1932

Abstract

This chapter reviews research on the group identity explanation of social influence, grounded in self-categorization theory, and contrasts it with other group-based explanations, including normative influence, interdependence, and social network approaches, as well as approaches to persuasion and influence that background group (identity) processes. Although the review primarily discusses recent research, its focus also invites reappraisal of some classic research in order to address basic questions about the scope and power of the group identity explanation. The self-categorization explanation of influence grounded in group norms, moderated by group identification, is compared and contrasted to other normative explanations of influence, notably the concept of injunctive norms and the relation to moral conviction. A range of moderating factors relating to individual variation, features of the intragroup and intergroup context, and important contextual variables (i.e., anonymity versus visibility, isolation versus copresence) that are particularly relevant to online influence in the new media are also reviewed.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-070620-111818
2021-01-04
2024-04-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/psych/72/1/annurev-psych-070620-111818.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-070620-111818&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abrams D, Wetherell M, Cochrane S, Hogg MA, Turner JC 1990. Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: self-categorization and the nature of norm formation, conformity, and group polarization. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 29:97–119
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Allport G. 1954. The historical background of modern social psychology. The Handbook of Social Psychology 1 G Lindzey 3–56 Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Amiot CE, Sansfacon S, Louis WR, Yelle M 2012. Can intergroup behaviors be emitted out of self-determined reasons? Testing the role of group norms and behavioral congruence in the internalization of discrimination and parity behaviors. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 38:63–76
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Asch SE. 1956. Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychol. Monogr. Gen. Appl. 70:91–70
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Barreto NB, Hogg MA. 2017. Evaluation of and support for group prototypical leaders: a meta-analysis of twenty years of empirical research. Soc. Influence 12:41–55
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Baumeister RB, Leary MR. 1995. The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychol. Bull. 117:497–529
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Becker JC, Tausch N, Spears R, Christ O 2011. Committed dis(s)idents: Participation in radical collective action fosters disidentification with the broader in-group but enhances political identification. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 37:1104–16
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Billig MG, Tajfel H. 1973. Social categorization and similarity in intergroup behaviour. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 3:27–52
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bliuc AM, McGarty C, Reynolds K, Muntele D 2007. Opinion‐based group membership as a predictor of commitment to political action. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 37:19–32
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Brehm JW. 1966. A Theory of Psychological Reactance New York: Academic
  11. Brewer MB. 1991. The social self: on being the same and different at the same time. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 17:475–82
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Byrne D. 1971. The Attraction Paradigm New York: Academic
  13. Cartwright D, Zander A. 1968. Group Dynamics London: Tavsitock
  14. Chung JE. 2019. Peer influence of online comments in newspapers: applying social norms and the social identification model of deindividuation effects (SIDE). Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 37:551–67
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Cialdini RB, Goldstein NJ. 2004. Social influence: compliance and conformity. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 55:591–621
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Cialdini RB, Reno RR, Kallgren CA 1990. A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 58:1015–26
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Cikara M, Van Bavel JJ 2014. The neuroscience of intergroup relations: an integrative review. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 9:245–74
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Cress U. 2005. Ambivalent effect of member portraits in virtual groups. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 21:4281–91
    [Google Scholar]
  19. David B, Turner JC. 1996. Studies in self-categorization and minority conversion: Is being a member of the outgroup an advantage. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 35:179–99
    [Google Scholar]
  20. David B, Turner JC. 1999. Studies in self-categorization and minority conversion 2: the ingroup minority in intragroup and intergroup contexts. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 38:115–34
    [Google Scholar]
  21. De Lemus S, Spears R, Moya M 2012. The power of a smile to move you: complementary submissiveness in women's posture as a function of gender salience and facial expression. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 38:1480–94
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Deutsch M, Gerard H. 1955. A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 51:629–36
