how identified employees cope with scandal. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20, 388–403. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038666
39.
HamiltonD. L. (2007). Understanding the complexities of group perception: Broadening the domain. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 1077–1101. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.436
40.
HarthN. S.ShnabelN. (2015). Third-party intervention in intergroup reconciliation: The role of neutrality and common identity with the other conflict party. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 18, 676–695. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430215583151
41.
HersbyM. D.RyanM. K.JettenJ. (2009). Getting together to get ahead: The impact of social structure on women’s networking. British Journal of Management, 20, 415–430. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2008.00604.x
42.
HoggM. A.ShermanD. K.DierselhuisJ.MaitnerA. T.MoffittG. (2007). Uncertainty, entitativity, and group identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 135–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.12.008
43.
InskoC. A.WildschutT.CohenT. R. (2013). Interindividual–intergroup discontinuity in the prisoner’s dilemma game: How common fate, proximity, and similarity affect intergroup competition. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120, 168–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.07.004
44.
IpG. W.ChiuC. Y.WanC. (2006). Birds of a feather and birds flocking together: Physical versus behavioral cues may Lead to trait- versus goal-based group perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 368–381. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.368
45.
KesslerT.MummendeyA. (2002). Sequential or parallel processes? A longitudinal field study concerning determinants of identity-management strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.82.1.75
46.
KoehlerD. (2020). Switching sides: Exploring violent extremist intergroup migration across hostile ideologies. Political Psychology, 41, 499–515. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12633
47.
KreinerG. E.AshforthB. E.SlussD. M. (2006). Identity dynamics in occupational dirty work: Integrating social identity and system justification perspectives. Organization Science, 17, 619–636.https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1060.0208
48.
KretchD.CrutchfieldR. C. (1948). Theory and problems of social psychology. McGraw-Hill.
49.
LeachC. W.van ZomerenM.ZebelS.VliekM. L. W.PennekampS. F.DoosjeB.OuwerkerkJ. W.SpearsR. (2008). Group-level self-definition and self-investment: A hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 144–165. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.144
50.
LewisA. C.ShermanS. J. (2010). Perceived entitativity and the black-sheep effect: When will we denigrate negative ingroup members?The Journal of Social Psychology, 150, 211–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540903366388
51.
LickelB.HamiltonD. L.WieczorkowskaG.LewisA.ShermanS. J.UhlesA. N. (2000). Varieties of groups and the perception of group entitativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 223–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.223
52.
MarquesJ. M.AbramsD.SerôdioR. G. (2001). Being better by being right: Subjective group dynamics and derogation of ingroup deviants when generic norms are undermined. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 436–447. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.3.436
53.
MartinyS. E.KesslerT.VignolesV. L. (2012). Shall I leave or shall we fight? Effects of threatened group-based self-esteem on identity management strategies. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15, 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430211415439
54.
MartinyS. E.RubinM. (2016). Towards a clearer understanding of social identity theory’s self-esteem hypothesis. In McKeownS.HajiR.FergusonN. (Eds.), Understanding peace and conflict through social identity theory: Contemporary global perspectives (pp. 19–32). Springer.
55.
NewheiserA. K.SawaokaT.DovidioJ. F. (2012). Why do we punish groups? High entitativity promotes moral suspicion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 931–936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.013
56.
PieningE. P.SalgeT. O.AntonsD.KreinerG. E. (2020). Standing together or falling apart? Understanding employees’ responses to organizational identity threats. Academy of Management Review, 45, 325–351. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2016.0457
57.
ReimerN. K.BeckerJ. C.BenzA.ChristO.DhontK.KlockeU.NejiS.RychlowskaM.SchmidK.HewstoneM. (2017). Intergroup contact and social competition: Implications of negative and positive contact for collective action in advantaged and disadvantaged groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 121–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216676478
58.
