The impact of discrepancies from ingroup norms on group members' well‐being and motivation

The social identity approach assumes that group members are internally motivated to adhere to group norms. Even though there is plenty of evidence for this assumption, research on how group norms translate into behavior is scarce. If ingroup norms are internalized, they should elicit the same effect as individual standards. Derived from research on internally motivated individual standards, it was predicted that discrepancies from group norms result in more negative affect, lower levels of well‐being, and—based on self‐completion theory—in compensatory effort in case of an opportunity to reduce the discrepancy. One correlational study and four experiments support these predictions. The results are discussed in relation to self‐regulation approaches and the social identity approach. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Threat ≠ prevention,challenge ≠ promotion: The impact of threat,challenge and regulatory focus on attention to negative stimuli

The purpose of the current experiment was to distinguish between the impact of strategic and affective forms of gain- and loss-related motivational states on the attention to negative stimuli. On the basis of the counter-regulation principle and regulatory focus theory, we predicted that individuals would attend more to negative than to neutral stimuli in a prevention focus and when experiencing challenge, but not in a promotion focus and under threat. In one experiment (N = 88) promotion, prevention, threat, or challenge states were activated through a memory task, and a subsequent dot probe task was administered. As predicted, those in the prevention focus and challenge conditions had an attentional bias towards negative words, but those in promotion and threat conditions did not. These findings provide support for the idea that strategic mindsets (e.g., regulatory focus) and hot emotional states (e.g., threat vs. challenge) differently affect the processing of affective stimuli.     

Self‐regulation of Group Members: The Case of Regulatory Focus

For a long time, research on motivation and (inter)group behaviour mainly focused on needs and motives, but did not take self‐regulation (i.e., the processes underlying motivated action) into account. Similarly, self‐regulation research concentrated on the regulation of the personal self, but did not study the regulation of the social self. The current article summarizes work applying self‐regulation approaches to intergroup behaviour. Within this approach, it has been shown (a) that the social self is regulated based on the same mechanisms as the personal self, (b) that intergroup contexts impact on group members’ self‐regulation strategies, and (c) that the fit between an individual's self‐regulation strategy and the behavioural options provided by the group impact on group liking and potentially also on the integration of the group into the self‐concept. The relation between current and earlier approaches to motivation in groups and further avenues for research on group‐based self‐regulation are discussed.     

The impact of regulatory focus on affective responses to social discrimination

The impact of individuals' regulatory focus and the domain of outcomes (non‐gains vs. losses) on the target's affective responses to social discrimination were tested. Based on regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997 ), it was predicted that a prevention focus would lead to more anger and agitation after social discrimination, because experiencing social discrimination is similar to experiencing failure. This pattern was predicted to be more pronounced when social discrimination was based on losses than when social discrimination was based on non‐gains (i.e., when the in‐group was evaluated more negatively vs. less positively compared to the out‐group). The results of three studies using chronic and situationally induced regulatory focus confirmed these predictions. No effect was found for the promotion focus. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The fit between dignity self‐construal and independent university norms: Effects on university belonging,well‐being,and academic success

Universities struggle with students’ low well‐being and high dropout rates. High (compared to low) fit between students’ self‐construal and perceived university norms might help to prevent these problems. A strong dignity self‐construal (i.e., the understanding that one's worth is independent of others) is adaptive if university norms stress independence. The more a university norm is perceived as stressing independence, the better the fit for students with a strong (vs. weak) dignity self‐construal. Thus, if students with a strong dignity self‐construal perceive a university norm as stressing independence, they should develop a greater sense of belonging to the university and, in turn, experience higher well‐being, more motivation, and lower dropout intention. A longitudinal study with two measurement points conducted with students from 18 universities (N = 719) provided support for these predictions. This underlines the relevance of the fit between student and (perceived) school characteristics for the higher education sector.     

The attraction of social power: The influence of construing power as opportunity versus responsibility

Social power can be construed as opportunity (focusing on the possibility of one's own goal achievement resulting from the control over others' outcomes) or as responsibility (focusing on the implications of one's own actions resulting from the control over others' outcomes). Four experiments tested the impact of different construals of social power on the attraction of power. Due to the salience of the possibility for goal achievement, power construed as opportunity was expected to be more attractive than power construed as responsibility. This effect was predicted to be particularly pronounced among individuals with a strong promotion orientation, because of their focus on gains and achievements. Results supported these predictions and indicate that future research should take different construals of power into account.     

Don’t stereotype, think different! Overcoming automatic stereotype activation by mindset priming

Automatic stereotype activation can be overcome intentionally and after an extensive training. However, intentions have to be tailored to a certain social category. It is hypothesized that activating the mindset “think different” by priming creativity prevents stereotypes and associations in general from becoming automatically activated. In two experiments a creative, a thoughtful or no mindset was activated. Afterwards, the activation of associations was measured using a lexical decision task with semantic priming. As predicted, the automatic activation of stereotypes (Study 1) and other associations (Study 2) was found in the control conditions but not in a creative mindset. These results suggest that people possess a mindset that allows for overcoming automatic stereotype activation without being tailored to a specific category.     

Knocking on the Outgroup's Door: Seeking Outgroup Help Under Conditions of Task or Relational Conflict

Three studies investigated the willingness to seek help from another group in situations where collaborative goals are undermined by task or relational conflicts between the groups. Compared to task conflict, relational conflict was argued to trigger a striving for more autonomy. The results from three experiments (N = 82, N = 65, and N = 62) supported the prediction that relational conflict, compared to task conflict, promotes more help avoidance, in particular avoidance of dependency-oriented help (a full solution). As expected, no difference was found for the willingness to seek autonomy-oriented help (a hint) from the other group.