Social identity theory etg2006

SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY

A Report for Psy 283 byEden T. Gallardo

Discussion Outline

Key Facets, Assumptions The Self and Social Identity The Group and Social Identity Protecting the Collective and Personal

Self Critique

What Social Identity Does for Social Psychology

Explains where perspectives come from

Explains why people function as representatives of their groups

Gives meaning to the concept of “identity”

Key Facets of Social Identity Theory

Humans have a basic need for positive self-esteem (self-enhancement)


The importance and ubiquity of categorizationPeople have a strong tendency to mentally

organize things and people (including themselves) into categories (e.g. race, ethnicity, age)

Realistic Group Conflict Theory (Sherif et al’s Robbers Cave Experiments, (1953, 1955, 1961)

Minimal Group Studies (Tajfel, 1971)


To the extent that we associate ourselves (categorize ourselves) with groups, we have social identities

There are two aspects to identity, and self-esteem is wrapped up in both (Personal Identity, Social Identity)

Social identities (via our ingroup memberships) are important aspects of how we define ourselves


Accentuation effect (“us” vs. “them”)Social identities also dictate our perceptions of

members of our “ingroups” as:Similar to us, at least on the dimension that define the groups, and other positive attributes (overestimation of in-group similarity and between-group differences)

And social identities serve to distinguish us and those in our ingroups from members of outgroups (outgroup homogeneity effect)

Social Identity Theory:Assumptions

1. We categorize

2. We identify (ingroups)

3. We compare (outgroups)

We categorize:Social Categorization

Social identity processes are cognitively generated by social categorization of the self and othersPeople represent groups as prototypes

The cognitive-perceptual system selects, and forms prototypes around, attributes that identify similarities among individuals in the same group, and differences between people from different groups

We categorize:Social Categorization

Social categorization causes people to be viewed through a lens of category membership (depersonalization)

Applied to the self: transforms self-conception so that people feel like group members, depersonalizing attitudes, feelings and behaviors such that they conform to the in-group prototype

We identify:Ingroup Bias

The tendency to favor one’s own group (to maximize self-esteem)

Occurs with both sexes and with people of all ages and nationalities, though especially with people from individualist cultures. People from communal cultures identify more with all their peers and so treat everyone more the same.


Occurs when our group is small and lower in status relative to the outgroup; when our ingroup is the majority, we think less about it (e.g. foreign students, homosexuals, ethnic groups)

Conspicuous groups on no logical basis


The more important our social identity and the more attached we feel to a group, the more we react prejudicially to threats from another group (Crocker & Luhtanen, 1990; Hinkle & others, 1992).

When our group has actually been successful, we can make ourselves feel better by identifying more strongly with it. (BIRG)

We identify:Ingroup BiasIngroup bias is the favoring

of one’s own group

Liking for the ingroup - own group is goodDislike for the outgroup - other groups are bad

[sequence is not automatic]

OrBOTH

loyalty to one’s group resulting to devaluing of other groups

The SELF and SOCIAL IDENTITY

The Self

The SELF provides an anchor for judgments and reactions to the ingroup, and indeed the ingroup becomes a part of the self (Cadinu and Rothbart, 1996; Otten, 2003; Smith and Henry, 1996)

C.P. Ellis: From Klan Member to Enlightened Humanitarian

Human Relations Council:

•Concerned with improving social conditions•Targets of discrimination•Economically exploited

C.P. Ellis: (core elements of

sense of self)•Concerned with

improving social conditions•Target of discrimination•Economically exploited

C.P. Ellis:Resident of

North CarolinaC.P. Ellis:Democrat

C.P. Ellis:right-hander

C.P. Ellis:brown-eyed

Ingroup Identification as the Inclusion of Ingroup in the Self (Tropp, L. and Wright, S., 2001)

GS

S

S

SG

G

G

Low identifiers High identifiers


KKK:•Meeting in a large room

C.P. Ellis: (shameful)

•Tattered shirts and pants

= “It was thrilling”; “Here’s the moment to be something”

SELF-WORTH

A Collective Self-Esteem Scale: Self Evaluation of One’s Social Identity(R. Luhtanen and J. Crocker, 1992)

Subscale Issue Example ItemMembership Esteem

Am I a valuable or an ineffective member of the groups to which I belong?

I am a worthy member of the social groups I belong to.

Private Collective Self-Esteem

Do I evaluate the groups I belong to positively or negatively?

I feel good about the social groups I belong to.

Public Collective Self-Esteem

Do other people evaluate the groups I belong to positively or negatively?

In general, others respect the social groups I belong to.

Identity Are the groups I belong to an important or unimportant part of my identity?

In general, belonging to social groups is an important part of my self-image.


C.P. left the KKK - put his individual needs above his group’s needs (individual mobility)

CP joined the Human Relations Council – substantial change in attitude, values, and beliefs

“like bein’ born again.”

The Social Identity Perspective

People define and evaluate themselves in terms of the groups to which they belong- groups provide people with a collective self-concept, a social identity, and people have as many social identities as the groups to which they feel they belong.

