Social identity is the portion of an individual’s self-concept derived from perceived membership in social groups.[1] As originally formulated by Henri Tajfel and John Turner in 1979, and furthered by modern researchers, social identity theory is a diffuse but interrelated group of social psychological theories concerned with when and why individuals identify with, and behave as part of, social groups, adopting shared attitudes. It is also concerned with what difference it makes when encounters between individuals are perceived as encounters between group members. Social identity theory is thus concerned both with the psychological and sociological aspects of group behavior.
Evolution of social identity theory
editDevelopment of Tajfel's theory
editThe social identity theory was an attempt to reestablish a more collectivist approach to social psychology of the self and social groups from earlier collectivist accounts by Wilhelm Maximilian Wundt, David Émile Durkheim and William McDougall. From his early perceptual research around 1959, Henri Tajfel derived that "the categorization of stimuli produces a perceptual accentuation effect in which intra-category similarities among stimuli and inter-category difference among stimuli are accentuated on dimensions believed to be correlated with the categorization[2]." When the categories are seen as significant to the perceiver, the effect is further intensified. Tajfel believed this effect is actually represented by both physical and social perception. Since the perceiver is likely to be able to categorize at least one social group, social perception is stronger since the concept of self becomes involved.
Around 1969, Tajfel’s research was focused on exploring the cognitive aspects of prejudice and stereotyping, since he was trying to develop a cognitive theory of stereotyping. Tajfel believed that purely cognitive analysis was an inadequate explanation of stereotyping. In his opinion, social functions of stereotypes, such as justification, causal attribution, and social differentiation, should also be explored in order to obtain a more complete analysis. Tajfel kept in mind that stereotypes were often widely shared images of different social groups. Therefore, any analysis of stereotyping needed to be established in the broader analysis of intergroup relations in order to incorporate the shared characteristic of stereotyping.[3]
In 1972, Tajfel introduced the term social identity to move from social and inter-group perceptions to how the self is a system of social categorizations, which create and define an individual’s place in society. He defined social identity as the part of an individual's self-perception that arises from “the individual’s knowledge that he belongs to certain groups together with some emotional and value significance to him of this membership.”[4] Tajfel also states his theory of social identity is “based on the simple motivation assumption that individuals prefer a positive to a negative self-image.”[5]
Modern developments
editSince Tajfel's introduction of social identity, researchers have explored how it fits in with other social psychological theories, helping to address concerns of problems falsifying the theory by further understanding the relationship between social identity and other socially oriented theories that influence group and individual behaviors, along with looking at how various aspects of social interactions fit in with it.[6] [7] Modern researchers are attempting to address the broad criticisms of the theory.
For other researchers in the field, see the entries for Michael Hogg, Marilynn Brewer, and Kipling Williams.
Factors affecting social identity
editSelf-categorization theory
editThe self-categorization theory, developed through further research on social categorization and the social identity theory, is a set of social psychology related assumptions about the functioning of the social self-concept. Self-concept is the concept of self based on the comparison of self to others, which is directly related to social interactions. The self-categorization theory, also known as the social identity theory of the group, is based on some basic assumptions shared in social psychology, such as that the self-concept is the cognitive component of the psychological process of self, that the self-concept comprises of many different components, and that the functioning of the self-concept is situation-specific. The assumptions of social categorization theory in particular include that the cognitive representations of self take the form of cognitive groupings of oneself, that self-categorizations exist as a part of a hierarchical system of classification, and finally that there are at least three different levels of abstractions of self-categorization that are important in the social self-concept. These three different levels of abstraction include the superordinate level of the self as a human being, the intermediate level of in-group/out-group categorizations based on perceived differences and similarities in some social characteristics, which might define one as a member of certain social groups but not others, and finally the subordinate level of personal self-categorizations based on “differentiations between oneself as a unique individual and other in-group members that define one as a specific individual person.”[8]
Social identity model of deindividuation effects
editThe social identity model of deindividuation effects (SIDE) was developed from further research on the social identity theory and the self-categorization theory, further specifying the effects of situational factors on the functioning of processes proposed by the two theories. The SIDE model focuses on explaining cognitive effects of visibility and anonymity in intra-group and inter-group contexts based on the same theoretical framework. The model is based on the idea that the self-concept is flexible and different in different situations or contexts. The theory is comprised of a range of different self-categories that define people as unique individuals or in terms of their membership to specific social groups and other, broader social categories based on the context of the situation. The SIDE model proposes that anonymity shifts both the focus of self-awareness from the individual self to the group self and the perceptions of others from being mostly interpersonal to being group-based (stereotyping).[9]
Intergroup emotion theory
editIntergroup emotion theory further expands on the concept of personally significant group memberships as posed by social identity and self-categorization theories. The theory is based on the concept that “when individuals categorize themselves as members of a group, they regard themselves as relatively interchangeable exemplars of the group rather than as unique individuals.” This causes cognitive representations of the self and the group to become inevitably connected, and therefore the group obtains an emotional significance. This means that individuals not only categorize themselves as members of the in-group but also “react emotionally when situations or events affect the in-group”.[10]
Optimal distinctiveness
editAccording to the model of optimal distinctiveness, “an individual’s sense of self is shaped by opposing needs to assimilation and differentiation between the self and others.” Assimilation is the inclusion of the self and others in social categories based on similarities. Differentiation is the exclusion of others from based on what defines the self. The model is based on the assumption that differentiation and assimilation are opposing processes. As an individual moves towards excessively increased deindividuation of the self, the opposing process of individuation becomes activated. This is similar for excessively increased individuation, since as it will activate the process of deindividuation. Optimal distinctiveness is achieved when the exact amount of assimilation is achieved with a perfect complementary amount of differentiation. In other words, optimal distinctiveness is “achieved through identification with social categories at that level of inclusiveness where the degree of satisfaction of the need for differentiation and the need for assimilation is exactly equal.”[11][12]
The self-esteem hypothesis
editThe self-esteem hypothesis is one of the most studied explanations for in-group bias. The social identity theory proposes that people are motivated to achieve and maintain positive social identities. Since people’s personal identities interact with their social identities, having a positive social identity will result in a more positive self-esteem. When one’s in-group does well, the members of the in-group feel good about themselves and their self-esteems become more positive. Michael Hogg and Dominic Abrams believe that self-esteem affects in-group bias in three ways: demonstrating the in-group’s success or superiority will increase positive social identity. which in turn increases positive self-esteem, engaging in inter-group bias can raise self-esteem, and people defend their self-esteem through inter-group bias when people’s self-esteem is threatened.[13]
Consequences
editPrejudice
editPrejudice is drawing assumptions about someone or something before having enough information to guarantee accuracy of those judgments. In respect to social identity, the integrated threat theory of prejudice states that four types of perceived threats felt from an out-group act as triggers for inter-group prejudice: realistic threats (those to body and possessions, for example), symbolic threats (those to ways of life), inter-group anxiety, and negative stereotypes.[14] In studies of cultural prejudice, it was observed that not all four types of threats need to be involved for prejudice to be observed.[15] Additional research in cultural prejudice discovered that realistic threats have larger impacts on prejudice displayed by people who highly identify with the in-group, symbolic threats and negative stereotypes have no significant effect differences between high and low identifiers, and inter-group anxiety plays a more significant role for low identifiers.[16]
Additionally, social identity influences the perception of a person being prejudiced. In-group members tend to give each other the benefit of the doubt in ambiguous situations, attributing events to external rather than internal causes.[17] As such, research shows that people who share in-group status with the potential targets of potentially prejudicial behavior, as well as people who display moral credentials, are less likely to be judged as prejudiced by in-group members than by out-group members.[18]
In-group bias
editIn-group bias is the tendency for people to give preferential treatment to others when they are perceived to be in similar groups. This includes both separation into groups by arbitrary (such as coin toss results splitting groups into 'heads' and 'tails') and non-arbitrary (such as dividing between cultures, genders, and first languages) distinctions.[19] Studies have shown that out-group members are more likely to be discriminated against than in-group members, due to favoritism displayed towards in-group members.[20] Additional research has shown that social identity salience plays a moderating role in in-group bias.[21]
Out-group homogeneity effect
editUnder the out-group homogeneity effect, in-group members view themselves as more varied than the members of out-groups. Some models attribute these differences to a simple difference in the volume of information known about in-group members versus out-group members.[22] In others, this difference is attributed to differences in how people store or process in-group versus out-group information.[23] [24] However, this concept has been challenged due to some observations of in-groups viewing themselves as homogeneous. Researchers have postulated that such an effect is present when viewing a group as homogenous helps to promote in-group solidarity.[25] Experiments on the topic found that in-group homogeneity is displayed when people that highly identify with a group are presented with stereotypical information about that group.[26] Further criticisms mention that Turner's concept of depersonalization of the self results in relatively similar homogeneity evaluations of in-groups and out-groups when performing intra-group comparisons.[27]
