Original Article

C. Matschke & K. Sassenberg: Self-Regulation

Social
inPsychology
the Development
2012;
2012 Vol.
Hogrefe
of the
43(3):115126
Social
Publishing
Self

I Want to Be Like You

Self-Regulation in the Development of the Social Self
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Christina Matschke and Kai Sassenberg

Knowledge Media Research Center, Tbingen, Germany
Abstract. Entering a new group provides the potential of forming a new social identity. Starting from self-regulation models, we propose
that goals (e.g., internal motivation to enter the group), strategies (e.g., approach and avoidance strategies), and events (e.g., the groups
response) affect the development of the social self. In two studies we manipulated the groups response (acceptance vs. rejection) and
assessed internal motivation as well as approach and avoidance strategies. It was expected, and we found, that when newcomers are
accepted, their use of approach strategies (but not avoidance strategies) facilitates social identification. In line with self-completion theory,
for highly internally motivated individuals approach strategies facilitated social identification even upon rejection. The results underline
the active role of newcomers in their social identity development.
Keywords: social identification, group feedback, approach and avoidance strategies, internal motivation

. . . Oobee doo, I wanna be like you, I wanna walk like you,

talk like you, too. Youll see its true an ape like me can learn
to be human, too . . .
King Louis in the movie Jungle Book (Disney & Reitherman,
1967)

King Louis experience in the Jungle Book facing a new

group and searching the key to integration is a frequent
experience for many individuals in times of flexibility and
mobility. King Louis strategy was to learn to make fire, the
characteristic that he considered central in humans. He aimed
to behave like members of the group he wanted to join. Another useful strategy, might be to avoid behavior that is inappropriate in that group. Thus, the strategies applied while
entering new groups are crucial for smooth integration
(Matschke & Sassenberg, 2010a, 2010b). In the current research, we take a self-regulation perspective to newcomers
group integration. More specifically, we acknowledge that
individuals have different goals when they enter a group, apply different strategies, and face different reactions of the
group. We propose that these three factors affect newcomers
development of the social self.

Development of the Social Self

Besides individual identity (made up by personal characteristics) and relational identity (resulting from relationships and roles), group memberships constitute a part of the
self-concept, called social identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1979).
When newcomers integrate themselves into a group, it is
probable that their social identity will change. Research on
2012 Hogrefe Publishing

developments of the social self induced by new memberships has demonstrated such changes using measures of
behavior, attitudes, and social identification (e.g., Berry,
1997; Berry, Phinney, Sam, & Vedder, 2006; Sassenberg &
Matschke, 2010).
Recently, researchers began to consider that, besides social identification, disidentification is a component of the
social self. Just like positive and negative affect are not one,
but two rather independent dimensions (Watson, Clark, &
Tellegen, 1988), disidentification has been proposed to be
not the opposite of identification, but rather a different dimension of the relationship between a person and a group.
Disidentification is more than a growing indifference to a
group: a negative self-defining relationship to a group and
thus a representation of the active distancing between oneself and a relevant group (Elsbach & Bhattacharya, 2001;
Kreiner & Ashforth, 2004; Verkuyten & Yildiz, 2007).
Taken together, the development of the social self can
affect different aspects: social identification and disidentification. But in which of these two ways do new group
memberships affect the social self? Concepts that are likely
to be crucial are the newcomers goals and their strategies
as well as the groups response. In what follows, we provide a rationale for these factors based on research and theorizing from other domains. Figure 1 is a graphical depiction of the underlying model.

Motivation to Enter a Group

Social psychologists have proposed a wide range of motives and needs satisfied by group membership, such as the
Social Psychology 2012; Vol. 43(3):115126
DOI: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000090

116

C. Matschke & K. Sassenberg: Self-Regulation in the Development of the Social Self

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Approach and Avoidance Strategies

Figure 1. The self-regulation model of newcomers development of the social self.

need for positive distinctiveness (Tajfel & Turner, 1979),
the need for optimal distinctiveness (Brewer, 1991), the
need to reduce uncertainty (Hogg, 2007), or the need for
structure and cognitive economy (Neuberg & Newsom,
1993; Shah, Kruglanski, & Thompson, 1998). However,
need-based explanations do not allow for specific predictions about the responses to events, as much as self-regulatory approaches do (Sassenberg, Kessler, & Mummendey, 2003; Sassenberg & Woltin, 2008). In the last decade,
the consideration of self-regulation strategies has contributed to the explanation of specific cognitive and behavioral
outcomes in group research, for instance, the positive-negative asymmetry (Sassenberg et al., 2003), reactions to social discrimination (Sassenberg & Hansen, 2007), or stereotype threat (Seibt & Frster, 2004). The current research
proposes that individual self-regulation strategies affect the
specific form and strength of the development of the social
self.

Self-Regulation Strategies
Self-regulation theories address the process of goals-pursuit by acknowledging that individuals take different paths
to achieving a certain goal. There are several theoretical
suggestions for self-regulatory strategies, such as mastery
and performance goals (Dweck, 1986), approach and
avoidance strategies (Elliot, 1999), and locomotion and assessment (Kruglanski et al., 2000). In the application of
regulatory strategies to the social context, regulatory focus
theory (Higgins, 1997) has dominated the field. To the best
of our knowledge, none of these individual strategies, however, has been applied to the development of the social self.
Only recently were approach and avoidance strategies
shown to differentially affect the development of the relational identity. Therefore, we propose that approach and
avoidance strategies likewise affect the development of the
social identity.
Social Psychology 2012; Vol. 43(3):115126

