The paradoxical implications concerning the psychology of groups

[veritas]

The paradoxical implications concerning the psychology of groups
It is a truth that the human animal is a social creature. In the beginning of our evolutionary history, forming groups meant a greater chance for individual survival. While a group bringing individual survival may sound paradoxical, it certainly is most logical. Our ancestors often needed strength in numbers to “hunt” predators far more dangerous than they. While this example exemplifies a benefit of group formation, that being survival, there still exists numerous flaws in the psychology of groups. Flaws not only in how groups think about themselves and their members, but also how groups feel about other groups, individuals outside of their groups, even how individuals in a group feel about other individuals in their group, who do not quite “fit in”. This paper will elucidate that while groups are a necessity, they are not without their cognitive and behavioral faults and inconsistencies, and this paper will use research and synthesis to prove as such.
The paper will be broken down into five sections. The first will be a more in depth analysis of the psychology of group formation. The Second part will be an analysis of the research on the subject and using what is “known” as a jumping off point for the third section. The third section will be a synthesis of the research into revealing how there are many flaws and faults in the psychology of groups. Fourth, this paper will explain how this topic is important to psychology as a whole. Finally, this paper will have a brief conclusion, and end with ideas for future research based off of the findings in the synthesis of section three.

I. The Psychology of group formation
As stated in the introduction, man’s need for the formation of groups sprang forth from the need for survival, as strength in numbers gave a better chance of victory over the savage creatures they needed to hunt. As time progressed, our early ancestors realized that as their survival skills increased, that forming collections of small groups (tribes) would be advantageous to their continuing survival. This point is reiterated for the significance it holds to this paper’s topic. At that state of evolutionary development, s humans needed to be in groups. The psychology involved behind a group needing to form for survival is much different from the psychology behind individuals wanting to be in a group for whatever their reasoning may be behind it.
Eventually as man’s existence grew more stable from the use of groups to promote individual survival, the paradigm began to slowly shift to groups striving for their own survival, even at the expense of other groups. Where our ancient ancestors were concerned about strict daily survival through avoiding death, and procuring food; they now were able to expand the scope of their group dynamics towards the acclimation of more property, expanding their numbers, increasing their wealth, and even defending their territories from other, different, groups with the same ideas. The psychology involved in these processes is far different from the basic fight or flight mechanisms concerned with mere daily survival.
In time the human species grew to such elaborate and complicated social dynamics and physical infrastructure, that worrying about daily survival from predators or starvation became merely a memory. The original psychology of the individuals in groups, as well as groups meaning to those individuals became a memory as well. Groups now began taking on dynamics and meanings to individuals. As human beings evolved and society evolved, individuals began to see group membership as evidence: Evidence perhaps of a status, evidence of certain characteristics, or perhaps even evidence of beliefs. This list of the evidence that groups provide is by no means extensive, but rather conducive to brevity.
There is also the psychological aspect of group membership. Individuals now found groups to be a boon to their psyche. Groups could now provide an individual a source of accolades, identity, and even provide a person with somewhat of an answer to the great existential question: “Who am I?” Many people now find groups as a way of answering that, simply put, when asked “Who are you?” they often respond with their membership to one of the most common groups, occupation. So “Who am I” is answered with “I am a _____” fill in the blank. Individuals are now able to use groups as a source of identity.
Perhaps it is this idea that groups now provide a source of a person’s identity to themselves, along with evidence of their identity to others which makes their psychology so important, their formation nearly psychologically automatic. Previous point noted, this may be the start of a possible explanation as to how individuals will commence with group psychology regardless of their inherent contradictions and logical fallacies which will be presented later in this paper. First, however, it is expedient that the literature on the subject be exposited to show what is currently known before proper synthesis can occur.

