失调有“度”：区分度影响群体认同的阈值效应及心理机制

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2025.0820

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

如何在自我与群体之间找到平衡, 是人类社会生活的核心问题。基于群体间比较的背景, 最优区分理论提出了区分度影响群体认同的“倒U型”曲线假设, 但仍不明晰个体如何在群体内背景下对自我和群体进行平衡。研究通过3个实验在不同的区分层次和群体属性下系统探索了自我区分群体的程度对群体认同的影响模式。研究发现, 总体上区分度对群体认同产生“倒S型”的非线性消极影响, 在中等水平存在使群体认同下降速度最高的区分阈值, 一旦区分度增长至超过该阈值, 个体表现出“不认同群体” (实验1)。区分层次和区分属性对该阈值具有调节作用(实验1、实验2和实验3)。此外, 群体认知失调起中介作用, 其中区分度正向预测群体认知失调, 而群体认知失调则负向预测群体认同(实验3)。研究发现的区分阈值不仅有助于个体维持心理边界, 也为组织管理和社会和谐提供了有效的预警信号。

关键词: 群体认同, 最优区分理论, 群体认知失调, 群体属性, 阈值效应

Abstract:

Our understanding of the self encompasses personal and social identities linked to the groups individuals belong. The way individuals navigate differences between themselves and others along with how this balance influences their identification with the group, have been a central question in the study of human social behavior. Previous studies have treated group assimilation and individual differentiation as separate aspects, yielding conflicting results. In contrast, Brewer's (1991) Optimal Distinctiveness Model defines distinctiveness as the degree to which an individual’s characteristics deviate from group norms, considering personal characteristics on a continuum (e.g., traits, abilities, and physical features). The Optimal Distinctiveness Model in the intergroup context proposes an inversely parabolic relationship between distinctiveness and group identity based on a continuum perspective. However, the influence of distinctiveness on group identity and the specific distinctiveness thresholds in intragroup contexts remain unclear. Building on this, our study systematically explores the impact of distinctiveness on group identity across hierarchical levels and group attributes using a continuum perspective.
The study comprised three experiments. In Experiment 1, a baseline-level forced-choice task was employed to examine the effect patterns of the two hierarchical levels of distinctiveness on group identity. The independent variable, distinctiveness, ranged from 0 to 1 across 11 degrees, whereas the dependent variable was the dichotomous selection of group identity by participants at various distinctiveness levels. Two hierarchical levels were included to compare differences between self and group means, with the group's variability presented in dual experiment blocks, assuming a lower threshold for comparing levels with the group mean. Building on Experiment 1, Experiment 2 investigated the moderating role of specific group attributes maintaining the core experimental design while incorporating assessment protocols for surface- and deep-level group attributes. Experiment 3 explored the role of group cognitive dissonance, measuring the participants' cognitive dissonance degrees across discrimination levels.
Adopting a continuum-based analytical perspective, the findings reveal that the impact of distinctiveness on group identity deviates from an inverted U-shape and linear negative model, instead conforming to a logistic regression function characterized by an “S-curve.” Overall, a nonlinear negative effect of distinctiveness on group identity was observed. As distinctiveness increases, group identity follows a pattern of “flat-sudden decline - maintain flat.” The threshold point with the steepest rate of decline in group identity emerged at the middle level of distinctiveness. Beyond this threshold, self-identification within a group diminished. Notably, comparisons with the group mean exhibited a lower distinctiveness threshold than those involving the group’s variability. Similarly, deep-level attributes had a lower distinctiveness threshold than surface-level attributes and aligned more closely with the logistic regression model. Additionally, group cognitive dissonance served a mediating role, with the degree increasing in alignment with distinctiveness following a logistic regression trend. A higher degree of group cognitive dissonance corresponded with a lower level of group identity. The findings showed that group identity does not decline linearly with increasing distinctiveness, but maintains a balance between self and group before the distinctiveness surpasses a threshold level, beyond which group identity declines abruptly and cognitive dissonance rises sharply.
Adopting a continuum perspective, this research provides comprehensive insights into how distinctiveness influences group identity across various hierarchical levels and attributes, identifying a distinctiveness threshold effect. The effect of distinctiveness on group identity is consistent with an “x-shaped” pattern. The findings illuminate the balancing process between self and group in social identity formation, offering a comprehensive refinement and nuanced expansion of theories within the realm of self and group relations. Practically, this study offers novel insights for individuals to pragmatically navigate the differences between group and self-attributes, promote the maintenance of psychological boundaries, and safeguard mental health. Furthermore, the findings provide a foundation for targeted organizational strategies that foster coordination and cooperation within organizations that enhances team cohesion by identifying the distinctiveness threshold as an early warning signs.

Key words: group identity, Optimal Distinctiveness Model, Intragroup Dissonance Theory, group attribute, Threshold effect

中图分类号:

B849: C91

柯文琳, 温芳芳, 佐斌. (2025). 失调有“度”：区分度影响群体认同的阈值效应及心理机制. 心理学报, 57(5), 820-837.

KE Wenlin, WEN Fangfang, ZUO Bin. (2025). Threshold effects of distinctiveness: Psychological mechanisms underlying group identity. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 57(5), 820-837.