Out-group homogeneity has also been implicated in stereotypes.[28]
Competition
editCompetition is a contest between individuals for limited resources, such as water and land. Under social identity theory, competition has been presented as an explanation for what causes people to perceive others as members of their own or other groups; those that compete rather than cooperate are more likely to be viewed as different from the in-group.[29] Additionally, competition has been presented as a way for groups to maintain positive social identity and as a way to improve status in the social hierarchy.[30]
Leadership
editUnder social identity theory, leadership is viewed as a function of the group instead of the individual.[31] Individuals who are leaders in their groups tend to be closer to the prototypical member than followers, are more socially attractive and thus easier to comply with, and tend to be viewed by others as the leader, wherein group members attribute leadership traits to the person and not the situation, furthering the distinction between the leader and others in the group.[32] As such, researchers have found that individuals can manipulate their own leadership status in groups by portraying themselves as prototypical to the group.[33]
Scapegoating
editScapegoating is the process of blaming or even punishing an innocent out-group for the misfortunes of one’s in-group. For example, one of the most infamous cases of scapegoating occurred when the Nazis blamed the Jewish for causing all the economic and social problems happening in Germany during that time. The frustration-aggression-displacement theory was one of the first theories attempting to explain scapegoating. This theory states that frustration causes aggression. The obvious preferred target of the aggression is the cause of the frustration. However, when the original cause is not readily targeted, the aggression will then be place on a more available target.[34]
Relative deprivation
editThe theory of relative deprivation is based on the concepts that deprivation is not absolute, but relative. Individuals feel different degrees of deprivation based on relative comparisons, either to their own past, similar situations or to other people who have resources they believe they deserve. An individual’s response to feelings of deprivation may cause hatred towards the out-group. Relative deprivation often leads to dissatisfaction and ultimately resentment of others. The theory of relative deprivation is based on the fact that people become dissatisfied with the outcomes of their situations when they compare them to some standards. If they believe they are getting less than standards, they feel deprived of what they believe is theirs. Individuals can also feel deprived if they see that others have something they do not have and desire it. If these individuals believe they are deprived as the result of another group, then hatred towards that group is developed.[35][36]
Hate group membership
editHate groups are organizations “whose central principles include hostility toward racial, ethnic, and religious minority groups” and “represent an extreme form of social identity.” Most hate groups are based on White racial supremacy and the support of the segregation or deportation, sometimes even the annihilation, of minorities. People often join hate groups because they are in search of answers and solutions to life’s questions and problems, because they feel the need to rebel, because they are attracted to the violent images of hate groups, or some combination of the three. Hate group members usually strongly associate themselves with their groups. They base their actions on what they believe the principles and goals of the group are.[37]
Criticisms
editSocial identity attempted to return to collectivist views of groups from the more individualistic approaches of the time. Many critics of the theory find issue with individualism being overridden by salient social identity.[38] Others criticize it for being too overextended in its present form, making the theory difficult to falsify.[39] This difficulty has been further shown by studies that seem to challenge social identity's self esteem hypothesis and plausible ties between group identification and in-group bias, to name a few, which have been refuted by John Turner as being non-explicitly stated within the theory and thus of little impact.[40]
In criticisms unaddressed by Tajfel and Turner, additional challenges arise for researchers to address in the context of social identity. For example, in-group bias is one often-touted component of social identity; groups can feel better about themselves by rewarding themselves more than out-groups. Research has indicated that the opposite does not hold. In what has been dubbed the Positive-Negative Asymmetry Phenomenon, researchers have shown that punishing the in-group less shows less benefit to esteem than rewarding the in-group more.[41] Further challenges have arisen in studies of inter-group similarity, with some studies counter intuitively finding that groups that perceive themselves as similar to other groups show increased levels of inter-group attraction and decreased levels of in-group bias.[42] Social identity would suggest that these groups should have increased motivation to differentiate themselves.
See also
editReferences
edit- ^ Hogg, Michael; Vaughan, Graham (2002). Social Psychology. Upper Saddle River , NJ: Prentice Hall. ISBN 0130336327.
