Speaking for others: The pros and cons of group advocates using collective language

We examined how rhetorical style affects evaluations of group advocates, and how these evaluations are moderated by group identification. University students were given a letter to the editor defending student welfare. The argument was either constructed using personal language ('I believe') or collective language ('we believe'). Furthermore, the letter was either attributed to an official advocate (president of the student union) or an unofficial advocate (a rank-and-file member of the student body). Consistent with the social identity perspective, participants who showed strong identification as a university student thought that the group would feel better represented by official advocates using collective rather than personal language. Low identifiers, however, did not rate the rhetorical styles differently on representativeness. Furthermore, low identifiers (but not high identifiers) rated official advocates as more likable and more effective when they used personal rather than collective language. The discussion focuses on the conflict low identifiers might feel between (a) needing to homogenize with other group members in order to maximize the influence and political effectiveness of their message at the collective level, and (b) protecting themselves against categorization threat.

Cost-benefit analyses for your group and yourself: The rationality of decision-making in conflict

Two studies in the context of English-French relations in Québec suggest that individuals who strongly identify with a group derive the individual-level costs and benefits that drive expectancy-value processes (rational decision-making) from group-level costs and benefits. In Study 1, high identifiers linked group- and individual-level outcomes of conflict choices whereas low identifiers did not. Group-level expectancy-value processes, in Study 2, mediated the relationship between social identity and perceptions that collective action benefits the individual actor and between social identity and intentions to act. These findings suggest the rational underpinnings of identity-driven political behavior, a relationship sometimes obscured in intergroup theory that focuses on cognitive processes of self-stereotyping. But the results also challenge the view that individuals' cost-benefit analyses are independent of identity processes. The findings suggest the importance of modeling the relationship of group and individual levels of expectancy-value processes as both hierarchical and contingent on social identity processes

The importance of the relevance of the issue to the group in voting intentions: The case of the Australian republic referendum

A questionnaire was distributed on the Australian republic issue to examine the interplay between norms and relevance of the issue to the group on voting intentions. Supporters of an Australian republic (N = 188) indicated the level of support for a republic within their peer Group, the relevance of the republic issue to the group, and measures designed to assess voting intentions and other attitude outcomes. Analysis revealed an interaction between normative support and relevance of the issue to the group. On the measure of intention, increasing normative support was associated with increased intention to vote in an attitude-consistent way at both relevance levels, but the effect was heightened when the issue was highly relevant to the group. On the outcomes of willingness to express opinion and perceived personal importance of the republic issue, normative support had a positive effect only when the issue was highly relevant to the group. Mediation analyses revealed that the impact of normative support and group relevance on intention were mediated through perceived personal importance of the republic issue.