Changes in social identity when joining a new group: The role of individual-level and group-level adaptation processes

While classic intergroup theories have specified the processes explaining situational shifts in social identification, the processes whereby social identities change more profoundly and become integrated within the self have to be proposed. To this aim, the present studies investigate the processes by which group members integrate a new social identity as they are joining a new group. Combining a social identity approach and stress and coping models, this research tests if social factors (i.e., needs satisfied by fellow group members, social support), have an impact on the adaptation strategies group members use to deal with the novelty of the situation and to fit into their new group (seeking information & adopting group norms vs. disengaging). These strategies, in turn, should predict changes in level of identification with the new social group over time, as well as enhanced psychological adjustment. These associations are tested among university students over the course of their first academic year (Study 1), and among online gamers joining a newly established online community (Study 2). Path analyses provide support for the hypothesised associations. The results are discussed in light of recent theoretical developments pertaining to intraindividual changes in social identities and their integration in the self.

Subgroup relations: A comparison of mutual intergroup differentiation and common ingroup identity models of prejudice reduction

Two studies examined relations between groups (humanities and math-science students) that implicitly or explicitly share a common superordinate category (university student). In Experiment 1, 178 participants performed a noninteractive decision-making task during which category salience was manipulated in a 2 (superordinate category salience) x 2 (subordinate category salience) between-groups design. Consistent with the mutual intergroup differentiation model, participants for whom both categories were salient exhibited the lowest levels of bias, whereas bias was strongest when the superordinate category alone was made salient. This pattern of results was replicated in Experiment 2 (N = 135). In addition, Experiment 2 demonstrated that members of subgroups that are nested within a superordinate category are more sensitive to how the superordinate category is represented than are members of subgroups that extend beyond the boundaries of the superordinate category.