What do you think?
Rate this book
The Power of Us: Harnessing Our Shared Identities to Improve Performance, Increase Cooperation, and Promote Social Harmony
A “fascinating” (Charles Duhigg) and “must-read” (Annie Duke) “page-turning package” ( Publishers Weekly starred review) for understanding identity and showing how our groups have a powerful influence on our feelings, beliefs, and behavior—and can inspire both personal change and social movements.
If you're like most people, you probably believe that your identity is stable. But in fact, your identity is constantly changing—often outside your conscious awareness and sometimes even against your wishes—to reflect the interests of the groups you belong to.
In The Power of Us , psychologists Dominic Packer and Jay Van Bavel integrate their own cutting-edge research in psychology and neuroscience to explain how identity really works and how to harness its dynamic nature
Along the way, they explore such seemingly unrelated phenomena as why a small town in Germany spent decades divided by shoes, why beliefs persist after they are disproven, how working together synchronizes our brains, what makes selfish people generous, why effective leaders say “we” a lot, and how playing soccer can reduce age-old conflicts.
Understanding how identity works allows people to take control, moving beyond wondering, “Who am I?” to answer instead, “Who do I want to be?” Packed with fascinating insights, vivid case studies, and a wealth of pioneering research, The Power of Us will change the way you understand yourself—and the people around you—forever.
If you're like most people, you probably believe that your identity is stable. But in fact, your identity is constantly changing—often outside your conscious awareness and sometimes even against your wishes—to reflect the interests of the groups you belong to.
In The Power of Us , psychologists Dominic Packer and Jay Van Bavel integrate their own cutting-edge research in psychology and neuroscience to explain how identity really works and how to harness its dynamic nature
Along the way, they explore such seemingly unrelated phenomena as why a small town in Germany spent decades divided by shoes, why beliefs persist after they are disproven, how working together synchronizes our brains, what makes selfish people generous, why effective leaders say “we” a lot, and how playing soccer can reduce age-old conflicts.
Understanding how identity works allows people to take control, moving beyond wondering, “Who am I?” to answer instead, “Who do I want to be?” Packed with fascinating insights, vivid case studies, and a wealth of pioneering research, The Power of Us will change the way you understand yourself—and the people around you—forever.
320 pages, Hardcover
First published September 7, 2021
113 people are currently reading
1588 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 49 reviews
July 25, 2021
The Power of Us is a new book on how identifying with a group – any group – bestows attitudes that individuals alone don’t demonstrate. Jay Van Bavel and Dominic Packer are newly minted Phds in psychology. This is their first book and it is filled with stories about identifying with a group and how that changes everything, starting with one’s own identity.
It shows that in an absolute blizzard of circumstances, there is power in identifying with a group. In anecdote after anecdote, story after story, study after study. In every case, when individuals identify with a group, even just a randomly assigned or totally nonexistent group, the results change. Group identity changes people, sometimes beneficially, sometimes fearsomely. That’s the point. Sadly, it is the only one they make.
For example, when the home team wins, everyone is in a better, more generous mood the next day. People who don’t even care might wear team colors or a team cap. In a study about distributing money, telling someone they are on the green team, and that their partner in the study is too, results in higher generosity, even though they’ve never even met. People thrown into emergencies suddenly become part of the same group (victims), and help each other like they probably would never do if they were just passing by on the bus. They’d be in a different group, you see.
There are nearly 300 pages of such examples, many of them recent and well known. As I read, I would think - oh I remember that. Like when a Minnesota woman, Dorothy Martin, declared The Rapture was upon us (May 1954). On her given day, the world would end and only those physically with her and approved by her would be saved – transported away in a flying saucer provided by God. Remember that? When it didn’t quite work out, she said God spoke to her the next morning and told her he was so pleased with her followers’ response that he cancelled the destruction of Earth. They apparently all went home and called the media to tell them the great news. To the authors, this is evidence of group identity being far more powerful than individuals acting alone. People can suppress common sense, allow lies to propagate, and falsehoods to reign if they’re in a group. That’s the power of us.
But they’re just stories without applications. They chain endlessly, but to no discernible point:
Psychologists found that putting a Christian on a Muslim football team in Iraq led to a lessening of hatred and prejudice. They tried it the other way, and that worked too! Teamwork melted the ice. Just like in a heartwarming Hollywood movie. I think everyone knows this, thanks.
There are studies that show sports fans will help someone wearing a team article before they would help one wearing another team’s stuff. There are studies that show supporters of one political party will not associate with members of the other party. That (US) Republicans believe misinformation, fake news and conspiracies far more easily than Democrats. They also believed the pandemic was a hoax by either the Chinese or the Democrats (or both), that the vaccine is to be avoided and that Trump won the election. Because that’s what their group says.
The country’s founders worked hard to avoid fostering political parties precisely because they knew this would happen, 300 years ago. There would be favoritism, bias, prejudice, pigheadedness, stalemates, corruption and gridlock if political parties took hold. So no discovery there either, I’m afraid.
Same goes for the psych studies cited. In one, a single person is told s/he is on the A team. That’s all she knows about anyone else there. So naturally, she will be biased in her responses in favor of the A team, because it’s the only hook she’s got going for her. People gravitate to identity and identifying with something larger than themselves. Anything. It affects their behavior in favor of the group because they want and need to belong. They want to show they get it, they’re with the program and are worthy of the group. This is no discovery at all.
That is the level of sophistication of all of the content: old hat. As I read about people identifying with one team or another, one employer or another, one political party or another, my reaction was yes, everybody knows that. What are the authors going to do with that information? The answer is nothing. It’s just a collection of stories segregated by type of group: political, social, racial, religious, sporting and so on.
I had a great deal of trouble with the selectivity in this book. The authors cherry-picked studies to prove their (one) point, ignoring all else to the contrary. And it’s all very top line. Sometimes, their research is so superficial they rely on debunked studies.
For example, the tiresome Stanley Milgram studies, where subjects were told to administer shocks to people who answered incorrectly. Milgram’s own notes show it was a sham. Well over half the participants quit outright, and half those remaining continued only because they figured out it was phony; there was no shock being administered. They could turn the dial up to 11 and no one would be hurt. But Van Bavel and Packer rely on it in two different chapters, even though (ironically) they worry there is an issue with it because after 60 years, no other studies have been able to replicate the results! Hmmm.
The same goes for the IAT, the notorious Harvard online test to show individuals how racially prejudiced they are. It always seems to show everyone who takes the test is far more prejudiced than they thought. But people who take the test over get wildly different results - every time. It has been shown definitively to be undependable and inaccurate. But the authors cite it as if it were valid.
In psych studies with teams, it was clear that a team of four complete strangers could achieve more than an individual alone, despite monetary rewards and music to encourage them. So teams are the way to go then! But the authors don’t say how to apply this marvelous discovery. They never researched how many should be on the team to optimize the results. Four works. Is eight better still? How about 25? Or three?
Had they tried, they would likely have found what everyone who has ever worked in a bureaucracy well knows — teams suck. It might be fine in a study with four total strangers in a one-off exercise, but when they are co-workers, personalities, ambitions and history outmaneuver any value the team might have. And it never ends. Committees are a disaster: just look at Congress. Ordinary teams get little done. Arguments, vetoes, laziness, incompetence, hidden agendas and stubbornness run rampant. Ask people in a company about the ideal size of a team (ie. greater than one person) and they will tell you straight out: two.
There are lots of examples of people helping each other in a disaster, suddenly finding themselves in the same group (victims), but there appear to be at least as many of looting in disasters. How does that fit the theory? People can protest peacefully, but how many protests end up in vandalism and pillaging? Do the people on these teams identify with crime? The authors don’t say. How can we leverage the team spirit of total strangers under their time constraints? No words of wisdom in this book; it is a glass half full kind of analysis.
Then, unaccountably, the concluding chapters are about leadership, both corporate and political. Oh, and climate change. Absolutely nothing in the book prepares the reader for these concluding remarks. Out of the blue there are stories of Mahatma Gandhi, Mary Robinson, Winston Churchill, Nelson Mandela, Jacinda Ardern and Lyndon Johnson, with descriptions that might imaginatively be construed as the practice of identity politics, but terribly superficially. This is apparently the conclusion to some other book readers can look forward to. I was really hoping for a conclusion to wrap up identity and identifying and how humanity can use this knowledge beneficially to sort out the mess of life. To get the most out of people while avoiding the pitfalls. To give the book some sort of impact and importance. Nelson Mandela wearing a Springboks’ scarf didn’t do it for me.
To be sure, it’s an entertaining read. The authors are storytellers. They also love to add tales of their own experiences and how they made their own team (of two – just saying). People who know nothing of psychology will love it. But at the scholarship level, it is not impressive. More than a hundred stories, I’d say, all making essentially the same single and well understood point. It never links, combines, multiplies, leverages, grows or transforms. The Power of Us is a mile wide and an inch deep.
David Wineberg
It shows that in an absolute blizzard of circumstances, there is power in identifying with a group. In anecdote after anecdote, story after story, study after study. In every case, when individuals identify with a group, even just a randomly assigned or totally nonexistent group, the results change. Group identity changes people, sometimes beneficially, sometimes fearsomely. That’s the point. Sadly, it is the only one they make.
