A social identity is the portion of an individual's self-concept derived from perceived membership in a relevant social group.[1][2] As originally formulated by Henri Tajfel and John Turner in the 1970s and 80s,[3] social identity theory introduced the concept of a social identity as a way in which to explain intergroup behaviour.[4][5]
Despite the ongoing evolution of the social identity concept, social identity theory is best still described as primarily a theory that predicts certain intergroup behaviours on the basis of the perceived status, legitimacy and permeability of the intergroup environment.[4] Importantly, and although some researchers have treated it as such,[6][7] social identity theory was never intended to be a general theory of social categorization.[3] It was awareness of the limited scope of social identity theory that led John Turner and colleagues to develop a cousin theory in the form of self-categorization theory,[1][8] which built on the insights of social identity theory to produce a more general account of self and group processes.[3] To avoid confusion the term social identity approach, or social identity perspective, is suggested for describing the joint contributions of both social identity theory and self-categorization theory.[8][9]
Contents |
Social identity theory states that social behaviour will vary along a continuum between interpersonal behaviour and intergroup behaviour.[4] Completely interpersonal behaviour would be behaviour determined by solely by the individual characteristics and interpersonal relationships that exists between two or more people. Completely intergroup behaviour would be behaviour determined solely by the social category memberships that apply to two or more people. It is toward this latter end of the spectrum where an individual’s social identities are predicated to be highly influential.
The authors of social identity theory state that purely interpersonal or purely intergroup behaviour is unlikely to be found in realistic social situations.[4][10] Rather, behaviour is expected to be driven by a compromise between the two extremes. The cognitive nature of personal vs. social identities, and the relationship between them, is more fully developed in self-categorization theory.[11][12][3][13] Social identity theory instead focuses on the social structural factors the will predict which end of the spectrum will most influence an individual’s behaviour, along with the forms that that behavior may take.
A key assumption in social identity theory is that individuals are intrinsically motivated to achieve positive distinctiveness. That is, individuals “strive for a positive self-concept“.[4] As individuals to varying degrees may be defined and informed by their respective social identifies (as per the interpersonal-intergroup continuum) it is further derived in social identity theory that “individuals strive to achieve or to maintain positive social identity“.[4]
Both the interpersonal-intergroup continuum and the assumption of positive distinctiveness motivation arose as outcomes of the findings of minimal group studies.[3] In particular, it was found that under certain conditions individuals would endorse resource distributions that would maximize the positive distinctiveness of an ingroup in contrast to an outgroup at the expense of personal self-interest.[14]
Building on the above components, social identity theory details a variety of strategies that may be invoked in order to achieve positive distinctiveness.[8] The individual’s choice of behaviour is posited to be dictated largely by the perceived intergroup relationship. In particular the choice of strategy is an outcome of the perceived permeability of group boundaries, as well as the perceived stability and legitimacy of the intergroup status hierarchy. The self enhancing strategies detailed in social identity theory are detailed below.[4] Importantly, although these are viewed from the perspective of a low status group member, comparable behaviours may also be adopted by high status group members.[8]
It is predicted that under conditions where the group boundaries are considered permeable (e.g. a group member may pass from a low status group into a high status group) individuals are more likely to engage in individual mobility strategies. That is, individuals “disassociate from the group and pursue individual goals designed to improve their personal lot rather than that of their ingroup”.[8]
Where group boundaries are considered impermeable, and where status relations are considered reasonably stable, individuals are predicted to engage in social creativity behaviours. Here, without changing necessarily the objective resources of in the ingroup or the outgroup, low status ingroup members are still able to increase their positive distinctiveness. This may be achieved by comparing the ingroup to the outgroup on some new dimension, changing the values assigned to the attributes of the group, and choosing an alternative outgroup by which to compare the ingroup.
Here an ingroup seeks positive distinctiveness via direct competition with the outgroup in the form of ingroup favoritism. It is considered competitive in that in this case favoritism for the ingroup occurs on a value dimension that is shared by all relevant social groups (in contrast to social creativity scenarios). Social competition is predicted to occur where group boundaries are considered impermeable, and where status relations are considered to be reasonably unstable.
