Psychological theories often orient around the hypothesized contrasting nature of dual-opposed constructs: conscious versus unconscious, hot versus cold, approach versus avoid. Whether such antagonistic systems truly exist in nature, as the leverage points within conceptual frameworks, they have proved their use in aiding behavioral prediction. Included in the list of commonly contrasted conceptual categories are individual and group. Common are theories that treat the psychology of the group as something that differs from and often runs in opposition to the psychology of the individual. Examples include theories that posit shifting levels of self-abstraction – from perceiving the self as a discrete, separate, individualized entity to perceiving it as a connected, interchangeable part of the whole. Also included are theories that predict tension and conflict between the desire to distinguish self from others and the desire to associate self with others.
In their various theoretical guises, individual/group contrasts have great explanatory power, but the dominance of this one treatment has introduced blind spots. Baumeister et al. redress this concern by turning attention to the dynamic ways in which an individuated self can interact with in-group identification to further collective goals. Baumeister et al. reveal that greater self-differentiation can promote specialization, cohesiveness, and efficiency. Not elaborated in their framework – necessarily so, due to space constraints – were the mechanisms by which groups utilize a differentiated self to promote desired outcomes. That question is the focal concern in a compatible theory, Deviance Regulation Theory (DRT; Blanton & Christie Reference Blanton and Christie2003). DRT considers two qualities that groups often wish to maximize: social order and social complexity. Social order speaks to the importance of having members adhere to consensually agreed-upon codes of conduct. Social complexity speaks to the benefits groups can accrue when members exhibit diversity of thought and action.
Of interest in DRT are the ways social groups (defined as anything from small peer groups to society at large) employ contingencies to direct individual actions. Contingencies are rewards and punishments, which can be delivered in tangible forms (e.g., fines and awards) or tacit (acceptance and rejection). In DRT, as in Baumeister et al., such contingencies take hold only if there is some degree of self-differentiation. DRT differs from Baumeister et al. in that it defines differentiation based on deviation from social norms (both descriptive and injunctive), but the two approaches speak to similar dynamics. Drawing on a broad range of theories in both social and cognitive traditions, DRT assumes that counternormative actions and attributes (which by definition cause the individual to break from in-group descriptive and injunctive norms) contribute to the individual's (differentiated) sense of self, more than their normative counterparts.
The resulting asymmetry in the “information value” of counternormative versus normative expressions has direct implications for the differing effects of rewards and punishments on behavior (see Blanton & Hall Reference Blanton, Hall, Forgas, Baumeister and Tice2009). To maintain and promote social order, DRT predicts that groups should (and typically do) punish those who break from the status quo in undesired ways. In contrast, to promote complexity and diversification, groups should (and typically do) reward those who separate from the herd in desirable ways. It is this latter, reward function of groups that is largely missing from the early small-groups literature (e.g., Festinger Reference Festinger1950; Schachter Reference Schachter1951). Expressions of uniqueness have more typically been treated as the prerogative of the individual (e.g., Snyder & Fromkin Reference Snyder and Fromkin1980) and at times conceptualized as a motive that runs in opposition to collectivistic interests (Brewer Reference Brewer1991). In contrast, both DRT and Baumeister et al. explore how uniqueness arises from group influence.
The Baumeister et al. analysis goes far beyond the focus of DRT, but together they might provide a broader foundation for predicting the in-group contingency structures that promote optimal functioning of groups facing complex, external challenges. The first factor (differentiation) is an individuated self. Once groups cohere around common identities and bonds, their survival in challenging and competitive worlds might depend on conditions that promote identifiable (differentiated, accountable) as opposed to hidden (anonymous, submersed) identities, as Baumeister et al. argued in convincing fashion.
Individuation can allow contingencies to take hold, but it how contingencies are employed also matters. DRT suggests a second factor: balance. There are dangers in tilting too heavily either in the direction of punishments or rewards. Overly punitive groups will excel primarily at producing uniformity of opinion and action – which, in the words of Baumeister et al., can cause them to become less than the sum of their parts. In contrast, overly rewarding groups might dissolve under the strains of unfocused, poorly regulated diversity. But the proper use of punishment and reward is not just one of balancing relative emphases.
A third factor, also suggested by DRT (matching), focuses on the framing of contingencies. Negative contingencies should be utilized when conformity is desired. One need look no further than modern criminal justice systems to see the emphasis placed on punishment when the goal is to stamp out unwanted deviations. However, punishment does little to motivate excellence. To promote diversity and specialization, groups should reward a wide range of desired but “optional” actions that members can choose from.
Finally, the Baumeister et al.'s analysis reveals a limitation to the DRT narrative on matching and the importance of another factor (movement). Many examples in the target article illustrate how complexity arises over time, presumably facilitated by individuals moving out of past roles where they floundered and into ones where they will succeed. This suggests ways that even punishment might promote diversity. Punishment can play this role when it causes individuals to leave pursuits where they lack either the ability or motivation to excel in favor of alternative (optional) pursuits, where rewards are more obtainable. To encourage movement of this sort, groups might practice “contingent love” – efficiently punishing and discouraging failure but also allowing and rewarding fruitful redirection.
These four features (differentiation, balance, matching, and movement) might help groups become more than the sum of their parts. If so, their derivation from Baumeister et al. and DRT points to the value of theories that treat “individual” and “group” as complementary, rather than oppositional conceptual categories.
