Not such a social cure. The puzzling role of ingroup centrality

Michał Bilewicz

University of Warsaw

Research on the ‘social cure’ points to the many positive outcomes of having strong social identifications for minority and immigrant groups. At the same time, identification is a multi-faceted psychological phenomenon, combining three dimensions: ingroup centrality, ingroup affect, and ingroup ties. Based on this three-factorial model of identification, I propose that their impact on minority and immigrants’ functioning is more complex. The study of Jewish community in Poland showed that ingroup centrality does not produce any positive consequences visible in secular and religious activities (as opposed to ingroup ties and ingroup affect). The study of Ukrainian immigrants in Poland showed that ingroup centrality was related to higher levels of acculturation stress, whereas positive ingroup affect and strong ingroup ties were related to lower acculturation stress. Further studies carried out among ethnic minorities in Poland (Lemkos, Kashubs, and Silesians) and another study of Ukrainian immigrants in Poland during the COVID-19 pandemic showed that higher levels of ingroup centrality generate more COVID-19 related threats and higher levels of anxiety, whereas ingroup ties tend to reduce anxiety during the pandemic. Based on these studies I propose a model that distinguishes the comparative aspects of strong identification (centrality of one identification over other identifications) from the universal aspects of strong identification (positive affect and strong ties).