1  

 

Personal Integration into Groups: A Phenomenological Study of the Inner Conflict

between the Need to Belong and the Need to be Distinctive.

A dissertation submitted by

Zainab Abbas

To the Department of Management at the

London School of Economics and Political Science

As part of the Master in Organisational Behaviour (MSc) Program

Dissertation Supervisor: Dr. Jonathan Booth

August 2013

Word Count: 9,848

  2  

   

Abstract

Research literature has rarely addressed the process of balancing the Need to Belong and the Need to be

Distinctive for individuals integrating into social groups. This qualitative study used 15 semi-structured

interviews to examine the intra-individual conflict resulting from the co-existence of those opposing

needs. Themes generated using the modified van Kaam phenomenological analysis method (Moustakas,

1994) show that the conflict exists in 3 types: continuous with varying intensity, frequent and gradual

(increasing). The theoretical Optimal Distinctiveness Point suggested by Brewer (1991) was found to be

flexible in nature to help individuals cope with high intensities of the conflict, especially in imposed

groups. Also, results show that individuals tend to adopt an exit or substitution strategy when the

group’s identity threatens their personal identity. The negative psychological and physical consequences

and the organisational implications (specifically) of this conflict are discussed.

 

 

 

     

             

  3  

Table of Contents

1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 5

1.1. Social Identity Theory and the Need to Belong ...................................................................................... 6

1.1.1. The Social Identity .............................................................................................................................. 6

1.1.2. The Need to Belong ............................................................................................................................. 6

1.2. Personal Identity and the Need to be Distinctive .................................................................................... 7

1.2.1. Personal Identity .................................................................................................................................. 7

1.2.2. Need to Be Distinctive ......................................................................................................................... 7

1.3. Personal Identity Vs. Social Identity ....................................................................................................... 8

1.4. The Need to be Distinctive Vs. The Need to Belong .............................................................................. 9

1.5. Changes in Social Identity and Personal Identity ................................................................................. 10

1.6. Threats to the Need to Belong and the Need to be Distinctive ............................................................. 11

2. Methodology ............................................................................................................................................ 12

2.1. The Qualitative Paradigm and Data Collection Method ....................................................................... 12

2.2. Participants ............................................................................................................................................ 12

2.3. Interview Design ................................................................................................................................... 12

2.4. Data Analysis Method ........................................................................................................................... 14

2.5. Measures ............................................................................................................................................... 15

2.6. Ethical Considerations .......................................................................................................................... 16

3. Results ...................................................................................................................................................... 18

3.1. The Identity Fusion Model Viability .................................................................................................... 18

3.2. Emergent Themes and Descriptors ....................................................................................................... 18

3.2.1. Research Propositions Related Themes ............................................................................................. 18

3.2.2. Other Themes .................................................................................................................................... 22

3.3. Research Quality Assurance ................................................................................................................. 22

3.3.1. Credibility .......................................................................................................................................... 22

3.3.2. External Validity ............................................................................................................................... 22

3.3.3. Dependability .................................................................................................................................... 22

3.3.4. Objectivity ......................................................................................................................................... 22

4. Discussion ................................................................................................................................................ 24

5. Implications ............................................................................................................................................. 27

6. Limitations .............................................................................................................................................. 29

7. Future Research ...................................................................................................................................... 30

8. Contribution to Existing Literature ...................................................................................................... 32

9. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 32

10. Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................ 34

11. Appendix .................................................................................................................................................. 36

  4  

11.1. Appendix 1: Interview Consent Form and Transcript .......................................................................... 36

11.2. Appendix 2: An example of the application of the modified van Kaam analysis method on the transcript of participant No. 9 .............................................................................................................. 40

11.3. Appendix 3: Preliminary Grouping of expressions extracted from participant No. 8 and participant No. 2 transcripts ………………………………………………………………………………………..…….50

                                                                     

  5  

1. Introduction

At different stages throughout life, people often seek to belong to a certain groups and obtain a social

identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). A plethora of groups exist including schools, universities, companies,

workplaces and even clubs and societies. The desire to belong (Baumeister & Leary, 1995) to the group

and obtain identity is not always a voluntary choice as group membership can be imposed on individuals.

However, even when it’s fully voluntarily, group cohesion and social identity can produce stress due to

the degradation of personal identity’s saliency (Brewer, 1991). Hence, this need to belong is often

opposed by the need to be personally distinctive: to be unique within single or multiple social group

contexts.

A practical example might be a young person joining a new corporation as part of a typical graduate

program. Successful incorporation into the company relies on two aspects, firstly embracing the culture,

environment and shared vision of the company and secondly being accepted as a ‘member’ so that

individual status and identity come hand-in-hand with that of the organisation. Furthermore, being able

to establish oneself socially among the other members of the group is possibly the most evident mark of

‘belonging’ to that group.

This desire to blend with a corporation is however, accompanied by the opposing desire to not be

consumed by it to the extent that unique individuality is lost. In some cases, extreme belonging or

‘inclusiveness’ (Brewer, 1991) can sometimes be considered a form of ‘following the crowd’ where

individual moral and practical judgments are not employed therefore personal identity is degraded.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the occurrence of the intra-individual conflict between the

Need to Belong (assimilation) (Baumeister & Leary, 1995, Brewer, 1991) and the Need to be Distinctive

(differentiation) (Brewer, 2003, Leonardelli et al., 2010) and its potential psychological, physical and

organisational implications, which have not been extensively researched before.

(Note: The Need to Belong and the Need for assimilation are used interchangeably, as well as the Need

to be Distinctive and the Need for differentiation.)

  6  

1.1. Social Identity Theory and the Need to Belong

1.1.1. The Social Identity

Social Identity Theory (Tajfel, 1982) introduced the concept of a social identity generated

from belonging to a certain group (either by choice or not). A social identity is important in

distinguishing members of certain groups including age groups, races, social classes and

those characterized by certain unique behaviors and creeds.

Tajfel (1982) has introduced the concept of ‘in-group vs. out-group’ in which people from

the in-group use their group identity as a source of pride and positive self-esteem whilst

possessing prejudice attitudes against people from the out-group.

‘Stereotyping’ is a normal cognitive process, mainly done to categorize norms and

behaviors. After the social-categorization process (Turner, 1987) of oneself, identification

with social standards and behaviors endorsed within groups is possible. Following this, an

individual goes through the social identification phase (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), in which

they start adopting the group identity and conduct themselves accordingly. Finally, Social

Comparison (Turner, 1987) follows in order to enhance the group’s identity status overall

and encourage high self-esteem as a member. Most importantly, the social identification and

comparison phases seem to have a significant impact on an individual’s emotional

significance and self-esteem respectively (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and this illustrates the

importance of integration within a group and sense of belonging.

An individual can possess a number of different social identities concurrently (Amiot et al.,

2010) and those identities can develop at different times. For example, a person can have an

age group identity, a cultural-social identity and a professional identity. Some identities fade

away with time while others appear out of necessity depending on surroundings and

environment (Hornsey, 2008).

1.1.2. The Need to Belong

The Need to Belong is defined as the desire for interpersonal bonds through frequent

affectively pleasant state or positive interactions within a certain group (Baumeister & Leary,

1995).

Shared needs and practices are the foundations of social groups, for example shared faith

underpins religious bodies. Moreover, associating self-image with social group ideals often

solves difficult questions about personal identity. Nationality and occupation are key

examples where group image can be incorporated into self-image. This can serve as an

indication of where personal preferences for belonging are, and loyalties lie. In extreme

  7  

cases, individual belonging to a group can lead to exhibiting risky sacrificial behaviour

affecting personal health and comfort in order to ensure group benefit (Caporael et al., 1989).

Freud in 1961 initially investigated the belongingness theory and proposed that the need to

belong is innate and results from attachment to the mother after birth. Baumeister and Leary

(1995) were able to provide empirical evidence that supports this widely proposed theory,

and established that the Need to Belong is a very powerful and fundamental human motive.

The need to belong is central to an individual’s social identity formation (Kramar & Brewer,

1984) and the social identities adoption process. Any threats posed to social bonds can

generate a series of negative emotional consequences, while the lack of social bonds can be

the cause of serious physical and psychological problems (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). The

process of adaptation to new social identities supports intra-individual needs to belong.

Separate studies conducted with both students and workers showed that satisfying personal

needs predicted group-level adaptation strategies as well as task-oriented coping strategies

which increase the social identification of the individual (Terry et al., 2010).

1.2. Personal Identity and the Need to be Distinctive

1.2.1. Personal Identity

Personal identity is what makes individuals unique and distinguishes the individual from the

group. This can be a controversial subject for many reasons. A number of theories explain

the personal identity through ancient philosophy: for example, the Same Soul Theory of the

Same Body theory (Perry, 2008) – stating that our soul and bodies respectively are what

constitute our identity. However individuals change through time to become different people

(Garrett, 2002). Hence the perception of self has a dynamic nature. Just as physical

appearance changes, the inner components of identity change likewise (Perry, 2008).

The Psychological Continuity (or the Continuity of Consciousness) Theory is credible and

accounts for the changing self through time. It states that consciousness prompts the

experiences of the past to shape present identity (Schechtman, 2010). Hence, it is the non-

changing unique element of every human being that makes them unique.

Personal Identity in working literature is defined as the “persisting entity” of personality

(Shoemaker, 1979), which is the consciousness that can inform our decisions to adopt social

identities and ultimately determine their degree of saliency (Leonardelli et al., 2010).

  8  

1.2.2. Need to Be Distinctive

Distinctiveness is a desire to be a unique individual with a unique personal identity (Brewer,

2003) and this definition for every individual is based on personal self-concept (Leonardelli

et al., 2010).

The need for distinctiveness is opposed by the need for inclusion. The higher the individual’s

inclusion within the group, the higher the drive of distinctiveness becomes, and vise versa

(Brewer, 1991).    

1.3. Personal Identity Vs. Social Identity

The relationship between the social and personal identity is defined through the Identity Fusion

Measure developed by Schubert and Otten (2002). Fusion can be defined as the degree of which

individuals develop reciprocal ties with the group and it is captured through feelings of

connectedness with that group (Gomez et al., 2011). Figure (1) demonstrates different degrees of

that Fusion.