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Diener E. 1980. Deindividuation: the absence of self-awareness and self-regulation in group members. The Psychology of Group Influence P Paulus 209–42 Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Doosje B, Ellemers N, Spears R 1995. Perceived intragroup variability as a function of status and identification. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 31:410–36
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Douglas KM, McGarty C. 2001. Identifiability and self-presentation: computer-mediated, communication and intergroup interaction. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 40:399–416
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Drury J. 2018. The role of social identity processes in mass emergency behaviour: an integrative review. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 29:38–81
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Drury J, Brown R, Gonzalez R, Miranda D 2016. Emergent social identity and observing social support predict social support provided by survivors in a disaster: solidarity in the 2010 Chile earthquake. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 46:209–23
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Drury J, Cocking C, Reicher S 2009. Everyone for themselves? A comparative study of crowd solidarity among emergency survivors. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 48:487–506
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Drury J, Stott C, Ball R, Reicher S, Neville F et al. 2020. A social identity model of riot diffusion: from injustice to empowerment in the 2011 London riots. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 50:646–61
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Dunbar R, Barrett L, Lycett J 2005. Evolutionary Psychology: A Beginner's Guide Oxford, UK: One World
  31. Eagly AH, Chaiken S. 1993. The Psychology of Attitudes New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
  32. Ellemers N. 2017. Morality and the Regulation of Social Behavior: Groups as Moral Anchors Milton Park, UK: Routledge
  33. Ellemers N, Doosje B, Spears R 2004. Sources of respect: the effects of being liked by ingroups and outgroups. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 34:155–72
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Ellemers N, Jetten J. 2013. The many ways to be marginal in a group. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 17:3–21
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Ellemers N, Pagliaro S, Barreto M 2013. Morality and behavioural regulation in groups: a social identity approach. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 24:160–93
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Ellemers N, Pagliaro S, Barreto M, Leach CW 2008. Is it better to be moral than smart? The effects of morality and competence norms on the decision to work at group status improvement. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 95:1397–410
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Ellemers N, Spears R, Doosje B 1997. Sticking together or falling apart: ingroup identification as a psychological determinant of group commitment versus individual mobility. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 72:617–26
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Ellemers N, Spears R, Doosje B 2002. Self and social identity. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 53:161–86
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Fehr E, Gachter S. 2002. Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature 415:137–40
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Feliciani T, Flache A, Tolsma J 2017. How, when and where can spatial segregation induce opinion polarization? Two competing models. J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul. 20:6
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Feng Y, Ye HJ. 2016. Why do you return the favor in online knowledge communities? A study of the motivations of reciprocity. Comput. Hum. Behav. 63:342–49
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Festinger L. 1950. Informal social communication. Psychol. Rev. 57:117–40
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Festinger L, Pepitone A, Newcomb T 1952. Some consequences of de-individuation in a group. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 47:382–89
    [Google Scholar]
  44. French JPR, Raven BH. 1959. The bases of social power. Studies in Social Power D Cartwright 150–67 Ann Arbor, MI: Inst. Soc. Res.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Germar M, Mojzisch A. 2019. Learning of social norms can lead to a persistent perceptual bias: a diffusion model approach. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 84:103801
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Graham J, Haidt J, Nosek BA 2009. Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 96:1029–46
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Graupmann V, Jonas E, Meier E, Hawelka S, Aichhorn M 2012. Reactance, the self, and its group: when threats to freedom come from the ingroup versus the outgroup. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 42:164–73
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Haslam SA, Reicher SD. 2012. Contesting the “nature” of conformity: what Milgram and Zimbardo's studies really show. PLOS Biol 10:e1001426
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Haslam SA, Reicher SD, Birney ME 2014. Nothing by mere authority: evidence that in an experimental analogue of the Milgram paradigm participants are motivated not by orders but by appeals to science. J. Soc. Issues 70:473–88
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Haslam SA, Reicher SD, Platow M 2011. The New Psychology of Leadership: Identity, Influence and Power New York: Psychol. Press
