Uncertainty–identity theory is a social psychological theory of the motivational role played by self‐uncertainty in group processes and intergroup relations. The key premise is that people identify with social groups to decrease feelings of self‐related uncertainty. Feelings of uncertainty, particularly when related to the self, produce a hydraulic motivational state that drives people to seek to reduce their uncertainty. Group identification through the process of self‐categorization very effectively reduces this uncertainty, particularly when the group is distinctive and clearly defined by a consensual norm. This analysis has implications for understanding societal extremism. Under some conditions of uncertainty, people may strive to belong to rigidly and hierarchically structured groups that are ideologically extreme and have strong and authoritative leadership.

No abstract

Attitudes toward artwork are influenced by many individual and societal factors. One factor that has not been investigated is whether the viewer considers the artist to be an ingroup or an outgroup member. Drawing on 2 social psychological theories—social identity theory and uncertainty-identity theory—we proposed that people can show ingroup bias in evaluating artwork, and that this is more likely when the viewer lacks art-related expertise and experience. We conducted a 3-factor mixed between- and within-participants experiment (N = 335). American and Italian participants evaluated 2 pieces of abstract art and two pieces of representational art that were attributed to fictional American or Italian artists. The key prediction, that participants would evaluate pieces of art, specifically abstract art, more favorably if the artist was a conational than a national outgroup member, was supported, but only among American participants (the Americans had less art-related experience and were more aesthetically uncertain than the Italians). Americans liked American art more than Italian art, American art was liked more by Americans than Italians, and the preference for representational over abstract art disappeared among Americans evaluating American art. Some limitations of the study and future directions for research are discussed.

What motivates a subgroup to seek autonomy within its superordinate group? Drawing on uncertainty-identity theory (Hogg, 2012), 2 Mechanical Turk-hosted priming studies were conducted to examine whether identity-uncertainty dynamics motivate the pursuit of subgroup autonomy. Study 1 (N = 75) confirmed that national identity dissensus creates identity-related self-uncertainty. Study 2 (N = 179) primed perceived national dissensus (thus identity-uncertainty), state entitativity, and state voice in the nation, and measured national and state identification and subgroup autonomy. As predicted, high national identity-uncertainty along with high state entitativity and low state voice strengthened desire for subgroup autonomy. State identification mediated desire for subgroup autonomy. Results suggest identity-uncertainty at a superordinate level may drive subgroups to seek greater autonomy within.

Under what conditions do citizens of nations and states comply with governmental requests to participate in public policymaking? Drawing on the dual pathway model of collective action (Stürmer & Simon, 2004) but with a focus on compliance with the status quo, rather than participation in collective protest, two studies examined citizens’ motivation to participate in public policymaking. Study 1 (N = 169) was an MTurk hosted survey that recruited participants from California, while Study 2 (N = 198) was a field experiment that recruited participants in Sardinia, Italy. Study 1 measured cost-benefit analyses, societal identification, and willingness to participate in public policymaking. Study 2 repeated the same procedures, with the exception that we manipulated costs of participation, and also measured participants’ trust in government. Study 1 confirmed our initial hypotheses – fewer costs predicted more willingness to participate, as did stronger state identification. However, Study 2 found an interactive effect of costs, identification, and trust on willingness to participate in public policymaking. Results confirm our hypotheses by showing that both costs and identification independently influence willingness to participate in public policymaking. Results also add to the literature by showing that these additive pathways can be influenced by trust in the source of governance.