For example, when the home team wins, everyone is in a better, more generous mood the next day. People who don’t even care might wear team colors or a team cap. In a study about distributing money, telling someone they are on the green team, and that their partner in the study is too, results in higher generosity, even though they’ve never even met. People thrown into emergencies suddenly become part of the same group (victims), and help each other like they probably would never do if they were just passing by on the bus. They’d be in a different group, you see.
There are nearly 300 pages of such examples, many of them recent and well known. As I read, I would think - oh I remember that. Like when a Minnesota woman, Dorothy Martin, declared The Rapture was upon us (May 1954). On her given day, the world would end and only those physically with her and approved by her would be saved – transported away in a flying saucer provided by God. Remember that? When it didn’t quite work out, she said God spoke to her the next morning and told her he was so pleased with her followers’ response that he cancelled the destruction of Earth. They apparently all went home and called the media to tell them the great news. To the authors, this is evidence of group identity being far more powerful than individuals acting alone. People can suppress common sense, allow lies to propagate, and falsehoods to reign if they’re in a group. That’s the power of us.
But they’re just stories without applications. They chain endlessly, but to no discernible point:
Psychologists found that putting a Christian on a Muslim football team in Iraq led to a lessening of hatred and prejudice. They tried it the other way, and that worked too! Teamwork melted the ice. Just like in a heartwarming Hollywood movie. I think everyone knows this, thanks.
There are studies that show sports fans will help someone wearing a team article before they would help one wearing another team’s stuff. There are studies that show supporters of one political party will not associate with members of the other party. That (US) Republicans believe misinformation, fake news and conspiracies far more easily than Democrats. They also believed the pandemic was a hoax by either the Chinese or the Democrats (or both), that the vaccine is to be avoided and that Trump won the election. Because that’s what their group says.
The country’s founders worked hard to avoid fostering political parties precisely because they knew this would happen, 300 years ago. There would be favoritism, bias, prejudice, pigheadedness, stalemates, corruption and gridlock if political parties took hold. So no discovery there either, I’m afraid.
Same goes for the psych studies cited. In one, a single person is told s/he is on the A team. That’s all she knows about anyone else there. So naturally, she will be biased in her responses in favor of the A team, because it’s the only hook she’s got going for her. People gravitate to identity and identifying with something larger than themselves. Anything. It affects their behavior in favor of the group because they want and need to belong. They want to show they get it, they’re with the program and are worthy of the group. This is no discovery at all.
That is the level of sophistication of all of the content: old hat. As I read about people identifying with one team or another, one employer or another, one political party or another, my reaction was yes, everybody knows that. What are the authors going to do with that information? The answer is nothing. It’s just a collection of stories segregated by type of group: political, social, racial, religious, sporting and so on.
I had a great deal of trouble with the selectivity in this book. The authors cherry-picked studies to prove their (one) point, ignoring all else to the contrary. And it’s all very top line. Sometimes, their research is so superficial they rely on debunked studies.
For example, the tiresome Stanley Milgram studies, where subjects were told to administer shocks to people who answered incorrectly. Milgram’s own notes show it was a sham. Well over half the participants quit outright, and half those remaining continued only because they figured out it was phony; there was no shock being administered. They could turn the dial up to 11 and no one would be hurt. But Van Bavel and Packer rely on it in two different chapters, even though (ironically) they worry there is an issue with it because after 60 years, no other studies have been able to replicate the results! Hmmm.
The same goes for the IAT, the notorious Harvard online test to show individuals how racially prejudiced they are. It always seems to show everyone who takes the test is far more prejudiced than they thought. But people who take the test over get wildly different results - every time. It has been shown definitively to be undependable and inaccurate. But the authors cite it as if it were valid.
In psych studies with teams, it was clear that a team of four complete strangers could achieve more than an individual alone, despite monetary rewards and music to encourage them. So teams are the way to go then! But the authors don’t say how to apply this marvelous discovery. They never researched how many should be on the team to optimize the results. Four works. Is eight better still? How about 25? Or three?
Had they tried, they would likely have found what everyone who has ever worked in a bureaucracy well knows — teams suck. It might be fine in a study with four total strangers in a one-off exercise, but when they are co-workers, personalities, ambitions and history outmaneuver any value the team might have. And it never ends. Committees are a disaster: just look at Congress. Ordinary teams get little done. Arguments, vetoes, laziness, incompetence, hidden agendas and stubbornness run rampant. Ask people in a company about the ideal size of a team (ie. greater than one person) and they will tell you straight out: two.
There are lots of examples of people helping each other in a disaster, suddenly finding themselves in the same group (victims), but there appear to be at least as many of looting in disasters. How does that fit the theory? People can protest peacefully, but how many protests end up in vandalism and pillaging? Do the people on these teams identify with crime? The authors don’t say. How can we leverage the team spirit of total strangers under their time constraints? No words of wisdom in this book; it is a glass half full kind of analysis.
Then, unaccountably, the concluding chapters are about leadership, both corporate and political. Oh, and climate change. Absolutely nothing in the book prepares the reader for these concluding remarks. Out of the blue there are stories of Mahatma Gandhi, Mary Robinson, Winston Churchill, Nelson Mandela, Jacinda Ardern and Lyndon Johnson, with descriptions that might imaginatively be construed as the practice of identity politics, but terribly superficially. This is apparently the conclusion to some other book readers can look forward to. I was really hoping for a conclusion to wrap up identity and identifying and how humanity can use this knowledge beneficially to sort out the mess of life. To get the most out of people while avoiding the pitfalls. To give the book some sort of impact and importance. Nelson Mandela wearing a Springboks’ scarf didn’t do it for me.
To be sure, it’s an entertaining read. The authors are storytellers. They also love to add tales of their own experiences and how they made their own team (of two – just saying). People who know nothing of psychology will love it. But at the scholarship level, it is not impressive. More than a hundred stories, I’d say, all making essentially the same single and well understood point. It never links, combines, multiplies, leverages, grows or transforms. The Power of Us is a mile wide and an inch deep.
David Wineberg
July 18, 2021
The Power of Us is a fun and friendly guided tour through the world of social psychology by two professors. The strengths are a clear and breezy writing style, though many of the specific references in the book are very 2020, and I'm curious about how well it'll hold up. And second, the subtitle and some of the text is more ambitious than the material warrants. Social harmony seems like an admiral goal in the fraught post-truth world of the Trump Regime and Biden Interregnum, but these problems may be beyond the grasp of social psychology to solve.
Green vs Purple from Babylon 5 - The Geometry of Shadows
Cooperation is the human superpower. We're social creatures to a degree unmatched anywhere else. Activating social identity, even ones as arbitrary as green or purple above, improve performance on group tasks and generosity even among selfish people. Test subjects exhibit less disgust when handling a smelly shirt with their college's logo on it, and are more likely to help a fan of the same soccer team.
But identity has an obvious dark side. It carves the universe into us and them, and the cognitive heuristics of identity short circuit actual thinking. In my favorite studies from the book, political identities make people bad at math, as partisans are unable to calculate simple averages to determine if a gun control proposal actually works, while being capable of doing the same for an uncontroversial example of an acne cream. In another study, Asian-American respondents who were asked if they spoke English as part of the experimental intake where three times more likely to order American food like hot dogs and hamburgers for lunch than those in the control group, as a defense of their American identity was provoked. And if you're looking to make a quick and unethical buck, a Christian identity scam is pretty surefire.
Packer and Beval do have some interesting notes on when identities can help. Manchester United fans will help a man in a rival Liverpool jersey if they're reminded of being soccer fans, and not just Man U. An experiment in interfaith soccer teams in Mosul after the city was liberated from ISIL built some bridges between communities who had thousands of reasons to hate each other. And even the baseline level of racism in America can be decreased by making multiracial teams on an arbitrary green vs purple basis.
But the counter-examples are somewhat alarming. Online discourse tends towards moralist and radicalizing language, separating communities into angry echo chambers. The authors have little to say about what I'd say are the most pernicious problems of the 21st century, which is getting someone out of an identity. The books opens with the classic Seekers UFO Cult from When Prophecy Fails, who flexibly adjusted to a 1954 end of the world deadline which never happened. But with modern identities forming around vaccine skepticism (hooray COVID fourth wave!), the universal conspiracy theory of QAnon, and a general attitude that the only fixed policy goal is triggering the libs, a book with this subtitle should have a little more ambition and bite, an update of Altemeyer's right-wing authoritarianism theories. The Power of Us is fine when it sticks to science, but doesn't have the courage for a real "broader impacts" section.
I received an ARC of this book from the publisher, and no other compensation for this review.
Green vs Purple from Babylon 5 - The Geometry of Shadows
Cooperation is the human superpower. We're social creatures to a degree unmatched anywhere else. Activating social identity, even ones as arbitrary as green or purple above, improve performance on group tasks and generosity even among selfish people. Test subjects exhibit less disgust when handling a smelly shirt with their college's logo on it, and are more likely to help a fan of the same soccer team.