Approach motivation directs behavior toward positive

events, whereas avoidance motivation directs behavior toward negative events (Elliot, 1999). Based on the assumption that there are two functionally independent neuroanatomical motivational systems, Gable (2006) distinguished
between appetitive and aversive motives, arguing that the
activation of these motives predicts the adoption of approach and avoidance strategies in the social domain.
Moreover, Gable and Strachman (2008) proposed that the
proneness toward approach or avoidance also concerns the
affected outcomes: People in an approach mode are more
concerned with the rating of positive outcomes, whereas
people in an avoidance mode with the rating of negative
outcomes. It was indeed found that, in the interpersonal
domain, appetitive motives are related to the adoption of
approach strategies, and aversive motives are related to the
adoption of avoidance strategies. Note, however, that even
if the strategies are influenced by a more stable personal
preference toward a certain motive, they are adopted for
each goal anew. It was demonstrated that, in the pursuit of
friendship goals, approach strategies were related to more
satisfaction, less loneliness, and higher levels of well-being. Avoidance strategies, on the other hand, were related
to more loneliness, negative attitudes, relationship insecurity, and physical symptoms (Elliot, Gable, & Mapes, 2006;
Gable, 2006). Thus, approach and avoidance strategies affect the relational identity if their effects are captured with
the appropriate outcome measures.
Because approach and avoidance are related, albeit distinct, strategies that occur naturally in the social domain, it
is likely that newcomers utilize these strategies during their
integration into a new group. Newcomer approach strategies are a focus on behavior that increases the likelihood
of becoming a real member of the group (e.g., acting like
a prototypical group member). Newcomer avoidance strategies are a focus on the avoidance of behavior that risks
group membership (e.g., avoiding differing from other
members). In a longitudinal study, Matschke and Sassenberg (2010b) demonstrated that newcomers indeed adopt
approach and avoidance strategies upon group entrance.
We found that approach strategies affect social identification with the group after 3 months. In this initial study,
however, we could not predict the development of disidentification. There is research that leads to the assumption
that this was due to not having considered the situational
constraint which the group itself may impose upon the integration process.

The Groups Response

A successful integration of a newcomer into a group is an
interactive process (Moreland & Levine, 1982). Groups
have the power to impose a solid situational factor by ac 2012 Hogrefe Publishing

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

C. Matschke & K. Sassenberg: Self-Regulation in the Development of the Social Self

cepting or rejecting the newcomer after entrance. This response has been demonstrated to affect social identity development in full group members (e.g., Barreto & Ellemers, 2002; Jetten, Branscombe, Spears, & McKimmie,
2003).
More importantly for our research question, evidence
leads to the assumption that group acceptance and rejection
affects members differently, depending on their self-regulation strategies. Gable and Strachman (2008) proposed
that approach strategies lead to a sensitivity for positive
events and avoidance strategies to a sensitivity for negative
events. More specifically, they suggested that approach and
avoidance strategies affect attention to and memory of
events of the respective valence, interpretation of ambiguous events, experience of specific emotions, and judgment
of the importance of positive and negative events. In support of these assumptions, it was demonstrated that approach strategies lead to stronger seeking and experiencing
of positive events, whereas avoidance strategies lead to
stronger perceived importance of negative (but not positive) social events (Elliot et al., 2006; Gable, 2006). Furthermore, it was demonstrated that avoidance strategies facilitate the memory of negative information and a negatively biased interpretation of ambiguous information
(Strachman & Gable, 2006). In a similar vein, Carver
(2004) proposed that, in an approach mode, positive events
result in more active responses, whereas in an avoidance
mode negative events result in more active responses (compared to the respective other type of event).
Taken together, when strategy and event fit, people are
ready to perceive, weigh, and remember these events and
respond especially active, so that changes are most likely
to occur under these conditions. Activating, arousing responses are therefore most likely when approach strategies
and acceptance come together as well as when avoidance
strategies and rejection come together. Based on the idea
that approach and avoidance strategies affect specific outcome criteria (Gable & Strachman, 2008), the concurrence
of approach strategies and acceptance should affect social
identification (i.e., a positive outcome criterion), and the
concurrence of avoidance strategies and rejection should
affect disidentification (i.e., a negative outcome criterion).
In case of concurrence of avoidance strategies and acceptance as well as of approach strategies and rejection, no
impact on the two outcome criteria is expected. However,
self-completion theory (Wicklund & Gollwitzer, 1982)
suggests that this prediction does not hold across the board,
but rather that there is an important moderator when entering a new group, namely internal motivation.

Internal Motivation, Self-Regulation, and

the Groups Response
The goal of entering a group can vary from group features
that pull newcomers into groups (e.g., joining a sports
2012 Hogrefe Publishing

117

club because one loves to exercise) to push factors that

drive them into groups (e.g., joining after being urged by
ones physician to exercise more). These reasons can be
distinguished by the dimension from autonomous, internal
locus of causality to controlled, external locus of causality
(Deci & Ryan, 2000).
Self-completion theory (Wicklund & Gollwitzer, 1982)
suggested that negative events result in different outcomes
depending on the type of motivation. In contrast to the effect discussed above (i.e., failure here rejection results
in negative outcomes here disidentification), self-completion theory posited that, in the case of internal motivation, failure results in increased goal striving in order to
compensate the failure. Research from different domains
supported this assumption (e.g., Brunstein & Gollwitzer,
1996; Fehr & Sassenberg, 2010). Therefore, we assume
that internal motivation to enter a group moderates the effects of approach and avoidance strategies and group response on the development of the social self. We hypothesize that approach strategies facilitate social identification
among highly internally motivated newcomers even in
cases of rejection. Accordingly, avoidance strategies are
expected only to lead to higher levels of disidentification
after rejection, when internal motivation is low.
More generally, we propose that three factors affect the
development of the social self: goals, strategies, and events
(see Figure 1). The assumption that goals and strategies
have an influence on the effect of certain events is in line
with other models of self-regulation (e.g., Carver, 2004;
Sassenberg & Woltin, 2009). These models suggest that the
interplay between goals and strategies determine how
events influence cognition and affect, which in turn guide
behavior. Ideally, behavior should generate new events.
Taken together, the self-regulation model in newcomers
targets a new outcome of goals, strategies, and events,
namely, the social self, and seeks to contribute to the understanding of specific self-concept changes. The behavioral consequences as well as their impact on future events
(i.e., the groups response) are not targeted in the current
set of studies.

