SCIENTIFICAMERICAN.COM | 71distinguish between those who are “in” and those who
are “out.” Internally they need to be clearly structured,
typically in a hierarchical way. These features make
the group cohesive and homogeneous, such that mem-
bers are interdependent and of one mind in sharing a
common fate.
Diversity and dissent reinstate uncertainty and are
therefore avoided. When these facets do occur, individ-
uals and the group as a whole react decisively and
harshly, creating an atmosphere of suspicion that lays
the ground for persecution of alleged deviants. It
breeds an opportunity for personal dislikes and vendet-
tas to escalate under the guise of protecting cohesion.
That members are accepted and trusted fully is
important not only for the group but also for the
members themselves. After all, they desperately want
to be included so that their identity is validated and
their uncertainty thus reduced. Prospective and new
members—and those who suspect they are viewed with
suspicion or are uncertain about whether they are fully
accepted—will go to extremes on behalf of the group to
prove their membership credentials and loyalty. These
individuals are vulnerable to zealotry and radicaliza-
tion. Neo-Nazis and white supremacists
who publicly engage in violent acts of
terrorism and racial hatred are one ex -
amp le of this extremism.
The social identity embodied by such
groups also needs to be uncomplicated
so that it can be taken at face value as
“the truth.” Subtlety and nuance are
anathema because they are an impedi-
ment to uncertainty reduction. Clarity on where the
group stands allows its members to know how they
should think and feel—as well as behave. Such identi-
ties are bolstered by having a strong ideology that
identifies distasteful and morally bankrupt out-groups
who can be demonized and cast in the role of “enemy.”
Conspiracy theories thrive in this environment
because they establish these out-groups as agents of
historical victimization by the in-group.
HOW UNCERTAINTY
BREEDS POPULISM
if self-uncertainty motivates people to identify
with a group and internalize that identity as a key part
of who they are, they need to be confident that they
know exactly what their group’s identity is. When you
need what you consider to be reliable and trusted
sources of identity information, where do you turn?
The first port of call is whoever you believe is consensu-
ally viewed by the group as its leadership—typically
someone whose leadership position is also formalized.
Recent research on how self-uncertainty affects
the type of leaders that individuals prefer paints a
potentially alarming picture. People just need some-
one to tell them what to do—and ideally those direc-
tives are coming from someone whom they can trust
as “one of us.” Self-uncertain people have also beenshown to prefer leaders who are assertive and author-
itarian, even autocratic, and who deliver a simple,
black-and-white, affirmational message about “who
we are” rather than a more open, nuanced and textured
identity message.
Perhaps most troubling is that self-uncertainty can
enable and build support for leaders who possess the
so-called Dark Triad personality attributes: Machia-
vellianism, narcissism and psychopathy. Self-uncer-
tainty, in other words, seems to fuel populism.
Another source of identity information is “people
like you” who you feel embody the group’s identity
and see the world in the same way as you do. These
can be people with whom you interact face-to-face or
as friends, or they can be sources of information such
as radio and television channels, particularly news
outlets, that you watch. But nowadays these sources
are overwhelmingly information and influence nodes
on the Internet, such as Web sites, social media, Twit-
ter feeds, podcasts, and so forth.
The Web is an ideal place to decrease the discom-
fort of self-uncertainty because it provides nonstop
access to unlimited information that is often cherry-picked by individuals themselves and algorithms that
do it discreetly. Therefore, people are accessing only
identity-confirming information. Confirmation bias, a
powerful and universal human bias that is especially
strong under uncertainty, separates information and
identity universes that fragment and polarize society.
Online, people can easily seek out groups that may not
be readily available in their physical lives.
The Internet further empowers confirmation bias
under uncertainty because people want to be sur-
rounded by those who think alike so that their identi-
ties and worldview are continuously confirmed. The
contours of “truth” then get mapped onto these self-
contained social-identity universes. In this scenario,
there are no absolute truths and no motivation to seri-
ously explore and incorporate alternative viewpoints
be cause that would be kryptonite to social identity’s
power to reduce self-uncertainty. This dynamic helps
to explain why people dwell in increasingly homoge-
neous echo chambers that confirm their identity.Michael A. Hogg is a professor and chair of social psychology at Claremont
Graduate University and an honorary professor at the University of Kent
in England. He is a former president of the Society of Experimental Social
Psychology, an editor in chief of the journal Group Processes & Intergroup
Relations, and a fellow of numerous societies, including the Association for
Psychological Science.WHEN PEOPLE ARE INCREASINGLY UNSURE ABOUT
WHO THEY ARE AND HOW THEY FIT INTO THIS RAPIDLY
CHANGING LANDSCAPE, IT CAN BE — AND INDEED
HAS BECOME — A REAL PROBLEM FOR SOCIETY.