Figure (1) – The Identity Fusion Model (Swann et al., 2009, p. 998)

However, the research studying the relationship between the assimilation (belonging) and

differentiation (distinctiveness) has only focused on the fully fused personal-social identities state

(Brewer, 1991) as shown in Figure (2).

Figure (2) – Personal and Social Identities

Model

(Brewer, 1991, p. 476)

  9  

In the identity model shown in Figure (2), the biggest social identity in could represent the human

race, and the smaller identities could represent the religion, race, university, age and hobbies

groups’ identities respectively. The personal identity is central to all those identities and assumes

all social identities to be congruent.

In this paper we assume that the social identity follows the Fusion Model and is investigated with

interviews where participants describe their relationships with a number of identified social groups.

Further explanations are given in Section 1.4.

1.4. The Need to be Distinctive Vs. The Need to Belong

The Social-Personal Identities Model (Figure (2)) was used by Brewer (1991) to explain the

dynamic relationship between the Need for assimilation and the Need for differentiation. Brewer

assumed that the personal identity is fully fused with the primary social identities in an individual’s

life. The interactions of those identities are the drivers for those needs and their intra-individual

competitive nature (Kramar & Brewer, 1984).

The concept of Optimal Distinctiveness Model developed by Brewer (1991) states that the need for

assimilation and differentiation are dynamic and proposes that those two desires within the self find

a balance at the Optimal Distinctiveness Point where there’s an equal inclusion and differentiation.

This is clarified in Figure (3). The more differentiated an individual feels within respect to the

group, the higher desire for assimilation becomes (Brewer, 1991) due to the dissatisfaction with

comparative low levels of assimilation.

In this paper, we also make the assumption that the Identity Fusion Model applies to the Optimal

Distinctiveness Model, and it includes the fully fused state as in the Social-Personal Identities

Model used originally for the Optimal Distinctiveness Model (Brewer, 1991) in Figure (2). This is

due to the fact that the degree of fusion is based on the individual’s own perceptions. Therefore, the

individual’s social identities do not have to encapsulate the personal identity at all times, but

subject to change due to (1) internal factors such as personal identity changes and/or choices made

by the individual, and (2) external factors: changes in the group characteristics.

  10  

To support this assumption, participants were asked to use social groups they felt very highly

associated with in this study, and then asked to evaluate the progression of their belonging to those

groups using the Identity Fusion Model (Figure (1)).

Figure (3) – Optimal Distinctiveness Model (Brewer, 1991, p. 477)

The nature of the Optimal Distinctive point is hardly studied in research. It’s natural to assume that

being in balance with assimilation-differentiation needs is a hard state to remain at, due to their

opposing nature. An assumption is that this point is perceived by the individual and therefore has a

flexible nature along the assimilation-differentiation satisfaction spectrum depending on the

perception at the time. Hence, the first two propositions of this paper are the following:

Proposition 1A: The point of Optimal Distinctiveness is perceived by the individual, and hence

changes over time.

Proposition 1B: There’s a continuous intra-individual conflict between the need to belong to the

group and the need to be distinctive from the group, so that one is not always at the point of

Optimal Distinctiveness.

1.5. Changes in Social Identity and Personal Identity

As consciousness is only constant entity of the personal identity, the only possible reason for its

change are biological brain deformation or serious psychological conditions, which are not

considered in this paper (eg. Baylis, 2001).

  11  

As for the social identity, research has been done on the effects of changing identities and the

coping/adaptation mechanisms used to facilitate this change (Terry at al., 2001).

Terry et al. propose that important life-changes, especially those that are imposed, increase the

needs of capturing as much support as possible from personally valuable groups. This emphasizes

the difficulty of coping with the identities and most certainly adopting them.

In this paper, having to adopt a certain social identity or incorporate it within the personal identity

is considered such an event, and since the effects of those imposed social identities are more

significant than non-imposed identities, a proposition is that inner conflict varies in size

dependently.

Proposition 2A: Imposed and important social identities create a stronger inner conflict between

the Need to Belong to that group and the Need to be Distinctive.

Amiot & de la Sablonniere et al. (2007) studied the factors inhibiting the development of new

social identities and proposed that when pre-existing identities are threatened by the new identity, it

becomes difficult to integrate the new identity causing a “conflict within the self”.

The assumption made in this paper is the personal identity is a pre-existing identity and the process

of fusing (integrating) with a new group that threatens it leads to greater difficulties in integration.

Proposition 2B: Social identities threatening the personal identity lead to stronger inner conflict

between the Need to Belong and the Need to be Distinctive.

1.6. Threats to the Need to Belong and the Need to be Distinctive

Finally, the threats to an individual’s social bonds have distinct emotional, psychological and

physical health consequences (Baumeister & Leary, 1995) such as behavioral pathologies (eating

disorders and suicide for example). And while the threats to an individual’s distinctiveness have

not been researched, low distinctiveness levels have been linked to extreme group behaviour such

as terrorist groups (Swann et al., 2009). Therefore, in this paper we assume that the inner conflict

between the Need to Belong and the Need to be Distinctive poses both: threat on actual

belongingness and distinctiveness and threat of not satisfying the Needs, and hence carries

consequences. Organisational effects of this conflict are considered when the Need to Belong to an

organisation is considered for subjects.

Proposition 3: The inner conflict between the Need to Belong and the Need to be Distinctive has

negative psychological and physical and organisational implications.

  12  

2. Methodology

2.1. The Qualitative Paradigm and Data Collection Method

This cross-sectional study aims at investigating the psychological intra-individual conflict

phenomenon, so an interpretive qualitative paradigm is used to investigate its emergence, process

and implications in a natural setting based on the experiences and meanings of every participant

(Pope & Mays, 1995). Semi-structured in-depth interviews were used on a small sample to suit

each participant’s communication and comprehension style. This qualitative study goes beyond the

suggested Optimal Distinctiveness Model (Brewer, 1991) to develop a new theory about the

conflicting needs. As this is an exploratory rather than explanatory study, the interviews focusing

on the experience and feelings of the participants were the only primary sources of data.

2.2. Participants

A total of 18 participants took part in this study. The participates were between the age of 22-30

years to ensure enough life experiences, and have all had a minimum of 1 year work experience in

medium to big corporations to investigate the implications of the phenomena within an

organisational context on top of the general context. The participants were selected randomly from

different interconnected networks, and are of mixed genders and nationalities. Contextual elements

of the study have been taken into consideration in the analysis of the data, however did not restrict

the pre-requisite of selection of the participants.

To test the propositions of the present paper, participants were selected on the condition that they

belong/have belonged to 4 categories of groups: Imposed, threatening to one’s personal identity,

organisational and one which they feel/have felt well integrated with (which could simultaneously

fall within the previous categories). Participants with work experience at different organisations

have participated in order to eliminate the organisational identity’s independent variable’s effects,

and to investigate the general existence of the phenomenon for different organisational identities.

3 Participants could not provide detailed or useful information about their inner conflict and needs

due to the personal nature of the topic, therefore a total of 15 interviews provided useable data for

this study.

2.3. Interview Design

The interviews were semi-structured, with a mixture of open-ended and non-open-ended questions

asked while listening and recording the answers from the participant in an in-depth manner. The

participants were made sure to be content with sharing and talking about personal experiences and

emotions throughout the interview, especially visible or hidden feelings of loneliness and lack of

belonging.

  13  

The participants were first encouraged to think of 3-5 different groups they used to/are a part of,

which they believe were/are important or primary (need/needed to belong to) in their life at the

time: Imposed, threatening to one’s personal identity, organisational and one which they feel well

integrated in (which could simultaneously fall within the previous categories). Any other primary

groups were also welcomed.

The interview was then set by providing explanations of the terms useful to understand the topic

and forthcoming questions: Social Identity, Personal Identity, Need to Belong, Need to be

Distinctive and the Optimal Distinctive Model. There was no discretion regarding the aim of the

research from that point onward, as it an assumption that it would not have intervened with the

validity of the participant’s answers was made. It was necessary for the participants to select the

groups the wish to use as examples before giving away the full aim of the research, in order to

prevent the biased selection of groups by the participant.

The third stage of the interview investigated the individual Need to Belong and the Need to be

Distinctive individually for every group the participant selected to share. Once the needs were

identified the existence of the conflict, its intensity and its implications were described as a

narrative by the participant. This allows for exploring the contextual elements that contribute/d to

the conflict development throughout the time period the participant was part of every group.

Participants were allowed to freely talk about their experiences with no time restrictions if they

allowed. The researcher also had no restrictions on the number of questions asked to the

participant, as it was necessary in order to reach the answer needed in some cases. This flexible

method allowed for in-depth details of the phenomena. The interview times ranged from 40 to 120

minutes in this study.

Following from the literature review and the propositions of this study, the sections of the interview

were the following:

1- General experiences of the Inner Conflict between the Need to Belong and the Need to be

Distinctive, with particular detailed examples from memberships to selected groups

demonstrating the development of that conflict and methods of dealing with it in due course.

2- A detailed experience of the inner conflict, its development and methods of dealing with it

in due course of an Imposed group. Then a description of the implications of the ‘imposition’

element on the intensity of the conflict.

3- A detailed experience of the inner conflict, its development and methods of dealing with it

in due course of a group threatening the personal Identity. Then a description of the

implications of the ‘threatening’ element on the intensity of the conflict.

4- General experiences of different satisfaction states of fulfilling the Need to Belong and the

Need to be Distinctive (as well as actual levels of assimilation and differentiation) throughout

  14  

the period the participant was a member of that group to investigate the change in the Optimal

Distinctiveness point.

5- A general discussion of the general psychological, emotional and physical implications of

the conflict if it had occurred, with particular detailed examples from memberships to selected

groups. Participants are particularly asked to focus on the organisational groups the have

selected.

At the end of the interview, participants were given a copy of the Identity Fusion Model Diagram

(Figure (1)) to evaluate the progression of their personal and social identities fusion level

throughout their involvement with the groups. This would verify the assumptions made about the

use of the Identity Fusion Model in this study.

Participants were asked to use groups they felt strongly about for different sections of the

interview. Participants were highly encouraged to have a mixture of experience and feelings

focused approach to addressing all the sections. Participants are notified to distinguish between

personal differences and conflicts with certain members of the group, unless they can be attributed

to the group’s identity.