  51. Hogg MA, Hains SC. 1996. Intergroup relations and group solidarity: effects of group identification and social beliefs on depersonalized attraction. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 70:295–309
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Hogg MA, Van Knippenberg D 2003. Social identity and leadership processes in groups. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 35:1–52
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Hopkins N, Reicher S, Stevenson C, Pandey K, Shankar S, Tewari S 2019. Social relations in crowds: recognition, validation and solidarity. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 49:1283–97
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Iacoviello V, Spears R. 2018. “I know you expect me to favor my ingroup”: reviving Tajfel's original hypothesis on the generic norm explanation of ingroup favoritism. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 76:88–99
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Jetten J, Branscombe NR, Spears R, McKimmie B 2003. Predicting the paths of peripherals: the interaction of identification and future possibilities. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 29:130–40
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Jetten J, Hornsey M. 2011. Rebels in Groups: Dissent, Deviance, Difference, and Defiance Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell
  57. Jetten J, Hornsey M. 2014. Deviance and dissent in groups. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 65:461–85
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Jetten J, Postmes T, McAuliffe BJ 2002. “We're all individuals”: group norms of individualism and collectivism, levels of identification and identity threat. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 32:189–207
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Jonas E, Graupmann V, Kayser DN, Zanna M, Traut-Mattausch E, Frey D 2009. Culture, self, and the emergence of reactance: Is there a “universal” freedom. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 45:1068–80
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Kelman HC. 1958. Compliance, identifcaion and internalization: three process of attitude change. J. Confl. Resolut. 2:51–60
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Kelley HH. 1952. The two functions of reference groups. Readings in Social Psychology GE Swanson, TM Newcomb, EL Hartley 410–14 New York: Holt
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Kiesler S, Siegel J, McGuire T 1984. Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communications. Am. Psychol. 39:1123–34
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Klein O, Spears R, Reicher S 2007. Social identity performance: extending the strategic side of the SIDE model. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 11:28–45
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Koonz C. 2005. The Nazi Conscience Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  65. Kurzban R, Tooby J, Cosmides L 2001. Can race be erased? Coalitional computation and social categorization. PNAS 98:15387–92
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Latané B. 1981. The psychology of social impact. Am. Psychol. 36:343–56
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Latané B, Darley JM. 1970. The Unresponsive Bystander: Why Doesn't He Help? New York: Appleton-Century Crofts
  68. Lea M, Rogers P, Postmes T 2002. SIDE-VIEW: Evaluation of a system to develop team players and improve productivity in Internet collaborative learning groups. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 33:54–64
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Lea M, Spears R, De Groot D 2001. Knowing me, knowing you: effects of visual anonymity on self-categorization, stereotyping and attraction in computer-mediated groups. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 27:526–37
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Lea M, Spears R, Watt SE 2007. Visibility and anonymity effects on attraction and group cohesiveness. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 37:761–73
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Leach CW, Ellemers N, Barreto M 2007. Group virtue: the importance of morality (versus competence and sociability) in the positive evaluation of in-groups. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 93:234–49
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Leander P, Agostini M, Stroebe W, Kreienkamp J, Spears R et al. 2020. Frustration-affirmation? Thwarted goals motivate compliance with social norms for violence and nonviolence. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 119:2249–71
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Le Bon G. 1995 (1895). The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind London: Transaction
  74. Lee EJ. 2004. Effects of visual representation on social influence in computer-mediated communication. Hum. Commun. Res. 30:2234–59
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Lee EJ. 2007. Deindividuation effects on group polarization in computer-mediated communication: the role of group identification, public-self-awareness, and perceived argument quality. J. Commun. 57:2385–403
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Lee EJ. 2008. When are strong arguments stronger than weak arguments? Deindividuation effects on message elaboration in computer-mediated communication. Commun. Res. 35:5646–65
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Leszczensky L, Flache A, Sauter L 2019. Does the share of religious ingroup members affect how important religion is to adolescents? Applying Optimal Distinctiveness Theory to four European countries. J. Ethn. Migr. Stud. 46:17370321