You have
Access
Psychological theories often orient around the hypothesized contrasting nature of dual-opposed constructs: conscious versus unconscious, hot versus cold, approach versus avoid. Whether such antagonistic systems truly exist in nature, as the leverage points within conceptual frameworks, they have proved their use in aiding behavioral prediction. Included in the list of commonly contrasted conceptual categories are individual and group. Common are theories that treat the psychology of the group as something that differs from and often runs in opposition to the psychology of the individual. Examples include theories that posit shifting levels of self-abstraction – from perceiving the self as a discrete, separate, individualized entity to perceiving it as a connected, interchangeable part of the whole. Also included are theories that predict tension and conflict between the desire to distinguish self from others and the desire to associate self with others.
In their various theoretical guises, individual/group contrasts have great explanatory power, but the dominance of this one treatment has introduced blind spots. Baumeister et al. redress this concern by turning attention to the dynamic ways in which an individuated self can interact with in-group identification to further collective goals. Baumeister et al. reveal that greater self-differentiation can promote specialization, cohesiveness, and efficiency. Not elaborated in their framework – necessarily so, due to space constraints – were the mechanisms by which groups utilize a differentiated self to promote desired outcomes. That question is the focal concern in a compatible theory, Deviance Regulation Theory (DRT; Blanton & Christie Reference Blanton and Christie2003). DRT considers two qualities that groups often wish to maximize: social order and social complexity. Social order speaks to the importance of having members adhere to consensually agreed-upon codes of conduct. Social complexity speaks to the benefits groups can accrue when members exhibit diversity of thought and action.
Of interest in DRT are the ways social groups (defined as anything from small peer groups to society at large) employ contingencies to direct individual actions. Contingencies are rewards and punishments, which can be delivered in tangible forms (e.g., fines and awards) or tacit (acceptance and rejection). In DRT, as in Baumeister et al., such contingencies take hold only if there is some degree of self-differentiation. DRT differs from Baumeister et al. in that it defines differentiation based on deviation from social norms (both descriptive and injunctive), but the two approaches speak to similar dynamics. Drawing on a broad range of theories in both social and cognitive traditions, DRT assumes that counternormative actions and attributes (which by definition cause the individual to break from in-group descriptive and injunctive norms) contribute to the individual's (differentiated) sense of self, more than their normative counterparts.
The resulting asymmetry in the “information value” of counternormative versus normative expressions has direct implications for the differing effects of rewards and punishments on behavior (see Blanton & Hall Reference Blanton, Hall, Forgas, Baumeister and Tice2009). To maintain and promote social order, DRT predicts that groups should (and typically do) punish those who break from the status quo in undesired ways. In contrast, to promote complexity and diversification, groups should (and typically do) reward those who separate from the herd in desirable ways. It is this latter, reward function of groups that is largely missing from the early small-groups literature (e.g., Festinger Reference Festinger1950; Schachter Reference Schachter1951). Expressions of uniqueness have more typically been treated as the prerogative of the individual (e.g., Snyder & Fromkin Reference Snyder and Fromkin1980) and at times conceptualized as a motive that runs in opposition to collectivistic interests (Brewer Reference Brewer1991). In contrast, both DRT and Baumeister et al. explore how uniqueness arises from group influence.
The Baumeister et al. analysis goes far beyond the focus of DRT, but together they might provide a broader foundation for predicting the in-group contingency structures that promote optimal functioning of groups facing complex, external challenges. The first factor (differentiation) is an individuated self. Once groups cohere around common identities and bonds, their survival in challenging and competitive worlds might depend on conditions that promote identifiable (differentiated, accountable) as opposed to hidden (anonymous, submersed) identities, as Baumeister et al. argued in convincing fashion.
Individuation can allow contingencies to take hold, but it how contingencies are employed also matters. DRT suggests a second factor: balance. There are dangers in tilting too heavily either in the direction of punishments or rewards. Overly punitive groups will excel primarily at producing uniformity of opinion and action – which, in the words of Baumeister et al., can cause them to become less than the sum of their parts. In contrast, overly rewarding groups might dissolve under the strains of unfocused, poorly regulated diversity. But the proper use of punishment and reward is not just one of balancing relative emphases.
A third factor, also suggested by DRT (matching), focuses on the framing of contingencies. Negative contingencies should be utilized when conformity is desired. One need look no further than modern criminal justice systems to see the emphasis placed on punishment when the goal is to stamp out unwanted deviations. However, punishment does little to motivate excellence. To promote diversity and specialization, groups should reward a wide range of desired but “optional” actions that members can choose from.
Finally, the Baumeister et al.'s analysis reveals a limitation to the DRT narrative on matching and the importance of another factor (movement). Many examples in the target article illustrate how complexity arises over time, presumably facilitated by individuals moving out of past roles where they floundered and into ones where they will succeed. This suggests ways that even punishment might promote diversity. Punishment can play this role when it causes individuals to leave pursuits where they lack either the ability or motivation to excel in favor of alternative (optional) pursuits, where rewards are more obtainable. To encourage movement of this sort, groups might practice “contingent love” – efficiently punishing and discouraging failure but also allowing and rewarding fruitful redirection.
These four features (differentiation, balance, matching, and movement) might help groups become more than the sum of their parts. If so, their derivation from Baumeister et al. and DRT points to the value of theories that treat “individual” and “group” as complementary, rather than oppositional conceptual categories.