图/表 9

参考文献 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.
	[方杰, 温忠麟. (2018). 三类多层中介效应分析方法比较. 心理科学, 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
	[黄殷, 寇彧. (2013). 群体独特性对群际偏差的影响. 心理科学进展, 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
	[李倩, 龚诗阳, 李超凡. (2019). 团队文化多样性对团队创新的影响及作用机制. 心理科学进展, 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.
	[马谋超. (1990). 心理物理阈限的模糊理论. 心理学报, 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.
[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
	[王勍, 俞国良. (2016). 群体认同与个体心理健康的关系:调节变量与作用机制. 心理科学进展, 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.
	[杨通平, 陈国典. (2020). 认同融合:观点及作用机制. 中国临床心理学杂志, 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.
	[邹小燕, 尹可丽, 陆林. (2018). 集体仪式促进凝聚力:基于动作、情绪与记忆. 心理科学进展, 26(5), 939-950.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.00939

实验条件		回归方程			区分度回归系数显著性
群体属性	区分层次	结果变量	预测变量	阈值	β₁	SE	LLCI	ULCI
表层属性	与平均值差异	认知失调	区分度	0.56	5.78^***	0.36	5.20	6.40
		群体认同	认知失调	0.58	−6.07^***	0.41	−6.77	−5.42
		群体认同	区分度		−1.82^***	0.37	−2.44	−1.20
		群体认同	认知失调		−4.95^***	0.44	−5.70	−4.25
表层属性	群体自身变异	认知失调	区分度	0.67	4.50^***	0.29	4.02	4.99
		群体认同	认知失调	0.59	−4.86^***	0.32	−5.39	−4.35
		群体认同	区分度		−1.72^***	0.31	−2.23	−1.20
			认知失调		−3.91^***	0.34	−4.49	−3.56
深层属性	与平均值差异	认知失调	区分度	0.53	6.64^***	0.41	5.99	7.34
		群体认同	认知失调	0.57	−9.10^***	0.67	−10.26	−8.07
		群体认同	区分度		−3.78^***	0.48	−4.59	−3.00
			认知失调		−7.31^***	0.66	−8.46	−6.29
深层属性	群体自身变异	认知失调	区分度	0.60	4.12^***	0.27	3.68	4.58
		群体认同	认知失调	0.57	−5.48^***	0.34	−6.06	−4.93
		群体认同	区分度		−2.65^***	0.32	−3.19	−2.12
			认知失调		−4.37^***	0.35	−4.97	−3.80

实验条件		回归方程			区分度回归系数显著性
群体属性	区分层次	结果变量	预测变量	阈值	β₁	SE	LLCI	ULCI
表层属性	与平均值差异	认知失调	区分度	0.56	5.78^***	0.36	5.20	6.40
		群体认同	认知失调	0.58	−6.07^***	0.41	−6.77	−5.42
		群体认同	区分度		−1.82^***	0.37	−2.44	−1.20
		群体认同	认知失调		−4.95^***	0.44	−5.70	−4.25
表层属性	群体自身变异	认知失调	区分度	0.67	4.50^***	0.29	4.02	4.99
		群体认同	认知失调	0.59	−4.86^***	0.32	−5.39	−4.35
		群体认同	区分度		−1.72^***	0.31	−2.23	−1.20
			认知失调		−3.91^***	0.34	−4.49	−3.56
深层属性	与平均值差异	认知失调	区分度	0.53	6.64^***	0.41	5.99	7.34
		群体认同	认知失调	0.57	−9.10^***	0.67	−10.26	−8.07
		群体认同	区分度		−3.78^***	0.48	−4.59	−3.00
			认知失调		−7.31^***	0.66	−8.46	−6.29
深层属性	群体自身变异	认知失调	区分度	0.60	4.12^***	0.27	3.68	4.58
		群体认同	认知失调	0.57	−5.48^***	0.34	−6.06	−4.93
		群体认同	区分度		−2.65^***	0.32	−3.19	−2.12
			认知失调		−4.37^***	0.35	−4.97	−3.80

群体属性	区分层次	效应	效应值	SE	LLCI	ULCI
表层属性	与平均值差异	直接效应	−0.15	0.04	−0.22	−0.08
表层属性	与平均值差异	间接效应	−0.41	0.03	−0.47	−0.36
表层属性	群体自身变异	直接效应	−0.17	0.03	−0.24	−0.10
表层属性	群体自身变异	间接效应	−0.32	0.03	−0.37	−0.28
深层属性	与平均值差异	直接效应	−0.26	0.04	−0.34	−0.19
深层属性	与平均值差异	间接效应	−0.61	0.03	−0.68	−0.55
深层属性	群体自身变异	直接效应	−0.29	0.04	−0.36	−0.21
深层属性	群体自身变异	间接效应	−0.41	0.03	−0.47	−0.35

群体属性	区分层次	效应	效应值	SE	LLCI	ULCI
表层属性	与平均值差异	直接效应	−0.15	0.04	−0.22	−0.08
表层属性	与平均值差异	间接效应	−0.41	0.03	−0.47	−0.36
表层属性	群体自身变异	直接效应	−0.17	0.03	−0.24	−0.10
表层属性	群体自身变异	间接效应	−0.32	0.03	−0.37	−0.28
深层属性	与平均值差异	直接效应	−0.26	0.04	−0.34	−0.19
深层属性	与平均值差异	间接效应	−0.61	0.03	−0.68	−0.55
深层属性	群体自身变异	直接效应	−0.29	0.04	−0.36	−0.21
深层属性	群体自身变异	间接效应	−0.41	0.03	−0.47	−0.35