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Levine M, Crowther S. 2008. The responsive bystander: how social group membership and group size can encourage as well as inhibit bystander intervention. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 95:1429–39
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Lindenberg S, Steg L. 2007. Normative, gain and hedonic goal frames guiding environmental behavior. J. Soc. Issues 63:117–37
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Mackie DM, Worth LT, Asuncion AG 1990. Processing of persuasive ingroup messages. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 57:812–22
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Manning R, Levine M, Collins A 2007. The Kitty Genovese murder and the social psychology of helping: the parable of the 38 witnesses. Am. Psychol. 62:555–62
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Manstead ASR, Fischer AH. 2001. Social appraisal: the social world as object of and influence on appraisal processes. Appraisal Processes in Emotion: Theory, Methods, Research KR Scherer, A Schorr, T Johnstone 221–32 New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Masson T, Fritsche I. 2019. Loyal peripherals? The interactive effects of identification and peripheral group membership on deviance from non-beneficial ingroup norms. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 49:76–92
    [Google Scholar]
  84. McGarty C, Bliuc AM, Thomas EF, Bongiorno R 2009. Collective action as the material expression of opinion-based group membership. J. Soc. Issues 65:839–57
    [Google Scholar]
  85. McGarty C, Haslam SA, Hutchinson KJ, Turner JC 1994. The effects of salient group memberships on persuasion. Small Group Res 25:267–93
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Milgram S. 1974. Obedience to Authority London: Tavistock
  87. Miller DT, Prentice DA. 2016. Changing norms to change behavior. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 67:339–61
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Milovanovic M. 2020. Intrinsically motivating social influence: how social context determines the effect of social influence on intrinsic motivation and sustainable energy behaviour PhD Thesis, Univ. Groningen Groningen, Neth:.
  89. Moscovici S. 1976. Social Influence and Social Change London: Academic
  90. Mugny G. 1984. The influence of minorities: ten years later. The Social Dimension 2 H Tajfel 498–517 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Murphy GL, Medin DL. 1985. The role of theories in conceptual coherence. Psychol. Rev. 92:289–316
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Nail PR, MacDonald G, Levy DA 2000. Proposal of a four-dimensional model of social response. Psychol. Bull. 126:454–70
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Noel JG, Wann D, Branscombe N 1995. Peripheral ingroup membership status and public negativity toward ougroups. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 68:127–37
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Oakes PJ 1987. The salience of social categories. Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory JC Turner, MA Hogg, PJ Oakes, SD Reicher, MS Wetherell 117–41 Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Oakes PJ, Haslam SA, Turner JC 1994. Stereotyping and Social Reality Oxford, UK: Blackwell
  96. Packer DJ. 2008. On being both with us and against us: a normative conflict model of dissent in social groups. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 12:50–72
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Packer DJ. 2014. On not airing our dirty laundry: Intergroup contexts suppress ingroup criticism among strongly identified group members. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 53:93–111
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Packer DJ, Chasteen AL. 2010. Loyal deviance: testing the normative conflict model of dissent in social groups. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 36:5–18
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Pettigrew TF, Tropp LR 2008. How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 38:922–34
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Petty RE, Cacioppo JT. 1986. The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion New York: Springer
  101. Platow MJ, van Knippenberg D, Haslam SA, van Knippenberg B, Spears R 2006. A special gift we bestow on you for being representative of us: considering leader charisma from a self-categorization perspective. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 45:303–20
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Postmes T, Jetten J 2006. Individuality and the Group: Advances in Social Identity London: Sage
  103. Postmes T, Spears R. 1998. Deindividuation and anti-normative behavior: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 123:238–59
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Postmes T, Spears R, Lee AT, Novak RJ 2005. Individuality and social influence in groups: inductive and deductive routes to group identity. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 89:747–63
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Postmes T, Spears R, Sakhel K, De Groot D 2001. Social influence in computer-mediated groups: the effects of anonymity on social behavior. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 27:1243–54
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Prentice DA, Miller DT, Lightdale JR 1994. Asymmetries in attachments to groups and to their members: distinguishing between common-identity and common-bond groups. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 20:484–93
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Rand R, Nowak MA. 2013. Human cooperation. Trends Cogn. Sci. 17:413–25
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Rawls J. 1999 (1971). A Theory of Justice Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. , Rev.. ed.
