Why People Join Groups

The need to belong and to be part of a group is a fundamental part of being human. The exact inspirational force that motivates people to join a group is not agreed upon in the psychological literature. Realistic group conflict theory, the self-esteem hypothesis, uncertainty-identity theory, terror management theory, and sociometer theory each explain the need to belong through distinct perspectives. These five heavily researched theories provide different explanations and predictions for why people join and identify with groups, such as the motivation for completing personal goals, the drive to increase self-esteem, to reduce anxiety surrounding death, to reduce uncertainty, and to seek protection within a group. Across the research on this topic, it is becoming clear that self-uncertainty reduction seems to be a powerful reason for identifying with groups. However, there is no doubt that other reasons may also be involved in the motivation to join groups. For example, existential uncertainty may drive people to affiliate with groups that specifically address existential issues; people may prefer to affiliate with desirable, rather than stigmatized, groups in order to satisfy the basic pursuit of pleasure over pain; and people may affiliate to protect against a wide variety of fears. Further research is needed to fully elucidate why people join groups.

An Integrated Review of Recent Research on the Relationships Between Religious Belief, Political Ideology, Authoritarianism, and Prejudice

Religious ideology and extremism have had an increasing influence on political agendas in the United States and much of the developed world in the past 60 years, with right-wing ideology becoming more prevalent this decade. This article serves as a review of studies investigating the correlations between political ideology, religiosity, right-wing authoritarianism, ingroups/outgroups, and prejudice in an attempt to describe and understand the well-established links between these dimensions. We discuss several group-level theories including Terror Management Theory, Social Identity Theory, Realistic Group Conflict Theory among others to frame the intercorrelations of these constructs in an effort to better understand the underlying mechanisms that drive individuals to embody religious and political beliefs. We then discuss individual-level cognitive and psychological differences such as intelligence, cognitive flexibility, and specific biological and neurological limitations of brain function that may influence people to adopt certain religious and political beliefs. Through a more comprehensive understanding of the underlying mechanisms of religious and political extremism, we may be better equipped to assuage the fear and denigration that is associated with many of these beliefs.

Entitlement and Perceived Racial Discrimination: The Missing Links to White Opinions Toward Affirmative Action and Preferential Hiring and Promotion

This article seeks to explain why some White Americans support affirmative action while others do not. Much of what has been written on White opinions on affirmative action is from an oppositional lens. This analysis seeks to add balance to the ways political science understands White opinions toward affirmative action. In so doing, this study identifies correlates of support for affirmative action not just rationales for opposition. Unlike most studies that examine White opinions by testing one or two theories, we examine the determinants of White opinions by testing several theories and hypotheses simultaneously (stereotypes, racial discrimination, racial resentment, and realistic group conflict theory). Using data taken from the 2004-2005 National Politics Study, we find that many Whites support affirmative action to combat racial discrimination experienced by racial minorities. However, we also find that many of them oppose affirmative action due to a sense of entitlement.

The Effects of Chieftaincy and Land Conflicts on the Socio-political Development of Northern Ghana

This paper assesses the effects of inter-ethnic chieftaincy and land conflicts on the socio-political development of northern Ghana. The knowledge gap the study sought to fill is the use of theoretical antecedents to illustrate that conflicts have some merits for socio-political development and that conflict theories equally depict solutions to conflicts. Methodologically, the study makes use of content analysis of secondary data, by following the tenets of the realistic group conflict theory. Examples were drawn from the Konkomba, Gonja, Nanumba, Dagomba, Kusasi, Mo and the Sissala disputes of emancipation. It was revealed that major positive effects of the conflicts include improvement in the decision-making processes on community development issues, strengthening of inter-ethnic unity and helping to redeem the identity of a group. The destruction of life and property is the major demerit. It was recommended that civic education on the causes and effects of the conflicts by authentic participation of potential disputants could provide a more sustainable way of preventing conflict.