II. Literature review
There exist many interconnected concepts amidst the broad field of group formation, group habits, group dynamics, group motivations, and etc. The logical place of origination is to lay out as much information as possible while still remaining concise concerning what the research has shown.
Pinto, Marques, Abrams, and Levine conducted research in 2010 concerning group dynamics and the “black sheep” effect. The research set out to examine the hypothesis that the people who achieve “full” membership in a group, will more strictly adhere to the group norms, because this would be a source of social validation. Furthermore, the “partial” members would be more likely to disobey the group norms, because they had not yet fully come to see the group membership as their primary source of social validation. The researchers did prove their hypothesis. Individuals with more invested in a group, become naturally more invested in the group and it’s members social identities, and will “punish” the black sheep of the group for not adhering because it would damage the groups perceived identity, saying things like, “They are not like us” (Pinto, Marques, Abrams, and Levine. 2010, pgs 107-119).
Does gender play a role in group favoritism? Sassenberg, Brazy, Jonas, and Shah held three studies to investigate gender and group favoritism in 2013. Their hypothesis was that since males tend to be more focused on power and promotion, and females tend to be more focused on security than prevention, if they set up experiments to test aspects of promotion, the males in a group partaking in the experiment would feel more favoritism for their group, then the females would feel for their group when involved in “promotion” activities. Conversely, when both the male group and female group were asked to complete “prevention” tasks, the females ranked their group favoritism higher than the males did theirs. Sassenberg et al’s hypothesis was proved correct, that gender based favoritism is easily experienced if the groups are participating in activities that are more in line intrinsically to the specific gender “norms” ( Sassenberg, Brazy, Joneas, and Shah. 2013, pgs. 4-15).
Are all groups considered equal? If not, how do the lower status groups respond to the higher status groups? Pagliaro, Alparone, Pacilli, and Faina examined this question in their 2012 research on managing a social identity threat. This means if a lower status group is confronted with a higher status group, the lower status group will feel a threat to their social identity. Pagliaro found an interesting trend, lower status groups, counteract the social identity threat by increasing not only levels of favoritism for their own group, but alos increasing their feelings of ambivalence towards the higher status group. So essentially the only way the lower status group will feel better about themselves when in the presence of the higher status group is to not only make them not equal, but to make them not matter ( Pagliaro, Alparone, Pacilli, and Paina. 2012, pgs. 41-46).
Not every group formed is completely homogenous however, nor is every group formed by choice. What happens when group participation is mandatory, and the individuals in the group have differing ideas and opinions on the topic? Gianettoni, Clemence, and Staerkle set up a research condition which investigated this condition in 2012. Gianettoni set up two groups who had to make a decision about a particular issue. The experimenters had conducted a survey before hand to ascertain the participant’s opinions on the matter before hand. The experimenters carefully selected two groups both formed with an exact 50/50 split of participants. 50 percent feeling positively about the topic, and the other 50 percent feeling negatively towards it. The experimental manipulation was that one group was given priming where the experimenters essentially told the group that their goal was to “promote good relations”. The good relations group actually homogenized more on their opinion on the topic than the group that did not receive the primer. The experimenters concluded that just the perceptional power of belonging to a group that “promoted good relations” was enough to overpower many of the individuals differing opinions (Gianettoni, Clemence, and Staerkle, 2012, pgs. 205-213)
The previous research makes an interesting point about group selection. That being does the power of group homogeneity only effect individuals in a group who choose to be in that group based upon easily observable criteria, such as a bowling league team, or a church choir? Ostrom and Sedikides conducted research in 1992 to measure this variable in relation to another important aspect of group psychology, out-group homoegenity. Out-group homogeneity is the perceptual trend for individuals to believe that individuals in other groups outside of their own are all “alike”( Ostram and Sedikides,1992, pgs. 536) for example, Pro-lifers tending to perceive ALL Pro-Choicers as being homogenous in all their characteristics. Ostram and Sedikides measured this effect in natural groups versus minimal groups. A natural group is defined as a group “where the members know what their common beliefs are, as well as what they have in common with the other members” (Ostram and Sedikides, 1992, pgs. 537). A minimal group is a group comprised of “individuals that do not know anything about each other, only that they are currently in a group together” ( Ostram and Sedikides,1992, pgs. 542).