The sections of the interview helped address the proposition of the study directly and formulate the

themes generated during the data analysis of this study as will be seen in the Results section of the

paper. The full interview script (subject to changes for different participants) can be found in

Appendix (1).

2.4. Data Analysis Method

This study used an Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (Smith, 1996) in which the modified

van Kaam method (Moustakas, 1994) was used. This method was useful in analyzing data from a

small sample size, using the verbatim records and the rich reflective data provided from interviews

in this study. The method provided an exploratory advantage as not only it helped address the

propositions, but also generate related contextual themes to the data. This analysis was

intersubjective as it involved the researcher’s perspective in interpreting the participants’

perspectives in each interview.

The following steps of the modified van Kaam analysis method were used on the set of data

provided from each participant in this study (Moustakas, 1994):

1- Horizontalisation: listing every relevant expression from the verbatim record of the

participants interviews and perform grouping.

  15  

2- Reduction: testing the validity of every expression and reducing to the necessary expressions.

3- Thematising: clustering the remaining expressions into labeled themes.

4- Constructing textural-structural description explaining the essence of the experience for every

participant.

5- Constructing a composite description from the individual textural-structural description

explaining the essence of the experience for the group as a whole.

Due to the large amount of verbatim data collected for this study, an example of the application of

the method is given in Appendix (2) for a randomly selected participant interview transcript.

An example of the preliminary groupings of expressions given by two participants is also given in

Appendix (3) in order to give a flavor of some of the shared experiences.

2.5. Measures

The Need to Belong

Possible definitions of the Need to Belong were given to the participants, in order to guide their

understanding of their own need. Based on their understanding, the participants were to use this

subjective knowledge to describe their feelings and experiences of the Inner Conflict phenomena

interview questions. The definitions given were the following:

• The psychological need to establish interpersonal bonds – a fundamental human motive

(Baumeister and Leary, 1995) - we all possess to belong and be integrated within a group, be

it family, work, religion or hobby in our lives. It can be a group we have been members of

before or still. Some groups we have to belong to all our lives (like family).

• The need for assimilation within a group.

• The need to be part of a group.

The Need to be Distinctive

Similarly, possible definitions of the Need to be Distinctive were also given to the participants, in

order to guide their understanding and hence responses to the interviews exploratory questions of

the phenomena. The definitions given were the following:

• The need to be our own self: to portray our own personal identity in our day-to-day life (the

personal identity is what makes us, us, through time and is what distinguishes us from the

rest of the people. The personal identity can go through changes through time and life

experience (Schechtman, 2010)).

• The need to be unique and distinct from the others whether they are members of the groups

we belong to or others.

  16  

The Optimal Distinctiveness Point

An explanation of the Optimal Distinctiveness Model (Brewer, 1991) was provided to the

participants in order for them to visualize their own Optimal Distinctiveness Point experiences and

be able to use this subjective knowledge to answer questions related to the Inner Conflict

Phenomena. The diagram of the Model provided in Figure (3) was shown with the following

explanation:

The diagram displays the relationship between the Need for assimilation (to belong) vs. the Need

for differentiation (distinctiveness) in relation to the actual assimilation and differentiation levels of

the individual within the group. The Optimal Distinctiveness Point is where one satisfies both

Needs due to a balance in the actual assimilation and differentiation within the group (Brewer,

1991).

Degree of Social and Personal Identity Fusion

The Identity Fusion Model (Schubert and Otten, 2002) in Figure (1) was used, where participants

were asked for their subjective track evaluation of their Social and Personal Identities Fusion

experience with every group throughout their time within it (by providing a percentage or selecting

the suitable image on the Model Diagram). The definition of fusion was explained as the strength

of relational ties and connectedness between the two identities (personal an social). A Scale

developed by Gomez et al. (2011) to measure the degree of fusion between the two identities was

not used in this study, as it had the same predictional effects as the pictorial fusion scale by

Schubert and Otten (2002) for the same related measure (fusion). Hence, the pictorial method was

more efficient and sufficed to demonstrate the perceived change in identities connectedness, which

is the only necessary measure for this study.

2.6. Ethical Considerations

Ethical considerations have been taken into account in this study. Participants were asked to read

and sign a Consent Form before the interview process. The participants were able to refuse to

participate or withdraw from the interview process at any time, and were allowed to ignore any

parts of the interview they did not feel comfortable to take part in. Confidentiality was taken

seriously due to the sensitive nature of personal information given by participants.

The study itself did not entail any ethical topics directly or indirectly. The data collection method

(interviews) was assumed not to carry significant psychological or emotional effects on the

participants. This was confirmed when participants were asked to report their feelings and

impressions after the interview process. All the participants were satisfied with the process and

reported no negative effects on their psychological state after reflecting on the mentioned past

  17  

experiences. Around 87% of the participants reported the process to have opened their minds to the

past and present ‘group and personal identities’ conflict experiences objectively and it have

benefited them personally. Around 47% of participants described the interview process to be

“helpful psychotherapy session”.

  18  

3. Results

All participants provided 3-5 examples of groups; hence, a total of 57 groups were used to investigate the

phenomena. Social groups (identities) included family, religious affiliation, important hobby groups and

societies, organisation, engineering or bigger scale social groups (identities) such as those occupying

childhood up to young-adulthood. 53 out of the 57 groups were determined to be primary according to the

participants and could be used for analysis.

(Note: Figures are given in cases that were possible and could demonstrate some of the important

qualitative analysis findings. They are not necessary to prove the findings (general themes and

descriptors) generated from the qualitative analysis method).

3.1. The Identity Fusion Model Viability

All the participants expressed a change in their personal and social identity fusion in at least 1 of

the groups they have selected (based on Schubert and Otten’s Model). The majority experienced a

change in all the groups. Table (1) shows the total numbers and percentages of groups in which the

participants experienced a decrease, an increase and no change in the Identities Fusion.

Personal and Social Identities Fusion Degree Change in Primary Groups

Increase Decrease No Change

19 (36%) 16 (30%) 18 (34%)

Total = 53 groups Table (1): Total numbers of groups in which the participants experienced a decrease, an increase

and no change in the Social and Personal Identities Fusion

3.2. Emergent Themes and Descriptors

3.2.1. Research Propositions Related Themes

Table (2) below shows the themes and descriptors generated through the application of the

modified van Kaam analysis method (Moustakas, 1994) for the whole sample group in this

study (53 groups). Those represent the most dominant patterns found among participants.

The following are related to the propositions in Section 1 (all of the propositions have been

addressed among those themes and descriptors).

  19  

Theme Descriptors 1 Integration and belonging needs, need to

become one with the group, conformation needs, adoption of the group’s social identity

The Need to Belong (Baumeister and Leary, 1995)

2 Need for projecting one’s personal identity and being different from the group, need for leaving a mediocre state, discomfort with group conformation and opposing values and norms

The Need for Differentiation (Brewer, 2003)

3 A high Need to Belong when entering the group, followed by an increase in the Need for Distinctiveness

The Optimal Distinctiveness Model (Brewer, 1991)

4 Struggle to be oneself and be one of the group at the same time, low satisfaction level when one is highly different from the group, or highly conformed to the group

Continual Intra-individual Conflict between the Need to Belong and the Need to be Distinctive

5 Acceptance of the Inner Conflict without active measures to satisfy the Need to Belong or the Need to be Distinctive

Optimal Distinctiveness Point Instability

6 High levels of Inner Conflict due to imposition vs. low levels of Inner Conflict due to acceptance as part of an imposed group

Polarized intensity of the Inner Conflict when a member of an Imposed group

7 Very high levels of the Need to be Distinctiveness against the Need to Belong, extreme agitation when personal identity is changing as a result of the group identity effect

High intensity Conflict when a member of a group threatening the personal identity

8 Frustration, mental instability, low commitment and initiative in the work place, poor physical health and other negative implications

Negative psychological and physical implications of the Inner Conflict

Table (2): Propositions related themes and descriptors

  20  

Table (3) shows the number of groups in which individuals described to have continues,

gradual (increasing) and frequent conflict between the Need to Belong and the Need to be

Distinctive. This table is used as support and demonstration of Theme (3) – The Intra-

Individual Conflict.

Subject Total Number of

Groups Continuous

Conflict Gradual Conflict

Frequent Conflict

1 4 1* - 3

2 3 1* 2 -

3 5 4* - -

4 5 5* - -

5 3 2* - -

6 3 2* - -

7 3 3* - -

8 3 1 - 2*

9 4 3 - -

10 4 4* - -

11 3 1 2* -

12 2 1 1 -

13 4 3 - 1*

14 4 3* - -

15 3 1 - 2*

Total 53 35 (66%) 8 (5%) 5 (9%)

Table (3): Groups in which participants reported a continuous, gradual and frequent Inner

Conflict. (*) indicates that existence of the conflict in an organisational group

  21  

Table (4) represents the number of groups in which individuals described to have reached the

Optimal Distinctiveness Point at some point during their membership within them, groups in

which they have reached and stayed at the Point and groups in which the Point shifted

(acceptance to the imbalance between the perceived distinctiveness and assimilation to the

group). This table is used as support and demonstration of Theme (4) – The Optimal

Distinctiveness Point Instability.

Subject Groups in which ODP

was reached

Groups in which subject stayed at

ODP

Groups in which ODP changed (acceptance)

1 4 0 -

2 - - 1

3 1 1 1

4 - - -

5 1 1 2

6 1 1 2

7 - - 1

8 3 - -

9 2 1 3

10 - - 4

11 - - -

12 - - 1

13 2 - 2

14 2 1 1

15 2 - 1

Total 18 (34%) 5 (9%) 19 (36%) Table (4): Groups in which the Optimal Distinctiveness Point was reached, remained at of

changed for the participants

The response for the imposed groups yielded 6 participants who expressed acceptance of the

imposition, while 8 who expressed extreme inner-conflict intensity for the Imposed groups’

category.

  22  

3.2.2. Other Themes

Following from Table (2), themes and descriptors in Table (5) represent new findings that

emerged from the analysis.

