Further Examination of the Factor Structure and Validity of the Identification with All Humanity Scale

Abstract

In three separate samples, we examine the factor structure and validity of the identification with all humanity scale. Although the measure was originally proposed to contain a single factor, the results of the present studies showed two factors. The first factor contains items reflecting behaviors and feelings suggested by Adler and Maslow (e.g., helping, responsibility, loyalty). The second factor contains items previously used to assess ingroup identification from a social identity perspective. Regression analyses showed that the first factor (Adler/Maslow) is strongly influencing the associations between the identification with all humanity scale and prosocial values. The results highlight the distinction between theoretical perspectives from which ingroup identification measures are conceptualized.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Adler, A. (1954). Understanding human nature (W. B. Wolfe, Trans.). Greenwich, CT: Fawcett. (Original work published 1927).

  2. Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Aquino, K., & Reed, A., II. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1423–1440.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identification in organizations: an examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34, 325–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Buchan, N. R., Brewer, M. B., Grimalda, G., Wilson, R. K., Fatas, E., & Foddy, M. (2011). Global identity and global cooperation. Psychological Science, 22, 821–828.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cameron, J. E. (2004). A three-factor model of social identity. Self and Identity, 3, 239–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Leach, C. W., van Zomeren, M., Zebel, S., Vliek, M. L. W., Pennekamp, S. F., Doosje, B., et al. (2008). Group-level self-definition and self-investment: A hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 144–165.

  10. Ellemers, N., van Knippenberg, A., de Vries, N., & Wilke, H. (1988). Social identification and permeability of group boundaries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 494–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993). The common ingroup identity model: recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Heere, B., & James, J. D. (2007). Stepping outside the lines: developing a multi dimensional team identity scale based on social identity theory. Sport Management Review, 10, 65–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Jackson, J. W. (2002). Intergroup attitudes as a function of different dimensions of group identification and perceived intergroup conflict. Self and Identity, 1, 11–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Jenkins, S. T., Reysen, S., & Katzarska-Miller, I. (2012). Ingroup identification and personality. Journal of Interpersonal Relations, Intergroup Relations and Identity, 5, 9–16.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Katzarska-Miller, I., Barnsley, C. A., & Reysen, S. (2014). Global citizenship identification and religiosity. Archive for the Psychology of Religion, 36, 344–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Knoppen, D., & Saris, W. (2009). Do we have to combine values in the Schwartz’ humanvalues scale? A comment on the Davidov studies. Survey Research Methods, 3, 91–103.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lorenzo-Seva, U., & ten Berge, J. M. F. (2006). Tucker’s congruence coefficient as a meaningful index of factor similarity. Methodology, 2, 57–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Mael, F. A., & Tetrick, L. E. (1992). Identifying organizational identification. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 813–824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  20. McFarland, S. G. (2010). Authoritarianism, social dominance, and other roots of generalized prejudice. Political Psychology, 31, 453–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. McFarland, S., Webb, M., & Brown, D. (2012). All humanity is my ingroup: a measure and studies of identification with all humanity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 830–853.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Nickerson, A. M., & Louis, W. R. (2008). Nationality versus humanity? Personality, identity, and norms in relation to attitudes toward asylum seekers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 796–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & Turner, J. C. (1994). Stereotyping and social reality. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Phelps, J. M., Eilertsen, D. E., Türken, S., & Ommundsen, R. (2011). Integrating immigrant minorities: developing a scale to measure majority members’ attitudes toward their own proactive efforts. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 52, 404–410.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Plante, C. N., Roberts, S., Reysen, S., & Gerbasi, K. C. (2014). “One of us”: engagement with fandoms and global citizenship identification. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 3, 49–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Postmes, T., Haslam, S. A., & Jans, L. (2013). A single-item measure of social identification: reliability, validity, and utility. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52, 597–617.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Preacher, K. J., & MacCallum, R. C. (2003). Repairing Tom Swift’s electric factor analysis machine. Understanding Statistics, 2, 13–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Reese, G., Proch, J., & Cohrs, J. C. (2014). Individual differences in responses to global inequality. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 14, 217–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Reese, G., Proch, J., & Finn, C. (2015). Identification with all humanity: The role of self-definition and self-investment. European Journal of Social Psychology.

  30. Reysen, S., & Katzarska-Miller, I. (2013). A model of global citizenship: antecedents and outcomes. International Journal of Psychology, 48, 858–870.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Reysen, S., Katzarska-Miller, I., Nesbit, S. M., & Pierce, L. (2013). Further validation of a single-item measure of social identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 463–470.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Sampson, D. L., & Smith, H. P. (1957). A scale to measure world-minded attitudes. The Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 99–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Schatz, R. T., Staub, E., & Lavine, H. (1999). On the varieties of national attachment: blind versus constructive patriotism. Political Psychology, 20, 151–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  35. Steiger, J. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 245–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey: Brooks/Cole.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Tropp, L. R., & Wright, S. C. (2001). Ingroup identification as the inclusion of ingroup in the self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 585–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Türken, S., & Rudmin, F. W. (2013). On psychological effects of globalization: development of a scale of global identity. Psychology and Society, 5, 63–89.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Turner, J. C., & Onorato, R. S. (1999). Social identity, personality, and the self-concept: a self-categorizing perspective. In T. R. Tyler & R. M. Kramer (Eds.), The psychology of the social self (pp. 11–46). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: a self-categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Wohl, M. J. A., Branscombe, N. R., & Klar, Y. (2006). Collective guilt: emotional reactions when one’s group has done wrong or been wronged. European Review of Psychology, 17, 1–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen Reysen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Reysen, S., Hackett, J. Further Examination of the Factor Structure and Validity of the Identification with All Humanity Scale. Curr Psychol 35, 711–719 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-015-9341-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Identification with humanity
  • Scale
  • Measure
  • Prosocial