Empirical Evidence
Matschke and Sassenberg (2010a) tested parts of the assumed relations in the model, namely, the impact of approach and avoidance strategies as well as internal motivation on disidentification. In two studies we measured internal motivation, approach and avoidance strategies. The
groups feedback was manipulated (in a vignette study) and
measured (in a field study with high school students who
had spent a year in a foreign country). As expected, it was
demonstrated that rejected, but not accepted, newcomers
avoidance strategies lead to stronger disidentification in
newcomers who were lowly internally motivated but not in
those who were highly internally motivated. In line with
Social Psychology 2012; Vol. 43(3):115126

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

118

C. Matschke & K. Sassenberg: Self-Regulation in the Development of the Social Self

the assumptions, there were no effects of approach strategies on disidentification.

One striking characteristic of research dealing with
group responses is its focus on the effects of intragroup
rejection and exclusion rather than on acceptance or inclusion. Similarly, our own research (Matschke & Sassenberg,
2010a) aimed at studying conditions where disidentification is (or is not) induced by rejection. Compared to rejection, acceptance of a group might not be as problematic and
has therefore not inspired as much research. It is, however,
likely that members react differently to acceptance, just like
they react differently to rejection. Therefore, in the current
research we aimed at studying factors that facilitate the effects of acceptance from a group on newcomers development of the social self.

Overview
In two studies we assessed internal motivation as well as
approach and avoidance strategies in newcomers, manipulated the groups feedback (acceptance vs. rejection), and
tested the effects on social identification. It has been suggested that social identification consists of three dimensions: affective, cognitive, and behavioral (Tajfel, 1978).
Affectively, identification is an emotional involvement
with the group (Ellemers, Kortekaas, & Ouwerkerk, 1999);
cognitively, one considers oneself to fit into the social category (Turner, 1987); behaviorally, identification is the intention to contribute to the groups benefit (i.e., commitment). As research has demonstrated that the components
have different consequences (Ellemers et al., 1999), we aim
to cover all components of identification, but expect to find
the same pattern across the components.
We hypothesize that approach strategies facilitate social
identification in accepted newcomers, independent of their
internal motivation. For rejected newcomers, we expect
that approach strategies facilitate social identification only
in case of high internal motivation. In Study 1 we used
vignettes to test this hypothesis, whereas in Study 2 we
used bogus groups and thus real, but controlled experiences
with the new group.

Study 1
Method
Design and Participants
An experiment with two conditions (acceptance vs. rejection) and three continuous independent variables (internal
motivation, approach and avoidance strategies) was conducted. We recruited 121 German-speaking university students (82 females, age M = 22, range 1933 years) for a
Social Psychology 2012; Vol. 43(3):115126

study on new group memberships, in exchange for a chocolate bar.

Procedure
Participants were asked to name a group that they would
like to be a member of (most participants chose a sports
team, the student choir, or the debating club). This free
choice was used to induce high personal relevance and a
proximity to actual experience. Afterwards they filled in
measures of their motivation to enter that group and were
asked to imagine that they were a newcomer, followed by
measures of approach and avoidance strategies. In order to
manipulate the groups feedback, participants read the following situations:
(Acceptance) Rejection: You have been a member of this
group for a few weeks. The common theme and the group
activities are still interesting and important to you. You notice
quickly that important group issues are often discussed outside
the organized group activities. (The other group members already ask you for your opinion.) But you realize that you are
not asked for your opinion by the other group members. At the
recent distribution of tasks, (a central task for which you are
especially suited was assigned to you.) no task was assigned
to you, though you are especially suited for a certain task.
Accidentally you overhear a conversation where one group
member says to another (that you are already a real group
member and really part of the group.) that you are not a real
group member and not really part of the group.

Participants were asked to put themselves in that situation

and received the dependent measures of affective identification, cognitive identification, commitment, and the manipulation check. After completing the questionnaire, the
participants were thanked and debriefed.

Measures
All items were assessed on a 7-point scale (1 = I dont agree
at all, 7 = I fully agree). Strategy items can be found in
Table 1, the identification items in the Appendix. For all
scales, means served as scale values.
The manipulation check consisted of two items: I felt
rejected by the group and I felt accepted by the group
The internal motivation was measured with two items:
I want to belong to that group because it would be fun
and I want to belong to that group because I would enjoy
the activities of the group, (r = .52, N = 121, p < .001).
Approach and avoidance strategies were measured with
a questionnaire we developed ourselves (Matschke & Sassenberg, 2010a). A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on the 12 strategy items using AMOS (Arbuckle,
2006). The hypothesized model designed the items of each
strategy to load exclusively on the respective latent variable. Four error variables of items using similar words were
2012 Hogrefe Publishing

C. Matschke & K. Sassenberg: Self-Regulation in the Development of the Social Self

119

Table 1. Membership-goal items and their loadings in Study 1 (N = 121)

Strategy item

Factor loadings

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Approach
1. I am trying to mentally grow into the group.

.46

2. I am striving to be accepted as a full member of the group.

.75

3. I am striving to be seen as a real group member by the other people in the group.

.69

4. I am striving to see myself as a real group member.

.85

5. I am trying to grow into the group with my behavior.

.40

6. I am striving to see myself as a compatible group member.

.66

Avoidance

7. I avoid deviating from the image of a typical group member.

.35

8. I am trying to distinguish my behavior from people that are not in the group.

.71

9. I want my behavior to deviate as little as possible from the other group members.

.35

10. I avoid being too similar to people that are not part of the group.

.85

11. It is important to me not to differ too much from the others in the group.

.49

12. I avoid being similar to people that are not members of the group.
.84
Note. The hypothesized model designed the items of each strategy to load exclusively on the corresponding factor. Loadings between strategy
items and the respective other factor are therefore not displayed.

Table 2. Correlations of independent and dependent variables in Study 1 (N = 121)/Study 2 (N = 121)

Construct

2.

1. Approach strategies

.24**/.49***

2. Avoidance strategies

3.
.10/.48***
.04/.08

3. Internal motivation
4. Affective identification
5. Cognitive identification

4.

5.