But identity has an obvious dark side. It carves the universe into us and them, and the cognitive heuristics of identity short circuit actual thinking. In my favorite studies from the book, political identities make people bad at math, as partisans are unable to calculate simple averages to determine if a gun control proposal actually works, while being capable of doing the same for an uncontroversial example of an acne cream. In another study, Asian-American respondents who were asked if they spoke English as part of the experimental intake where three times more likely to order American food like hot dogs and hamburgers for lunch than those in the control group, as a defense of their American identity was provoked. And if you're looking to make a quick and unethical buck, a Christian identity scam is pretty surefire.
Packer and Beval do have some interesting notes on when identities can help. Manchester United fans will help a man in a rival Liverpool jersey if they're reminded of being soccer fans, and not just Man U. An experiment in interfaith soccer teams in Mosul after the city was liberated from ISIL built some bridges between communities who had thousands of reasons to hate each other. And even the baseline level of racism in America can be decreased by making multiracial teams on an arbitrary green vs purple basis.
But the counter-examples are somewhat alarming. Online discourse tends towards moralist and radicalizing language, separating communities into angry echo chambers. The authors have little to say about what I'd say are the most pernicious problems of the 21st century, which is getting someone out of an identity. The books opens with the classic Seekers UFO Cult from When Prophecy Fails, who flexibly adjusted to a 1954 end of the world deadline which never happened. But with modern identities forming around vaccine skepticism (hooray COVID fourth wave!), the universal conspiracy theory of QAnon, and a general attitude that the only fixed policy goal is triggering the libs, a book with this subtitle should have a little more ambition and bite, an update of Altemeyer's right-wing authoritarianism theories. The Power of Us is fine when it sticks to science, but doesn't have the courage for a real "broader impacts" section.
I received an ARC of this book from the publisher, and no other compensation for this review.
September 26, 2022
2nd read:
I read an early copy of this book before it came out in 2021 and was fortunate enough to have Jay on the podcast. I remembered loving this book, but I enjoyed it even more this time around, which I didn’t think was possible. I’m fascinated by group psychology, and it’s such an important topic during these polarized times. Dominic and Jay have done so much interesting research that they pack into this book while also drawing from many other studies. They also offer some new ideas and information about famous studies like the Stanley Milgrim and Stanford Prison Experiments that are fresh and super interesting.
This book will help you understand why people are so divided and how it happens. More importantly, they discuss how we can use what we know about group identity to help bring people together and resolve some of the most challenging issues we face today. It’s definitely one of the best books I’ve read about how our groups and identities shape us, and I know I’ll be giving it another read in the future.
1st read:
This year has produced so many amazing books, and 2021 just keeps delivering. Jay and Dominic were kind enough to send me an early copy of this book, and I can’t even begin to explain how fantastic it is. From the introduction of the book, I was hooked because although I’ve read plenty of social psychology books around how we interact with one another, this one took a completely unique angle on the topic. The authors are researchers and they became really interested in how our individual and shared identities play a major role in our lives and how we behave in groups. To set the foundation, they start by explaining the research behind minimal group paradigm, which really highlights how it doesn’t take much for us to form ingroups and outgroups.
If you’re interested in this topic, you’ll come across some familiar research, but Van Bavel and Packer have done a ton of their own studies. Not only have they conducted their own research, but they also notice interesting findings from famous studies like the Milgrim experiments that others haven’t recognized. The research and communication of the meanings and findings are top notch, but I personally think my favorite part is how this book is structured.
This year, I’ve read over 260 non-fiction books, and this is the first one where I said, “Wow. This book’s chapters build on top of one another perfectly.” As I was reading, I was thinking about how all of the research can possibly explain real-world scenarios, and the authors end up creating a path straight to that destination. After building a great foundation, they then discuss many social issues we’re experiencing today such as political polarization, the BLM protests of 2020, police violence, and so much more.
The Power of Us stands out as a book that everyone from academics, to politicians, to average citizens need to read. We can either deny that we evolved in a way that can divide us, or we can accept the science, recognize issues, and work towards solutions together.
I read an early copy of this book before it came out in 2021 and was fortunate enough to have Jay on the podcast. I remembered loving this book, but I enjoyed it even more this time around, which I didn’t think was possible. I’m fascinated by group psychology, and it’s such an important topic during these polarized times. Dominic and Jay have done so much interesting research that they pack into this book while also drawing from many other studies. They also offer some new ideas and information about famous studies like the Stanley Milgrim and Stanford Prison Experiments that are fresh and super interesting.
This book will help you understand why people are so divided and how it happens. More importantly, they discuss how we can use what we know about group identity to help bring people together and resolve some of the most challenging issues we face today. It’s definitely one of the best books I’ve read about how our groups and identities shape us, and I know I’ll be giving it another read in the future.
1st read:
This year has produced so many amazing books, and 2021 just keeps delivering. Jay and Dominic were kind enough to send me an early copy of this book, and I can’t even begin to explain how fantastic it is. From the introduction of the book, I was hooked because although I’ve read plenty of social psychology books around how we interact with one another, this one took a completely unique angle on the topic. The authors are researchers and they became really interested in how our individual and shared identities play a major role in our lives and how we behave in groups. To set the foundation, they start by explaining the research behind minimal group paradigm, which really highlights how it doesn’t take much for us to form ingroups and outgroups.
If you’re interested in this topic, you’ll come across some familiar research, but Van Bavel and Packer have done a ton of their own studies. Not only have they conducted their own research, but they also notice interesting findings from famous studies like the Milgrim experiments that others haven’t recognized. The research and communication of the meanings and findings are top notch, but I personally think my favorite part is how this book is structured.
This year, I’ve read over 260 non-fiction books, and this is the first one where I said, “Wow. This book’s chapters build on top of one another perfectly.” As I was reading, I was thinking about how all of the research can possibly explain real-world scenarios, and the authors end up creating a path straight to that destination. After building a great foundation, they then discuss many social issues we’re experiencing today such as political polarization, the BLM protests of 2020, police violence, and so much more.
The Power of Us stands out as a book that everyone from academics, to politicians, to average citizens need to read. We can either deny that we evolved in a way that can divide us, or we can accept the science, recognize issues, and work towards solutions together.
August 18, 2021
Overall, this is a pretty basic rundown of the psychology of group identity. Although the subtitle gives the impression that this is predominantly a self-help book, that aspect is relegated to an afterthought—the book is mostly a catalogue of various psychological experiments run on university undergraduates over the last fifty years or so.
There’s no getting around the fact that we’re experiencing a cataclysmic failure to align our group identities for the greater good (i.e., QAnon, Trumpism, insurrection), and the authors do touch on this to some degree, but the insight they bring isn’t particularly novel. The siren song of group dynamics is hardly a mystery, and it’s not as if your average person needs ironclad scientific data to be persuaded that peer pressure is real.
Even so, this book is an interesting and focused read. While there are other aspects to identity that may be more fundamental to our sense of self (memory, for example), it’s helpful to quantify the degree to which our associations color our perceptions of reality. The takeaway seems to be that we can—should we choose to do so—use the power of group identity to persuade those around us to be more kind, productive, and harmonious.
There’s no getting around the fact that we’re experiencing a cataclysmic failure to align our group identities for the greater good (i.e., QAnon, Trumpism, insurrection), and the authors do touch on this to some degree, but the insight they bring isn’t particularly novel. The siren song of group dynamics is hardly a mystery, and it’s not as if your average person needs ironclad scientific data to be persuaded that peer pressure is real.
Even so, this book is an interesting and focused read. While there are other aspects to identity that may be more fundamental to our sense of self (memory, for example), it’s helpful to quantify the degree to which our associations color our perceptions of reality. The takeaway seems to be that we can—should we choose to do so—use the power of group identity to persuade those around us to be more kind, productive, and harmonious.
August 26, 2021
I am reading an advance copy of The Power of Us and loving it! If you like reading about psychology and society, this is the book for you. Many great insights and unexpectedly, very funny stories.
Read
March 10, 2022A fun and very straightforward introduction to the social & psychological science of group identity. While a lot of the empirical studies should be taken with a grain of salt, one idea is extremely robust and is validated by centuries of historical, anthropological, and anecdotal observation: when you put humans into groups and give those groups a label, lots of funny business goes down. We love affiliating with people who are like us. We love being part of something. We love having identities and getting protective when those identities are threatened. We love critique groups when we’re young and love gatekeep them when we’re old.
I strongly appreciated the book’s focus on the idea that “all reality is social reality”—in other words, you are always acting “as a” something. Neither you nor anyone has a pure and objective vantage point on the world. This does not need to lead to a postmodern hellscape where nothing is real. It just means that we need institutions with self-corrective mechanisms, like science, or democracy, where bad ideas, at least in principle, can be critiqued or voted away. And we need to recognize that our individual viewpoints are always shortsighted in some way. It’s a call to humility, really.
I did an interview with one of the authors, Dominic Packer. It was quite fun.
Here it is on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/5YrD...
