The target article deals with a tremendously important question: How can one promote productivity, accountability, and moral integrity in groups? The authors argue that group functioning is best promoted through a two-step procedure: Step 1 emphasizes shared common identity; Step 2 emphasizes intragroup differentiation. This formula operates from the premise that common identity is the antithesis of individual differentiation (or as expressed in the paper, that “submersion of the self into the group is the opposite of differentiation”). Working from this premise, it is understandable that the authors advocate a temporally disentangled process to promote cohesion and accountability: first an emphasis on group commonalities that “promotes emotional bonds” and only then the differentiation that reduces conformity pressures and improves performance.
The notion that there is a hydraulic relationship between group identification and individual distinctiveness is intuitively appealing. But in the last 15 years in particular, the social identity literature has moved on decisively, and it is now orthodox to accept that expressions of individual strength can go hand in hand with strong commitment to the group. As just one example, many groups enshrine the need for autonomy, dissent, debate and freedom of individual thought as a core group value (academia, of course, is one of these). Indeed, our educated guess is that the majority of groups that one engages with in everyday life – in schools, organizations and community groups – would profess to uphold these values. In these cases, submerging of the individual self to the group would not trigger pathological group behavior such as “failure to pool information and groupthink.” Instead, precisely because individuals are “submerged” in the group, they may engage in any type of behaviors that are construed as beneficial for the group, and these behaviors include dissent, constructive criticism, individual autonomy, and healthy disobedience (Jetten & Hornsey Reference Jetten and Hornsey2014). Committed group members are socialized into respecting cohesion but also accountability; they conform to the norm of being nonconformist.
The evidence for this theoretical position is extensive. For example, when groups endorse individualistic norms, it is the high identifiers (the people who theoretically are most “submerged” in the group) who are particularly likely to think and act in ways that suggest individual distinctiveness. They are the ones who are most likely to see themselves as individuals (Jetten et al. Reference Jetten, Postmes and McAuliffe2002) and to support in-group dissenters (Hornsey et al. Reference Hornsey, Jetten, McAuliffe and Hogg2006). And they are the ones who are least likely to derogate others in the group who behave in an individualistic fashion (McAuliffe et al. Reference McAuliffe, Jetten, Hornsey and Hogg2003) or to derogate rival outgroups (Jetten et al. Reference Jetten, McAuliffe, Hornsey and Hogg2006). So when the norm of the group is to be individualist, being “groupy” and being individually agentic become the same thing. This balancing of group commitment and intragroup differentiation is not paradoxical or surprising: We see it as flowing in a natural way from social identity theorizing.
Identifying with a group that values individuality and uniqueness is not the only way in which group belonging and individual distinctiveness can be achieved simultaneously. In a review paper, Hornsey and Jetten (Reference Hornsey and Jetten2004) describe three other strategies: self-defining as loyal but nonconformist (a common pattern, even among high identifiers); seeing oneself as excessively normative (otherwise known as the “first among equals” effect); and engaging in role differentiation (a strategy also discussed in the target article). None of these strategies requires one to buy into the notion of a hydraulic relationship between cohesion and intragroup differentiation: They are commonsense methods that group members use to balance their desire to belong with their desire to be different.
A parallel literature on identity fusion further challenges the idea that submersion of the self in the group is the opposite of differentiation (Swann et al. Reference Swann, Jetten, Whitehouse and Bastian2012). There is now a convergence of research showing that willingness to fight and die for the group is greatest among those who indicate that the individual self is fused with the collective self. One interpretation is that the individual self is embedded within the collective self and is accordingly eclipsed by it. But an alternative interpretation – one that is supported by fusion theorizing – is that the individual self is potent and highly agentic among fused individuals. This principle is consistent with extant literature on extremism. For example, members of an extremist Muslim group in Turkey reported stronger personal identification than did nonmembers, and when they were induced to focus on their personal selves (they were asked to complete a questionnaire in front of a mirror), levels of identification with the movement increased (Baray et al. Reference Baray, Postmes and Jetten2009).
When viewed through the lens of the last decade of group identity research in particular, old dichotomies between group cohesion (supposedly emphasizing homogeneity) and individual differentiation become unsustainable. This theoretical advance has pragmatic implications. For example, it means that group leaders do not have to engage in a temporally disentangled two-step process – cohesion followed by differentiation – to promote the positive outcomes they are striving for. Although there may be cases where this might occur, this strategy strikes us as being logistically challenging and practically awkward. A more elegant strategy would establish, from the outset, a normative climate that encouraged autonomy, critical thinking, and individual freedom as core group values. There is already evidence that doing so helps reduce many of the group-related problems identified in the paper. For example, high group identification is associated with more willingness to speak out about group problems (Packer Reference Packer2009) and when a norm of critical engagement is present then biased sampling is reduced, with no detrimental effect on group cohesion (Postmes et al. Reference Postmes, Spears and Cihangir2001).
In sum, there is no need to quarantine efforts at intragroup differentiation from efforts at group cohesion, because there is no firewall between them. A large body of recent work makes clear that in many cases intragroup differentiation occurs because of, not in spite of, strong group commitment. In short, it is time to bury the old dichotomy.