.35***/.60***

.41***/.57***

6.
.31***/.60***

.59***/.32**

.07/.41**

.13/.66***

.03/.58***

.06/.30*
.03/.54***

.91***/.90***

.70***/.73***
.69***/.71***

6. Commitment
Notes. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

allowed to correlate. Following the suggestions by Hu and

Bentler (1999), the comparative fit index (CFI), TuckerLewis index (TLI), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) were used to evaluate the model fit.
The results supported the fit of the hypothesized model to
the data, (df = 49, N = 121) = 64.9, p = .063, CFI = .969,
TLI = .958, RMSEA = .052. All latent variable variances
and factor loadings were significant with an average primary factor loading of .62 (see Table 1 for loadings). The
approach strategy ( = .81; M = 5.60, SD = 0.81) and avoidance strategy ( = .79, M = 2.57, SD = 0.95) were moderately correlated (r = .24, N = 121, p = .008) as has been
reported earlier (Elliot et al., 2006). The internal motivation
was neither correlated with approach strategy nor with
avoidance strategy (both |rs| < .11, both ps > .25).
A six-item scale was used to measure affective identification ( = .92). Four items were taken from the identification scale introduced by Kessler and Hollbach (2005),
one item was adapted from Allen and Meyer (1990), and
the final item was taken from the identification measure of
Hinkle, Taylor, and Fox-Cardamone (1989). Cognitive
1

identification was measured with a five-item scale ( = .89)

taken from the identification measure of Kessler and Hollbach (2005). Commitment was measured with five items (
= .88). Four items were taken from the German version of
the Organization Citizenship Behavior Scale (Staufenbiel
& Hartz, 2000), completed by another item developed by
ourselves.1
A confirmatory factor analysis using AMOS (Arbuckle,
2006) confirmed that the subcomponents of identification
can be separated from each other as well as from internal
motivation. The items of affective identification, cognitive
identification, and commitment loaded exclusively on the
respective latent variables, which loaded on a common social identification latent variable, all factor loadings were
significant (all Bs > .51, all ps < .001). Internal motivation
items loaded significantly on one latent variable, which
was not correlated with the latent social identification variable (r = .15, p > .10). Again, error variables with similar
wordings were allowed to correlate. The results supported
an acceptable fit of the hypothesized model to the data,
(123, N = 121) = 213.11, p < .001, CFI = .948, TLI =

Commitment is operationalized as the intention to display behavior. It thus captures the behavioral component of social identification,
similarly to the behavioral component of attitudes. Certain items of the Organizational Citizenship Behavior scale are fit to be used to
measure this component.

2012 Hogrefe Publishing

Social Psychology 2012; Vol. 43(3):115126

120

C. Matschke & K. Sassenberg: Self-Regulation in the Development of the Social Self

.927, RMSEA = .078 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Combining the

highly correlated affective and cognitive identification (see
Table 2) into one component did not improve the fit of the
model, (124, N = 121) = 215.97, p < .001, CFI = .947,
TLI = .927, RMSEA = .078. In order to stay in line with
the literature (e.g., Ellemers et al., 1999), we entered the
two scales separately into the analyses.

Results
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Manipulation Checks
Participants in the acceptance condition felt more accepted
(M = 5.84, SD = 1.01) than participants in the rejection
condition (M = 3.26, SD = 1.49), t(105.58) = 11.12, p <
.001, part = .538. Participants in the rejection condition felt
more rejected (M = 4.39, SD = 1.73) than participants in
the acceptance condition (M = 2.00, SD = 1.45), t(115.60)
= 8.21, p < .001, part = .367. Overall, these results demonstrate that the materials achieved their purpose.

Social Identification
We expected that approach strategies (but not avoidance
strategies) would facilitate social identification for all but
for low internally motivated participants in the rejection
condition. To test this prediction, a mixed GLM with the
between subject factors feedback (1 acceptance vs. 1 rejection), the continuous standardized factors internal motivation, approach and avoidance strategies, and the within
subject factor component (affective identification vs. cognitive identification vs. commitment) was conducted. Evidence for the hypothesis would be provided by a three-way
interaction of Feedback Internal motivation Approach
on social identification.
Indeed, the analysis2 revealed a Feedback Internal motivation Approach interaction, F(1, 109) = 4.45, p = .037,
part = .039, that qualified main effects of feedback,
F(1, 109) = 64.76, p < .001, part = .373, approach,
F(1, 109) = 19.17, p < .001, part = .150, internal motivation, F(1, 109) = 6.04, p = .016, part = .052, and a Feedback Approach interaction, F(1, 109) = 9.28, p = .003,
part = .078. Since there was no four-way interaction with
component, F(1.56, 169.61) = 1.26, p = .281, simple slope
analyses for the feedback conditions (Aiken & West, 1991;
using z-standardized scores) were conducted across the
components of social identification (see Figure 2). In the
acceptance condition, approach strategies facilitated social
identification for all participants, no matter whether they
were low (1 SD below the mean), B = .79, SE = .20, p <
.001, or high in internal motivation (1 SD above the mean),
B = .50, SE = .19, p = .009. In the rejection condition, for
those low in internal motivation, approach was unrelated
2

Figure 2. The integration of the group into the self-concept

as a function of approach strategy and feedback for (A)
acceptance and (B) rejection in Study 1 (N = 121).
to social identification, B = .22, SE = .23, p = .345. However, for highly internally motivated, approach facilitated
social identification, B = .45, SE = .19, p = .019. In sum,
the results supported our hypothesis.
In addition, a main effect of component occurred,
F(1.56, 169.61) = 19.81, p < .001, part = .154, qualified
by a Feedback Component interaction, F(1.56, 169.61)
= 12.58, p < .001, part = .103, revealing that feedback
affected affective identification (acceptance M = 5.80, SE
= .14, rejection M = 4.32, SE = .14) and cognitive identification (acceptance M = 5.46, SE = .14, rejection M = 4.00,
SE = .14) more strongly than commitment (acceptance M
= 5.68, SE = .14, rejection M = 4.81, SE = .14),
F(1.59, 189.25) = 12.25, p < .001, part = .093. Internal
motivation affected affective identification, B = .20, SE =
.12, p = .083, but not cognitive identification, B = .05, SE
= .12, p = .675, and commitment, B = .05, SE = .12, p =
.700, as was revealed by an Internal motivation Component interaction, F(1.56, 169.61) = 3.81, p = .034, part =
.034. Moreover, there was a Feedback Approach Component interaction, F(1.56, 169.61) = 5.30, p = .011, part
= .046. The Feedback Approach interaction was significant for both affective identification, B = .64, SE = .19, p

If the data did not confirm the assumption of sphericity, F-values were Greenhouse-Geisser adjusted. In these cases df-values are not integer.