And here on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
I strongly appreciated the book’s focus on the idea that “all reality is social reality”—in other words, you are always acting “as a” something. Neither you nor anyone has a pure and objective vantage point on the world. This does not need to lead to a postmodern hellscape where nothing is real. It just means that we need institutions with self-corrective mechanisms, like science, or democracy, where bad ideas, at least in principle, can be critiqued or voted away. And we need to recognize that our individual viewpoints are always shortsighted in some way. It’s a call to humility, really.
I did an interview with one of the authors, Dominic Packer. It was quite fun.
Here it is on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/5YrD...
And here on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
May 7, 2023
Så fort något intressant skrivs så upprepas det så många gånger med olika exempel att det blir ointressant (Magdalena-effekten??). Men fortfarande intressanta saker om man skummar lite
August 19, 2022
Summary: How the groups of which we are a part help shape our identity, how this can lead to personal change, and understanding both how these identities may divide and unite us.
We tend to think of our identities as a fairly stable thing. Actually our identities change in subtle and sometimes dramatic ways depending on our social context and the groups to which we belong. The self I reveal with my colleagues may be different than what my neighbors see, or the people in particular interest or cultural groups in which I participate. It is not so much that we are chameleons but that we contain multiple ways of identifying ourselves–father, home owner, Christian, online ministry director, singer, aspiring artist and writer, bibliophile, vinyl music collector, Ohio State Buckeye fan, and more, in my case.
The authors of this work contend for the importance of understanding how our shared social identities shape us and how these might be harnessed for good or ill. They explore how our shared social identities help (or hinder) us in our perceptions as we try to make sense of the world. They shape and serve to reinforce our most important beliefs, who we listen to and do not listen to. They contend that social media holidays may help overcome echo chambers as do more nuanced information such as maps that are neither red or blue but proportionally shaded. If we are trying to bridge divides, it may be helpful to not lead with our political identities.
They explore why some identities matter more and how the identities we value shape our actions toward those who share them and those who do not and how we use various symbols from crosses to gestures (think O-H…I-O Buckeye fans) to find each other. The explore the issue of overcoming implicit racial bias, suggesting that new shared social identities may bridge old bias. When someone becomes “us” rather than “them” our perceptions may change. And awareness of our bias does not mean a label ought be applied to us but offers us the chance to use that self-awareness to shape our conscious behavior.
They describe the effectiveness of groups working in solidarity rather than individually and the power of non-violence in winning the support of neutrals and opponents. They consider the phenomenon of “groupthink” and how important opportunities for dissent are in group effectiveness. And they discuss the effective leaders who understand the power of “us” and foster a sense of shared identity. They also talk about how malevolent leaders may harness the same power for ill as they nurture a shared sense of grievance against a perceived enemy.
They conclude by considering how the matter of shared social identities could be important for the future of our democracies as we address inequality and climate change. As others have commented, we may be at a critical inflection point and how we harness the power of identity in these challenging times may make all the difference in what kind of country we become.
This work is important in making the point of the power of social identity. The authors help us to understand both how social identities may divide us and the steps we may take to begin to bridge those divides. For me, it raises questions about why, among Christians, shared social identity around American greatness is far more compelling than shared identity with fellow believers of many nations in pursuing the global purpose of the God of John 3:16 who “so loved the world” and what may be done to change that.
____________________________
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher.
We tend to think of our identities as a fairly stable thing. Actually our identities change in subtle and sometimes dramatic ways depending on our social context and the groups to which we belong. The self I reveal with my colleagues may be different than what my neighbors see, or the people in particular interest or cultural groups in which I participate. It is not so much that we are chameleons but that we contain multiple ways of identifying ourselves–father, home owner, Christian, online ministry director, singer, aspiring artist and writer, bibliophile, vinyl music collector, Ohio State Buckeye fan, and more, in my case.
The authors of this work contend for the importance of understanding how our shared social identities shape us and how these might be harnessed for good or ill. They explore how our shared social identities help (or hinder) us in our perceptions as we try to make sense of the world. They shape and serve to reinforce our most important beliefs, who we listen to and do not listen to. They contend that social media holidays may help overcome echo chambers as do more nuanced information such as maps that are neither red or blue but proportionally shaded. If we are trying to bridge divides, it may be helpful to not lead with our political identities.
They explore why some identities matter more and how the identities we value shape our actions toward those who share them and those who do not and how we use various symbols from crosses to gestures (think O-H…I-O Buckeye fans) to find each other. The explore the issue of overcoming implicit racial bias, suggesting that new shared social identities may bridge old bias. When someone becomes “us” rather than “them” our perceptions may change. And awareness of our bias does not mean a label ought be applied to us but offers us the chance to use that self-awareness to shape our conscious behavior.
They describe the effectiveness of groups working in solidarity rather than individually and the power of non-violence in winning the support of neutrals and opponents. They consider the phenomenon of “groupthink” and how important opportunities for dissent are in group effectiveness. And they discuss the effective leaders who understand the power of “us” and foster a sense of shared identity. They also talk about how malevolent leaders may harness the same power for ill as they nurture a shared sense of grievance against a perceived enemy.
They conclude by considering how the matter of shared social identities could be important for the future of our democracies as we address inequality and climate change. As others have commented, we may be at a critical inflection point and how we harness the power of identity in these challenging times may make all the difference in what kind of country we become.
This work is important in making the point of the power of social identity. The authors help us to understand both how social identities may divide us and the steps we may take to begin to bridge those divides. For me, it raises questions about why, among Christians, shared social identity around American greatness is far more compelling than shared identity with fellow believers of many nations in pursuing the global purpose of the God of John 3:16 who “so loved the world” and what may be done to change that.
____________________________
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher.
December 1, 2024
Other books to read:
In Defense of Troublemakers by Charlan Nemeth
-The real benefits of dissenters come less from the ideas they espouse or suggestions they make than from the ways they change how the rest of us think (pg 209).
Movie: Watch 12 Angry Men
Memorable Quotations/Ideas:
"We don't see things as they are; we see them as we are" (Anasis Nin, Seduction of the Minotaur (pg 40)
Research has found that much of the bias that is created when someone joins and identifies with a group--minimal or real--is better characterized as reflecting in-group love than out-group hate.
(People typically like their group more but that's not to say they dislike or want to harm out-groups) (pg 18). *Relatedly, with a flip of a coin, people construct new identities (based on which group you are assigned to), so your sense of self is fluid and shifting pg. 19)
Types of Orientation (pg 20):
Pro-social (each get 500 pts)
Individualistic (560 pts to you and 300 to your partner)
Competitive (400 pts to you and 100pts to your partner)
So who are we? We contain multitudes.
20 Statements Tasks:
1. I am . . . skilled in math
2. I am . . . Midwestern
3. I am . . .a parent
repeat until you have 20. (pg. 22)
They will fall into 3 categories:
1. individual (skilled in math, optimist)
2. relational (parent, spouse)
3. collective (Midwestern, Purdue student)
Bankers reminded of their banking identities (what bank do you work at), were more likely to be dishonest during coin-flip task than bankers were not primed to think about being a banker (how much tv a week do you watch?).
"Things can get truly ugly when the loss of any sense of shared identity as citizen combines with a group's belief in its own righteousness, leading its members to think that playing by the rule is foolish or that the other side must be stopped at all costs" (pg. 33) (i.e., maga)
**"Of course, people don't have full control over which groups they belong to, but they often have the capacity to choose which ones they embrace as identities. . . people are more willing to dissent if they care deeply about a group, and leaders are more effective when they can generate a shared sense of identity among their followers" (pg 34).
Optimally Distinct Identity: Think different
A need to belong and a need to be distinctive. We seek to be the same and different at the same time.
Ex. iPhone users (rebels embraced the brand, but now they are a huge group of people all owning the same product). Ex. group of punks, goths, hipsters (pg. 137).
Overcoming Bias:
Our evolutionary heritage also comes with a tendency for us to form and protect hierarchies that put some people and groups at the top and others at the bottom. This helps explain why, having divided the world into categories like race, religion, and nationality, humans have the abhorrent tendency to create and defend systems of oppression (pg. 154).
This tendency (towards social dominance) provides the psychological foundation for much of the racism that exists around the globe. From this perspective, racism is not grounded in genetic racial differences, despite what White supremacists would have you believe. Instead, it is built on mental tendencies to carve the world into groups and defend inequitable systems and power disparities (pg. 154)
Institutional Bias:
According to Consumer Reports, "In the US, female drivers and front passengers are about 17% more likely to be killed in a car accident than males, and women are 73% more likely to be seriously injured in a crash."
B/c crash test dummies are modeled on a typical American *MALE* body from the 1970s: 171lbs and 5'9" tall. When Consumer Reports spoke to car industry experts they were told that "developing new dummies and tests is UNNECESSARY or TOO EXPENSIVE" [emphasis mine]. So a decisions made by [presumably male] "engineers in the 1970s about how to conduct safety tests continues to threaten the lives of millions of women today" (page 167).
This is 1 reason why having women and other underrepresented groups at executive levels in companies is important. As of June 2019, Ford had the most female execs of all the large car manufactures, with [only] about 27% of VPs and above positions held by women (page 167).
Do we prefer an act of agreeable obedience or an act of principled disobedience?? (pgs 206-207)
It depends. If we are ourselves had been obedient and compliant we are more likely to prefer the obedient person.