Theme Descriptors 9 Finding another primary group to join to

decrease the threat on personal identity, leaving the group completely

Exit Strategy adoption when the personal identity is threatened

10 Development of a stronger personal identity within the group and in general with time, an increase in the Need to be Distinctive vs. conformation with the group to allow for personal growth

Temporal Personal Identity Development (Perry, 2008) increases the Inner Conflict

11 Prioritizing the personal identity, increase in belief in oneself, higher acceptance of self with time

The increase in the Need to be Distinctive with age

Table (5): Other themes and descriptors

3.3. Research Quality Assurance

3.3.1. Credibility

There was general persistency of observation among the verbatim data set and hence themes

and descriptors of this study can be assumed credible.

3.3.2. External Validity

The data set can safely be assumed to have been closed maturely due to the evident patterns

(themes) found from the sample. The descriptors generated need further study to prove the

generalisability to a more universal population.

3.3.3. Dependability

The auditing of the verbatim records of all the participants proved straightforward in this

study, as the majority of the expressions extracted were directly related or easily traced to the

themes and general descriptors of the phenomena. The explanations of the used terms in the

study provided to the participants during the interview process proved helpful in the auditing

process.

3.3.4. Objectivity

Subjectivity could have been an issue in respect to understanding the explanations of the

research terms given to the participants at the start of the interview. However, providing an

explanation was used to decrease the researchers subjectivity in interpreting the experiences

shared and the subjectivity of the participants was also minimized through asking multiple

  23  

unstructured questions throughout the interview that ensured the reflection of the real

experiences. Those multiple questions also ensured an accurate objective understanding of

those experiences by the researcher.

  24  

4. Discussion

When an individual is part of a group (be it family, religion, school, hobby society or work), the degree

in which our personal identity is fused with that group’s identity changes over the time. Fusion is defined

as the strength of relational ties and connectedness between the two identities and is sometimes visible

through our adaptation of the group’s attitudes, beliefs or/and behaviors. Our personal identity might

have been based on some of those group’s identities (e.g religion or family) but that change is most

likely to still occur in due time, proving the validity and general applicability of the Identity Fusion

Model by Schubert and Otten (2002). This dynamic nature of fusion exists even with our primary groups

that are central to our personal identity and this was evident with the equal distribution of change in

fusion for all the 53 groups: and increase, decrease and no change in the degree of identity

connectedness. As those results are based on the perceived average experience described by the subjects,

they can be assumed to follow reason.

The Need to Belong to a group – the need to be integrated within a group and be identified as one of the

group through displayed norms, behaviors and/or beliefs – is a natural human desire we posses, especially

if we are not already part of groups that are both essential and socially satisfying in our lives (Baumeister

and Leary, 1995) (Theme 1). When we start fusing with a group, a gradually developing Need to be

Distinctive (differentiated) emerges. The Need for Distinctiveness is mostly expressed on two levels: (1)

the need to satisfy our moral and value sets, beliefs and attitudes, and (2) the need to leave a mediocre

state and express one’s personal specialties, which both emerged among participants responses. The Need

for Distinctiveness emerges either when the Need to Belong is satisfied, or after an exposure to certain

characteristics of the group which one finds threatening to their personal identity or personal identity

growth (Theme 2). The Need to Belong is mostly high when an individual first joins the group, and this

can be attributed to many reasons, voluntary or involuntary. A notable voluntary reason found among

participants is to join it based on the positive impression the group gives, which closely related to the

“stereotyping” concept suggested by Turner (1987). The Need to Belong can be assumed to exist

throughout an individual’s membership within the group, but can decrease when the individual’s Need for

Distinctiveness is jeopardized, or when the actual distinctiveness level of the individual are low. The

Need to be Distinctive can also be assumed inexistent the instant an individual joins the group and starts

developing gradually when a degree of assimilation occurs. These dynamics follow the reasoning of the

Optimal Distinctiveness Model by Brewer (1991) – where every need grows in relation to the actual

satisfaction of the opposing need. This development leads to the co-existence of the opposing needs

(Theme 3) and hence opened doors for investigating the process and what it entails.

The intra-individual conflict resulting from the Needs contradicting nature can be characterized by

feelings of psychological and mental discomfort, general dissatisfaction, and inability to firmly decide

  25  

which Need to priorities. The nature of the conflict takes various forms, and can be further depicted

through the implication findings later in this section.

In 66% of the 53 groups pool of this study, participants had a continuous intra-individual conflict as a

result of the co-existence of those two needs for the majority of the time the individual was a part of that

group. The nature of this continuity varied in intensity throughout, however still occurred (Theme 4).

Participants also described to have a frequent conflict (in 9% of the groups), where they would reach the

point of satisfaction (reaching the theoretical Optimal Distinctiveness Point) at several times, intervened

by periods of the intra-individual conflict. They also described to have a gradual conflict, which steeply

escalated in intensity (in 5% of the groups). This conflict also exists for work groups and organisations

an individual can fuse with as part of a paid job. Financial reward might help the individual justify the

conflict and decrease the overall Need to Belong to the organisation in some cases, but the conflict can

still arise.

An interesting finding is that in all the three types of conflict, individuals are more likely to take

numerous active measures to address the Need to Belong or the Need for Distinctiveness separately

whenever needed. For the frequent conflict, those measures are most likely to be the reason behind the

multiple times the Optimal Distinctiveness point was reached.

Meanwhile, measures taken to address the conflict as its own entity were found to be mental processes of

justifying the situation or shifting the theoretical point of Optimal Distinctiveness to a state of acceptance

of unequal measures of satisfaction with the actual levels of distinctiveness and assimilation to the group.

Hence the point described as where ‘Optimal Distinctiveness’ takes place by Brewer in her Model (1991)

is found flexible along the Need to Belong and the Need for Distinctiveness Curves, and the assimilation-

differentiation spectrum (Theme 5).

The personal identity development is a natural process that comes with age (Perry, 2008) and can lead to

the onset of the Need for Distinctiveness as well as increasing its intensity relative to an undeveloped

personal identity (Theme 10-11). When an individual is fused with a group, the onset of this need can

lead to an increase in the intra-individual conflict intensity with the already existing Need to Belong to

that group. That is especially evident in groups an individual finds both essential (constituting a big part

of their life) and contradicting the direction of their personality development (e.g work: the organisational

objectives and organisational role).

Relevant examples of this development are individuals with international experiences as found among

participants of this study. The personal identity development is relevant to the environment they are/were

surrounded by at the time (e.g Caspi, 2001) and hence a development in another culture, might lead to the

certain aspects of their identity to grow contradicting primary group norms. This creates an intense

conflict (for example, developing a more liberal personal identity contradicts family norms).

  26  

When groups an individual fuses with threaten their personal identities, especially values, important

interests and causes, the intra-individual conflict is much higher (Theme 7). An example is when

organisational conduct threatens the individual’s ethics standards. When those groups are not imposed, an

exit strategy is adopted when it’s possible, as the group becomes far from a ‘healing web’ and this would

be a way of “survival” (Pilisuk, 1986). An individual finds more peace in leaving the group, than being a

part of it (Theme 9). This exit strategy was found to take some time among the participants of the study.

It’s very rare that an individual exits immediately after encountering the threat due to the initial high Need

to Belong. Joining another primary group might be another exit strategy to satisfy the general belonging

needs so the group no longer becomes primary – it gets substituted. This follows the “Substitution and

Satiation” Theory purposed by Baumeister and Leary (1995).

For groups that are imposed (not by choice, such as school or family), results of this study show that there

are two main strategies an individual takes to address the conflict if it occurs. The results exposed a

polarized reaction: (1) acceptance of the imposition and the conflict (mental processes mentioned earlier),

or (2) experiencing an intense intra-individual conflict (Theme 6). An interesting finding is that once

individuals find a way to become distant from the imposed group, the intensity of the conflict becomes

less. Once infusing with the group becomes more voluntarily, the conflict becomes less intense, and

relevant examples include groups of friends, colleagues from separate division in an organisation or

family. But whether the imposition itself caused the increase in the conflict directly through the familiar

notion that ‘people don’t like to be told what to do’ is undetermined.

The implications of the intra-individual conflict vary according to the type of conflict and intensity, and

they most certainly have a negative nature (Theme 8). Those implications described could either be as a

result of the conflict itself, or its consecutive struggles - to be distinctive or to belong. Findings of this

study have found numeral physical, mental and mostly psychological implications described by

participants: frustration, stress, general exhaustion, anger, general dissatisfaction, losing purpose in life

when an intense conflict is experienced in very important primary groups, overthinking the conflict and

its aspects which leads to lack of sleep, inability to decide between which Need to prioritize or how to

satisfy both needs, feelings of loneliness and loss of trust with the group members when the group is

threatening the personal identity. As for the organisational implications (when the group is one’s work)

they specifically include poor communication with colleagues when one is undecided on their degree of

belongingness, lack of trust and in extreme cases: turnover (especially when the group is threatening) and

uncivilized organisational behaviour (such as stealing from work, backstabbing and dishonest

communication). The organisational implications can be less severe when one considers their work to

include only their professional identity, and hence is able to separate their career from their life outside

work, which was found in a few cases in this study.

  27  

5. Implications

The general implications of the intra-individual conflict between the Needs in this study as shown in the

Results section include a range of negative emotional and psychological states (e.g confusion, frustration,

stress, losing meaning in life, health issues, sleeplessness, constant pressure to make personal decisions

and more).

However, it would be rather pessimistic to assume that this continual conflict, despite it being proven a

phenomenon, always has distinct influences the quality of life and optimism of individuals encountering

it. Knowledge of its existence can provide a lot of explanations for certain human behaviors and attitudes

in groups including the two extreme behaviors: complete conformation to the group identity (due to very

high Needs to Belong) and complete rebellion and dissociation from the group (due to very high Needs

for Distinctiveness). Complete conformation (Caporael et al., 1989) to the group could be the option an

individual finds easier to adapt to decrease the intensity of the intra-individual conflict, either directly

(ignoring one self’s differentiation needs) or indirectly (by adopting the group’s identity within one’s

personal identity – which is the most controversial method). This indirect method can explain the

‘brainwashing’ phenomena (Taylor, 2006), which was said to have occurring during the Korean War

(Marks, 1979). Similarly, the indirect method can explain why some people belonging to certain

geographical regions abide to the official rules of it – even if it goes against their personal values or

beliefs.

Many unethical organisational or political decisions can go unpunished or stopped as a result. Fear of

losing their place within the group could be stopping individuals to voice their own opinions against

powerful decisions and statements – this of course could be accompanied by fear of legal punishment

especially when it involves critical political issues (for example: the Arab Uprising in Egypt and Syria).

Another implication of the temporal personal identity is not only the difficulty in predicting every

member in a group and their direction of growth in comparison to the group’s, but also the development

of the group’s identity due to the summative and interactional effect of the individual personal identities

development of the members. Sociology (Comte, 1838) is the science that studies such interactions

governing the complex human behaviour in societal terms.

The knowledge that the Intra-individual Conflict exists itself and is a widespread phenomena among

individuals of different backgrounds, can help individuals anticipate it happening whenever they join a

social group, and is indeed comforting to know that they are not experiencing it solo. This anticipation

will hopefully not be used within the ‘Law of Attraction’ framework (you attract what you think of

(Whittaker, 1970)), but rather in decreasing the intensity of the conflict by the virtue of knowing, and in

emphasizing the importance of reaching the theoretical Optimal Distinctiveness Point (Brewer, 1991)

without jeopardizing one’s special personal identity.

  28  

Monitoring one’s own distinctiveness (differentiation) in their day-to-day life across all the social groups

is essential in ensuring preservation of the cultural legacies across the globe, especially with the trends

swooping the world through fast globalization.

Evident examples are the fashion and habit trends young-adults are taking-up, as it they become common

among that group due to the influence of global media. It’s true that the personal identity might not have

yet matured for this age group so the effect could be assumed short-lasting, but adopting a certain social

identity at any stage in life impacts the development of self - past experiences act as a catalyst for the

development of one’s personal identity (Perry, 2008).

In an organisational context, the implications of the inner conflict generated from the opposing needs of

belonging to the organisation and distinctiveness have also been negative as shown in this study.

Employees suffering from the conflict have reported frustration, tiredness, overwork to compensate for

their differentiation, lower commitment to the organisation, lower initiative and more.

An organisation can use the knowledge of this conflict and its negative implications on the employees of

the organisation in many ways. The findings of this study are considered yet another motive for

performing a complete competent evaluation of the potential employees before hiring. A good match

between the organisational identity (norms, beliefs, behaviors, values etc.) and the personal identity of the

candidates is necessary. However, that does not guarantee a smooth unchanging compatibility for the time

period in which the employee is part of the organisation, as the personal identity of the employees can

develop or change with time (especially for fresh graduates entering the corporate world). The

organisation should therefore expect personal growth and be able to cater for the changes in its

employee’s identity (luckily, a lot of organisations support the personal growth of their employees –

which motivates candidates looking for growth opportunities). Overall, with today’s highly developed

Human Resources capabilities, a well-designed evaluation combined with experience would be able to

explore the employee’s identity and its potential direction (with a focus on personal values, ethics and

interests and most importantly the technical side of the identity relevant to the organisation’s type).

This study also emphasized the importance of the creation of a diversified work environment (gender,

nationality, sexual orientations, ethnicities etc.) in organisations (Ely and Thomas, 2001). As the work

environment could be the most time consuming for an individual, it is important to be provided with the

opportunity to ‘shine’ and show one’s special qualities: satisfying the Need to be Distinctive. The

diversity will also decrease the pressures of conformation and forced acceptance of the conflict especially

if the employee needs the particular position for financial or personal reasons.

Transfer opportunities between branches for employees in large corporations would have an advantage in

terms of reducing the intensity of the conflict if it occurs and hence decreasing potential negative

psychological and physical implications and turnover. This is because a given chance to move to a

  29  

different group (although within the same organisation) can create the illusion of the job being less

imposed, with a choice to join a number of different groups if they employee wishes.

As individuals can change their own Optimal Distinctiveness Point (change their satisfaction with their

perceived assimilation and differentiation within the group; accept the unbalanced needs for

differentiation and assimilation), and possible cases of employee conformation to the organisational group

can occur due to that process. Conformation to the organisation and its identity can lead to missing-out on

valuable employee opinions hence missing important conceptual and strategic details within the

organisation.

Finally, as the Intra-individual Conflict can occur across the different groups an individual is a part of

simultaneously, its negative implications upon individuals can affect their work at the organisation –

portrayed by the known phrase: “we bring our attitudes with us to work”. Therefore, it would be useful

for the organisation to ensure that their employees are comfortable in the general environment outside

work. Hobby groups and other extracurricular groups are also useful for decreasing the intensity of the

conflict – by diversifying the social identities of the employee. Employees can feel their ‘distinctiveness

shine’ in other places. However, this does not mean that the personal identities can be neglected as a

result. It is still important to allow that feeling to emerge within the workplace, as the individual can still

have other primary groups outside the organisation’s reach in which the conflict occurs (for example,

family).

The implications of the Inner Conflict phenomena should prompt organisations to value and consider the

personal identities of every employee in the organisation. If they’re ignored, the organisation might have

to bare the adverse risk of negative attitudes, individual insecurities, mistrust and potentially employee

revolting and turnover.

6. Limitations

To date there has not been research conducted on the internal struggle between the desire to belong and to

be distinctive. Furthermore, research works that provides the framework for the issues discussed in this

paper are few and far between, (although this has allowed room for broad propositioning and extensive

investigations).

As for the data sampling technique, the number of participants might have been limited in relation to the

number of themes found in this paper. The majority of participants (67%) have had international life

experiences (possibly identifying with more than one nationality), which may have impacted on the

  30  

existence of the Conflict itself. The personal identity can therefore have a polarized nature, and the

Conflict emerged easily and conspicuously during studies with these participants. Conversely, individuals

in the study who have a clear cut national affiliation might be highly affected by the external or internal

loci of control (Rotter, 1966) with respect to nationality and hence the conflict as well.

The phenomenological data analysis method used in this study uses inflection. There could have been a

degree of subjectivity and idiosyncrasies by the researcher despite the measures taken to reduce it. There

was a single researcher used to analyze and audit the data. Also, the analysis resulted in ‘themes’ that the

researcher found dominant which are not as solid as quantitative results for generalised future predictions.

The data collection method relied on the subjective understanding of the participants and hence

influenced the selection and description of their experiences during the interview, despite the measures

taken to decrease objectivity.

Another limitation is that the specific groups (imposed and threatening to personal identity categories)

were not strictly separate as some participants selected groups that fell under both categories; hence the

effects studied might have been interlaced. As for the effect of the characteristics of those groups on the

Conflict, a control group would have been of benefit in determining the relative effects of those

characteristics.

In an organisational context, the study did not fully focus on answering the all propositions for

organisational groups specifically (for example, some work groups did not fall under the imposed or

threatening to identity categories) due to the data sampling difficulties that would be involved, hence the

discussed organisational implications used the general conflict patterns found after proving its occurrence

in those groups.

Finally, this study did not have quantitative measures to further investigate the themes found but this can

be attributed to the time constraints on this study.

7. Future Research

There’s a lot of potential for future research to explore the phenomena of the Intra-Individual Conflict

between the needs in a more structured, specific and detailed manner.

The emerging issues inspiring further exploration from the study are multiple. First, the actual conflict

itself has many different mechanisms that keep it sustained. More specifically, there could be multiple

reasons underlying the fluctuation between the stress to satisfy the Need to Belong and the Need to be

  31  

Distinctive explicitly. Further research on this topic can serve as an extension of Brewer’s Optimal

Distinctiveness Model (1991).

Future studies can also explore the actual timeline of the Intra-individual conflict in a specific manner

(while the individual is a part of a single group), or in a more inclusive manner (the development of the

conflict temporally across the different groups the individual joins across his/her lifetime).

Investigations into why certain individuals adopt coping mechanisms that address the Need to Belong and

the Need to be Distinctive individually in a cyclical repetitive fashion (they don’t adopt coping

mechanisms to address the conflict directly), while others use mental processes to adjust their Optimal

Distinctiveness point to address the same conflict, can shed some lights on individualistic coping

differences.

The interaction of the different social groups an individual belongs to at a time also has an influence on

the mechanisms and intensities of the Conflict. The Substitution and Saturation Theory (states that the

Need to Belong could be satisfied within one important primary group (Baumeister and Leary, 1995))

could act as a starting point for this research.

Future research can also study the influence of past experiences and pre-dispositions on the Conflict for

individuals. For example, patterns from this study showed that a history of loneliness and not belonging

to any primary group leads to a stronger Need to Belong and hence changing one’s Optimal

Distinctiveness Point to satisfaction with a lower differentiation state. While, age and the ‘wisdom’ that

comes with can result in a change of the Optimal Distinctiveness point on the exact opposite direction (as

shown in this study as well). Personal pre-dispositions can also influence the physical and mental

implications of the conflict experienced by the individual.

In an organisational context, the effect of breaking down work groups into smaller and more personal

subgroups can have an effect on an employee’s feelings of distinctiveness – smaller groups satisfy the

need for differentiation. Hence, it can be a starting point for further studies into the effect of group

processes on the Conflict.

The ease of conformity to the group compared to differentiation, the degree of trust within the group, and

the fear of not belonging can all be topics of investigation in relation to the phenomena.

Finally, this study did not particularly focus on groups that are both imposed and are threatening to one’s

personal identity. Therefore future research can investigate the dynamics of their interaction, whether they

  32  

increase the intensity of the Conflict, their effect on the individual’s Optimal Distinctiveness Point, their

effect on one’s personal identity and the possible implications.

8. Contribution to Existing Literature

Previous research has shed some light on the idea that individuals Need to Satisfy both essential needs:

the Need for Distinctiveness and the Need to Assimilation, and that there’s a theoretical Optimal

Distinctiveness point where an individual is satisfied with satisfying those two needs (Brewer, 1991).

However, there was no study in literature that explored the actual process of satisfying those needs. This

paper sheds light for the first time on the Intra-individual Conflict, which seems almost continuously

aiming to satisfying those needs. It has proved to be important due to its heavy negative implications on

the individual as shown in the findings.

This paper also sheds light on the instability of the theoretical Optimal Distinctiveness Point, as it highly

depends on the perceived levels of differentiation and assimilation within the group for every individual,

and is subject to change through time within the group or in general throughout a person’s life.

This paper also proves the applicability of the Identity Fusion Model (Schubert and Otten, 2002) - instead

of the Social Vs. Personal Identity Model used by Brewer (1991) - on the Optimal Distinctive Model and

the Inner Conflict Phenomena, even for groups considered of primary importance.

