↓ Skip to main content

Multiple Group Membership and Well-Being: Is There Always Strength in Numbers?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
21 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
129 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Multiple Group Membership and Well-Being: Is There Always Strength in Numbers?
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, June 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01038
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anders L. Sønderlund, Thomas A. Morton, Michelle K. Ryan

Abstract

A growing body of research points to the value of multiple group memberships for individual well-being. However, much of this work considers group memberships very broadly and in terms of number alone. We conducted two correlational studies exploring how the relationship between multiple group membership and well-being is shaped by (a) the complexity of those groups within the overall self-concept (i.e., social identity complexity: SIC), and (b) the perceived value and visibility of individual group memberships to others (i.e., stigma). Study 1 (N = 112) found a positive relationship between multiple group membership and well-being, but only for individuals high in SIC. This effect was mediated by perceived identity expression and access to social support. Study 2 (N = 104) also found that multiple group memberships indirectly contributed to well-being via perceived identity expression and social support, as well as identity compatibility and perceived social inclusion. But, in this study the relationship between multiple group memberships and well-being outcomes was moderated by the perceived value and visibility of group memberships to others. Specifically, possessing multiple, devalued and visible group memberships compromised well-being relative to multiple valued group memberships, or devalued group memberships that were invisible. Together, these studies suggest that the benefits of multiple group membership depend on factors beyond their number. Specifically, the features of group memberships, individually and in combination, and the way in which these guide self-expression and social action, determine whether these are a benefit or burden for individual well-being.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 129 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 21%
Student > Bachelor 22 17%
Student > Master 13 10%
Researcher 12 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 5%
Other 17 13%
Unknown 31 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 59 46%
Social Sciences 10 8%
Sports and Recreations 6 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 10 8%
Unknown 37 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 July 2022.
All research outputs
#1,494,688
of 25,093,754 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#3,070
of 33,881 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,191
of 322,573 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#85
of 631 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,093,754 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,881 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 322,573 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 631 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.