This dissertation investigated the self-group relationship in the intragroup and intergroup contexts (i.e., under the positiveness and distinctiveness threats to the identity). The moderating role of ingroup identification and cultural variations on self-group dynamics were also examined. Three empirical studies were conducted to address these issues. I argued that the individual self and the collective self are in a dynamic equilibrium, manifested as the shifting of self-definition preferences (e.g., identification with the group or identification with the self). Initial ingroup identification moderates self-group dynamics by differentiating people who identify highly with the group (high identifiers) from those who identify less with the group (low identifiers). Cultures differ in its...[ Read more ]

This dissertation investigated the self-group relationship in the intragroup and intergroup contexts (i.e., under the positiveness and distinctiveness threats to the identity). The moderating role of ingroup identification and cultural variations on self-group dynamics were also examined. Three empirical studies were conducted to address these issues. I argued that the individual self and the collective self are in a dynamic equilibrium, manifested as the shifting of self-definition preferences (e.g., identification with the group or identification with the self). Initial ingroup identification moderates self-group dynamics by differentiating people who identify highly with the group (high identifiers) from those who identify less with the group (low identifiers). Cultures differ in its way of representing the self and the group, indicating Chinese embedded self-group relationship versus American dualistic self-group relationship. Specifically, for Chinese high identifiers, the collective self is the primary self-definition and the individual self is the secondary self-definition. When facing a positiveness threat to the identity, high identifiers would maintain ingroup identification but reduce self identification. Both Chinese low identifiers and American high identifiers define themselves mainly in terms of the individual self (their primary self-definition). The collective self (their secondary self-definition) is not as important as the individual self. When facing a positiveness threat to the identity, they would maintain self identification but reduce ingroup identification. American low identifiers define themselves mainly in terms of the individual self (their primary self-definition). The group identity is not well-integrated into their self-definition. When facing a positiveness threat to the identity, they would reaffirm the individual self by increasing self identification. Furthermore, when the distinctiveness threat to the group identity is perceived, Chinese high identifiers would show more intergroup bias than do Chinese low identifiers. For Chinese low identifiers, intergroup bias does not vary systematically as a function of perceived distinctiveness threat. The results of three studies supported these theoretical hypotheses. The discussion addressed implications on understanding of the self, the group, and the culture.