Finally, this paper supports Perry’s notion that personal identity can change and develop (2008),

depending on the experiences that constitute day-to-day life, including fusing with different groups.

9. Conclusion

This qualitative study investigated the process of balancing the Need to Belong (assimilation) and the

Need to be Distinctive (differentiation) when fusing with social groups that are considered primary or

important to self. Results of the phenomenological analysis show that there exists an intra-individual

conflict which is either continuous with the possibility of fluctuating intensities, frequent or gradually

developing (escalating). Participants’ experiences showed a dominance of the continuous type.

The study also showed that the theoretical point of Optimal Distinctiveness suggested by Brewer (1991),

where both needs are satisfied equally, is in fact hard to reach and can change along the needs satisfaction

spectrum. Patterns showed a prioritizing of the Need to Belong when an individual joins the group, and

then a gradual build of the Need for Distinctiveness starts emerging, especially with the general

development of the individual’s personal identity.

The change in the Optimal Distinctiveness Point facilitates coping with this conflict. This is evident when

an individual is part of an imposed group in order to avoid or decrease an otherwise intense conflict. As

  33  

for groups that are perceived as threatening to an individual’s personal identity, an exit strategy is most

likely to be adopted.

Overly negative psychological and physical implications of this conflict were found and hence the

organisational implications are worthy of attention.

This study addresses a new phenomenon and brings numerous opportunities for future research. It is just

the beginning of the road of exploration with a hope to address the wide range of applications of this

phenomenon, its processes and implications.

  34  

10. Bibliography

Amiot, C. E., De la Sablonniere, R., Terry, D. J., & Smith, J. R. (2007). Integration of social identities in the self: Toward a cognitive-developmental model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(4), 364-388.

Amiot, C. E., Terry, D. J., Wirawan, D., & Grice, T. A. (2010). Changes in social identities over time:

The role of coping and adaptation processes. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49(4), 803-826. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a

fundamental human motivation. Psychological bulletin, 117(3), 497. Baylis, C., Qiu, C., & Engels, K. (2001). Comparison of L-type and mixed L-and T-type calcium

channel blockers on kidney injury caused by deoxycorticosterone-salt hypertension in rats. American journal of kidney diseases, 38(6), 1292-1297.

Brewer, M. B. (2003). Optimal distinctiveness, social identity, and the self. Handbook of self and

identity, 480-491. Brewer, M.B., (1991) The social self – On being the same and different at the same time. Personality

and Social Psychology Bulletin. 17(5): 475-482. Caporael, L. R., Dawes, R. M., Orbell, J. M., & van de Kragt, A. J. C. (1989). Selfishness examined:

Cooperation in the absence of egoistic incentives. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 683-739. Caspi, A., & Roberts, B. W. (2001). Personality development across the life course: The argument for

change and continuity. Psychological Inquiry, 12(2), 49-66. Comte de Maistre, J. M. (1838). Letters on the Spanish Inquisition. London: W. Hughes Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on

work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), 229-273. Freud, S. (1961). Civilization and its discontents (1930). The standard edition of the complete

psychological works of Sigmund Freud, 21, 59-145. Garrett, B. (2002). Personal identity and self-consciousness. London; New York, NY: Routledge. Gómez, A., Brooks, M. L., Buhrmester, M. D., Vázquez, A., Jetten, J., & Swann Jr, W. B. (2011). On

the nature of identity fusion: insights into the construct and a new measure. Journal of personality and social psychology, 100(5), 918.

Hornsey, M. J. (2008). Social Identity Theory and Self-­‐‑categorization Theory: A Historical Review.

Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 204-222. Kramer, R. M., & Brewer, M. B. (1984). Effects of group identity on resource use in a simulated

commons dilemma. Journal of personality and social psychology, 46(5), 1044. Leonardelli, G. J., Pickett, C. L., & Brewer, M. B. (2010). Optimal distinctiveness theory: A framework

for social identity, social cognition, and intergroup relations. Advances in experimental social psychology, 43, 63-113.

Marks, John (1979). "8. Brainwashing". The Search for the Manchurian Candidate: The CIA and Mind

Control. New York, NY: Times Books.

  35  

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc. Perry, J. (Ed.). (2008). Personal identity (Vol. 2). Berkeley, CA: University of California Pr. Pilisuk, M., & Parks, S. H. (1986). The healing web: Social networks and human survival (pp. 29-61).

Hanover, NH: University Press of New England. Pope, C., & Mays, N. (1995). Reaching the parts other methods cannot reach: an introduction to

qualitative methods in health and health services research. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 311(6996), 42.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.

Psychological monographs: General and applied, 80(1), 1. Schechtman, M. (2010). Philosophical reflections on narrative and deep brain stimulation. The Journal

of Clinical Ethics 21: 135–141. Schubert, T. W., & Otten, S. (2002). Overlap of self, ingroup, and outgroup: Pictorial measures of self-

categorization. Self and identity, 1(4), 353-376. Shoemaker, S. (1979). Identity, properties, and causality. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 4(1), 321-342. Smith, J. A. (1996). Beyond the divide between cognition and discourse: Using interpretative

phenomenological analysis in health psychology. Psychology and health, 11(2), 261-271. Swann Jr, W. B., Gómez, Á., Seyle, D. C., Morales, J., & 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.

Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual review of psychology, 33(1), 1-39. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The social psychology of

intergroup relations, 33, 47. Taylor, K. (2006). Brainwashing: the science of thought control. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Terry, D. J., Amiot, C. E., Wirawan, D., & Grice, T. A. (2010). Changes in social identities over time:

The role of coping and adaptation processes. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49(4), 803-826. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the

social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford; New York, NY: Basil Blackwell. Whittaker, E. T. (1970). A treatise on the analytical dynamics of particles and rigid bodies: with an

introduction to the problem of three bodies. Cambridge: CUP Archive.

  36  

11. Appendix

11.1. Appendix 1: Interview Consent Form and Transcript

Interview Consent Form Study title: The Need to Belong and the Need to be Distinctive (preliminary title)

University: London School of Economics – Department of Management

I am a Master Student in Organisational Behaviour at the London School of Economics and Political Science. This interview is part of my qualitative research for my Master’s Dissertation. Purpose of the Study

This study aims at investigating personal experiences of the Need to Belong to certain groups in one’s life and the Need to be Distinctive. Procedure

This interview process normally takes from 40 to 65 minutes, however if time allows it can be extended if you wish to share more details of your experiences, which will aid the research. The first stage of the interview will make sure you understand the general concepts mentioned in the semi-structured interview transcript, and then you will be allowed the talk freely about your experiences with guiding questions from the interviewer (myself). At the end of the interview you will be asked for your impressions of the interview process. Participant’s Rights

You are free to choose to participate in this study. You can refuse to answer any questions you feel uncomfortable with, and you can withdraw from the interview process at any time. However, your full cooperation thought out the process is highly valued, due the valuable time you and the interviewer have dedicated to set the interview. Confidentiality

Your identity will be kept confidential for all the information you provide in this interview. No identities will be exposed in the written dissertation or any documents produced from this process. The audio recordings of the interview will be kept in confidential record until the end of August, and then will be disposed of.

Participant Signature: Date: Interviewer Signature: Date :

  37  

The Interview

Stage 1: Preparing the Experiences

The participants are asked to select 3-5 groups of which they have belonged to at some point in their

lives or are belonging to. Those groups should have been or are important to the individual and had/

have been constituting a big part of one’s identity.

Those groups should fall within the following categories: Imposed, Low levels of Identity Fusion

with their own personal identity, Organisational and any other which they feel well integrated in

(which could simultaneously fall within the previous categories).

Stage 2: Explanation of Concepts and Terms

The Need to Belong and Social Identity

The Need to Belong is defined as the psychological need we all possess to belong and be integrated

within a group, be it family, work, religion or hobby in our lives. It can be a group we have been

members of before or still. Some groups can belong to all our lives, like family. The examples are

many and this term is fairly self-explanatory. The Social Identity is the identity of that group,

characterized by the norms, attitudes, beliefs and behaviors of that group.

The Need to be Distinctive and Personal Identity

The Need to be Distinctive on the other hand is the need to be our own self, to portray our own

personal identity. It’s the need to be unique from the others whether they are members of the groups

we belong to or else. The personal identity is what makes us, us, and is what distinguishes us from

the rest of the people: “We are our own individuals in this world”.

Stage 3: Discussion

1. In general, have you experienced the Need to Belong as part of those groups? Have you

experienced the Need to be Distinctive as part of those groups? (If the answer is yes for the Need

to Belong, the interview may continue).

2. General experiences of the Inner Conflict between the Need to Belong and the Need to be

Distinctive, with particular detailed examples from memberships to selected groups

demonstrating the development of that conflict and methods of dealing with it in due course.

(For every group: Was the group one of the primary groups in your life at that time?) – A special

mention of the organisational group experience is needed.

3. A detailed experience of the inner conflict, its development and methods of dealing with it in

due course of an Imposed group. Then a description of the implications of the ‘imposition’

element on the intensity of the conflict.

(For every group: Was the group one of the primary groups in your life at that time?)

  38  

4. A detailed experience of the inner conflict, its development and methods of dealing with it in

due course of a group threatening the personal Identity. Then a description of the

implications of the ‘threatening’ element on the intensity of the conflict.

(For every group: Was the group one of the primary groups in your life at that time?)

5. A general discussion of the general psychological, emotional and physical implications of the

conflict if it had occurred, with particular detailed examples from memberships to selected

groups. Participants are particularly asked to focus on the organisational groups the have

selected.

6. An explanation of the Optimal Distinctiveness Point in literature is given if the participant is

determined to be able to understand the concept, and hence help answer the next step.

Optimal Distinctiveness Point: The point where you are happy with satisfying both the Need to

Belong and the Need to be Distinctive. The following diagram might prove useful.

Optimal Distinctiveness Model

(Brewer, 1991, p. 447)

7. General experiences of different satisfaction times between the Need to Belong and the Need to

be Distinctive throughout the period the participant was a member of that group to investigate

the change in the Optimal Distinctiveness point.

8. Finally, using the Identity Fusion Model below, the participant is asked to evaluate the general

level (or progression) of his/her own personal identity fusion with the social identity of the

group during his/her membership in it.