Ostram and Sedikides hypothesized that the minimal groups would exhibit less out-group homogeneity because the powers of group psychology would not be as strong or persuasive. Ostram and Sedikides’ hypothesis was confirmed. The natural groups naturally exhibited far more out-group homogeneity than the minimal group did. Ostram and Sedikides concluded that out-group homogeneity is a natural consequence of in-group homogeneity, and that natural groups were far more succeptible to both forms of homogeneity logically because they choose to be in the group first and foremost, and secondly, natural group members often “know” why they are similar, and must make others different to intensify the dichotomy. Whereas minimal group members were not as susceptible to the psychological “pressures” of in-group favoritism and thus subsequently not as likely to exhibit the out-group homogeneity effect ( Ostram and Sedikides,1992, pgs. 536-552).
Another important aspect of group psychology is that of the notion of collective treatment. This term refers to treating all people the same who happen to be in a particular group. It does not always have to be simply group membership; it can also be between individuals who happen to merely look alike. Alter and Darley conducted ingenious research into this facet in 2009 and hypothesized that the more homogenous a group appeared, the more likely collective treatment would occur.
Alter and Darley set up experiments based around police lineups and crime reports, and their multiple experiments confirmed their hypothesis. When two line ups were given and one featured members dressed in nearly uniformed synchronicity as well as sharing similar physical characteristics, the participants were much more likely to label them as the “gang” that the police report identified as committing the crime, than the second group who all looked far more heterogeneous (Alter and Darley, 2009, pg. 779)
Another experiment was conducted where participants read a story describing a bank robbery and five participants involved in it. Each of the five criminals were of varying levels of guilt one was the mastermind, one was the get away driver, one inflicted violence upon a citizen, etc. Interestingly, when shown a picture of five homogenous people, the participants were more likely to assign uniform jail time. Compared to when the five individuals all appeared far more homogenous, the participants all gave the violent criminal far more jail time than they did for the getaway driver (Alter and Darley, 2009, pg. 782)
Would the more homogenous “gang” of criminals believed that they were more likely to have gotten away with the heist? Zavala, Eidelson, Cichocka, and Jayawickreme introduced the concept of collective narcissism in 2009 to investigate this aspect. Collective narcissism as defined by the authors of the research refers to individuals in the group holding a strong often emotionally charged belief in the inherent, albeit unrealistic, excellence of their group, often above all other groups somewhat similar (Zavala, Eidelson, Cichocka, Jayawickreme, 2009 pg. 1074).
The researchers set up tests to measure collective narcissism in a number of facets to measure the various predictions its presence could statistically infer. The experiments found that the more homogenous the group, the more collective narcissism, it exhibited as well as subsequently being linked to the following: perceived threat from outgroups, unwillingness to forgive outgroups, preference for military action over diplomatic solutions, right-wing authoritarianism, and blind patriotism (Zavala, Eidelson, Cichocka, Jayawickreme, 2009 pg. 1089).
The explanation also lies in the heavy emotional implications group members place upon their groups value, and abilities. (Zavala, Eidelson, Cichocka, Jayawickreme, 2009 pg. 1091). This research suggests that in group favoritism often takes on a strongly
egotistical, and emotional component which results in more aggressive measures against out group members. This more rigid and aggressive way of dealing with out group members would also serve the purpose of “effectively shielding” the out groups ability to distort the ingroup members collective narcissism, by essentially striking them first, and at very least, keeping them at bay.
Rooy, Overwalle, Vanhoomissen, Labiouse, and French conducted research into just how pervasive certain of the aforementioned biases that groups held were. They set up simulations to measure illusory correlation, accentuation, and subtyping. Illusory correlation is when an individual perceives a characteristic to correlate with a group, when in reality it does not. Accentuation is stating that there exists a difference between groups, when there actually is not one. Lastly, Subtyping is the literal rejecting of the “exception to the rule”, when information is given about an individual that does not corroborate with inherent stereotypes (Rooy, Overwalle, Vanhoomissen, Labiouse, and French, 2003, pg. 536).
