Effort in the face of difference: Feeling like a non-prototypical group member motivates effort

Three studies examined the relationship between individuals’ perceived “prototypicality” in a group, their subsequent self-presentation goals, and individual effort in that group. Consistent with the finding that feelings of marginal ingroup membership status elicit a desire to seek stronger social connections within ingroups, we predicted that non-prototypical group members will have more salient selfpresentation goals than prototypical members, and as such will exert more individual effort to exhibit the value of their membership to the group. Correlational Study 1 confirmed that non-prototypical group members may be more likely than prototypical members to volunteer for activities that would benefit their group. Two experimental studies were then conducted to test the causal influence of feelings of prototypicality while also identifying theoretically relevant moderating conditions of perceived task efficacy (Study 2) and public versus private task performance (Study 3). These findings suggest that effortful performance in groups is partly motivated by the desire to foster social ties. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Classic theories of motivation (e.g., Maslow, 1943) and more recent theoretical innovations in group dynamics (e.g., Anderson & Chen, 2002; Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Deci & Ryan, 2000) tout the importance of psychological motivations to maintain and foster social connections with the groups to which individuals belong. The perception that one’s connection to the group is lacking or under threat is upsetting, eliciting anxiety and feelings of insecurity that can heighten the desire to seek greater inclusion in the group (Bartel & Dutton, 2001; Lewin, 1948; Noel, Wann, & Branscombe, 1995). Individual behavior in groups is therefore likely to be shaped, in part, by membership status cues—information that conveys how connected individual members are to others in the group. The status of one’s connection to the group can be inferred from any number of social cues, including overt inclusion or exclusion (e.g., Leary & Baumeister, 2000; Williams, 2001), interpersonal treatment (e.g., De Cremer, 2002; Tyler & Blader, 2003), or similarity to other group members (e.g., Branscombe, Spears, Ellemers, & Doosje, 2002; Jetten, Branscombe, Spears, & McKimmie, 2003). Much of the work on social connections and marginal group membership has focused on feelings of “prototypicality”—the extent to which an individual feels like a typical or representative group member who shares similar characteristics with the majority of other members (see Hogg, 2005; Turner, 1985). Group members who differ from the group norm in their qualities and characteristics are more self-aware about the state of their inclusion or acceptance in the group and are more likely to feel marginal and insecure compared with *Correspondence to: Tyler G. Okimoto, UQ Business School, The University of Q E-mail: [email protected] Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. more prototypical members (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Kramer, 1998; Louis, 1980; Moreland, 1985). Given their marginal status in the group, non-prototypical group members are likely to desire stronger social connections (i.e., greater inclusion or more central group membership) to satisfy their belongingness needs (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). As such, non-prototypical group members are also more sensitive to situational cues that provide information regarding the quality of their membership (Leary & Baumeister, 2000; Pickett, Gardner, & Knowles, 2004), particularly when they believe their membership status is in a state of transition (Gonzalez & Tyler, 2007; Jetten, Branscombe, & Spears, 2002; Wright, Taylor, & Moghaddam, 1990). Consistent with this idea, research has shown that new group members are particularly likely to feel marginal to the group, are more sensitive to membership cues, and are more likely to take advantage of opportunities to enhance social connections with the group compared with veteran members (Bartel, 2006; Stewart, 1982). Perhaps related to their group affiliation desires, research has suggested that non-prototypical group members are more likely than prototypical members to exhibit attitudes consistent with those of the ingroup (for a complete review, see Leary, 2010). For example, non-prototypical members conform to ingroup norms more than prototypical members (Noel et al., 1995; Tajfel, 1978) and are more likely to be loyal to the ingroup (Jetten, Hornsey, & Adarves-Yorno, 2006; Jetten et al., 2003), take risks that might benefit the ingroup (van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, & van Dijk, 2000), exhibit ueensland, Brisbane QLD 4072, Australia. Received 12 April 2011, Accepted 17 February 2012 Effort and non-prototypical group members 629 greater derogation and competitiveness against outgroups (Ellemers, Spears, &Doosje, 2002; Jones& Pittman, 1982; Noel et al., 1995; Van Kleef, Steinel, Van Knippenberg, Hogg, & Svensson, 2007), and cooperate with other ingroup members (De Cremer, 2002). Such ingroup loyalty is likely to signal to other group members that an individual embodies the group and its values (Noel et al., 1995). Prototypicality, Self-presentation Goals, and Effort It is clear from past research that broader concerns for social connections and belongingness underlie reactions to feelings of prototypicality. However, research has not yet provided direct evidence of exactly why people respond to non-prototypicality with attitudes that are consistent with the ingroup identity. Some research has suggested that non-prototypical members exhibit more positive ingroup attitudes in an attempt to exhibit the value of their membership to others in the group and gain greater group acceptance, which we refer to as a “self-presentation goal” (see Barreto & Ellemers, 2000; Noel et al., 1995)—regulating behavior with the goal of creating a specific impression for an audience (Jones & Pittman, 1982). Consistent with this selfpresentation account, research has shown that non-prototypical membership only affects subsequent attitudes when those attitudes are visible to other group members (e.g., Barreto & Ellemers, 2000; Jetten et al., 2003, 2006; Noel et al., 1995; Van Kleef et al., 2007). Nonetheless, these accounts have neither provided direct evidence of heightened self-presentation goals following information about the prototypicality of an individual’s characteristics in the group nor has mediational evidence been obtained to verify that self-presentation goals explain these effects. Perhaps as a consequence of this lack of specification, research on the consequences of prototypicality has only documented differences in attitudinal adherence to ingroup norms or expectations (e.g., competitive attitudes toward outgroups, positive ingroup attitudes, and ingroup attitude conformity). Research has not yet provided evidence of the implications of these attitudes to create changes in motivation and exactly what that motivation entails. Specifically, if the more positive ingroup attitudes of non-prototypical group members reflect greater concern with their self-presentation in the group, they should be more likely to exert effort in the group when this effort reflects the value of their membership in the group. In other words, if the effects of prototypicality are indeed driven by self-presentation goals as we have suggested, these effects should extend beyond mere attitude congruence. The desire to present oneself as a valuable group member should motivate other types of group-directed ingratiating behavior, including individual task effort. Our focus on intragroup dynamics complements the typical focus of existing prototypicality research, which has largely been confined to intergroup contexts where outgroup comparisons were made particularly salient (cf., De Cremer, 2002; van Knippenberg et al., 2000). Thus, it is not entirely clear whether the effects of prototypicality reflect a strictly intergroup phenomenon or if they also occur in absence of a salient outgroup referent. If non-prototypical membership indeed drives behavior because of an enhanced desire for social connections, Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. the presence of an outgroup comparison should not be a necessary precondition. In the current research, we argue that the effects of prototypicality extend beyond ingroup attitude congruence documented in past research to other types of group-ingratiating behaviors. Specifically, we predict that non-prototypical group members will be more likely than prototypical members to be concerned with presenting themselves as “good” group members and that these self-presentation goals partly explain subsequent willingness to exert individual effort on behalf of their group. Effort, in this case, serves as a way for individuals to exhibit the value of their membership to others in the group in an attempt to gain greater acceptance.We test these predictions by examining both prosocial behavioral intentions (i.e., commitments to volunteer for the group’s benefit) and individual performance on an effortful group task, outcomes that provide evidence for individual motivation beyond the attitudinal indices of ingroup favoritism and loyalty documented in past research. We predict the following: