“Who identifies with which group?” The motive‐feature match principle and its limitations

Abstract

The functional approach to identification suggests that people with a particular motive tend to identify with groups that fulfill this motive. Thus, identification should be strongest when individual motives and group features match. The present paper explores the predictive power of this motive-feature match principle. Participants judged themselves on five motives (self-esteem, distinctiveness, belongingness, uncertainty reduction, and power), rated several groups on features relevant to fulfillment of these motives (e.g., the group's power as to the power motive), and indicated their identification with each group. Although the most predicted Motive x Feature interactions on identification emerged, the overall fit between data and predictions was moderate. The reductionist nature of the motive-feature match principle is discussed. Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Everyone belongs to numerous social groups, ranging from small groups, such as families or work teams, to large-scale social categories, such as nations, or ethnicity. Over and above this formal belongingness, some people even identify with some of their groups, that is, develop an inner bond to them. Identification, in turn, is relevant to behavior on behalf of one's group. For example, people who identify strongly versus weakly with a group exert more effort to achieve the goals of that group (e.g., Barreto & Ellemers, 2000;Ouwerkerk, De Gilder, & De Vries, 2000;Riketta, 2005;Worchel, Rothgerber, Day, Hart, & Butemeyer, 1998) are more likely to help other group members (Riketta & Van Dick, 2005;Tyler & Blader, 2001), are less likely to leave that group (Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 1997;Riketta, 2005), and discriminate more strongly against other groups (Aberson, Healy, & Romero, 2000).Given these behavioral implications of identification, it is important to know when and why people identify with groups. Previous research on the determinants of social identification has mainly focused on situational determinants, such as group status (Doosje, Spears, & Ellemers, 2002), self-esteem threat (Rubin & Hewstone, 1998), or uncertainty (Hogg, 2000. Although this research helps to predict what situations increase identification with a given group, it is not necessarily helpful when the goal is to predict who will identify most with that group. In this case, it is necessary to complement the prevailing situational, or social psychology, perspective on the determinants of identification by an individual difference, or personality psychology, perspective (e.g., Roccas, 2003).This has been done by the functional approach to social identification (e.g., Aharpour & Brown, 2002;Breakwell, 1993;Brewer, 1991;Correll & Park, 2005; e.g., Deaux, Reid, Mizrahi, & Cotting, 1999;Hogg & Abrams, 1990;Johnson et al., 2006;Sheldon & Bettencourt, 2002;Tajfel & Turner, 1986;Vignoles, Regalia, Manzi, Golledge, & Scabini, 2006). This approach rests on the premise that people identify with groups to the extent that these groups help them fulfill their individual moti...

Organizational Identification during a Merger: The Role of Self‐Enhancement and Uncertainty Reduction Motives during a Major Organizational Change

“…Self-enhancement refers to individuals' need to enhance their self-esteem, which, in turn, is individuals' overall evaluation of their self-worth (Pierce and Gardner, 2004). However, recent studies have recognized the importance of multiple motives in shaping organizational identification (Cooper and Thatcher, 2010;Riketta, 2008), and it has been argued that 'in addition to being motivated by self-enhancement, social identity processes are also motivated by a need to reduce subjective uncertainty' (Hogg and Terry, 2000, p. 124).…”

Collective self-continuity, group identification and in-group defense

“…The functional approach to social identification proposes that group identification is guided by several general principles that have motivational or need-like properties (e.g., Breakwell, 1986;Brewer, 1991;Hogg, 2000;Riketta, 2008;Vignoles et al, 2006). This approach postulates that people identify with groups to the extent that these groups fulfill their identity needs.…”

Optimal Distinctiveness and Identification with the Furry Fandom

“…Further research should examine these motives alongside optimal distinctiveness motives to compare the relative strength of these motivations, as well as possible interactions between these motivations, and their effect on ingroup identification. Additionally, similar to Riketta (2008), further research should examine the extent to which fans' psychological needs match up with the needs afforded by different fan groups -their ability to satiate a multitude of psychological needs. To conclude, the results of this study shows that furry fans who feel included and a sense of belonging with the furry community and perceive the fandom as distinct from other fandoms express the highest level of psychological connection with the group.…”

“…For example, being a member of a group can reduce perceived uncertainty in the world (Hogg 2000), enhance self-esteem, provide a sense of meaning in life, provide feelings of positive distinctiveness, and provide a sense of belonging (see Vignoles et al 2006). Research suggests that people are motivated to identify more strongly with groups that meet these psychological needs than they do with groups that do not (Riketta 2008). In the present study, we examine two of the needs mentioned above, belongingness and distinctiveness, and test whether the fandom's ability to satiate these needs motivates fans in a non-sport fandom.…”