Various experiments were set up to test just how reliable these trends of behavior would be. The experimenters found that in ALL of their experiments, they were able to reproduce any and all of these desired biases (Rooy, Overwalle, Vanhoomissen, Labiouse, and French, 2003, pg. 560). Interesting to note, the experimenters did not need to perform any statistical trickery, or uber-manipulation of variables. They simply needed to take groups and place them in certain situations, and/or ask them certain questions. The underlying point is that it appears that, aside from exceptions, these biases are possibly universal in groups.
Another interesting aspect of groups from a psychological standpoint is that of group status. While group ideology, beliefs, traits, etc. may be very homogenous, the members of the group still tend to exists on various “tiers”. Nadler and Halabi conducted research in 2006 to investigate their hypothesis that a member of “low” status in a group would not want help from a “high” status member (Nadler and Halabi, 2006, pg. 97). The hypothesis was confirmed, in all of their four experiments.
The researchers found that this trend is accounted for by the nature of the helping relation, and whether it is perceived as dependency-related (Nadler and Halabi, 2006, pg. 108). This trend is fascinating in the members of the same group, on some level recognize that other members are more “invested” than they, and will not want to accept help, as this will make them feel more dependent, and thus longer propagated to the lower tier within the group. It appears that this is quite a paradox, how individuals join groups, and then wish to act individually to increase their standing in the group. This trend also works within the intergroup realm. Groups recognize other groups (often wrongly) as either higher or lower status than them. The researchers posited that the higher status groups have a desire to help lower status groups to keep them dependant and thus automatically on a lower tier (Nadler and Halabi, 2006, pg. 108). This is a fascinating finding, in that groups have to depend on other groups, and that the group that receives the most help from other groups is relegated to a lower tier classification, when at the same time, lower tier groups exhibited more of a proclivity to reject the help.
The previous research explains how individuals are seen as on different tiers within the group, and some groups are seen as on higher tiers than other groups. This research provides a smooth transition into Ellemers, Spears, and Doosje’s 1997 research into in-group identification. Where the previous study explored how there is a “tier system”, Ellemers, Spears, and Doosje investigated the effects of individual identification with a group, and the effects of a low identification versus a high identification. They hypothesized two principles: The first being that an individual with a low group identity would be more likely to “switch” to a “higher” tiered group, than an individual with a higher identification. Secondly, they proposed that an individual with a lower identity would be more willing to switch to a group even if it’s tier status was unknown in relation to the individual’s current group. The researchers even added in a manipulation where a “traumatizing event” would happen to the individual in his current group to make other groups more desirable (Ellemers, Spears, Doosje, 1997, pg. 617).
Interestingly, both hypotheses were confirmed. Of equal importance was the fact that it turns out that the “trauma” variable was of no statistical effect. The only real determination of how likely an individual would be to switch groups, was how strongly they identified with their group of origin to begin with (Ellemers, Spears, Doosje, 1997, pg. 624).
How confident are individuals in their knowledge of other groups? How confident are they that their judgments about other groups are right? Judd, Ryan, and Park conducted research to examine this question in 1991. They hypothesized that individuals when asked how sure they were of their judgements on stereotypicality of other groups, along with how sure they were that they “knew” how other groups “thought” about issues, would initially respond with high degrees of certainty, but when compared to the results of how the groups in question actually scored, there would be a large discrepancy (Judd, Ryan, and Park, 1991, pg. 366).
The researcher’s hypothesis was proven correct. They concluded that individuals have a tendency to form out-group stereotypes based solely off of over generalizations. In addition to this, individuals feel very strongly that their judgments are entirely accurate, even when faced with evidence contrary to their stereotypes (Judd, Ryan, and Park, 1991, pg.377). This trend supports with the concept of Subtyping examined in Rooy et al’s research previously mentioned.