You have
Access
The target article deals with a tremendously important question: How can one promote productivity, accountability, and moral integrity in groups? The authors argue that group functioning is best promoted through a two-step procedure: Step 1 emphasizes shared common identity; Step 2 emphasizes intragroup differentiation. This formula operates from the premise that common identity is the antithesis of individual differentiation (or as expressed in the paper, that “submersion of the self into the group is the opposite of differentiation”). Working from this premise, it is understandable that the authors advocate a temporally disentangled process to promote cohesion and accountability: first an emphasis on group commonalities that “promotes emotional bonds” and only then the differentiation that reduces conformity pressures and improves performance.
The notion that there is a hydraulic relationship between group identification and individual distinctiveness is intuitively appealing. But in the last 15 years in particular, the social identity literature has moved on decisively, and it is now orthodox to accept that expressions of individual strength can go hand in hand with strong commitment to the group. As just one example, many groups enshrine the need for autonomy, dissent, debate and freedom of individual thought as a core group value (academia, of course, is one of these). Indeed, our educated guess is that the majority of groups that one engages with in everyday life – in schools, organizations and community groups – would profess to uphold these values. In these cases, submerging of the individual self to the group would not trigger pathological group behavior such as “failure to pool information and groupthink.” Instead, precisely because individuals are “submerged” in the group, they may engage in any type of behaviors that are construed as beneficial for the group, and these behaviors include dissent, constructive criticism, individual autonomy, and healthy disobedience (Jetten & Hornsey Reference Jetten and Hornsey2014). Committed group members are socialized into respecting cohesion but also accountability; they conform to the norm of being nonconformist.
The evidence for this theoretical position is extensive. For example, when groups endorse individualistic norms, it is the high identifiers (the people who theoretically are most “submerged” in the group) who are particularly likely to think and act in ways that suggest individual distinctiveness. They are the ones who are most likely to see themselves as individuals (Jetten et al. Reference Jetten, Postmes and McAuliffe2002) and to support in-group dissenters (Hornsey et al. Reference Hornsey, Jetten, McAuliffe and Hogg2006). And they are the ones who are least likely to derogate others in the group who behave in an individualistic fashion (McAuliffe et al. Reference McAuliffe, Jetten, Hornsey and Hogg2003) or to derogate rival outgroups (Jetten et al. Reference Jetten, McAuliffe, Hornsey and Hogg2006). So when the norm of the group is to be individualist, being “groupy” and being individually agentic become the same thing. This balancing of group commitment and intragroup differentiation is not paradoxical or surprising: We see it as flowing in a natural way from social identity theorizing.
Identifying with a group that values individuality and uniqueness is not the only way in which group belonging and individual distinctiveness can be achieved simultaneously. In a review paper, Hornsey and Jetten (Reference Hornsey and Jetten2004) describe three other strategies: self-defining as loyal but nonconformist (a common pattern, even among high identifiers); seeing oneself as excessively normative (otherwise known as the “first among equals” effect); and engaging in role differentiation (a strategy also discussed in the target article). None of these strategies requires one to buy into the notion of a hydraulic relationship between cohesion and intragroup differentiation: They are commonsense methods that group members use to balance their desire to belong with their desire to be different.
A parallel literature on identity fusion further challenges the idea that submersion of the self in the group is the opposite of differentiation (Swann et al. Reference Swann, Jetten, Whitehouse and Bastian2012). There is now a convergence of research showing that willingness to fight and die for the group is greatest among those who indicate that the individual self is fused with the collective self. One interpretation is that the individual self is embedded within the collective self and is accordingly eclipsed by it. But an alternative interpretation – one that is supported by fusion theorizing – is that the individual self is potent and highly agentic among fused individuals. This principle is consistent with extant literature on extremism. For example, members of an extremist Muslim group in Turkey reported stronger personal identification than did nonmembers, and when they were induced to focus on their personal selves (they were asked to complete a questionnaire in front of a mirror), levels of identification with the movement increased (Baray et al. Reference Baray, Postmes and Jetten2009).
When viewed through the lens of the last decade of group identity research in particular, old dichotomies between group cohesion (supposedly emphasizing homogeneity) and individual differentiation become unsustainable. This theoretical advance has pragmatic implications. For example, it means that group leaders do not have to engage in a temporally disentangled two-step process – cohesion followed by differentiation – to promote the positive outcomes they are striving for. Although there may be cases where this might occur, this strategy strikes us as being logistically challenging and practically awkward. A more elegant strategy would establish, from the outset, a normative climate that encouraged autonomy, critical thinking, and individual freedom as core group values. There is already evidence that doing so helps reduce many of the group-related problems identified in the paper. For example, high group identification is associated with more willingness to speak out about group problems (Packer Reference Packer2009) and when a norm of critical engagement is present then biased sampling is reduced, with no detrimental effect on group cohesion (Postmes et al. Reference Postmes, Spears and Cihangir2001).
In sum, there is no need to quarantine efforts at intragroup differentiation from efforts at group cohesion, because there is no firewall between them. A large body of recent work makes clear that in many cases intragroup differentiation occurs because of, not in spite of, strong group commitment. In short, it is time to bury the old dichotomy.