Social Psychology 2012; Vol. 43(3):115126

2012 Hogrefe Publishing

C. Matschke & K. Sassenberg: Self-Regulation in the Development of the Social Self

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

= .001, part = .093, and cognitive identification, B = .71,

SE = .19, p < .001, part = .109, but just like in case of the
main effect of feedback there is no Feedback Approach
interaction for commitment, B = .24, SE = .20, p = .245.
Finally, an Avoidance Component interaction was found,
F(1.56, 169.61) = 6.60, p = .004, part = .057, though
avoidance had no effect on social identification on either
component when dissolved (affective identification, B =
.04, SE = .13, p = .751, cognitive identification, B = .08,
SE = .14, p = .579, commitment, B = .21, SE = .14, p =
.138). No other main or interaction effects reached conventional levels of significance, all Fs < 2.12, all ps > .10.

Discussion
In Study 1 the effects of internal motivation, approach strategies, and group response on social identification in newcomers were investigated. It was expected that, upon acceptance, approach strategies (but not avoidance strategies)
would facilitate social identification independently of the
internal motivation. However, we expected that approach
strategies facilitate social identification in high internally
motivated newcomers even upon rejection. As expected,
approach strategies led to stronger social identification
when newcomers were accepted and also when they were
rejected, but only if their internal motivation was high.
As predicted, we did not find any effect of avoidance
strategies on social identification. There was an interaction
effect with the components of social identification, but the
effect of avoidance was not significant on either component
of social identification. This finding supports the idea that
the effects of approach and avoidance strategies are to be
found on the respective outcome criteria. Since social identification with a group is a positive outcome criterion, it is
influenced by approach strategies only.
The main effect of feedback as well as the Feedback
Approach interaction were found for cognitive and affective identification but not for commitment. This might result from the fact that the former two components are mere
internal states while the commitment captures intentions
for externalizations that are less easily affected by singular
events. It should, however, be noted that the components
were not differently affect by the predicted Feedback Approach Internal motivation interaction. Therefore, this
difference concerning the components is not relevant for
the current research question.
As rejected newcomers high in internal motivation seem
to identify nearly as strongly as accepted newcomers, one
might wonder whether the internal motivation made participants fade out the rejection experience. This was not the
case, as the Feedback Internal motivation interaction on
the perception of rejection (the manipulation check) was
not significant, B = .08, SE = .16, p = .615.
All in all, the results of Study 1 provide evidence for the
effect of internal motivation, approach strategies, and
group response on social identification. These findings are
2012 Hogrefe Publishing

121

particularly noteworthy, as none of the participants actually

were newcomers in the group and, though groups were real
and of interest to the participants, the manipulation was
imagined. Therefore, Study 2 intended to replicate the findings using allegedly real groups thereby exposing participants to controlled experiences with a bogus new group.

Study 2
Method
Design and Participants
A group of 74 university students participated in an experiment with two conditions (acceptance vs. rejection) and
three continuous independent variables (internal motivation, approach and avoidance strategies) in exchange for 8
EUR. Seven participants who suspected the fictitious nature of the group or the manipulation were excluded from
the analysis. The datasets of 67 participants (38 female, age
M = 24, range 2030 years), were analyzed.

Procedure
Participants were seated in cubicles. They were told that
the study investigated whether the achievement of a small
group would increase if group members work on the same
task one after the other, correcting each others solutions.
Participants read that several groups had formed earlier and
that some groups still admitted new members. In order to
increase the groups importance, participants were told that
groups which solved 85% of the tasks correctly would win
another 50 EUR. Participants were then asked to choose
one of two groups that were introduced with a motto
(Rukos: Pragmatic, practical, good, Dekons: Analyzing
instead of thinking on ones feet). Before they started
working on the tasks, participants were told that their attitudes and expectations toward the group work would be
measured. They then filled in measures of motivation to
work with the group, approach and avoidance strategies,
and 12 bogus items presented as capturing team-relevant
attitudes (e.g., I like to discuss important things with others). These items were filled in twice: First to measure
their own attitudes and secondly to indicate what attitude
they would expect in their fellow group members to be
acceptable at a minimum (i.e., the minimal expectation).
On this basis, the groups feedback was manipulated as follows:
In order to know more about the composition of the group, we
compare the mean minimal expectations of the group with the
expectations and attitudes of the newcomers. You might be
interested to what extent your profile matches the preference
profile of the group.
Social Psychology 2012; Vol. 43(3):115126

122

C. Matschke & K. Sassenberg: Self-Regulation in the Development of the Social Self

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Figure 3. Manipulation of the groups

(A) acceptance or (B) rejection in
Study 2 (N = 67).

Participants received a figure indicating either high (acceptance) or low (rejection) match with the group profile (see
Figure 3). This prototypicality feedback was chosen in order to clearly circumscribe interpersonal feedback and the
need for social bonds (a similar prototypicality feedback
was given by Jetten et al., 2003). After having worked on
three trial tasks, participants received the dependent measures of affective identification, cognitive identification,
and commitment. Participants then worked on a number of
problems as advertised, were compensated, thanked, and
debriefed. Instead of the prize that the groups could ostensibly win, participants took part in a lottery.

multiple regressions and makes regression coefficients difficult to interpret (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). In
order to overcome this multicollinearity, we dichotomized
the internal motivation based on a median split. Within the
respective groups, the membership strategy scales were
centered, thus reducing the correlation between the strategies and internal motivation (both rs < |.10|, p > .10.) The
median split of the internal motivation was independent of
the experimental manipulation of Feedback, (df = 1, N
= 67) = .05, p = .831. These variables were used in the
analysis reported below.
Affective identification ( = .84), cognitive identification ( = .89) and commitment ( = .84) were measured
with the same scales as in Study 1.