While Judd, Ryan, and Parks research examined a single variable at a time, such as “nerds are studious”, the subsequent 1996 research of Linville, Fischer, and Yoon added a new dimension. Their research proposed two interesting hypothesis, one, that individuals not only made over generalized stereotypes about outgroups concerning single variables, but also would link other variables as well, to form a more “complete” picture. The researchers called this concept “Perceived Covariation”. Drawing from the earlier example nerds are actually “studious, socially awkward, and lack style”. The second hypothesis postulated was that familiarity with a group would be the only way to diminish this Perceived Covariation (Linville, Fischer, and Yoon, 1996, pg. 421).
The researchers confirmed both hypotheses. Their experiments proved that individuals exhibit Perceived Covariation towards out groups, painting elaborate stereotypes consisting of multiple variables. Of greater importance, the researchers found that the more familiar an individual was with the group in question, the less they exhibited Perceived Covariation (Linville, Fischer, and Yoon, 1996, pg. 431).
III. Synthesis
The title of this paper is based upon the synthesis of all the aforementioned literature. The main paradox is the fact that without the formation of groups it is likely that the human animal would not exist today, as it would have been obliterated by far more savage animals, which happened to utilize groups. Couple this with the fact that, as the propensity of literature states, most, if not all, of the psychological processes that go into to the formations and maintenance of group dynamics are based upon faulty processes, and are essentially stereotypes, ego, and lies.
Every research paper cited in the above literature review, when one applies just a base level synthesis, can be seen in a negative light. In-group homogeneity is merely collective narcissism. It is also entirely fickle, in that their exist teirs between groups, and even within the groups themselves. Individuals in these groups are entirely fickle as well, and will be far more likely to switch groups, if it benefits them and they do not feel a strong “attachment” to the group of origin. Individuals in groups base their judgments about other groups based merely off of over generalizations, and are often flat out wrong. They will even go as far as blatantly ignoring (subtyping) any and all information that provides an exception to their preconceived notions.
In addition individuals will often base their entire sense of self worth upon their membership in various groups. The Paradox being, that this feeling comes often at the expense of others. In-group homogeneity is mainly responsible for intergroup aggression and lack of forgiveness and mercy. Individuals outside of groups tend to believe that every member in a group is exactly alike, effectively eliminating every trace of individualism of the individual. Paradoxically, the same individuals who eliminate other’s individualism in out-groups can only move up in their own group by being more individualistic.
In addition to this, the research of Sturmer, Snyder, and Omoto on groups and helping found that individuals were far more likely help others in peril if they identified the “victim” as a member of their own group (Sturmer, Omoto, Snyder, 2005 pg. 544). This shows that while groups benefit many in them, they leave others outside of them in a greater sense of peril. In addition to this, Leach, Zebel, Vliek, Pennekamp, Doosje, Zomeran, Ouwerkerk, and Spears conducted a meta-analysis of group research in 2008 and reached two important conclusions. One, that the propensity of the research they identified was superiorally insufficient in the variables they measured. This was touched upon by Linville, Fischer, and Yoon. Second, they found that there is little agreement in how to properly even measure the idea, in that groups are far too dynamic and require a complex hierarchical multicomponent model to properly discern the statistics in their most valid form (Leach et al, 2008, pg. 163).
The aforementioned meta-analysis adds further confliction into the topic, mainly that the propensity of the existing literature is insufficient, due to being based upon by insufficient measures. What is clear from the literature however, whether it be insufficient or not, is that it gives ammunition for the writer to make a very bold claim. The bold claim being: Our entire social structure is based upon fraudulent psychological processes. The implications of this statement are fascinating, for it is a truth that humans need groups, but at the same time, these groups arguably cause just as much problems, as they help solve, if not more. What an interesting specimen, this human animal, especially in modern times, and when viewed under the light of group formation and interaction. Groups are literally a key to our continued survival while simultaneously being a key to our continuing destruction.