ReynoldsK. J.BizumicB.SubasicE.TurnerJ. C.BranscombeN.MavorK. I.BatalhaL. (2012). Social identity and personality processes: Non-Aboriginal Australian identity and neuroticism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 252–262. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1841
SacchiS.CastanoE.BrauerM. (2009). Perceiving one’s nation: Entitativity, agency and security in the international arena. International Journal of Psychology, 44, 321–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590802236233
61.
SaniF. (2005). When subgroups secede: Extending and refining the social psychological model of schism in groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1074–1086. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204274092
62.
SaniF.PuglieseA. C. (2008). In the name of Mussolini: Explaining the schism in an Italian right-wing political party. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 12, 242–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.12.3.242
63.
SaniF.TodmanJ. (2002). Should we stay or should we go? A social psychological model of schisms in groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1647–1655. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616702237646
64.
ScheifeleC.EhrkeF.ViladotM. A.van LaarC.SteffensM. C. (2020). Testing the basic socio-structural assumptions of social identity theory in the gender context: Evidence from correlational studies on women’s leadership. European Journal of Social Psychology, 51, e1–e16. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2678
65.
SpearsR.ScheepersD.JettenJ.DoosjeB.EllemersN.PostmesT. (2004). Entitativity, group distinctiveness, and social identity: Getting and using social structure. In YzerbytV. Y.JuddC. M.CorneilleO. (Eds.), The psychology of group perception: Contributions to the study of homogeneity, entitativity, and essentialism (pp. 219–235). Psychology Press.
66.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflicts. In AustinW. G.WorchelS. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks-Cole.
TauschN.BeckerJ.SpearsR.ChristO.SaabR.SinghP.SiddiquiR. N. (2011). Explaining radical group behavior: Developing emotion and efficacy routes to normative and non-normative collective action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022728
69.
TauschN.SaguyT.BrysonJ. (2015). How does intergroup contact affect social competition? Its impact on collective action and individual mobility intentions among members of a disadvantaged group. Journal of Social Issues, 71, 536–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12127
70.
ToselandR. W.JonesL. V.GellisZ. D. (2004). Group dynamics. In GarvinC. D.GutiérrezL. M.GalinskyM. J. (Eds.), Handbook of social work with groups (pp. 13–31). The Guilford Press.
71.
TurnerJ. C.ReynoldsK. J. (2012). Self-categorization theory. In van LangeP. A. M.KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 399–417). Sage.
72.
Turner-ZwinkelsF. M.van ZomerenM. (2020). Identity expression through collective action: How identification with a politicized group and its identity contents differently motivated identity-expressive collective action in the U.S. 2016 presidential elections. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47, 499–513. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220933406
73.
van BezouwM. J.van der ToornJ.BeckerJ. C. (2021). Social creativity: Reviving a social identity approach to social stability. European Journal of Social Psychology, 51, 409–422. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2732
74.
VerkuytenM.ReijerseA. (2008). Intergroup structure and identity management among ethnic minority and majority groups: The interactive effects of perceived stability, legitimacy, and permeability. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 106–127. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.395
75.
VociA. (2000). Perceived group variability and the salience of personal and social identity. European Review of Social Psychology, 11, 177–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792772043000031
76.
VociA.HewstoneM. (2003). Intergroup contact and prejudice toward immigrants in Italy: The mediational role of anxiety and the moderational role of group salience. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6, 37–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430203006001011
77.
WrightS. C. (2010). Collective action and social change. In DovidioJ. F.HewstoneM.GlickP.EssesV. M. (Eds.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 577–595). Sage.
78.
YukiM. (2003). Intergroup comparison versus intragroup relationships: A cross-cultural examination of social identity theory in North American and East Asian cultural contexts. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66, 166–183. http://doi.org/10.2307/1519846
79.
YzerbytV. Y.CastanoE.LeyensJ. P.PaladinoM. P. (2000). The primacy of the ingroup: The interplay of entitativity and identification. In StroebeW.HewstoneM. (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 257–295). Wiley.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