  109. Raz J. 1986. The Morality of Freedom Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  110. Reicher SD. 1987. Crowd behaviour as social action. Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory JC Turner, MA Hogg, PJ Oakes, SD Reicher, MS Wetherell 171–202 Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Reicher SD, Spears R, Postmes T 1995. A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 6:161–98
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Ren YQ, Harper FM, Drenner S, Terveen L, Kiesler S et al. 2012. Increasing attachment to online communities: designing from theory. MIS Q 36:841–64
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Ren YQ, Kraut R, Kiesler S 2007. Applying common identity and bond theory to design of online communities. Organ. Stud. 28:377–408
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Ryan RM, Deci EL. 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am. Psychol. 55:68–78
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Sassenberg K, Boos M. 2003. Attitude change in computer-mediated communication: effects of anonymity and category norms. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 6:405–22
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Sassenberg K, Postmes T. 2002. Cognitive and strategic processes in small groups: Effects of anonymity of the self and anonymity of the group on social influence. Br. J. Soc. Psychol 41:463–80
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Sherif M. 1966 (1936). The Psychology of Social Norms New York: Harper
  118. Skitka LJ, Bauman CW, Lytle BL 2009. Limits on legitimacy: moral and religious convictions as constraints on deference to authority. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 97:567–78
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Smith ER. 1993. Social identity and social emotions: toward a new conceptualization of prejudice. Affect, Cognition, and Stereotyping DM Mackie, DL Hamilton 297–315 San Diego, CA: Academic
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Spears R. 2010. Group rationale, collective sense: beyond intergroup bias. Invited position paper. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 49:1–20
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Spears R. 2014. The permeability paradox: Individual mobility poses problems for group loyalty concerns Paper presented at the SPSSI/EASP Conference on The Great Recession and Social Class Divides, Princeton Univ Princeton, NJ: Sept. 4–6
  122. Spears R. 2017. Deindividuation. In The Oxford Handbook of Social Influence S Harkins, K Williams, J Burger 279–97 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Spears R, Doosje B, Ellemers N 1997. Self-stereotyping in the face of threats to group status and distinctiveness: the role of group identification. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 23:538–53
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Spears R, Ellemers N, Doosje B 2009. Strength in numbers or less is more? A matter of opinion and a question of taste. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 35:1099–111
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Spears R, Gordijn E, Dijksterhuis A, Stapel DA 2004. Reaction in action: intergroup contrast in automatic behavior. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 30:605–16
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Spears R, Lea M. 1994. Panacea or panopticon? The hidden power in computer-mediated communication. Commun. Res. 21:427–59
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Spears R, Lea M, Lee S 1990. De-individuation and group polarization in computer-mediated communication. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 29:121–34
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Spears R, Postmes T. 2015. Group identity, social influence and collective action online: extensions and applications of the side model. The Handbook of Psychology of Communication S Shyam Sundar 23–46 Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Stollberg J, Fritsche I, Jonas E 2017. The groupy shift: conformity to liberal in-group norms as a group-based response to threatened personal control. Soc. Cogn. 35:374–94
    [Google Scholar]
  130. Tajfel H, Flament C, Billig MG, Bundy RF 1971. Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 1:149–77
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Tanis M, Postmes T. 2005. A social identity approach to trust: interpersonal perception, group membership and trusting behavior. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 35:413–24
    [Google Scholar]
  132. Tanis M, Postmes T. 2007. Two faces of anonymity: paradoxical effects of cues to identity in CMC. Comput. Hum. Behav. 23:955–70
    [Google Scholar]
  133. Tanis M, Postmes T. 2008. Cues to identity in online dyads: effects of interpersonal versus intragroup perceptions on performance. Group Dyn. Theory Res. Pract. 12:96–111
    [Google Scholar]
  134. Thibaut JW, Kelley HH. 1959. The Social Psychology of Groups New York: Wiley
  135. Thomas EF, Amiot CE, Louis WR, Goddard A 2017. Collective self-determination: how the agent of help promotes pride, well-being, and support for intergroup helping. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 43:662–77
    [Google Scholar]
  136. Turner JC. 1982. Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. Social Identity and Intergroup Relations H Tajfel 15–40 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  137. Turner JC. 1987. A self-categorization theory. Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory JC Turner, MA Hogg, PJ Oakes, SD Reicher, MS Wetherell 42–67 Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
  138. Turner JC. 1991. Social Influence Milton Keynes, UK: Open Univ. Press
  139. Turner JC. 2005. Explaining the nature of power: a three-process theory. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 35:1–22
    [Google Scholar]
