Threshold Effects of Distinctiveness: Psychological Mechanisms Underlying Group Identity

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2025.0820

Abstract

Abstract:

Finding a balance between the self and the group is a central issue in human social life. Within the context of intergroup comparison, the Optimal Distinctiveness Model proposes an inverted U-shaped relationship between distinctiveness and group identification. However, how individuals balance the self and the group in an intragroup context remains unclear. Through three experiments, this paper systematically explores the impact of self-group distinctiveness on group identification across different levels of distinctiveness and group attributes. The findings reveal that, overall, distinctiveness exerts a non-linear, inverted S-shaped negative effect on group identification, with a distinctiveness threshold at the moderate level where the decline in group identification is most pronounced. Once distinctiveness surpasses this threshold, individuals exhibit complete disidentification from the group (Experiment 1). Both the level and nature of distinctiveness moderate this threshold effect (Experiment 1, 2, and 3). Additionally, intragroup cognitive dissonance mediates this relationship, whereby distinctiveness positively predicts intragroup cognitive dissonance, which in turn negatively predicts group identification (Experiment 3). The identification threshold identified in this study not only aids individuals in maintaining psychological boundaries but also serves as an effective warning signal for organizational management and social harmony.

Key words: Group identification, Optimal Distinctiveness Model, intragroup cognitive dissonance, group attributes, threshold effect

KE Wenlin, WEN Fangfang, ZUO Bin. (2025). Threshold Effects of Distinctiveness: Psychological Mechanisms Underlying Group Identity. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 57(5), 820-837.