IV. The benefit to Psychology

This research into group psychology and its paradoxical nature is of the utmost benefit to psychology in general. First of all, the most important aspect is how the psychology of groups is essential the enacting large scale cognitive dissonance, i.e. The thought that “my group is the best” or “that group is all the same” even though experience will eventually prove both these statements false. This research opens the door for research into what the writer would simply call “collective cognitive dissonance”. It would also subsequently spurn research into how groups maintain homeostasis as a result from the mental pressures their group interactions would subconsciously spurn.
The second benefit of this research to psychology is that it provides researchers an avenue of exploration that could actually produce real world change. It is known that stereotypes, prejudices, aggression, etc. are all detrimental to the advancement of the human species, and that groups actually have a large role in the perpetuation of these negative processes. This knowledge ascertained, researchers would now have a base point of which to start finding ways to eliminate (Hopefully) some of the ills that are caused by the mental processes associated with the formation and maintenance of group dynamics.

Lastly, this research benefits psychology as a whole on the personal level. Psychology in general is concerned with studying the human mind. This research will enable individuals to become more self-aware of the contradictory cognitive processes that they undergo to maintain such a pertinent and constant aspect of their lives. This research could possibly allow an individual to attempt to become more “familiar” with other groups and hopefully become an ambassador for a new social mind. This would hopefully produce a mind where individuals are able to exist in groups without becoming a detriment to other groups, while at the same time being psychologically honest with their selves as to their strengths and weaknesses. This whole section is summarized in the question: “Is it possible for people to form groups, and maintain groups in a manner not detrimental to other groups, while being psychologically honest?”

V. Conclusions
The writer understands that this treatise is understandably grandiose. The writer merely wishes to challenge the status quo so to speak. There exists a system of society that is one hand necessary for life on planet Earth, while at the same time, contradictorily, destructive and psychologically dishonest.
There is a push in the world right now for globalization, this on the surface sounds good. Make every individual part of one group: “Earth Citizen”. This would make sense, in that if every individual became homogenized into one group there would be no out-group homogeneity, or in-group homoegeneity , and thus a decrease in aggression, and on this scale, war. Theoretically, it would also prevent poverty and starvation.
The current research proves that even globalization would not be a cure all.
The research indicates that there exists “tiers” in groups. These tiers bring numerous problems as well. The research into in-group tiers exhibits just as many negative consequences, as inter-group dynamics. Individuals with low tier status within a group will tend to reject help from higher status tiers, as well as become more individualistic within the group in the hopes to “raise their level”. So even with a one world philosophy, this problem will still persist. Another issue is that the “high status” tier will naturally seek to “help” the lower tiers, but the lower tiers will perceive this as a means of control and dependence and will reject the “help”. One could argue that the high tier in the current world system is the Government, and one could also reasonably argue as to whether their help came from a pure heart of service, or control. One could argue whether their help was actually helping as well.
Is there any answer? Is there any way to eliminate this contradiction? Yes. Be honest, and warm. Brambilla, Sacchi, Rusconi, Cherubini, and Yzerbyt conducted research in 2011 over traits that groups most look for in new members. The researchers determined that all moral traits ranked extremely high. So a person being competent, wise, trustworthy, ethical, logical, fair, etc. would make them far more likely to not only be accepted, but also advance within the groups hierarchy. In addition, a person being warm, nice, generous, and of an overall pleasant disposition produced the same effect (Brambilla, Sacchi, Rusconi, Cherubini, and Yzerbyt, 2011, pg. 164). If a person was to cultivate these traits within themselves, and then do their best to become familiar with as many other groups as possible they may have a chance of breaking the faulty contradictory patterns of group dynamics, and at least on an individual, local, level begin to change things.
The writer understands that this idea is mostly impossible due to the unfortunate principle that humans tend to stick to the path of least resistance. Consequently, improving one’s morals and personality is certainty hard work. This is the type of hard work that may take an entire lifetime. In addition, it does not serve individuals’ interests to become more familiar with other groups because, that too, is hard work; and quite frankly, humans have invested far too much work already into the lies that they tell themselves.
