-Participants learned about a person who refused to do the task b/c it was "probably racist." If people's own behavior was not at stake (they had not just done the potentially racist task), the described the moral rebel as "strong-minded, independent, decisive, fair minded".
-If participants had done the potentially racist task, themselves than the moral rebel was seen as "self-righteous, confused, defensive and easily offended"
We admire moral rebels but conditionally--assuming they don't shake our belief that WE are inherently good (pg 207).
*We don't even appreciate do-gooders when they objectively do good for their own groups.
-Highly generous group members can be as disliked as the free-loaders. If you contribute a lot to a group resource and take little for yourself, you are just as likely to be kicked out of the group as the selfish group members are (pg. 208)
***Value of Dissenters: (Univ. of MI study with college student group projects)
-Causes people to expand their thinking. Start to wonder why would anyone endorse that idea?
-Dissenters do not actually have to be right to benefit the group--they just have to speak up to get others thinking.
-Teams randomly assigned to include a dissenter performed better over the 10 weeks than those without. Their work was found to be more original (pg. 210)
The willingness of dissenters to stand their ground in the face of opposition that causes others to think more carefully. It causes others to ask, "Why is that?" (pg. 212)
But STRATEGIC Dissent is not great. It is disagreement about what the very goals should be. It reflects conflicting goals and managers are motivated to defend their positions rather than engage in open-minded search and analysis.
To capitalize on Dissent (pg 213):
-Groups have to have members willing to express divergent views
-Other members have to be able and willing to listen with curiosity, not defensiveness
Famous Stanley Milgram Obedience to Authority Study:
-15 volt up to 450 volts!
-150 volts was a jumping off point---it was the 1st time the learned asked specifically to be released from the experiment "Experimenter, get me out of here! I won't be in the experiment anymore! I refuse to go on!"
-Similar requests later on did not seem to matter. Do you ID with the learner (get me out of here!) or with the experimenter (you are expected to continue on).
-If you complied past 150 volts (get me out of here!) you were likely to comply til the end. Once people decided who they shared their identity with, it shaped their willingness to engage in dissent or continue along the path to cruelty (pg 219).
Solomon Asch Conformity Studies:
-Goal to be accurate and goal to fit in. Conflicting goals . . .
Asch and Milgram studies show
1. People are not blindly obedient to authorities.
-Resistance and dissent are as much a part of human nature as conformity
-What matters is who/what we identify with
2. People are not inevitably conformists.
-Sometimes we have good reason not to conform. If we dissent it's not usually b/c we don't care about others' opinions or b/c we want to be trying.
-We deviate to be useful to our groups. Groups tend to make better decisions when people can express divergent view. It can broaden people's thinking and make it easier for others to speak up. It can also cause us to reassess our own assumptions (pg. 222)
Creating Useful Dissent (pgs. 223-224):
1. Do you disagree with the norm or are you okay with it? (Think about how norms may be harmful)
2. How much do you ID with the group? Dissent is difficult so it may not be worth it unless you care deeply about the group, your fellow members, or your collective future.
3. What do you expect the consequences of dissent to be?
*Those that affect you as an individual
*Those that affect the group as a whole
To Aspiring Change Agents:
-It's okay to be weakly IDed with a group (those were the people who didn't keeping shocking people in Milgram's experiment since they IDed more with the learner than the "authority" person).
-You have to think critically about your group. You have to experience some sort of disagreement.
Ex. If everyone works insane hours, it might not seem insane; it's just the reality of how we work. (they become the unhealthy norm)
*Each small step makes the next one easier. 15 volts--no problem. 30 isn't any worse and then pretty soon you are at dangerous levels, like 450 volts. A number you never would have agreed to if asked that from the start.
-Be open to new experiences. You'll think more creatively and in more abstract ways, making more connections between disparate thoughts.
-Pay attention in groups you weakly ID with, to when you conform in ways that make you uncomfortable (working longer hours when the boss is around)
-In groups you strongly ID with, encourage people to dissent more often when they see a problem and avoid groupthink.
-Have them think about longer term goals.
-Make it safe to offer up divergent ideas--then be sure to listen and try to put those ideas into action.
-Don't over-react to errors--don't call them out publicly.
-Build a culture where it is safe to disagree (Constructive Dissent Awards are part of the culture at the American Foreign Service Assoc.)
--Recognizes those who have demonstrated the intellectual courage to challenge the system from within, to question the status quo and take a stand, no matter the sensitivity of the issue or the consequences of their actions (pg 231).
Understanding rise in xenophobia (or so it seems):
-Poorer people are often assumed to hold more negative attitudes toward minority groups and immigrants. They are assumed to make up the dominant supporters of populist and authoritarian political movements, but this stereotypes do not hold up under close scrutiny.
**Research (by Mols and Jetten) has found that while relative deprivation can sometimes produce anti-immigrant attitudes or attraction to authoritarian leaders "relative gratification" can do the same thing. Research shoes that people whose life circumstances are either declining OR improving both report greater support for using violent tactics to secure political power.
These surprising reactions among people who are well off can be motivated by a desire to justify and protect their advantages--by denigrating minority and marginalized groups as less deserving [scarcity/fear].
**If inequality is producing widespread social dissatisfaction and a sense that the economic hierarchy is unsustainable, attitudes, and behaviors among the wealthy can be driven by fears of losing status and privilege (pg. 267).
Climate Change
**The Earth has a fever and it's getting worse. (pg. 269) [well put!]
In Defense of Troublemakers by Charlan Nemeth
-The real benefits of dissenters come less from the ideas they espouse or suggestions they make than from the ways they change how the rest of us think (pg 209).
Movie: Watch 12 Angry Men
Memorable Quotations/Ideas:
"We don't see things as they are; we see them as we are" (Anasis Nin, Seduction of the Minotaur (pg 40)
Research has found that much of the bias that is created when someone joins and identifies with a group--minimal or real--is better characterized as reflecting in-group love than out-group hate.
(People typically like their group more but that's not to say they dislike or want to harm out-groups) (pg 18). *Relatedly, with a flip of a coin, people construct new identities (based on which group you are assigned to), so your sense of self is fluid and shifting pg. 19)
Types of Orientation (pg 20):
Pro-social (each get 500 pts)
Individualistic (560 pts to you and 300 to your partner)
Competitive (400 pts to you and 100pts to your partner)
So who are we? We contain multitudes.
20 Statements Tasks:
1. I am . . . skilled in math
2. I am . . . Midwestern
3. I am . . .a parent
repeat until you have 20. (pg. 22)
They will fall into 3 categories:
1. individual (skilled in math, optimist)
2. relational (parent, spouse)
3. collective (Midwestern, Purdue student)
Bankers reminded of their banking identities (what bank do you work at), were more likely to be dishonest during coin-flip task than bankers were not primed to think about being a banker (how much tv a week do you watch?).
"Things can get truly ugly when the loss of any sense of shared identity as citizen combines with a group's belief in its own righteousness, leading its members to think that playing by the rule is foolish or that the other side must be stopped at all costs" (pg. 33) (i.e., maga)
**"Of course, people don't have full control over which groups they belong to, but they often have the capacity to choose which ones they embrace as identities. . . people are more willing to dissent if they care deeply about a group, and leaders are more effective when they can generate a shared sense of identity among their followers" (pg 34).
Optimally Distinct Identity: Think different
A need to belong and a need to be distinctive. We seek to be the same and different at the same time.
Ex. iPhone users (rebels embraced the brand, but now they are a huge group of people all owning the same product). Ex. group of punks, goths, hipsters (pg. 137).
Overcoming Bias:
Our evolutionary heritage also comes with a tendency for us to form and protect hierarchies that put some people and groups at the top and others at the bottom. This helps explain why, having divided the world into categories like race, religion, and nationality, humans have the abhorrent tendency to create and defend systems of oppression (pg. 154).
This tendency (towards social dominance) provides the psychological foundation for much of the racism that exists around the globe. From this perspective, racism is not grounded in genetic racial differences, despite what White supremacists would have you believe. Instead, it is built on mental tendencies to carve the world into groups and defend inequitable systems and power disparities (pg. 154)
Institutional Bias:
According to Consumer Reports, "In the US, female drivers and front passengers are about 17% more likely to be killed in a car accident than males, and women are 73% more likely to be seriously injured in a crash."
B/c crash test dummies are modeled on a typical American *MALE* body from the 1970s: 171lbs and 5'9" tall. When Consumer Reports spoke to car industry experts they were told that "developing new dummies and tests is UNNECESSARY or TOO EXPENSIVE" [emphasis mine]. So a decisions made by [presumably male] "engineers in the 1970s about how to conduct safety tests continues to threaten the lives of millions of women today" (page 167).
This is 1 reason why having women and other underrepresented groups at executive levels in companies is important. As of June 2019, Ford had the most female execs of all the large car manufactures, with [only] about 27% of VPs and above positions held by women (page 167).
Do we prefer an act of agreeable obedience or an act of principled disobedience?? (pgs 206-207)
It depends. If we are ourselves had been obedient and compliant we are more likely to prefer the obedient person.