Figures/Tables 9

References 52

[1]	Albright, J. J., & Marinova, D. M. (2015). Estimating multilevel models using SPSS, Stata, SAS, and R. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/handle/2022/19737
[2]	Aquino, K., Townsend, A., & Scott, K. (2001, August). The effects of surface- and deep-level dissimilarity on individual work attitudes and cognitions in self-directed work teams. Paper presented at the National Academy of Management meeting, Washington, DC.
[3]	Becker, M., Vignoles, V. L., Owe, E., Brown, R., Smith, P. B., Easterbrook, M.,... Yamakoğlu, N. (2012). Culture and the distinctiveness motive: Constructing identity in individualistic and collectivistic contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(4), 833-855. doi: 10.1037/a0026853 pmid: 22288530
[4]	Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), 475-482.
[5]	Buis, B. C., Ferguson, A. J., & Briscoe, J. P. (2019). Finding the “I” in “Team”: The role of groups in an individual's pursuit of calling. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 114, 88-99.
[6]	Doeselaar, L. V., Klimstra, T., Denissen, J., & Meeus, W. (2019). Distinctiveness as a marker of identity formation. Journal of Research in Personality, 78, 153-164. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2018.12.002
[7]	Fang, J., & Wen, Z. L. (2018). A comparison of three methods for testing multilevel mediation. Journal of Psychological Science, 41(4), 962-967.
[8]	Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). Gpower 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods*, 39(2), 175-191. doi: 10.3758/bf03193146 pmid: 17695343
[9]	Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press
[10]	Glasford, D. E., Dovidio, J. F., & Pratto, F. (2009). I continue to feel so good about us: In-group identification and the use of social identity-enhancing strategies to reduce intragroup dissonance. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(4), 415-427.
[11]	Glasford, D. E., Pratto, F., & Dovidio, J. F. (2008). Intragroup dissonance: Responses to ingroup violation of personal values. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(4), 1057-1064.
[12]	Goldenberg, A., Sweeny, T. D., Shpigel, E., & Gross, J. J. (2019). Is this my group or not? The role of ensemble coding of emotional expressions in group categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 149(3), 445-460.
[13]	Guillaume, Y. R. F., Brodbeck, F. C., & Riketta, M. (2012). Surface- and deep-level dissimilarity effects on social integration and individual effectiveness related outcomes in work groups: A meta-analytic integration. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 85(1), 80-115.
[14]	Haans, R. F. J. (2019). What's the value of being different when everyone is? The effects of distinctiveness on performance in homogeneous versus heterogeneous categories. Strategic Management Journal, 40(1), 3-27.
[15]	Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 96-107.
[16]	Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. (2002). Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 1029-1045.
[17]	Hayes, A. F., & Rockwood, N. J. (2020). Conditional process analysis: Concepts, computation, and advances in the modeling of the contingencies of mechanisms. American Behavioral Scientist, 64(1), 19-54.
[18]	Hornsey, M. J., & Jetten, J. (2004). The individual within the group: Balancing the need to belong with the need to be different. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 8(3), 248-264.
[19]	Huang, Y., & Kou, Y. (2013). The effect of group distinctiveness on intergroup bias. Advances in Psychological Science, 21(4), 732-739. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2013.00732
[20]	Jaffé, M. E., Jeitziner, L., Keller, M. D., & Walker, M. (2022). Differences in faces do make a difference: Diversity perceptions and preferences in faces. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 100, 104277, doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104277.
[21]	Jetten, J., Branscombe, N. R., & Spears, R. (2002). On being peripheral: Effects of identity insecurity on personal and collective self-esteem. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32(1), 105-123.
[22]	Kawakami, K., Friesen, J., & Vingilis-Jaremko, L. (2018). Visual attention to members of own and other groups: Preferences, determinants, and consequences. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 12(4), e12380, doi: 10.1111/SPC3.12380.
[23]	Konovalova, E., & Mens, G. L. (2019). An information sampling explanation for the in-group heterogeneity effect. Psychological Review, 127(1), 47-73.
[24]	Krishna, A., & Götz, F. J. (2024). Motor coordination induces social identity-A novel paradigm for the investigation of the group performance-identity link. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 63(4), 1828-1843.
[25]	Leach, C. W., van Zomeren, M., Zebel, S., Vliek, M. L. W., Pennekamp, S. F., Doosje, B., Ouwerkerk, J. W., & Spears, R. (2008). Group-level self-definition and self-investment: A hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 144-165. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.144 pmid: 18605857
[26]	Li, Q., Gong, S. Y., & Li, C. F. (2019). The impact of team cultural diversity on team innovation. Advances in Psychological Science, 27(9), 1521-1539. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2019.01521
[27]	Ma, M. C. (1990). Fuzzy theory of psychophysical threshold. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 22(3), 18-24.
[28]	Matz, D. C., & Wood, W. (2005). Cognitive dissonance in groups: The consequences of disagreement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(1), 22-37. pmid: 15631572
[29]	McKimmie, B. M., Terry, D. J., Hogg, M. A., Manstead, A. S. R., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (2003). I'm a hypocrite, but so is everyone else: Group support and the reduction of cognitive dissonance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7(3), 214-224.
[30]	Meaney, T., & Rieger, E. (2021). Integrating cognitive dissonance and social consensus to reduce weight stigma. Body Image, 37(1), 117-126.
[31]	Moon, J. H., & Sung, Y. (2015). Individuality within the group: Testing the optimal distinctiveness principle through brand consumption. Social Behavior & Personality, 43(1), 15-26.
[32]	Ormiston, M. E. (2016). Explaining the link between objective and perceived differences in groups: The role of the belonging and distinctiveness motives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(2), 222-236. doi: 10.1037/apl0000051 pmid: 26302051
[33]	Palese, T., & Schmid Mast, M. (2020). The Role of Social Categorization and Social Dominance Orientation in Behavioral Adaptability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 122(4), 700-713. doi: 10.1037/pspi0000351 pmid: 33252971
[34]	Phillips, K. W., & Loyd, D. L. (2006). When surface and deep-level diversity collide: The effects on dissenting group members. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 99(2), 143-160.
[35]	Pickett, C. L., Bonner, B. L., & Coleman, J. M. (2002). Motivated self-stereotyping: Heightened assimilation and differentiation needs result in increased levels of positive and negative self-stereotyping. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 82(4), 543-562.
[36]	Pickett, C. L., Silver, M. D., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). The impact of assimilation and differentiation needs on perceived group importance and judgments of ingroup size. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(4), 546-558.
[37]	Robin, X., Turck, N., Hainard, A., Tiberti, N., Lisacek, F., Sanchez, J. C., & Müller, M. (2011). pROC: An open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves. BMC Bioinformatics, 12, 77, doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-12-77. pmid: 21414208
[38]	Rubin, M., & Badea, C. (2012). They're all the same!... but for several different reasons: A review of the multicausal nature of perceived group variability. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(6), 367-372.
[39]	Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Holcombe Ehrhart, K., & Singh, G. (2011). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1262-1289.
[40]	Slotter, E. B., Duffy, C. W., & Gardner, W. L. (2014). Balancing the need to be "me" with the need to be "we": Applying Optimal Distinctiveness Theory to the understanding of multiple motives within romantic relationships. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 71-81.
[41]	Smaldino, P. E., & Epstein, J. M. (2015). Social conformity despite individual preferences for distinctiveness. Royal Society Open Science, 2(3), 140437, doi: 10.1098/rsos.140437.
[42]	Swann, W. B., Jr., Gómez, Á., Seyle, D. C., Morales, J. F., & Huici, C. (2009). Identity fusion: The interplay of personal and social identities in extreme group behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 995-1011. doi: 10.1037/a0013668 pmid: 19379032
[43]	Van Buuren, S., & Groothuis-Oudshoorn, K. (2011). Mice: Multivariate imputation by chained equations. Journal of Statistical Software, 45(3), 1-67.
[44]	Vergne, J. P., & Wry, T. (2014). Categorizing categorization research: Review, integration, and future directions. Journal of Management Studies, 51(1), 56-94.
[45]	Walker, B. W. (2022). A dynamic reframing of the social/personal identity dichotomy. Organizational Psychology Review, 12(3), 1-32.
[46]	Wang, Q., & Yu, G. L. (2016). The relationship between group identification and individual mental health: Moderating variables and mechanisms. Advances in Psychological Science, 24(8), 1300-1308 doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2016.01300
[47]	Ward, L. M. (1990). Mixed-method mixed-modality psychophysical scaling. Perception & Psychophysics, 48(6), 571-582.
[48]	Way, J. D., Conway, J. S., Shockley, K. M., & Lineberry, M. C. (2022). Predicting perceptions of team process using optimal distinctiveness theory. Small Group Research, 53(3), 464-489.
[49]	Wickham, H. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer-Verlag New York.
[50]	Wood, S. N. (2011). Fast stable restricted maximum likelihood and marginal likelihood estimation of semiparametric generalized linear models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 73(1), 3-36.
[51]	Yang, T., & Chen, G. (2020). Identity fusion: Perspectives and influential mechanisms. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28(5), 1054-1060.
[52]	Zou, X., Yin, K., & Lu, L. (2018). Collective rituals promote cohesion: Based on action, emotion, and memory. Advances in Psychological Science, 26(5), 939-950.