References
Alter, A., Darley, J. When the association between appearance and outcome contaminates
social judgment: A bidirectional model linking group homogeneity and collective
treatment. Journal of personality and social psychology. 97, 5, 2009. Pgs 776-795.
Brambilla, M., Sacchi, S., Rusconi, P., Cherubini, P., Yzerbyt. V. You want to give a
good impression? Be honest! Moral traits dominate group impression formation.
51, 1, 2012. Pgs. 149-166
Ellemers, N., Spears, R., Doosje, B. Sticking together or falling apart: In-group
identification as a psychological determinant of group commitment versus
individual mobility. Journal of personality and social psychology. 72, 3, 1997. Pgs. 617-626.
Gianettoni, L., Clemence, A., Staerkle, C. When subcategorization facilities group
cohesion. Swiss journal of psychology. 71, 4, 2012. Pgs. 205-213.
Judd, C., Ryan, C., Park, B. Accuracy in the judgment of in-group and out-group
variability. Journal of personality and social psychology. 61, 3, 1991. Pgs. 366-
379
Leach, C., Zomeran, M., Zebel, S., Vliek, W., Pennekamp, S., Doosje, B., Oowerkerk, J.
Group-level self-definition and self-investment: A hierarchical (Multicomponent) model of in-group identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 95, 1, 2008. Pgs. 144-165
Linville, P., Fischer, G., Yoon, C. Perceived covariation among the feautres of ingroup
and outgroup members: The outgroup covariation effect. Journal of personality
and social psychology. 70, 3, 1996. Pgs. 421-436
Nadler, A., Halabi, S. Intergroup helping as status relations: Effects of status stability,
identification, and type of help on receptivity to high-status group’s help. Journal
of personality and social psychology. 91, 1, 2006. Pgs. 97-110.
Ostrom, T. Sedikides, C. Out-group homogeneity effects in natural and minimal groups.
Psychological bulletin. 112, 3, 1992. Pgs. 536-552.
Pagliaro, S., Alparone, F., Pacilli, M., Mucchi-Faina, A. Managing a social identity
threat. Social Psychology. 43, 1, 2012. Pgs. 41-46.
Pinto, I., Marques, J., Levine, J., Abrams, D. Membership status and subjective group
dynamics: Who triggers the black sheep effect? Journal of personality and social
psychology. 99, 1, 2010. Pgs. 107-119.
Rooy, D., Overwalle, F., Vanoomissen, T., Labiouse, C., French, R. A recurrent
connectionist model of group biases. Psychological review. 110, 3, 2003. Pgs. 536-563
Sassenberg, K., Brazy, P., Jonas, K., Shah, J. When gender fits self-regulatory
preferences. Social psychology. 44, 1, 2013. Pgs. 4-15.
Sturmer, S., Omoto, A., Snyder, M. Prosocial Emotions and Helping: The moderating
role of group membership. Journal of Personality and social psychology. 88, 3, 2005. Pgs. 532-546
Zavala, A., Eidelson, R., Cichocka, A., Jayawickreme, N. Collective Narcissism and its
social consequences. Journal of personality and social psychology. 97, 6, 2009.
Pgs. 1074-1096

[Witty]

I agree.

[PancakeBrah]

first sentence is pretty sophomoric lol

[Ghost1]

U have to do shit like this for school? This seems like ut wouod take a lot of time to do.....ugh

[Witty]

Originally Posted by Bags

U have to do shit like this for school? This seems like ut wouod take a lot of time to do.....ugh

You're drunk, go to sleep.

[Ghost1]

Goodnight,dad.

[Witty]

Originally Posted by Bags

Goodnight,dad.

Sleep well son

[veritas]

yes anthony. Got a 98 on that mug too.

[Split]

lmfaoooo bravo

The psychology involved in these processes is far different from the basic fight or flight mechanisms concerned with mere daily survival.
In time the human species grew to such elaborate and complicated social dynamics and physical infrastructure, that worrying about daily survival from predators or starvation became merely a memory.

Is it though? Stigmas enforce a sort of "get in or get out" mentality, and while it's applied to complex conditions it's still a pretty binary choice.

I also see this entire paper as meta-trolling the textcee community "tiers", talking about how newer members reject help and criticism from older members because they see it as control

If an individual enters such a complex group with intent to use it as a means rather than an end, is it still flawed if he achieves the end despite conforming to the vestigial conventions and stigmas?


also your wording/ grammar is really awkward in places esp. section three

[veritas]

yes it is split, it is far different....read on: groups are involved to far more psychological aspects than mere fight or flight now a days.....as I stated...a person now a days is what he does.

please point out my grammar errors sir...sometimes I get to typing too fast i messes up.

[super pimp trillionaire]

Tl,dr,jg
Just like I said, civilization is the worst thing to happen to humanity, duh.

[Strikta]

Fuck this shit V.

[veritas]

Damn it to hell Timothy! This is all for you!

[Strikta]

Why me tho?

[veritas]

How do you still not understand Timothy ?

[Strikta]

U not thinking or knowing I understand, when I actually do.. is what's kept me ahead of u the past 2 years while I've had to endure ur boarding.

[veritas]

Look Tim I KNOW you understand and that is my point amigo! Why do you insist on doing stupid things and acting like a teenager! ? Grow up homey! Read the paper and prove to me you understand!