Does Identity Incompatibility Lead to Disidentification? Internal Motivation to Be a Group Member Acts As Buffer for Sojourners from Independent Cultures, Whereas External Motivation Acts As Buffer for Sojourners from Interdependent Cultures
Most individuals possess more than one relevant social identity, but these social identities can be more or less incompatible. Research has demonstrated that incompatibility between an established social identity and a potential new social identity impedes the integration into the new group. We argue that incompatibility is a strong risk factor for disidentification, i.e., a negative self-defining relation to a relevant group. The current research investigates the impact of incompatibilities on disidentification in the acculturation context. We propose that incompatibility between one's cultural identities increases the disidentification with the receiving society. It has, however, been shown that the motivation to be a group member serves as a buffer against negative integration experiences. Moreover, research from the intercultural domain has shown that intrinsic and extrinsic motivation has specific effects for members of cultures that differ in self-construal. In a European sample of High school exchange students (Study 1, N = 378), it was found that incompatibility was positively related to disidentification, but only for less (but not more) intrinsically motivated newcomers. In an Asian sample of international university students (Study 2, N = 74), it was found that incompatibility was also positively related to disidentification, but only for less (but not more) extrinsically motivated newcomers. Thus, the findings demonstrate that the effect of incompatibility between social identities on disidentification can be buffered by motivation. The results suggest that, depending on cultural self-construal, individuals have different resources to buffer the negative effect of incompatibility on the social identity.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 April 2017.
All research outputs
#15,453,139
of 22,963,381 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#18,860
of 30,112 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#194,966
of 307,980 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#394
of 536 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,963,381 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,112 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 307,980 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 536 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