Measures
All items were assessed on a 7-point scale (1 = I dont agree
at all, 7 = I fully agree). To assess internal motivation, the
scale from Study 1 was extended to a four-item scale ( =
.85). The additional two items were I want to belong to
that group, because I feel like working with this group and
I want to belong to this group, because I think it would be
interesting and exciting to work with this group.
The approach strategy ( = .89) and avoidance strategy
( = .88) were measured using the 12-item questionnaire
described in Study 1. The strategies were again correlated
(r = .49, N = 67, p < .001). The internal motivation was
correlated with the approach strategy (r = .48, p < .001),
but not with avoidance strategy (r = .08, p = .542). Such
high intercorrelation of independent variables for which an
interaction is computed threatens the preconditions for
Social Psychology 2012; Vol. 43(3):115126

Results
As in Study 1, we expected approach strategies (but not
avoidance strategies) to facilitate social identification when
newcomers are accepted. When rejected, we expected this
relation to hold only when newcomers were high internally
motivated.
This prediction was tested with a mixed GLM with the
between subject factors feedback (1 acceptance vs. 1 rejection) and internal motivation (high 1 vs. low 1), the
adapted continuous factors approach and avoidance, and
the within subject factor component (affective identification vs. cognitive identification vs. commitment).
As expected, the analysis revealed a Feedback Internal
motivation Approach interaction, F(1, 55) = 4.22, p =
2012 Hogrefe Publishing

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

C. Matschke & K. Sassenberg: Self-Regulation in the Development of the Social Self

123

Feedback Avoidance interaction was not significant for

commitment, B = .03, SE = .49, p = .960, but there were
tendencies for affective identification, B = .825, SE = .42,
p = .053, part = .066 and cognitive identification, B =
1.06, SE = .59, p = .078. Dissolved into simple slopes,
avoidance was neither significantly related to affective
identification when newcomers were accepted, B = .21, SE
= .13, p = .118, nor when they were rejected, B = .34, SE
= .22, p = .129. For cognitive identification, when newcomers were accepted, there was a tendency of a relation between avoidance and cognitive identification, B = .34, SE
= .18, p = .070. When rejected, there was no such relation,
B = .14, SE = .31, p = .655.
Additional findings were a main effect of component,
F(1.64, 90.02) = 82.74, p < .001, part = .601, qualified by
a tendency toward an Internal motivation Component interaction, F(1.64, 90.02) = 2.81, p = .076, part = .049, indicating that internal motivation was differently related to
affective identification, B = 1.23, SE = .24, p < .001, part
= .327, cognitive identification, B = 1.37, SE = .34, p <
.001, part = .232, and commitment, B = .98, SE = .28, p
= .001, part = .187.
No other main or interaction effects were significant, all
Fs < 1.63, all ps > .10

Discussion

Figure 4. The integration of the group into the self-concept

as a function of approach strategy and feedback for (A)
acceptance and (B) rejection in Study 2 (N = 67).
.045, part = .071, that qualified two main effects: Internal
motivation, F(1, 55) = 48.61, p < .001, part = .469, and
approach, F(1, 55) = 15.12, p < .001, part = .215. There
was no four-way interaction with component,
F(1.64, 90.02) = 1.91, p = .162, therefore simple slope
analyses were conducted across the components of social
identification. In the acceptance condition, approach was
related to social identification for those low, B = .50, SE =
.21, p = .019, but not for those high in internal motivation,
B = .27, SE = .21, p = .202. In Figure 4 it becomes obvious
that this might be due to a ceiling effect. In the rejection
condition, when newcomers were low in internal motivation, approach was unrelated to social identification, B =
.19, SE = .19, p = .322. When highly internally motivated,
however, approach facilitated social identification, B = .99,
SE = .36, p = .008. Taken together, the results confirmed
our prediction.
Neither upon acceptance nor upon rejection were avoidance strategies related to social identification, F(1, 55) =
1.35, p = .251. Thus, our results support the idea that avoidance effects are to be found on negative criteria. However,
there was a Feedback Avoidance Component interaction, F(1.64, 90.02) = 82.74, p < .001, part = .601. The
2012 Hogrefe Publishing

In Study 2 we replicated the findings from Study 1 in a real

group situation by demonstrating that internal motivation,
approach strategies and group response affect newcomers
social identification. As expected, approach strategies facilitated social identification when newcomers were accepted. When rejected, this effect was only found when
newcomers were highly internally motivated.
As to avoidance strategies, there were marginal interactions of feedback and avoidance on affective and cognitive
identification, but these interactions did not hold upon resolving. Taken together with the results from Study 1, the
data support the idea that approach and avoidance effects
are foremost found on matching outcome criteria.

General Discussion
The current research studied the impact of type of motivation underlying the goal to enter a group, of self-regulatory
strategies, and of the groups responses on newcomers development of the social self. We predicted that internal motivation, strategies, and the groups response would affect
the development of the social self (see Figure 1). The data
support our model. In two studies, we found that, when
newcomers were accepted, approach strategies (but not
avoidance strategies) facilitated social identification; when
they were rejected, only highly internally motivated newcomers approach strategies facilitated social identificaSocial Psychology 2012; Vol. 43(3):115126