-Participants learned about a person who refused to do the task b/c it was "probably racist." If people's own behavior was not at stake (they had not just done the potentially racist task), the described the moral rebel as "strong-minded, independent, decisive, fair minded".
-If participants had done the potentially racist task, themselves than the moral rebel was seen as "self-righteous, confused, defensive and easily offended"
We admire moral rebels but conditionally--assuming they don't shake our belief that WE are inherently good (pg 207).
*We don't even appreciate do-gooders when they objectively do good for their own groups.
-Highly generous group members can be as disliked as the free-loaders. If you contribute a lot to a group resource and take little for yourself, you are just as likely to be kicked out of the group as the selfish group members are (pg. 208)
***Value of Dissenters: (Univ. of MI study with college student group projects)
-Causes people to expand their thinking. Start to wonder why would anyone endorse that idea?
-Dissenters do not actually have to be right to benefit the group--they just have to speak up to get others thinking.
-Teams randomly assigned to include a dissenter performed better over the 10 weeks than those without. Their work was found to be more original (pg. 210)
The willingness of dissenters to stand their ground in the face of opposition that causes others to think more carefully. It causes others to ask, "Why is that?" (pg. 212)
But STRATEGIC Dissent is not great. It is disagreement about what the very goals should be. It reflects conflicting goals and managers are motivated to defend their positions rather than engage in open-minded search and analysis.
To capitalize on Dissent (pg 213):
-Groups have to have members willing to express divergent views
-Other members have to be able and willing to listen with curiosity, not defensiveness
Famous Stanley Milgram Obedience to Authority Study:
-15 volt up to 450 volts!
-150 volts was a jumping off point---it was the 1st time the learned asked specifically to be released from the experiment "Experimenter, get me out of here! I won't be in the experiment anymore! I refuse to go on!"
-Similar requests later on did not seem to matter. Do you ID with the learner (get me out of here!) or with the experimenter (you are expected to continue on).
-If you complied past 150 volts (get me out of here!) you were likely to comply til the end. Once people decided who they shared their identity with, it shaped their willingness to engage in dissent or continue along the path to cruelty (pg 219).
Solomon Asch Conformity Studies:
-Goal to be accurate and goal to fit in. Conflicting goals . . .
Asch and Milgram studies show
1. People are not blindly obedient to authorities.
-Resistance and dissent are as much a part of human nature as conformity
-What matters is who/what we identify with
2. People are not inevitably conformists.
-Sometimes we have good reason not to conform. If we dissent it's not usually b/c we don't care about others' opinions or b/c we want to be trying.
-We deviate to be useful to our groups. Groups tend to make better decisions when people can express divergent view. It can broaden people's thinking and make it easier for others to speak up. It can also cause us to reassess our own assumptions (pg. 222)
Creating Useful Dissent (pgs. 223-224):
1. Do you disagree with the norm or are you okay with it? (Think about how norms may be harmful)
2. How much do you ID with the group? Dissent is difficult so it may not be worth it unless you care deeply about the group, your fellow members, or your collective future.
3. What do you expect the consequences of dissent to be?
*Those that affect you as an individual
*Those that affect the group as a whole
To Aspiring Change Agents:
-It's okay to be weakly IDed with a group (those were the people who didn't keeping shocking people in Milgram's experiment since they IDed more with the learner than the "authority" person).
-You have to think critically about your group. You have to experience some sort of disagreement.
Ex. If everyone works insane hours, it might not seem insane; it's just the reality of how we work. (they become the unhealthy norm)
*Each small step makes the next one easier. 15 volts--no problem. 30 isn't any worse and then pretty soon you are at dangerous levels, like 450 volts. A number you never would have agreed to if asked that from the start.
-Be open to new experiences. You'll think more creatively and in more abstract ways, making more connections between disparate thoughts.
-Pay attention in groups you weakly ID with, to when you conform in ways that make you uncomfortable (working longer hours when the boss is around)
-In groups you strongly ID with, encourage people to dissent more often when they see a problem and avoid groupthink.
-Have them think about longer term goals.
-Make it safe to offer up divergent ideas--then be sure to listen and try to put those ideas into action.
-Don't over-react to errors--don't call them out publicly.
-Build a culture where it is safe to disagree (Constructive Dissent Awards are part of the culture at the American Foreign Service Assoc.)
--Recognizes those who have demonstrated the intellectual courage to challenge the system from within, to question the status quo and take a stand, no matter the sensitivity of the issue or the consequences of their actions (pg 231).
Understanding rise in xenophobia (or so it seems):
-Poorer people are often assumed to hold more negative attitudes toward minority groups and immigrants. They are assumed to make up the dominant supporters of populist and authoritarian political movements, but this stereotypes do not hold up under close scrutiny.
**Research (by Mols and Jetten) has found that while relative deprivation can sometimes produce anti-immigrant attitudes or attraction to authoritarian leaders "relative gratification" can do the same thing. Research shoes that people whose life circumstances are either declining OR improving both report greater support for using violent tactics to secure political power.
These surprising reactions among people who are well off can be motivated by a desire to justify and protect their advantages--by denigrating minority and marginalized groups as less deserving [scarcity/fear].
**If inequality is producing widespread social dissatisfaction and a sense that the economic hierarchy is unsustainable, attitudes, and behaviors among the wealthy can be driven by fears of losing status and privilege (pg. 267).
Climate Change
**The Earth has a fever and it's getting worse. (pg. 269) [well put!]
September 7, 2021
In The Power of Us, Dr. Dominic Packer and Dr. Jay Van Bavel offer a fascinating, science-backed take on the facets of who you are. Great story-telling too!
November 2, 2021
فريقك المفضل هو هويتك!!
.
.
جلس جمهور من أربعمائة مليون شخص - كتفا إلى كتف - بمقاعدهم حيث انتقلت المباراة النهائية لكأس العالم 1966 إلى وقت إضافي. مع وجود الكأس الأكثر طلبا في العالم على المحك ، وصلت إنجلترا وألمانيا الغربية إلى طريق مسدود . مر أكثر من عشر دقائق من الوقت الإضافي عندما مرر اللاعب الإنجليزي آلان بول الكرة إلى جيف هيرست ، المهاجم النحيل من لانكشاير.
سدد هيرست الكرة بقدمه اليمنى باتجاه المرمى وهو يسقط على الأرض. مرت الكرة على أطراف أصابع الحارس الألماني ، وارتطمت بأسفل العارضة ، وارتدت نحو خط المرمى ، وتم إبعادها من قبل مدافعي ألمانيا الغربية.
اتخذ قرار بطولة العالم تبعاً لما حدث خلال تلك الجزئية من الثانية.
بدأ اللاعبون الإنجليز - معتقدين أنهم فازوا بالمباراة - بالاحتفال. هدير الحشد! ومع ذلك ، لم يكن الحكم السويسري جوتفريد دينست متأكدًا من أن إنجلترا قد سجلت بالفعل. في ذلك الوقت ، كان دينست يُعتبر أفضل حكم في العالم. كان غير متأكداً ، وتشاور مع مساعده قبل اتخاذ القرار الحاسم: الكرة عبرت الخط. هدف!
ستظهر لقطات الفيديو في النهاية أن الكرة لم تتجاوز الخط في الواقع. ما كان يجب على إنجلترا أن تفوز بكأس العالم 1966 ، على الأقل ليس بتلك النتيجة. ومع ذلك ، أقسم اللاعب الإنجليزي الأقرب إلى الكرة ، روجر هانت ، أنه رأى الكرة تعبر الخط وتدخل الشباك. بالتأكيد يجب أن يكون قد رآها ، وإلا لكان قد تحرك للاستفادة منها بدلاً من الابتعاد بهدف الاحتفال.
لقد رأى ما يريد أن يراه.
قد يبدو هذا الموقف نادرًا. كم مرة يتم تحديد المسابقة الرياضية الأكثر مشاهدة في العالم بمثل هذه المسرحية المثيرة للجدل؟ ومع ذلك ، يجد عشاق الرياضة في كل مكان أنفسهم دائمًا على خلاف مع الحكام . تكمن المشكلة في أن العديد من المعجبين يتأثرون بشدة بهويات فريقهم لدرجة أنهم يشعرون أن قرارات أي شخص آخر ستكون متحيّزة بشكل ميؤوس منه - خاصةً عندما يكون الموقف غامضًا.
.
Jay Van Bavel
The Power Of Us
Translated By #Maher_Razouk
.
.
جلس جمهور من أربعمائة مليون شخص - كتفا إلى كتف - بمقاعدهم حيث انتقلت المباراة النهائية لكأس العالم 1966 إلى وقت إضافي. مع وجود الكأس الأكثر طلبا في العالم على المحك ، وصلت إنجلترا وألمانيا الغربية إلى طريق مسدود . مر أكثر من عشر دقائق من الوقت الإضافي عندما مرر اللاعب الإنجليزي آلان بول الكرة إلى جيف هيرست ، المهاجم النحيل من لانكشاير.