The field of social psychology is characterised by a certain degree of conflict between an individualistic approach and an interactionist approach to social cognition and behaviour. By the late 1920s however, the collectivist perspective had all but disappeared from mainstream social psychology.[16] Around the time of the first formal statement of social identity theory, Tajfel wrote this on the state of social psychology:
Thus, social identity theory in part reflects a desire to re-establish a more collectivist approach to social psychology of the self and social groups.[16]
In-group favoritism (also sometimes known as ingroup bias, despite Turner's objections[12]) is an effect where people give preferential treatment to others when they are perceived to be in the same ingroup. Social identity attributes the cause of ingroup favoritism to a psychological need for positive distinctiveness and describes the situations where ingroup favoritism is likely to occur (as a function of perceived group status, legitimacy, stability, and permiability).[4] It has been shown via the minimal group studies that ingroup favoritism may occur for both arbitrary ingroups (e.g. a coin toss may split participants into a 'heads' group and a 'tails' group) as well as non-arbitrary ingroups (e.g. ingroups based on cultures, genders, and first languages).[18][19] Importantly, “although vulgarized versions of social identity theory argue that ‘social identification leads automatically to discrimination and bias’, in fact…discrimination and conflict are anticipated only in a limited set of circumstances”.[8] In some circles the prediction of a straight forward identification-bias correlation has earned the pejorative title "SIT-lite".[20]
Continued study into the relationship between social categorization and ingroup favoritism has explored the relative prevalances of the ingroup favoritism vs. outgroup descrimination,[21] as well as the relationship between ingroup favoritism and other psychological constraints (e.g. existential threat).[22]
Prejudice is drawing (typically) negative 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.[23] In studies of cultural prejudice, not all four types of threats need to be involved for prejudice to be observed.[24] 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.[25]
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.[26] 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.[27]
In the sphere of economics, two separate papers and a book by Akerlof and Kranton incorporate social identity as a factor in the principal–agent model. The main conclusion is that when agents consider themselves insiders, they will maximize their identity utility by exerting greater effort compared to the prescription behavior. On the other hand, if they consider themselves outsiders, they will require a higher wage to compensate their loss for behavior difference with prescribed behaviors.[28][29][30]
While this macro-economic theory deals exclusively with already well established categories of social identity, Laszlo Garai applied the concept of social identity in economic psychology[31] and takes into consideration identities in statu nascendi (i.e. just when something is about to begin).[32] A further special feature of Garai's theory on social identity is that it resolved the contradiction between the inter-individual phenomena studied by the social identity theories and the intra-individual mechanisms studied by the brain theories: L. Garai presented [33] a theory on an inter-individual mechanism acting in the world of social identity. The theory that was referred in the beginning to the macro-processes based on a large-scale production later has been applied by Garai to the micro-processes of individual creativity.[34]
Hate 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 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.[35]
Social identity theory proposes that people are motivated to achieve and maintain positive concepts of themselves. Michael Hogg and Dominic Abrams propose a fairly direct relationship between positive social identity and self-esteem. In what has become known as the 'self-esteem hypothesis', self-esteem is predicted to relate in-group bias in two ways. Firstly, successful intergroup discrimination elevates self-esteem. Secondly, depressed or threatened self-esteem promotes intergroup discrimination.[36][37] Empirical support for these predictions has been mixed.
Some social identity theorists, including John Turner, consider the self-esteem hypothesis as not canonical to social identity theory. In fact, the self-esteem hypothesis is argued to be conflictual with the tenets of the theory.[12] It is argued that the self-esteem hypothesis misunderstands the distinction between a social identity and a personal identity, and that it neglects the alternative strategies to maintaining a positive self-concept that are articulated in social identity theory (I.e. individual mobility and social creativity).
In what has been dubbed the Positive-Negative Asymmetry Phenomenon, researchers have shown that punishing the in-group less benefits self-esteem less than does rewarding the in-group more. From this finding it has been extrapolated that social identity theory is therefore unable to deal with bias on positive dimensions. Social identity theorist however point out that for ingroup favouritism to occur a social identity “must be psychologically salient”, and that negative dimensions may be experienced as a “less fitting basis for self -definition”.[12] This important qualification is subtly present in social identity theory, but is further developed in self-categorization theory. Empirical support for this perspective comes from research where it has been shown that when experiment participants can self-select negative self-definitional dimensions no positive-negative asymmetry is found.[38]
Although the formal statement of social identity theory is not cited as a source, it is posited that social identity theory would suggest that similar groups should have an increased motivation to differentiate themselves from each other.[37] Subsequently, empirical findings where similar groups are shown to possess increased levels of intergroup attraction and decreased levels of in-group bias have been interpreted as problematic for the theory.
Social identity theory is purportedly criticised for having far greater explanatory power than predictive power.[16] That is, while the relationship between independent variables and the resulting intergroup behaviour may be consistent with the theory in retrospect, that particular outcome is often not that which was predicted at the outset. The rebuttal to this charge is that the theory has considerable predicative power given sufficient understanding of the specific social context under consideration. The latter argument is consistent with the explicit importance that the authors of social identity theory placed on the role of "objective" factors, stating that in any particular situation "the effects of [social identity theory] variables are powerfully determined by the previous social, economic, and political processes".[4]
Social identity theory 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.[39]