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

124

C. Matschke & K. Sassenberg: Self-Regulation in the Development of the Social Self

tion. By applying different manipulations of groups response (personal feedback in Study 1, prototypicality feedback in Study 2), we provided evidence that the effect holds
across a range of group responses.
The current studies demonstrate that the adaption of selfregulation models to the development of the social self is
a fruitful way to increase our understanding of integration
processes, as it allows to explain specific forms of social
identity development: Certain strategies in combination
with a certain group response affect newcomers development of social identification (in case of acceptance and approach strategies) and disidentification (in case of rejection
and avoidance strategies; Matschke & Sassenberg, 2010a).
Our model suggests that changes in the social self affect
behavioral changes, which in turn affect the groups response. These processes did not lie in the focus of our studies. The relationship between the inclusion of a group into
the social self and behavior is well established (e.g.,
Matschke & Sassenberg, 2010b; Riketta, 2008), and there
is plenty of evidence that newcomer behavior affects the
response of the group (e.g., Choi & Levine, 2004; Rink &
Ellemers, 2009).
By acknowledging that individuals use different strategies when entering a new group, the active role of newcomers in the integration process is underlined. Research
that investigated factors of the development of the social
self has focused mainly on factors that are unchangeable
for the newcomer, such as context factors, personality
factors, or biographical data (e.g., Berry, 1997; Bourhis,
Moise, Perreault, & Sencal, 1997; Piontkowski, Florack, Hoelker, & Obdrzlek, 2000). The application of
self-regulation approaches studies aptitudes that are under control of the newcomer (for a similar application in
research on social discrimination victims, see Sassenberg
& Hansen, 2007). Without the consideration of motivation, newcomers are treated as passive objects. In the current research we demonstrated that newcomers social
identities are not exposed to the group, but that newcomers are motivated protagonists in their personal development.
By investigating factors that affect the effects of group
acceptance, the current data improve the understanding
of why positive experiences with a group influence people differently. In the current research, it is demonstrated
that group acceptance affects newcomers more when they
adopt approach strategies. The positive issue in the
sense of positive psychology of group acceptance has,
unlike questions of social exclusion, received little attention in research. Our studies contribute to fill this gap and
complete the evidence that self-regulation approaches
can shed light into both negative and positive processes.
In general, while there is a growing interest in differentiating effects of circumstances of rejection (e.g., Leary,
2005), research on acceptance should be followed up.
The current research adapts the approach and avoidance distinction to the development of social identities.
It contributes to the evidence that approach and avoidSocial Psychology 2012; Vol. 43(3):115126

ance strategies lead to a specific sensitivity to certain

events. Research on other regulatory strategies has produced similar effects on the concordance of strategy and
event (e.g., Avnet & Higgins, 2003; Higgins, 2006; Sassenberg et al., 2003). Moreover, the data support the phenomenon that the effects of approach and avoidance are
found on specific outcome criteria. In research on other
regulatory strategies it might be worthwhile to consider
whether the concordance of strategies and certain events
affect specific outcome criteria as well.
Attentive readers might have noticed that our conceptualization of avoidance strategies consists of two subdimensions: the strategy to avoid deviating from the ingroup and the strategy to avoid being similar to outgroups. In the current data, the distinction into these
subdimensions was not supported by factor analyses.
However, in the future researchers might want to tap into
these different foci and investigate whether they drive
different outcomes.
Methodologically, one might object that strategies
were not manipulated and the causal direction between
strategies and internal motivation on social identification
was not tested. Studies from the interpersonal domain
(Gable, 2006) and on identity relevant goals (Brunstein
& Gollwitzer, 1996) as well as a longitudinal study that
demonstrated the effect of approach and avoidance strategies on the development of the social self (Matschke &
Sassenberg, 2010b) clearly support the causal direction
of the strategies assumed in the current studies. However,
self-determination theory argues that unsupportive circumstances undermine internal motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Therefore, longitudinal studies should confirm
the supposed causal direction with respect to internal motivation, and approach and avoidance strategies should
be manipulated, inasmuch as ethical.
For practical purposes, a better understanding of the
short- and long-term consequences of strategy adoption
has implications for the selection and training of newcomers (e.g., in expatriates, first-year students). Newcomer acceptance is not self-evident (e.g., Choi & Levine, 2004; Rink & Ellemers, 2009), but the development
of social identification is important for engaging behavior. In such situations where rejection is likely, but social
identification crucial, strong approach strategies help
newcomers to identify with the new group. The selection
of highly internally motivated newcomers ensures that
newcomers even develop such identification in face of
difficult starting circumstances.
To conclude, being a newcomer in a group induces a
development of the social self. Self-regulation approaches
allow acknowledging that people have different motives to
enter a group and use different strategies, which help to
explain why not everyone reacts the same to group acceptance or rejection. By including individual strategies and
the internal motivation into social identity research, newcomers are regarded as active protagonists that design their
development of the social self.
2012 Hogrefe Publishing

C. Matschke & K. Sassenberg: Self-Regulation in the Development of the Social Self

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing
and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to
the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63,
118.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2006). Amos (Version 7.0) [Computer program].
Chicago, IL: SPSS.
Avnet, T., & Higgins, E. T. (2003). Locomotion, assessment, and
regulatory fit: Value transfer from how to what. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 525530.
Barreto, M., & Ellemers, N. (2002). The impact of respect versus
neglect of self-identities on identification and group loyalty.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 629639.
Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46, 568.
Berry, J. W., Phinney, J. S., Sam, D. L., & Vedder, P. (2006). Immigrant youth: Acculturation, identity, and adaptation. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 55, 303332.
Bourhis, R. Y., Moise, L. C., Perreault, S., & Sencal, S. (1997).
Toward an interactive acculturation model: A social psychological approach. International Journal of Psychology, 32,
369386.
Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and
different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 17, 475482.
Brunstein, J. C., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1996). Effects of failure on
subsequent performance: The importance of self-defining
goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70,
395407.
Carver, C. S. (2004). Self-regulation of action and affect. In R. F.
Baumeister, & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation:
Research, theory, and applications (pp. 1339). New York:
Guilford.
Choi, H.-S., & Levine, J. M. (2004). Minority influence in work
teams: The impact of newcomers. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 273280.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied
multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The what and why of goal
pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior.
Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227268.
Disney, W. (Producer), & Reitherman, W. (Director). (1967). The
jungle book [Motion picture]. USA: Walt Disney Animation
Studios.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning.
American Psychologist, 41, 10401048.
Ellemers, N., Kortekaas, P., & Ouwerkerk, J. W. (1999). Self-categorization, commitment to the group, and group self-esteem
as related but distinct aspects of social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 371389.
Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and
achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34, 169189.
Elliot, A. J., Gable, S. L., & Mapes, R. R. (2006). Approach and
avoidance motivation in the social domain. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 378391.
Elsbach, K. D., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Defining who you
2012 Hogrefe Publishing