سدد هيرست الكرة بقدمه اليمنى باتجاه المرمى وهو يسقط على الأرض. مرت الكرة على أطراف أصابع الحارس الألماني ، وارتطمت بأسفل العارضة ، وارتدت نحو خط المرمى ، وتم إبعادها من قبل مدافعي ألمانيا الغربية.
اتخذ قرار بطولة العالم تبعاً لما حدث خلال تلك الجزئية من الثانية.
بدأ اللاعبون الإنجليز - معتقدين أنهم فازوا بالمباراة - بالاحتفال. هدير الحشد! ومع ذلك ، لم يكن الحكم السويسري جوتفريد دينست متأكدًا من أن إنجلترا قد سجلت بالفعل. في ذلك الوقت ، كان دينست يُعتبر أفضل حكم في العالم. كان غير متأكداً ، وتشاور مع مساعده قبل اتخاذ القرار الحاسم: الكرة عبرت الخط. هدف!
ستظهر لقطات الفيديو في النهاية أن الكرة لم تتجاوز الخط في الواقع. ما كان يجب على إنجلترا أن تفوز بكأس العالم 1966 ، على الأقل ليس بتلك النتيجة. ومع ذلك ، أقسم اللاعب الإنجليزي الأقرب إلى الكرة ، روجر هانت ، أنه رأى الكرة تعبر الخط وتدخل الشباك. بالتأكيد يجب أن يكون قد رآها ، وإلا لكان قد تحرك للاستفادة منها بدلاً من الابتعاد بهدف الاحتفال.
لقد رأى ما يريد أن يراه.
قد يبدو هذا الموقف نادرًا. كم مرة يتم تحديد المسابقة الرياضية الأكثر مشاهدة في العالم بمثل هذه المسرحية المثيرة للجدل؟ ومع ذلك ، يجد عشاق الرياضة في كل مكان أنفسهم دائمًا على خلاف مع الحكام . تكمن المشكلة في أن العديد من المعجبين يتأثرون بشدة بهويات فريقهم لدرجة أنهم يشعرون أن قرارات أي شخص آخر ستكون متحيّزة بشكل ميؤوس منه - خاصةً عندما يكون الموقف غامضًا.
.
Jay Van Bavel
The Power Of Us
Translated By #Maher_Razouk
October 29, 2021
This book is incredible! If you’re looking to make sense of the polarization and division we are facing right now, particularly when groups and sub groups of people seem to be allies one moment and enemies another, look no further. The research, writing, and explanation is excellent. I wish there had been greater emphasis at the end of the book as to what it specifically looks like to build cooperation or bridge relationships between in and out groups. But still an outstanding read.
June 12, 2022
I aptly finished the Social Identities and Groups Network winter school by reading The Power of Us on the beautiful Minjerribah. This book is a great introduction (or reminder) about the central tenets of Social Identity Theory and the role that identities play in our personal and political lives. Great for anyone who wants a clear and comprehensive summary of the scientific literature so far, that is easy to follow and really engaging to read.
December 31, 2021
I will write a review for this sometime.
It's definitely worth reading, and a powerful primer on how identity can be harnessed both positively and negatively.
It's definitely worth reading, and a powerful primer on how identity can be harnessed both positively and negatively.
January 27, 2022
Excellent, rigorous and engaging shows what an important perspective social identity is
August 31, 2022
[3.5 stars rounded down to 3 stars] There was a lot of goodness in this book, but a lot of it was reviewing of studies that I had already known. The clear highlights were the original research of the two authors and their re-interpretations of famous research such as the Stanford Prison Experiment. A lovely book to read but probably better for folks less familiar with the body of research on this topic.
November 19, 2024
5 stars for a more educational read - accomplished its goal in an interesting and easy to follow way that highlights the importance of social identity in our world and how it has evolved up to today
October 12, 2021
I recently finished reading The Power of Us. Applause to Jay J. Van Bavel and Dominic J. Packer. It's terrific - really readable without compromising scholarly integrity about an important, central, often neglected issue in social psychology.
August 28, 2021
Much has been said about increasing group polarization in the media and public discourse. However, this conversation is often superficial, failing to detail the complexity of being a person with multiple identities. Drs. Jay Van Bavel and Dominic Packer provide an entertaining, comprehensive resource about the groups that we belong to, want to belong to, are proud to belong to, and what the psychological consequences are of dissecting the world as relevant, irrelevant, or in opposition to these group memberships.
If you take an interest in psychology, you will be more than satisfied. There are hundreds of studies in this book. You might be familiar with several of them (Milgram's obedience research, Asch's conformity research, Zimbardo's Stanford prison study) but expect new, illuminating insights. Other studies have yet to be exposed to the general public until now.
If you are interested in self-improvement, you will find a great deal to ponder. The most powerful point of this book is that thoughts, feelings, sensory experiences, motivations, behavior, and strivings are heavily influenced by group memberships that are important to you and activated.
As someone who lives in an individualistic country, where a person's personality is of paramount importance, there is great value in discovering the intricacies of identity. Yes, each of us has a profile of personality traits that influence what we do next. A large number of psychology books exist on grit, courage, creativity, honesty, gratitude, kindness, sociability, psychopathy, narcissism, and dozens of other personality traits. Too few books have been written about how our social identity plays a role above and beyond personality in producing desirable and undesirable outcomes. You will fly through the 276 pages with a revised perspective of who you are and want to become.
If you take an interest in psychology, you will be more than satisfied. There are hundreds of studies in this book. You might be familiar with several of them (Milgram's obedience research, Asch's conformity research, Zimbardo's Stanford prison study) but expect new, illuminating insights. Other studies have yet to be exposed to the general public until now.
If you are interested in self-improvement, you will find a great deal to ponder. The most powerful point of this book is that thoughts, feelings, sensory experiences, motivations, behavior, and strivings are heavily influenced by group memberships that are important to you and activated.
As someone who lives in an individualistic country, where a person's personality is of paramount importance, there is great value in discovering the intricacies of identity. Yes, each of us has a profile of personality traits that influence what we do next. A large number of psychology books exist on grit, courage, creativity, honesty, gratitude, kindness, sociability, psychopathy, narcissism, and dozens of other personality traits. Too few books have been written about how our social identity plays a role above and beyond personality in producing desirable and undesirable outcomes. You will fly through the 276 pages with a revised perspective of who you are and want to become.
September 9, 2021
Was recommended to me as I love a good psychology book. An informative and entertaining read.
September 7, 2021
This is NOT a textbook, but it teaches you the fundamentals of social psychology and covers the most famous experiments. Up to date, with great stories that will make you laugh, make you mad, and make you wonder. My favorite was the Puma-Adidas rivalry. What!
June 13, 2021
I saw this as a NetGalley ARC option and thought it might be relevant to some seminars I still occasionally teach. The book is written by two psychologists (and Canadians) and brings together a lot of empirical scholarship in an accessible way. It did not read like a business book with lots of prescriptive suggestions about behavior, rather, it focuses on good storytelling and examples to highlight the implications of social identities. The book is timely given its coverage of polarization in politics and implicit bias.
August 16, 2024
I am a librarian. I am a father. I am a Kansan. I am a husband. I am a hiker. I am many other things in addition. I have many identities. And each of those identities shapes my perspectives about both myself and the world. Each one influences my values, my priorities, who I identify with, who I shun. I don't exist in isolation, instead am part of many different groups. Really, I am never an "I," but am always part of an "Us." I take my cues from my groups, conform to them, am largely determined by them. The same is true of everyone.
In this book, Van Bavel and Packer delve into the science of group identities and how they make each of us who we are. Their writing is accessible and engaging, shifting easily from studies and data to personal anecdotes to analysis and impacts. They offer a variety of approaches to increased self-knowledge and self-improvement through the perspective of group identities, relevant and useful for everyone. It is a thoroughly enjoyable read.
Some highlights:
In this book, Van Bavel and Packer delve into the science of group identities and how they make each of us who we are. Their writing is accessible and engaging, shifting easily from studies and data to personal anecdotes to analysis and impacts. They offer a variety of approaches to increased self-knowledge and self-improvement through the perspective of group identities, relevant and useful for everyone. It is a thoroughly enjoyable read.
Some highlights:
As social psychologists, we study how the groups that people belong to become part of their sense of self—and how those identities fundamentally shape how they understand the world, what they feel and believe, and how they make decisions. . . .
Knowing yourself is about understanding how your identity is shaped and reshaped by the social world that you are inextricably embedded in—as well as how you shape the identities of people around you.
Understanding how identity works provides a special type of wisdom: the ability to see, make sense of, and (sometimes) resist the social forces that influence you. It also gives you the tools to influence the groups you belong to. Among other things, you can learn how to provide effective leadership, avoid groupthink, promote cooperation, and fight discrimination.
-----
Assigning people to an arbitrary group can immediately affect patterns of brain activity, change how they look at others, and, at least momentarily, override racial biases. [Group studies have] fundamentally reshaped how we understand the nature of human identity. They have clarified to us that there is no true social vacuum. In many ways, the psychology of groups is the natural human condition.
-----
What people think, feel, and do is influenced, often to a startling degree, by what they believe everyone else is thinking, feeling, and doing. And because they are bound to groups and identities, the particular norms that guide people at any given moment can vary depending on which parts of themselves are the most salient and active.
