Диссертация (1136702), страница 25
Текст из файла (страница 25)
This graphical scale was used to assess the self-inclusion ofrespondents in their in-group (Schubert & Otten, 2002). Seven pictures, with twocircles on each, showed different degrees of overlap. The first circle representedthe respondent, the second circle represented the in-group (Russians). Participantswere asked to choose the pair of circles that best describes the overlap betweenhim/her and the in-group. The choice was translated into a 7-point scale withhigher scores indicating higher overlap.
Swann, Gomez, Seyle, Morales, andHuici (2009) showed that group identification is associated with fusion, defined as“a powerful union of the personal and social self wherein the borders between thetwo become porous without diminishing the integrity of either construct” (Swann,Jetten, Gomez, Whitehouse, & Bastian, 2012, p. 443). It means that a highlyidentifying person fuses with a group. As Leach et al. (2008) suggested, theinclusion of the self in the in-group should be associated especially withindividual self-stereotyping.3.
Positivity of Ethnic Identity Scale. This scale consists of 4 items scored on a 5point scale (sample item: “If I have the opportunity to choose an ethnic group, I134would choose the same”), which ranged from 1 (absolutely disagree) to 5(strongly agree). Positivity of ethnic identity refers to positive emotions based onethnic group membership (Tatarko & Lebedeva, 2011).
We expected thePositivity of ethnic identity subscale (α = .61) to be associated with satisfactionand solidarity components.Sample 2226 undergraduate students of the Higher School of Economics from Study 1completed several additional measures:1. Group Entitativity Measure (GEM-in). GEM-in (Gaertner & Schopler, 1998) is amodification of the Inclusion of Other in the Self scale (Aron, Aron, & Smollan,1992) and is composed of six diagrams. On each diagram there are five similarcircles representing in-group members. On the first diagram the circles are farapart; on the last diagram they overlap.
Gaertner and Schopler (1998) suggest thatGEM-in is sensitive to changes in both intragroup similarity and interdependence.We expected perceived group entitativity to be associated with in-grouphomogeneity and solidarity.2. Brief Scale of In-Group Emotions. Emotions associated with in-group membershipwere measured by adapting a version of Brief Scale of Ethnical MembershipEmotions (Tatarko & Lebedeva, 2011). We changed the focus of this single-itemscale from ethnic membership to university and gender group membership: “Whatdo you feel about the fact of belonging to the Higher School of Economics/maleor female group?” Participants had to choose one of the 5 responses: 1 –humiliation, 2– offense embarrassment, 3 – no feelings, 4 – quiet confidence, 5 –pride. We expected that in-group emotions would be associated most stronglywith the satisfaction component.3. Self–Group Overlap.
The same measure as used in Sample 1; the first circlerepresented the participant, the second circle represented the in-group (in the firstcase, students of the Higher School of Economics, in the second case, the male orfemale group).1354. Intention to leave. The Intention to leave in-group was assessed only for theuniversity in-group and was measured by 2 items (Spearman-Brown Coefficient =.84): “If I had the opportunity to study at another university, I would have done it”and “I often think that my choice of university was wrong, and it would be nice tostudy at another university”. Each item was scored on a 7-point frequency scale,which ranged from 1 (absolutely disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Whenindividuals identify with a group, they are less likely to intend to leave the group(Abrams, Ando, & Hinkle, 1998; Riketta, 2005).
We expect that the intention toleave the in-group should be negatively associated with satisfaction and centralitycomponents.ResultsTable 5 shows the correlations between the five components of in-groupidentification and the different measures related to in-group identification. FollowingLeach et al. (2008), we calculated the partial correlations which control forsatisfaction, because satisfaction is the general and strongest component of in-groupidentification that tends to demonstrate the highest correlations with different scales.All the components were moderately correlated with the subscales of MEIM(Phinney, 1992).
We expected that the Affirmation and Belonging subscale wouldcorrelate with the solidarity, centrality, and satisfaction components, and the IdentitySearch subscale would correlate with the centrality and satisfaction components ofin-group identification. As shown in Table 3, there were statistically significantcorrelations between the Affirmation and Belonging subscale and the satisfaction, ingrouphomogeneity,solidarity,centralityandindividualself-stereotypingcomponents. The Identity Search subscale had statistically significant correlationswith the satisfaction, centrality, in-group homogeneity, solidarity, and individual selfstereotyping components.