125

are by what youre not: Organizational disidentification and

the National Rifle Association. Organizational Science, 12,
393413.
Fehr, J., & Sassenberg, K. (2010). Willing and able: How internal
motivation and failure help to overcome prejudice. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 13, 167181.
Gable, S. L. (2006). Approach and avoidance social motives and
goals. Journal of Personality, 74, 175222.
Gable, S. L., & Strachman, A. (2008). Approaching social rewards and avoiding social punishments: Appetitive and aversive social motivation. In J. Y. Shah, & W. L. Gardner (Eds.),
Handbook of motivation science (pp. 561575). New York:
Guilford.
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 12801300.
Higgins, E. T. (2006). Value from hedonic experiences and engagement. Psychological Review, 113, 439460.
Hinkle, S., Taylor, L. A., & Fox-Cardamone, D. L. (1989). Intragroup identification and intergroup differentiation: A multicomponent approach. British Journal of Social Psychology,
28, 305317.
Hogg, M. A. (2007). Uncertainty-identity theory. In M. P. Zanna
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 39,
pp. 69126). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.
Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes
in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus
new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 155.
Jetten, J., Branscombe, N. R., Spears, R., & McKimmie, B. M.
(2003). Predicting the path of peripherals: The interaction of
identification and future possibilities. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 29, 130140.
Kessler, T., & Hollbach, S. (2005). Group based emotion as determinants of ingroup identification. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 41, 677685.
Kreiner, G. E., & Ashforth, B. E. (2004). Evidence toward an expanded model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 127.
Kruglanski, A. W., Thompson, E. P., Higgins, E. T., Atash, M. N.,
Pierro, A., Shah, J. Y., & Spiegel, S. (2000). To do the right
thing or to just do it: Locomotion and assessment as distinct
self-regulatory imperatives. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 79, 793815.
Leary, M. R. (2005). Varieties of interpersonal rejection. In K. D.
Williams, J. P. Forgas, & B. von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying
(pp. 213226). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Matschke, C., & Sassenberg, K. (2010a). Does rejection lead to
disidentification? The role of internal motivation and avoidance strategies. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40,
891900.
Matschke, C., & Sassenberg, K. (2010b). The supporting and impeding effects of group-related approach and avoidance strategies on newcomers psychological adaptation. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34, 465474.
Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1982). Socialization in small
groups: Temporal changes in individual-group relations. In L.
Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology
(pp. 137192). New York: Academic Press.
Neuberg, S. L., & Newsom, J. T. (1993). Personal need for structure: Individual differences in the desire for simple structure.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 113131.
Social Psychology 2012; Vol. 43(3):115126

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

126

C. Matschke & K. Sassenberg: Self-Regulation in the Development of the Social Self

Piontkowski, U., Florack, A., Hoelker, P., & Obdrzlek, P. (2000).

Predicting acculturation attitudes of dominant and nondominant groups. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
24, 126.
Riketta, M. (2008). The causal relations between job attitudes and
performance: A metaanalysis of panel studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 472481.
Rink, F. A., & Ellemers, N. (2009). Temporary versus permanent
group membership: How the future prospects of newcomers
affect newcomer acceptance and newcomer influence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 764775.
Sassenberg, K., & Hansen, N. (2007). The impact of regulatory
focus on affective responses to social discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 421444.
Sassenberg, K., Kessler, T., & Mummendey, A. (2003). Less negative = more positive? Social discrimination as avoidance and
approach. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39,
4858.
Sassenberg, K., & Matschke, C. (2010). When the others become
part of the self. The impact of an exchange year on the selfconcept. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 148159.
Sassenberg, K., & Woltin, K.-A. (2008). Group-based self-regulation: The effects of regulatory focus. European Review of
Social Psychology, 19, 126164.
Sassenberg, K., & Woltin, K.-A. (2009). A self-regulation approach to group processes. In S. Otten, K. Sassenberg, & T.
Kessler (Eds.), Intergroup relations The role of motivation
and emotion (pp. 101120). London: Psychology Press.
Seibt, B., & Frster, J. (2004). Stereotype threat and performance:
How self-stereotypes influence processing by inducing regulatory foci. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87,
3856.
Shah, J. Y., Kruglanski, A. W., & Thompson, E. P. (1998). Membership has its (epistemic) rewards: Need for closure effects
on in-group bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 383393.
Staufenbiel, T., & Hartz, C. (2000). Organizational citizenship
behavior: Entwicklung und erste Validierung eines Messinstruments [Organizational citizenship behavior: Development
and first validation of a measurement instrument]. Diagnostica, 46, 7383.
Strachman, A., & Gable, S. L. (2006). What you want (and do not
want) affects what you see (and do not see): Avoidance social
goals and social events. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 32, 14461458.
Tajfel, H. (1978). Social categorization, social identity and social
comparison. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social
groups (pp. 6176). London, UK: Academic Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 3347). Monterey,
CA: Brooks/Cole.
Turner, J. C. (1987). A self-categorization theory. In J. C. Turner,
M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher, & M. S. Wetherell
(Eds.), Rediscovering the social group. A self-categorization
theory (pp. 4267). New York: Blackwell.

Social Psychology 2012; Vol. 43(3):115126

Verkuyten, M., & Yildiz, A. A. (2007). National (dis)identification and ethnic and religious identity: A study among TurkishDutch Muslims. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
33, 14481462.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and
validation of a brief measure of positive and negative affect:
The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 10631070.
Wicklund, R. A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1982). Symbolic self-completion. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Received September 30, 2010

Final revision received April 14, 2011
Accepted April 14, 2011
Published online April 13, 2012

Christina Matschke
Knowledge Media Research Center
Schleichstrae 6
D-72076 Tbingen
Germany
Tel. +49 7071 979-201
Fax +49 7071 979-200
E-mail c.matschke@iwm-kmrc.de

Appendix
Complete list of items of the dependent measures
Scale

Items

Affective iden- I like being a group member.

tification
I appreciate being a group member.
Often I regret being a group member. (reversed)
I feel strong ties to the group.
The group has a great deal of personal meaning
for me.
I am happy to belong to this group.
I feel as a group member.
Cognitive
identification

I perceive myself as a group member.

It is important to me to be a group member.
I identify as being a group member.
I am aware of being a group member.

Commitment

I help other group members when they are overloaded.

I am thinking about how to improve things for the
group.
I seek information about developments that concern the group.
I stand up for improvements for the group.
I voluntarily undertake tasks for the group.

2012 Hogrefe Publishing