-----
Social motives and beliefs can outweigh the desire for accuracy, causing people to be overly credulous when it comes to identity-affirming information. We have conducted several studies in which we found that people tend to believe positive stories about their in-groups and negative stories about out-groups, no matter how dubious the information may be.
-----
Social identities provide potent incentives for cooperation. . . . people more readily cooperate and improve outcomes for everyone when they identify with their groups and adhere to cooperative social norms. This has critical implications for creating groups and organizations that function effectively.
-----
The point of examining bias, implicit and otherwise, is so we can understand that our minds sometimes produce behaviors and outcomes that are inconsistent with our broader beliefs and values. And recognizing this, we can take control, exerting agency to challenge ourselves and others to build a better world.
-----
How much we offer help to other people, like so much else, depends on whether we see them as sharing a part of our identities. The philosopher Peter Singer refers to this idea as a “moral circle,” the boundaries of which determine who is deserving of our concern—and, of course, who is not. . . .
The boundaries of our identities are not fixed; they can vary across time and situations based on what is most salient. . . . the people we feel a responsibility to help and care for in any given moment is fluid.
-----
Human beings’ most important social identities are created around and fostered by shared traditions, rituals, histories, myths and stories, memories of accomplishments, and joys. But they are also forged by adversity, hardship, and the ways people are treated and mistreated by others.
-----
What great leaders do, no matter their domain, is tell stories about identity. . . .
Iconic moments of leadership . . . are instances of embodiment. They are powerful because they capture an essence. But it is an essence not simply of the leaders themselves—their particular dynamism or brilliance or charisma—it is an essence of us, of the group as a whole. They are moments in which the actions of a leader exemplify something about who we are or perhaps who we aspire to be.
-----
People cooperate and coordinate with one another much more readily when they see themselves as sharing an identity. The identities we activate and act upon are often those that differentiate us from others, whether they be based on boundaries of occupation, religion, race, gender, or nation. But, as we have seen, people are also drawn together by common fate, when they recognize that they share the same set of circumstances and are ultimately subject to the same destiny.
September 7, 2021
Drs. Jay Van Bavel and Dominic Packer tackle topics like implicit bias, echo chambers, sexism, racism, and partisanship through the lens of social identity. They weave together an array of scientific evidence with terrific storytelling. A thought-provoking read.
September 2, 2021
Entertainingly written, rigorously researched, and practical, this book will make you think differently about what identity really means.
August 7, 2022
This book started off rather well with the first three chapters focusing on social psychology and our identity, with a look at how it can change our perception of reality and how it worked in our personal relationships. I particularly liked chapter 2 the lens of identity and chapter 3 sharing reality. After the first three chapters, the authors spent less time on actual science or scientific findings about identity and perception and more on extrapolations of their findings onto the world around us and issues like politics, leadership, and ecology.
There were a couple insights that I did pay attention to in overcoming bias in chapter 6 along with fostering dissent in chapter 8 and leading effectively in chapter 9. As a leader, I will have to think about some of their findings that they highlighted in finding solidarity in groups, fostering positive dissent, and leading effectively. How should I implement these in my work environment as a manager and leader?
I particularly like how they reinvestigated some studies that have been historically used in psychology especially in social psychology. When they went back and looked at the actual studies, they found that some of the ideas of what was causing the effects highlighted in these studies may have been wrong. There may have been influences that were not recognized at the time. The one instance that I particularly found interesting was the reevaluation of the Milgram study that was covered in fostering dissent. This is the popular scientific experiment where they had people reading off words and if they were wrong the leader would have a person shock the reader. These shocks grew worse over time, and those being shocked started pleading for help and sometimes became unresponsive. A very popular study, that is cited quite often in psychology books. The author Dominic Packer came across the book that went into details on these experiments along with others and after evaluating it, he realized that there was more information involved that usually was not covered in later citations. He focused on the dissenters, and found a common point that separated those that refused to carry on.
In the end I would say this is a decent book, and well worth reading.
There were a couple insights that I did pay attention to in overcoming bias in chapter 6 along with fostering dissent in chapter 8 and leading effectively in chapter 9. As a leader, I will have to think about some of their findings that they highlighted in finding solidarity in groups, fostering positive dissent, and leading effectively. How should I implement these in my work environment as a manager and leader?
I particularly like how they reinvestigated some studies that have been historically used in psychology especially in social psychology. When they went back and looked at the actual studies, they found that some of the ideas of what was causing the effects highlighted in these studies may have been wrong. There may have been influences that were not recognized at the time. The one instance that I particularly found interesting was the reevaluation of the Milgram study that was covered in fostering dissent. This is the popular scientific experiment where they had people reading off words and if they were wrong the leader would have a person shock the reader. These shocks grew worse over time, and those being shocked started pleading for help and sometimes became unresponsive. A very popular study, that is cited quite often in psychology books. The author Dominic Packer came across the book that went into details on these experiments along with others and after evaluating it, he realized that there was more information involved that usually was not covered in later citations. He focused on the dissenters, and found a common point that separated those that refused to carry on.
In the end I would say this is a decent book, and well worth reading.
October 8, 2023
This book has truly been a game-changer for my understanding of social psychology. It has proven to be an incredibly useful resource, packed with valuable insights and knowledge. What fascinated me the most was how the authors delve into the realm of leaders and their utilization of psychological tactics to manipulate entire populations. As someone living on the other side of the globe, it was eye-opening to realize that this same narrative echoes worldwide. It made me reflect on the impact of these techniques on a global scale.
One aspect that truly stood out to me was the author's approach to explaining various psychological studies and research. They presented extensive details, which greatly benefitted not only students of psychology but anyone interested in the subject matter. It's evident that the authors have put in a tremendous amount of effort to provide in-depth information, making the book highly enjoyable to read.
Overall, this book has broadened my perspective on social psychology and enlightened me about the tactics employed by leaders to influence the masses. It's an enthralling read that offers valuable insights for both students and enthusiasts of psychology.
One aspect that truly stood out to me was the author's approach to explaining various psychological studies and research. They presented extensive details, which greatly benefitted not only students of psychology but anyone interested in the subject matter. It's evident that the authors have put in a tremendous amount of effort to provide in-depth information, making the book highly enjoyable to read.
Overall, this book has broadened my perspective on social psychology and enlightened me about the tactics employed by leaders to influence the masses. It's an enthralling read that offers valuable insights for both students and enthusiasts of psychology.
November 10, 2021
The decline of an identity-based society and the rise of a knowledge-bawed society is the thing we have achieved in the 21st century. Religionism, Racism, Genderism, Nationalism, Generationism, Ageism, Ableism, you name it. Of course the root of the amazing decline is because of the Information Revolution. The less we cling on our own identity, the less biased we are towards our own echo chamber. The less we became an identity robot, the more compassionate towards the others (including other species). That's why we often say Green is the exact opposite of Religionism. Green means biocentric while identity means anthropocentric.
The less me, me, and me, the more we, we, and we. That's the essence of shared identity, as the author emphasized, but not individual self-centered identity.
And that is and will be the zeitgeist of this one hundred years.
The less me, me, and me, the more we, we, and we. That's the essence of shared identity, as the author emphasized, but not individual self-centered identity.
And that is and will be the zeitgeist of this one hundred years.
June 11, 2024
Outstanding Book
The Power of Us teaches how we form groups and identify with others.
We are a social species, always looking to see where we fit in. And where we do not.
Given the turbulence in our societies—right versus left, rich versus poor, believers and nonbelievers of our role in climate change—this book teaches us how we identify and form groups.
Many years ago, I believed the internet would democratize knowledge. People would be able to search out the truth. Instead, the internet has allowed us to find others who think like us. In short, we found our groups that we identify with.
As I was reading this book, I kept thinking of Robert Cialdini’s two books because “The Power of Us” complements them. So those with an interest in marketing will enjoy reading this book.
The Power of Us teaches how we form groups and identify with others.
We are a social species, always looking to see where we fit in. And where we do not.
Given the turbulence in our societies—right versus left, rich versus poor, believers and nonbelievers of our role in climate change—this book teaches us how we identify and form groups.
Many years ago, I believed the internet would democratize knowledge. People would be able to search out the truth. Instead, the internet has allowed us to find others who think like us. In short, we found our groups that we identify with.
As I was reading this book, I kept thinking of Robert Cialdini’s two books because “The Power of Us” complements them. So those with an interest in marketing will enjoy reading this book.
June 26, 2023
An eye opener! A re-read. No matter what Your aim is, first You have got to get to "WE" and "US" with new people. This book is kind of like Machiavelli, but without the sinister note :) I took PAGES of notes, so I highly recommend it to any company or team leader. The summary: what ever set of people You find Yourself in, be sure to find/link their shared identities, make them aware of the common threads they have. And while doing it, You must also speak about Yourself as “WE”, not You. Always “we”, an often repeated “We” and “Us”. You can turn a group into friends or enemies simply by CHANGING what identity they are focusing right now (and we all have a lot of different ones).
Displaying 1 - 30 of 49 reviews