Experimental Conditions		Regression Equation			Regression coefficient Significance
Group Attribute	Differentiation Level	Outcome Variable	Predictor Variable	Threshold	β₁	SE	LLCI	ULCI
Surface Attribute	Difference from the average	Cognitive Dissonance	Distinctiveness	0.56	5.78^***	0.36	5.20	6.40
		Group Identification	Cognitive Dissonance	0.58	?6.07^***	0.41	?6.77	?5.42
		Group Identification	Distinctiveness		?1.82^***	0.37	?2.44	?1.20
		Group Identification	Cognitive Dissonance		?4.95^***	0.44	?5.70	?4.25
Surface Attribute	Group's own variability	Cognitive Dissonance	Distinctiveness	0.67	4.50^***	0.29	4.02	4.99
		Group Identification	Cognitive Dissonance	0.59	?4.86^***	0.32	?5.39	?4.35
		Group Identification	Distinctiveness		?1.72^***	0.31	?2.23	?1.20
			Cognitive Dissonance		?3.91^***	0.34	?4.49	?3.56
Deep Attribute	Difference from the average	Cognitive Dissonance	Distinctiveness	0.53	6.64^***	0.41	5.99	7.34
		Group Identification	Cognitive Dissonance	0.57	?9.10^***	0.67	?10.26	?8.07
		Group Identification	Distinctiveness		?3.78^***	0.48	?4.59	?3.00
			Cognitive Dissonance		?7.31^***	0.66	?8.46	?6.29
Deep Attribute	Group's own variability	Cognitive Dissonance	Distinctiveness	0.60	4.12^***	0.27	3.68	4.58
		Group Identification	Cognitive Dissonance	0.57	?5.48^***	0.34	?6.06	?4.93
		Group Identification	Distinctiveness		?2.65^***	0.32	?3.19	?2.12
			Cognitive Dissonance		?4.37^***	0.35	?4.97	?3.80