These correlations indicate that the constructs measured byLeach’s et al. (2008) items and MEIM measure are closely related. At the same time,the moderate effect sizes of the correlations suggest that the five components of ingroup identification and Phinney’s measures of ethnic identification measure similar136but distinct aspects of identification.
The pattern of the correlations betweenPhinney’s scales and the components of in-group identification differs from thatobtained by Leach et al. (2008), which may results from non-equivalence of theEnglish and Russian versions of the measures.The satisfaction component had moderate correlations with the Positivity ofIdentity subscale, positive feelings about the in-group, and intention to leave the ingroup. Consistent with the theoretical conceptualization, the satisfaction componentrefers to a positive evaluation of the in-group and it means that the person who issatisfied with his or her membership has positive feelings about membership and isintending to stay in the group (Stryker & Serpe, 1982).
These correlations suggest aconvergent validity of the satisfaction component scale. Moreover, the satisfactioncomponent had also significant correlations with self-group overlap and groupentitativity. These weaker correlations are consistent with the satisfaction being ageneral component of in-group identification, which has the strongest relationship toall the other facets of group identification.The individual self-stereotyping component was correlated with self-groupoverlap.
Because the self-group overlap in the graphical measure is a visual metaphorfor self-categorization (Schubert & Otten, 2002), these correlations suggestconvergent validity of the self-stereotyping component scale.The in-group homogeneity component correlated with perceived groupentitativity. Because perceived group entitativity is theoretically close to grouphomogeneity (Hamilton, Sherman, & Castelli, 2002; Pickett & Perrott, 2004), theseresults suggest the convergent validity of the in-group homogeneity component.The solidarity component was associated with perceived group entitativity andself-group overlap. Solidarity refers to a sense of belonging, a psychologicalattachment to the in-group, and coordination with other group members.
Lickel et al.(2000) demonstrated that the importance of the group to group members and theinteraction among group members are significant parts of the perception of groupentitativity. In other words, solidarity is similar to group entitativity. Moreover, selfgroup overlap as a degree of unity among group members also describes the137relationship between group members and attitudes to a group (Schubert & Otten,2002). All of these results support the convergent validity of the solidaritycomponent.There were unexpectedly low correlations of self-group overlap with in-grouphomogeneity and centrality for the Russian group, with solidarity and in-grouphomogeneity for the university group and solidarity for the gender group.
Thesecorrelations may reflect differences in the understanding of overlap by participants.The centrality component was correlated with the intention to leave in-groupand emotions about in-group. Centrality is the salience and importance of in-groupmembership. Brewer (1988) argues that group members have two main needs, thedesire to preserve their identity and the desire to belong to the group. It means thathigher salience and importance of in-group membership (the centrality component)are associated with lower intention to leave the group.In general, the associations between the five components of in-groupidentification and other measures followed our theoretical expectations and suggestedvalidity of the five scales.
In Study 2, the Russian version of the Leach et al. (2008)measure was shown to have adequate convergent and discriminant validity.138Table 5. Correlations of five components of in-group identification with differentmeasures related to the in-group identificationMeasureISSIGHSatisfaction Solidarity CentralityRussiansEthnical identity (Identity Search)r.55**.54**.59**.62**.71**pr.26**.33**–.30**.46**Ethnical identity (Affirmation andBelonging)r.60**.58**.72**.71**.70**pr.21**.32**–.31**.30**Positivity of identityr.35**.27**.52**.46**.38**pr.05–.00–.18*–.05Self–Group Overlapr.46**.40**.50**.44**.50**pr.15ꜝ.19*–.10.19*StudentsGroup Entitativityr.31**.32**.49**.41**.28**pr.11ꜝ.23**–.15*–.01In-Group Emotionsr.33**.23**.60**.42**.55**pr.07.06–.09.27**Self–Group Overlapr.32**.23**.40**.39**.24**pr.22**.14*–.22**.02Intention to leaver–.23**–.17*–.59**–.39**–.28**pr.07.06–.05–.23**Males / FemalesGroup Entitativityr.22**.27**.19**.29**.20**pr.17*.23**–.20**.15*In-Group Emotionsr.32**.20**.46**.28**.37**pr.12ꜝ.05––.02.11Self–Group Overlapr.36**.18**.29**.29**.24**pr.28**.14*–.23**.10Note.
ISS – individual self-stereotyping; IGH – in-group homogeneity. Satisfaction controlledin partial r (pr). ꜝ p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01139.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