- ^ Hogg, Michael A. (1 January 2000). "From I to we: Social identity and the collective self". Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice. 4 (1): 81–97. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.4.1.81.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link) - ^ Hogg, Michael A. (1 January 2000). "From I to we: Social identity and the collective self". Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice. 4 (1): 81–97. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.4.1.81.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link) - ^ Tajfel, edited by Henri (2010). Social identity and intergroup relations (1. paperback printing. ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 2. ISBN 978-0521153652.
{{cite book}}:|first=has generic name (help) - ^ Tajfel, Henri (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire]: Cambridge University Press. p. 45. ISBN 0521228395.
- ^ Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(3), 184-200. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0503_1.
- ^ Postmes, T., Haslam, S., & Swaab, R. I. (2005). Social influence in small groups: An interactive model of social identity formation. European Review of Social Psychology, 161-42. doi:10.1080/10463280440000062
- ^ Turner, John C. (1987). Rediscovering the social group : self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: B. Blackwell. pp. 44–45. ISBN 063114806X.
- ^ Lea, Martin; Spears, Russell; De Groot, Daphne (1 May 2001). "Knowing Me, Knowing You: Anonymity Effects on Social Identity Processes within Groups". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 27 (5): 526–537. doi:10.1177/0146167201275002. Retrieved 11 April 2011.
- ^ Miller, D. A. (1 July 2004). "Effects of Intergroup Contact and Political Predispositions on Prejudice: Role of Intergroup Emotions". Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. 7 (3): 221–237. doi:10.1177/1368430204046109. Retrieved 11 April 2011.
- ^ Kite, Bernard E. Whitley Jr., Mary E. (2010). The psychology of prejudice and discrimination (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. pp. 335–336. ISBN 978-0495811282.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Brewer, Marilynn (1993). "Social Identity, Distinctiveness, and In-group Homogeneity". Social Cognition. 11 (1): 150–164. doi:10.1521/soco.1993.11.1.150.
- ^ Kite, Bernard E. Whitley Jr., Mary E. (2010). The psychology of prejudice and discrimination (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. pp. 332–333. ISBN 978-0495811282.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Stephan, Walter G. (1 September 1996). "Predicting prejudice". International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 20 (3–4): 409–426. doi:10.1016/0147-1767(96)00026-0.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link) - ^ Stephan, Walter G.; Ybarra, Oscar; Martnez, Carmen Martnez; Schwarzwald, Joseph; Tur-Kaspa, Michal (1 July 1998). "Prejudice toward immigrants to Spain and Israel: An integrated threat theory analysis". International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 29 (4): 559–576. doi:10.1177/0022022198294004.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) - ^ Bizman, Aharon (1 September 2001). "Intergroup and Interpersonal Threats as Determinants of Prejudice: The Moderating Role of In-Group Identification". Basic and Applied Social Psychology. 23 (3): 191–196. doi:10.1207/153248301750433669.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link) - ^ Tajfel, Henri; Turner, John (1979). Austin, W.G.; Worchels, S. (eds.). The social psychology of intergroup relations. Monteray, CA: Brooks/Cole. pp. 33–48. ISBN 0818502789.
- ^ Krumm, Angela J. (1 December 2008). "Who Believes Us When We Try to Conceal Our Prejudices? The Effectiveness of Moral Credentials With In-Groups Versus Out-Groups". The Journal of Social Psychology. 148 (6): 689–709. doi:10.3200/SOCP.148.6.689-710. PMID 19058658.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link) - ^ Brewer, Marilynn B. (1 January 1979). "Ingroup bias in the minimal intergroup situations: A cognitive motivational analysis". Psychological Bulletin. 86 (2): 307–324. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.307.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) - ^ Ahmed, Ali M. (1 June 2007). "Group identity, social distance and intergroup bias". Journal of Economic Psychology. 28 (3): 324–337. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2007.01.007.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) - ^ Giannakakis, Andrew Erik; Fritsche, Immo (1 January 2011). "Social Identities, Group Norms, and Threat: On the Malleability of Ingroup Bias". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 37 (1): 82–93. doi:10.1177/0146167210386120. PMID 20956355.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) - ^ Linville, Patricia W.; Fischer, Gregory W.; Salovey, Peter (1 August 1989). "Perceived distributions of the characteristics of in-group and out-group members: Empirical evidence and a computer simulation". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 57 (2): 165–188. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.2.165. PMID 2760805.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) - ^ Park, Bernadette; Judd, Charles M. (1 August 1990). "Measures and models of perceived group variability". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 59 (2): 173–191. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.2.173.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) - ^ Ostrom, Thomas M.; Carpenter, Sandra L.; Sedikides, Constantine; Li, Fan (1 January 1993). "Differential processing of in-group and outgroup information". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 64 (1): 21–34. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.64.1.21.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) - ^ Lee, Yueh-Ting; Ottati, Victor (1 September 1993). "Determinants of ingroup and outgroup perceptions of heterogeneity: An investigation of Sino-American stereotypes". Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 24 (3): 298–318. doi:10.1177/0022022193243003.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) - ^ De Cremer, David (1 August 2001). "Perceptions of group homogeneity as a function of social comparison: The mediating role of group identity". Current Psychology. 20 (2): 138–146. doi:10.1007/s12144-001-1021-4.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) - ^ De Cremer, David (1 August 2001). "Perceptions of group homogeneity as a function of social comparison: The mediating role of group identity". Current Psychology. 20 (2): 138–146. doi:10.1007/s12144-001-1021-4.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) - ^ Rubin, Mark; Badea, Constantina (1 January 2007). "Why Do People Perceive Ingroup Homogeneity on Ingroup Traits and Outgroup Homogeneity on Outgroup Traits?". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 33 (1): 31–42. doi:10.1177/0146167206293190. PMID 17178928.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) - ^ Riketta, Michael; Sacramento, Claudia A. (1 January 2008). "Perceived distributions of the characteristics of in-group and out-group members: Empirical evidence and a computer simulation". Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. 11 (1): 115–131. doi:10.1177/1368430207084849.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) - ^ Scheepers, Daan; Spears, Russell; Doosje, Bertjan; Manstead, Antony S. R. (1 January 2008). "Diversity in In-Group Bias: Structural Factors, Situational Features, and Social Functions". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 90 (6): 944–960. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.6.944. PMID 16784344.
{{cite journal}}: Check date values in:|year=/|date=mismatch (help) - ^ Hogg, Michael A. (1 August 2001). "A social identity theory of leadership". Personality and Social Psychology Review. 5 (3): 184–200. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0503_1.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) - ^ Hogg, Michael A.; Terry, Deborah J. (1 January 2000). "Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts". Academy of Management Review. 25 (1): 121–140. doi:10.2307/259266. JSTOR 259266.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) - ^ Haslam, S. Alexander; Reicher, Stephen D.; Platow, Michael J. (2011). The new psychology of leadership: Identity, influence and power. New York, NY: Psychology Press. ISBN 978-1-84169-610-2.
- ^ Kite, Bernard E. Whitley Jr., Mary E. (2010). The psychology of prejudice and discrimination (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. pp. 346–347. ISBN 978-0495811282.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Kite, Bernard E. Whitley Jr., Mary E. (2010). The psychology of prejudice and discrimination (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. pp. 344–345. ISBN 978-0495811282.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Crosby, Faye (March 1976). "A Model of Egotisical Relative Deprivation". Psychological Review. 83 (2): 85–113. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.83.2.85.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) - ^ Kite, Bernard E. Whitley Jr., Mary E. (2010). The psychology of prejudice and discrimination (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. pp. 351–358. ISBN 978-0495811282.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Postmes, Tom; Haslam, S. Alexander; Swaab, Roderick I. (1 January 2005). "Social influence in small groups: An interactive model of social identity formation". European Review of Social Psychology. 16 (1): 1–42. doi:10.1080/10463280440000062.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) - ^ Hogg, Michael A. (1 January 2000). "From I to we: Social identity and the collective self". Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice. 4 (1): 81–97. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.4.1.81.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link) - ^ Brown, Rupert (1 November 2000). "Social Identity Theory: past achievements, current problems and future challenges". European Journal of Social Psychology. 30 (6): 745–778. doi:10.1002/1099-0992(200011/12)30:6<745::AID-EJSP24>3.0.CO;2-O.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) - ^ Brown, Rupert (1 November 2000). "Social Identity Theory: past achievements, current problems and future challenges". European Journal of Social Psychology. 30 (6): 745–778. doi:10.1002/1099-0992(200011/12)30:6<745::AID-EJSP24>3.0.CO;2-O.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) - ^ Brown, Rupert (1 November 2000). "Social Identity Theory: past achievements, current problems and future challenges". European Journal of Social Psychology. 30 (6): 745–778. doi:10.1002/1099-0992(200011/12)30:6<745::AID-EJSP24>3.0.CO;2-O.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)