Experimental Conditions		Regression Equation			Regression coefficient Significance
Group Attribute	Differentiation Level	Outcome Variable	Predictor Variable	Threshold	β₁	SE	LLCI	ULCI
Surface Attribute	Difference from the average	Cognitive Dissonance	Distinctiveness	0.56	5.78^***	0.36	5.20	6.40
		Group Identification	Cognitive Dissonance	0.58	?6.07^***	0.41	?6.77	?5.42
		Group Identification	Distinctiveness		?1.82^***	0.37	?2.44	?1.20
		Group Identification	Cognitive Dissonance		?4.95^***	0.44	?5.70	?4.25
Surface Attribute	Group's own variability	Cognitive Dissonance	Distinctiveness	0.67	4.50^***	0.29	4.02	4.99
		Group Identification	Cognitive Dissonance	0.59	?4.86^***	0.32	?5.39	?4.35
		Group Identification	Distinctiveness		?1.72^***	0.31	?2.23	?1.20
			Cognitive Dissonance		?3.91^***	0.34	?4.49	?3.56
Deep Attribute	Difference from the average	Cognitive Dissonance	Distinctiveness	0.53	6.64^***	0.41	5.99	7.34
		Group Identification	Cognitive Dissonance	0.57	?9.10^***	0.67	?10.26	?8.07
		Group Identification	Distinctiveness		?3.78^***	0.48	?4.59	?3.00
			Cognitive Dissonance		?7.31^***	0.66	?8.46	?6.29
Deep Attribute	Group's own variability	Cognitive Dissonance	Distinctiveness	0.60	4.12^***	0.27	3.68	4.58
		Group Identification	Cognitive Dissonance	0.57	?5.48^***	0.34	?6.06	?4.93
		Group Identification	Distinctiveness		?2.65^***	0.32	?3.19	?2.12
			Cognitive Dissonance		?4.37^***	0.35	?4.97	?3.80

Group Attribute	Differentiation Level	Effect Type	Effect Value	SE	LLCI	ULCI
Surface	Difference from the average	Direct Effect	?0.15	0.04	?0.22	?0.08
Surface	Difference from the average	Indirect Effect	?0.41	0.03	?0.47	?0.36
Surface	Group's own variability	Direct Effect	?0.17	0.03	?0.24	?0.10
Surface	Group's own variability	Indirect Effect	?0.32	0.03	?0.37	?0.28
Deep	Difference from the average	Direct Effect	?0.26	0.04	?0.34	?0.19
Deep	Difference from the average	Indirect Effect	?0.61	0.03	?0.68	?0.55
Deep	Group's own variability	Direct Effect	?0.29	0.04	?0.36	?0.21
Deep	Group's own variability	Indirect Effect	?0.41	0.03	?0.47	?0.35

Group Attribute	Differentiation Level	Effect Type	Effect Value	SE	LLCI	ULCI
Surface	Difference from the average	Direct Effect	?0.15	0.04	?0.22	?0.08
Surface	Difference from the average	Indirect Effect	?0.41	0.03	?0.47	?0.36
Surface	Group's own variability	Direct Effect	?0.17	0.03	?0.24	?0.10
Surface	Group's own variability	Indirect Effect	?0.32	0.03	?0.37	?0.28
Deep	Difference from the average	Direct Effect	?0.26	0.04	?0.34	?0.19
Deep	Difference from the average	Indirect Effect	?0.61	0.03	?0.68	?0.55
Deep	Group's own variability	Direct Effect	?0.29	0.04	?0.36	?0.21
Deep	Group's own variability	Indirect Effect	?0.41	0.03	?0.47	?0.35