  39  

Identity Fusion Model (Swann et al., 2009, p. 998)

Stage 4: Interview Reflection

Participants are asked to reflect on the interview process and report the feelings and thoughts it

induced. This is useful for ethical considerations and can also benefit the interviewer for future

interviews.

THE END OF THE INTERVIEW

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  40  

11.2. Appendix 2: An example of the application of the modified van Kaam analysis method on

the transcript of participant No. 9

Participant 9: Interview Transcript

Stage 1: Preparing the Experiences

Please introduce yourself: your age, background & current occupation.

“ I am a Greek neuroscience researcher at Imperial College London, and I have been in the UK for

almost 7 years. I am 29 now”

Choose 3 to 5 groups you had to belong to at any time of your life. Groups can be family,

religion, school friends, hobby societies, age group, culture etc. .They had to be/ are supposed

to be primary and important to you (constituted an important part of your life when you were

a part of them, or still constituting an important part of your life). One of those groups should

be a job/ work group that you were/are a part of for some time (1 year minimum).

“There are so many groups to think of, but the important ones who I for sure belonged to and wanted

to belong to as well…I choose to talk about my family which is very important, my religion, one of

the political parties I joined when I was at university and one job I had for two years as a Research

Associate at a Software Developing company in Greece, my home country. And the most important

one is definitely the world of Engineering and Engineers, which I was I was in since my

undergraduate course in Greece, then Master and PhD in the UK, which is now – that would make it

ten years!

I would say that the religion is the imposed or was the imposed group – Christian Orthodox. And the

threatening group is definitely my left wing party at university”

Stage 2: Explanation of Concepts and Terms

Keep those groups in mind for the next step of the interview.

I am going to give you a few definitions of the terms I am going to use and an explanation of

the concepts:

The Need to Belong and Social Identity

The Need to Belong is defined as the psychological need we all possess to belong and be

integrated within a group, be it family, work, religion or hobby in our lives. It can be a group

we have been members of before or still. Some groups can belong to all our lives, like family.

  41  

The examples are many and this term is fairly self-explanatory. The Social Identity is the

identity of that group, characterized by the norms, attitudes, beliefs and behaviors of that

group.

The Need to be Distinctive and Personal Identity

The Need to be Distinctive on the other hand is the need to be our own self, to portray our own

personal identity. It’s the need to be unique from the others whether they are members of the

groups we belong to or else. The personal identity is what makes us, us, and is what

distinguishes us from the rest of the people.

If you can think of any other group or example that you find more suitable and relevant to

answer any of the coming questions, do not hesitate to share the experiences. I am going to ask

you a few questions, some related to all the groups that you have selected to talk about and

some are specific to certain groups.

Stage 3: Discussion

For all the groups you have selected, have you ever felt the Need to Belong to that group and

the Need to be Distinctive?

“Let me go through them one by one. The family and religion: of course. The political party of

course too. But the work group, I didn’t feel the Need to Belong that much because I didn’t want to

do this kind of job for a long time, even when I joined from the start. It didn’t appeal to me, but

while I was one the job of course there were certain times when I felt I needed to integrate with my

colleagues and bosses”

Have you ever felt a conflict between those two Needs within every group? (Have you ever felt

that you did want/had the desire to belong to that group but at the same time felt like you

wanted to be distinct from the group)? You can talk about detailed experiences within any of

the groups. You can talk from the beginning of your journey in the group. If you can talk

about more than 1, it would be preferred.

“ I will start by talking about my engineering identity. During undergraduate, my beginning with the

group, I felt the need to belong to engineering because I really admired the challenge of becoming an

analytical and practical person. I felt like I really wanted to adopt this identity from the start. But, at

many, many times I felt like I was ‘choking’, because it wasn’t me at the same time. I had and still

have artistic interests. You know engineers like to speak and think in a deterministic way and I

didn’t like that. It wasn’t who I am and it wasn’t the way I think of things in life. Especially when I

  42  

was undergraduate, this conflict and this choking feeling started when I was getting more mature and

building myself.

I kept thinking that I was different. I tried to balancing those two needs of the contradiction for a

very long times. But then after some time without doing it consciously I adopted the engineering

identity. It became a part of me. I became a bit narcissistic as well just like the engineers thinking

that engineers can do everything and anything. But also even when I became one, I did have this idea

that I am different and I wanted to act on it because I wasn’t comfortable with being that way in the

back of my head so you can say there was this conflict all the time.

But I decided to tell myself: ok I am going to but also even when I became one, I did have this idea

that I am different (maybe not social from them an any way, but different) in the back of my head so

you can say it was there this conflict all the time.

So I joined another intermixed group and it still wasn’t enough because engineering took a big part

of my life.

For the rest of the groups, I can for sure say that I did feel a similar conflict that was there the

majority of the time, except for the work group”

Have you ever reached the Optimal Distinctiveness Point, which is defined in literature: The

point where you are happy with satisfying both the Need to Belong and the Need to be

Distinctive. And do you feel this point has changed - meaning you decided or just become

satisfied with unequal fulfillment of either or both Needs?

(The Optimal Distinctiveness Model Diagram is shown)

“It was a serious mental process to keep telling myself that, no I shouldn’t change my standards. I

should be able to hold onto who I am and my personality, my personal interests. But I couldn’t help

it most of the time; I had to live with it to cope and to survive, because it was annoying having to

have this conflict in your head all the time. It gets very heavy sometimes. Sometimes I think that all

the goal setting and joining clubs was actually placebo to make myself think that I did not leave my

personal interests behind”

Let’s talk about the imposed group, Religion as you have mentioned. Similar to the previous

questions, can you tell about your experiences with those needs and if they conflicted. How did

you feel? And equally did you have any measures to address the conflict if it has/had occurred?

“Oh, in this group, I have had a bad relationship with especially with the Church and Constitution in

Greece, but at the same time it had a very sweet part of it that I shared with my family: the

traditional aspect and the cultural as well with my family that I had when I was growing up with my

family.

  43  

Now I am no longer embracing the Catholic Orthodox identity deep down, but I still need to belong

to it because of my family and because I have grown up in it. This is contradicting I know, and it

always leave me with questions like what’s the great force? Is there a God? I would say yes there is a

conflict there no matter what, because this is a deep fundamental question, which I keep thinking

about.

Whenever I go home now, and since I have left to live in the UK, I always feel like my old identity

is coming back. I get that metaphysical feeling all over again. So I feel like I have two identities, that

are just different.”

Have you ever reached the Optimal Distinctiveness Point?

“ I would say when I was young before I became mature or started developing maybe, but the

majority of the time, no”

Did you feel this conflict was more intense because the religion was imposed?

“ Yes, I started developing my personal identity when I entered college I feel, so I decided to not

embrace the religion any more while I was still with my family and town. So when I had to be there

and be surrounded by it, the conflict was very intense. I felt like I was ripping apart inside. But then

when it wasn’t imposed anymore because I left the country and I became comfortable in another

culture, the intensity went down. So yes, because it was imposed and I couldn’t leave it was more

intense then”

Let’s talk about the group that was threatening to your personal identity. Similar to the

previous questions, can you tell about your experiences with those needs and if they conflicted.

How did you feel? And equally did you have any measures to address the conflict if it has/had

occurred?

“ I chose my political party. So for this group, when I first joined I was fascinated by living in the

university and being independent and being able to have an open political orientation. It was a trend

in Greece that university students would have a strong political view. It was fascinating how keen

students were, they even cared about politics way over their studies and university subjects. So I

decided to join the left wing party. I did a lot of research day and night to know about politics. I was

so very keen and enthusiastic to be a part of that group. Like, finally I have my own political group

and I have a side. It made me sound like a person who knows what she is doing and has strong

views. But then, while I was with this group – and I was hanging around with them and participating

in heir activities all the time, I even decided to run for a position in the committee – I became to

discover that actually this group was very dogmatic and hypocritical. They pretended to be liberal

  44  

while they were doing everything in the same dogmatic way as the right-wing party they were

against. For example, they were opposed to open voting when they claimed that they are open for it.

So I decided to just leave the group. I stopped being a part of it and didn’t want anything to do with

it. After I completely realized that they were like that. I only realized that after a year of being a part

of it – but I was also growing as a person, and building my own identity. Thank god, I knew what

was right and what was wrong. But I am still thankful for the experience. I can say that I was a part

of a political party now.

When I left, I joined another group that was not political at all – dramatic change I know. I joined

BEST which was also a student organisation, and I can say it satisfied me because it had a more

symbolic role.”

Did you feel this conflict was more intense because the political part threatened your personal

identity?

“ Of course!! Of course! I felt like I was becoming a person who complains all the time and reacts

violently for nor reason. I realized that I needed to set my priorities, which were just be me and do

what I personally thought was right thinking outside the limits of that political party. I felt like it was

insulting my personal identity”

What about the work group, your researcher job? Similar to the previous questions, can you

tell about your experiences with those needs and if they conflicted. How did you feel? And

equally did you have any measures to address the conflict if it has/had occurred?

“ Well for this group, like I said, I didn’t really need to belong to it that much. A few weeks after I

have joined I have realized that I don’t want to do software developing. But I always felt like it was

my professional identity that was relevant only because I knew that I wanted to leave. It was heavy

on me I would say having to go to work that I know I did not enjoy. But in this case I don’t think the

conflict was something worth mentioning”

Were there any psychological, mental or physical implications (consequences) of this conflict in

general, if you go back to the experiences you have mentioned?

“For the political party, I had a general feeling of disappointment in how things aren’t really real:

everything that I have felt and how people are. For this party, my family and religion, my

engineering group, overall the conflict was psychologically and physically exhausting. I had feelings

that I was deceived so many times in my life because of it. I also feel like this conflict overall made

me feel the pressure of having to make a decision between belonging and giving in to the group or

just be me and diverge away at so many times, so many incidents. For the political group also, I felt

like I had to work very hard to belong, I did a lot of research to be able to belong. And for the

  45  

engineering group I thought of changing my major many times because at points I just couldn’t

handle the conflict”

Finally, using the Identity Fusion Model, evaluate the general level (or progression) of your

personal identity fusion with the social identity of the groups your membership within them.

“ For the Engineering Identity I would say in general went from B to D.