  140. Turner R, Killian LM. 1972. Collective Behavior Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall. , 2nd. ed.
  141. Van Baaren R, Jannssen L, Chartrand TL, Dijksterhuis A 2009. Where is the love? The social aspects of mimicry. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 364:2381–89
    [Google Scholar]
  142. Van Bavel JJ, Pereira A 2018. The partisan brain: an identity-based model of political belief. Trends Cogn. Sci. 22:213–24
    [Google Scholar]
  143. Van der Schalk J, Fischer A, Doosje B, Wigboldus D, Hawk S et al. 2011. Convergent and divergent responses to emotional displays of ingroup and outgroup. Emotion 11:286–98
    [Google Scholar]
  144. Van Kleef GA, Gelfand MJ, Jetten J 2019. The dynamic nature of social norms: new perspectives on norm development, impact, violation, and enforcement. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 84:103814
    [Google Scholar]
  145. Van Rugge CR, Hindriks FA, Steg EM, Spears R 2021. Revising the definition of intrinsic motivation in light of philosophical conceptions of autonomy Work. Pap., Univ. Groningen Groningen, Neth:.
  146. Van Zomeren M, Leach CW, Spears R 2012. Protesters as “passionate economists”: a dynamic dual pathway model of approach coping with collective disadvantage. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 16:180–99
    [Google Scholar]
  147. Van Zomeren M, Postmes T, Spears R 2008. Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: a quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychol. Bull. 34:504–35
    [Google Scholar]
  148. Van Zomeren M, Spears R, Fischer A, Leach CW 2004. Put your money where your mouth is! Explaining collective action tendencies through group-based anger and group efficacy. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 87:649–64
    [Google Scholar]
  149. Volz KG, Kessler T, von Cramon DY 2009. In-group as part of the self: In-group favoritism is mediated by medial prefrontal cortex activation. Soc. Neurosci. 4:244–60
    [Google Scholar]
  150. Waldzus S, Schubert T. 2000. Group norm and category norm in anonymous situations: two sources of social influence. SIDE Issues Centre Stage: Recent Developments in Studies of De-Individuation in Groups T Postmes, R Spears, M Lea, S Reicher 31–45 Amsterdam: Elsevier
    [Google Scholar]
  151. Wetherell M. 1987. Social identity and group polarization. Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory JC Turner, MA Hogg, PJ Oakes, SD Reicher, MS Wetherell 142–70 Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
  152. White KM, Smith JR, Terry DJ, Greenslade JH, McKimmie BM 2009. Social influence in the theory of planned behaviour: the role of descriptive, injunctive, and in-group norms. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 48:135–58
    [Google Scholar]
  153. Wood W. 2000. Attitude change: persuasion and social influence. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 51:539–70
    [Google Scholar]
  154. Zingora T, Stark TH, Flache A 2020. Who is most influential? Adolescents’ intergroup attitudes and peer influence within a social network. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 23:5684–709
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-070620-111818
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-070620-111818
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error