For the religion, it went from D/E to B/C.

For the political party it went from D to B.

For work it had always been B.”

Stage 4: Interview Reflection

How did you find the interview experience? What are your thoughts and feelings?

“ Thank you very much. As you saw, I took me some time to think before answering because I didn’t

really think about this these matters that much before. It helped me discover a few things about

myself. It felt like a psychotherapy session. It feels good to talk about it.”

THE END OF THE INTERVIEW

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

  46  

Analysis Steps 1&2: Extracting and grouping the relevant expressions and reduction Need to Belong and the Need to be Distinctive “Felt the Need to Belong and the Need to be Distinctive - The family and religion: of course. The political party of course too. But the work group, I didn’t feel the Need to Belong that much.” “During undergraduate, my beginning with the group, I felt the Need to Belong… wanted to adopt this identity… But, at many, many times I felt like I was ‘choking’, because it wasn’t me at the same time.” “Tried to balancing those two needs of the contradiction” Existence of the Conflict “But also even when I became one, I did have this idea that I am different (maybe not social from them an any way, but different) in the back of my head so you can say there was this conflict all the time” “Now I am no longer embracing the Catholic Orthodox identity deep down, but I still need to belong to it because of my family and because I have grown up in it. This is contradicting I know, and it always leave me with questions like what’s the great force?” “I feel like I have two identities, that are just different.” High initial Need to Belong “When I first joined … I was so very keen and enthusiastic to be a part of that group” “During my beginning with the group…I felt the Need to Belong to engineering because I really admired the challenge” “ I only realized after a year … I became to discover that actually this group was very dogmatic and hypocritical” Increasing conflict intensity with the development of the personal identity “This conflict and this choking feeling started when I was getting more mature and building myself.” “I started developing my personal identity when I entered college I feel, so I decided to not embrace the religion any more while I was still with my family and town. So when I had to be there and be surrounded by it, the conflict was very intense.” “I only realized that after a year of being a part of it – but I was also growing as a person, and building my own identity” “I was also growing as a person…. I realized that I needed to set my priorities which were just be me”

Coping mechanisms “So I joined another intermixed group and it still wasn’t enough because engineering took a big part of my life” “Goal setting and joining clubs was actually placebo to make myself think that I did not leave my personal interests behind” Optimal Distinctiveness Point change “Serious mental process to keep telling myself that, no I shouldn’t change my standards… But I couldn’t help it most of the time, I had to live with it to cope and to survive, because it was annoying having to have this conflict in your head all the time.”

  47  

Reaching the optimal distinctiveness point On reaching the Optimal Distinctiveness Point in religion: “When I was young before I became mature or started developing maybe, but the majority of the time, no” The intensity of the conflict in the imposed group “When I had to be there and be surrounded by it, the conflict was very intense. I felt like I was ripping apart inside. “Yes (intense), because it was imposed and I couldn’t leave it was more intense then” The intensity of the conflict in groups that threaten the personal identity “The conflict was more intense… Of course!! Of course!....I felt like it was insulting my personal identity” Exit strategy when the group threatens the personal identity “So I decided to just leave the group. I stopped being a part of it and didn’t want anything to do with it.” “Changing my major” Implications of the conflict “Disappointment in how things aren’t really real” “Psychologically and physically exhausting” “Feelings that I was deceived so many times in my life” “Feel the pressure of having to make a decision between belonging and giving in to the group or just be me”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  48  

Analysis Steps 3/4: Thematising and textual/structural descriptor generation  

Theme Descriptors Need to become one with the group, adoption of the group’s social identity

The Need to Belong (Baumeister and Leary, 1995)

Need for being different from the group, discomfort with group conformation

The Need for Differentiation (Brewer, 2003)

A high Need to Belong when entering the group, followed by an increase in the Need for Distinctiveness

The Optimal Distinctiveness Model (Brewer, 1991)

Struggle to be oneself and be one of the group at the same time, low satisfaction level when highly conformed to the group, feelings of not being true to self, realization of differences creating discomfort, continuous self questioning

Continual Intra-individual Conflict between the Need to Belong and the Need to be Distinctive

Acceptance of the Inner Conflict, mental processes of changing the OD point as coping mechanism due to lack of ability to reach the point in general

Optimal Distinctiveness Point Instability

High levels of Inner Conflict due to imposition vs. low levels when able to create distance from the group

High intensity of the Inner Conflict when a member of an Imposed group

Feelings of degrading one’s personal identity High intensity Conflict when a member of a group threatening the personal identity

Disappointment, psychological and physical exhausting, pressure to make a decision, feelings of deception

Negative psychological and physical implications of the Inner Conflict

Finding another primary group to join to decrease the threat on personal identity, leaving the group completely

Exit Strategy adoption when the personal identity is threatened

  49  

Theme Descriptors Development of a stronger personal identity within the group and in general with time, an increase in the Need to be Distinctive vs. conformation with the group

Temporal Personal Identity Development increases the Inner Conflict

Prioritizing the personal identity, increase in belief in oneself, higher acceptance of self with time.

The increase in the Need to be Distinctive with age

  50  

11.3. Appendix 3: Preliminary Grouping of expressions extracted from participant No. 8 and

participant No. 2 transcripts

Subject 8 (25 years old – Female) Groups: Art Society, Work (2 years Engineering - paid), School Friends (8-18 years old)

 The Inner Conflict Art - “If I find someone who is similar to me I feel there’s no space for my own identity and there were people who were and who would be there frequently” Art- “ I would never be satisfied if those people who are similar to me have as much presence in the group as me” School Friends / 8-18 years old (Imposed and Threatening) - “Being part of the group threatened me personally always and created a big conflict” School Friends / 8-18 years old (Imposed and Threatening) - “ My personal identity was highly academic and aimed for academic excellence while my group of friends loved their music and were school rebels so I felt this conflict all the time”. Work - “I was different, I was considered more valuable because I had the technical expertise but this meant I was different from the rest of the people in the firm. It was hard to integrate with people who with less technical experience than me”. Work - “I had the need to belong satisfied as I felt useful in my job but I also felt I don’t belong at the same time as it was very hard to interact with the less technical people at work at so many occasions”. Art - “ I really try to be a part of the group and I enjoy myself with them and I try not to lose that connection – We share our love for the arts, humor and going out but at the same time those people are still in the group so I feel an almost constant struggle” Group Conformation School Friends / 8-18 years old (Imposed and Threatening) - “I started becoming like my friends and then I realized and started struggling with wanting to be myself. It was constant as I felt I couldn’t leave the group” Conflict Coping Mechanisms Art - “I try to distance myself from people who are similar to me but try to stay within the rest of the people in the group” School Friends / 8-18 years old (Imposed and Threatening) - “ I managed to find another group which I belonged to, to counteract the effect of this group” Work - “I wasn’t satisfied with this conflict, so I turned the other job they offered me down.” Optimal Distinctiveness Point Change Art - “ I have reached the point of optimal distinctiveness many times, and every time I feel I’m not there, I start talking behind people’s backs in a bad way as I feel my identity is threatened”. Art - “ I would never be satisfied if those people who are similar to me have as much presence in the group as me” Intensity of the Conflict for imposed groups School Friends / 8-18 years old (Imposed and Threatening) - “ Finally when I separated from the group for a while and didn’t feel constrained with the group it was much easier to be with them – I didn’t have much difficulties balancing the groups’ and my needs. I had another group”.

  51  

Intensity of the Conflict for groups threatening the Personal Identity School Friends / 8-18 years old (Imposed and Threatening) - “ Finally when I separated from the group for a while and didn’t feel constrained with the group it was much easier to be with them – I didn’t have much difficulties balancing the groups’ and my needs”. School Friends / 8-18 years old (Imposed and Threatening) - “Being part of the group threatened me always and created a big conflict” Implications of the Conflict School Friends / 8-18 years old (Imposed and Threatening) - “I felt so frustrated” Work - “I wasn’t satisfied with this conflict, so I turned the other job they offered me down.” Work - “ My commitment was much lower. I was frustrated and had less and less initiative at work as time went by”

   

Subject 2 (23 years old – Female) Groups: Family (Imposed), Work (1 year Start-Up Trainee - Paid), School (12-18 years old)

The Inner Conflict Family – “ I have a need to belong to my family especially my cousins of a similar age. I feel like now that I am older, my personal identity is different from theirs. They normally talk about things I do not care about or I have no input in, so I feel a constant struggle with trying to belong to them.” School – “ The school life was more cultural and religious, while I always felt more liberal” Work (Start-Up Trainee) - “ I was happy when we first started, once new people joined the company I felt my abilities were threatened as I felt less competent compared to the others. I became so self conscious and I wanted to keep my personal value high at the same time” Family – “ As I grew, I realized that my need to be long to the group was more important than me having my own identity, so I decided to be satisfied with conforming to my cousins… but the conflict was still there” Family - “I feel we are on different levels. We have a different external look on life” School – “ The school life was more cultural and religious, while I always felt more liberal” Conformation to imposed groups Family – “ As I grew, I realized that my need to be long to the group was more important than me having my own identity, so I decided to be satisfied with conforming to my cousins” Conflict Coping Mechanisms Family – “ As I grew, I realized that my need to be long to the group was more important than me having my own identity, so I decided to be satisfied with conforming to my cousins” School – “ I only found my balance when I left the group” Work (Start-Up Trainee) – “ To keep my level of belongingness to the group I put more time and effort in the project”

  52  

Optimal Distinctiveness Point Change Family – “ As I grew, I realized that my need to be long to the group was more important than me having my own identity, so I decided to be satisfied with conforming to my cousins” Personal Identity Development Family – “ I have a need to belong to my family especially my cousins of a similar age. I feel like now that I am older, my personal identity is different from theirs. They normally talk about things I do not care about or I have no input in, so I feel a constant struggle with trying to belong to them.” Family – “ Now I have realized that it’s fine to conform, as I became more self confident in myself. Like living two lives” Intensity of the conflict in imposed Groups Family – “ It was very hard as I had to deal with it all my life. They are my family” Implications of the Conflict Family – “ I feel really unhappy every time I am around them” School – “I felt like an outsider. It was a bit lonely.” Work (Start-Up Trainee) – “ I have always had a good work ethic so it only make me overwork to feel I belong.”