Hence, the struggle to establish or maintain positive group distinctiveness

The GROUP and SOCIAL IDENTITY

From “me” to “we” Asserting uniqueness vs. finding

commonalities

Group behaviors (e.g. conformity, stereotyping, ethnocentrism, ingroup favoritism, ingroup cohesion) occur when social identity is the salient basis for self-conceptualization, and the content of group behavior rests on the specific social identity that is salient

Three-Stage Model of African American Ethnic Identity (Phinney, 1996)

Unexamined Identity Stage - Individuals in the first stage of identity development either do not characterize people, including themselves, on the basis of ethnicity (diffusion) or they accept other people’s definition of their ethnicity without question (foreclosure); ends when individuals begin exploring the meaning of their ethnicity

Exploration Stage – immersion in one’s ethnic culture; in some cases, adamant rejection of the values of the majority

Identity Achievement Stage – individuals internalize their ethnicity in their sense of self

Cognitive Definition of a Social Group

A group exists psychologically when two or more people define and evaluate themselves in terms of the defining and often prescriptive properties of a common self-inclusive category (Hogg & Abrams)

We compare:Social identity influences intergroup bias and relations through the process of social comparison (Festinger, 1954)

Social comparison is the evaluation of ourselves (our performance, our abilities, our appearance, etc.) in relation to others

Upward social comparison - lowers our self-esteem

Downward social comparison - raises our self-esteem

We compare:Social identity influences intergroup bias and relations through the process of social comparison (Festinger, 1954)

To the extent that we identify with the groupWhen we compare our group to better groups- group esteem suffers, self-esteem suffers by associationWhen we compare our group to worse groups - group esteem improves, self-esteem improves by

association

Consequently, to the extent that we identify with groups that are valued (e.g. powerful, prestigious, high-status, popular), we’ll feel good about ourselves

Protecting the COLLECTIVE and the PERSONAL SELF

Since people are highly motivated to achieve self-esteem…

Creative (or proactive) social comparisonSelecting dimensions on which to compare

- those on which your group excels

Distorting perception of outgroups [and ingroups]

- stereotyping and prejudice

Promoting (give advantages) to your ingroup

- nepotism

Hinder outgroups - discrimination

Since people are highly motivated to achieve self-esteem…

Social mobility Identifying with high-status groups (where

group boundaries are perceived as permeable)

Members of low-status groups are likely to seize opportunities of shifting to a high-status groupMembers of high-status groups are likely to be motivated to preserve their group membership; more likely to show ingroup bias on status-relevant dimensions

Critique of the Social Identity Theory

3 Substantive and Enduring Reasons for SI Theory’s Popularity (Capozza & Brown, 2000)

A powerful complement to other major theoretical orientation in inter-group relations, realistic group conflict theory

Clever combination of cognitive and motivational processes into a single explanatory account

The prospect of resolving one of the classic conundrums of group psychology – the relationship between the individual and the group

Link of Social Identity Studies

Stereotypes, Prejudice, Discrimination (Individual and Institutional)

Inter-Cultural Conflict Cooperation, Competition Organizational Psychology

Current Explorations: One’s Ingroup in a Multiple of Outgroups Multiple categorization studies Motivation, Affect as Mediators/Moderators of

Social Identity Processes

ReferencesCapozza, D. & Brown, R. (2000). Social identity processes.

London: SAGE Publications.

Forsyth, D.R. (2006). Group dynamics. (4th ed.) Belmont” CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Haslam, S.A. (2001). Psychology in organizations: the social identity approach. London: SAGE Publications.

Hogg, M.A. & Abrams, D. (2003). Intergroup behavior and social identity. Pp. 407-422 in Hogg, M.A. & Cooper, J. (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Social Psychology. London: SAGE Publications.

Myers, D.G. (2002). Social psychology. (7th ed.) NY: McGraw-Hill.

-End of Slides-

The Many Me’s of the Self-Monitor (Snyder)

High self-monitors exercise control over their self-presentations

High self-monitors are also adept at detecting impression management in others; may be especially fond of those who avoid strategic posturing

Effects of the shift in public appearance on the more private realities of self-concept:– We become the persons we appear to be– Only through self-disclosure could we

achieve self-discovery and self-knowledge (Signey Jourard)

General Limitations of the Social Identity Theory

Makes prejudice and discrimination appear almost inevitable

cf. self-categorization theory

Overemphasis on strategic, conscious social comparison processes

cf. automaticity in social comparison (e.g., Spears, et al., 2004)

Some Practical Implications to Psychology in Organizations

Some Practical Implications to Psychology in Organizations:

General Processes

In group contexts, the perceptions and behavior of individual workers will be directed more by their group membership than by their individuality

Mutual influence, persuasion, cooperation, and trust all increase to the extent that parties share a salient social identity

Shared social identity is the basis of a distinct and consensually embraced organizational culture


Leadership Even-handedness will undermine a leader’s

capacity to demonstrate leadership in many inter-group contexts

Leaders and followers must define themselves in terms of a shared social identity in order for leadership to emerge

Pay structures that are perceived to differentiate unfairly between leaders and followers (and which create a sense of “us” and “them”) will undermine leadership and group productivity


Motivation Loyalty, rule-following and extra-role behavior

increases when employees define themselves in terms of a relevant team or organizational identity

(Personal) self-actualization is associated with career commitment and personal advancement towards organizational roles

Attention to employees’ personal costs and benefits makes it harder to achieve substantial collaborative goals


Communication Information-sharing between parties

increase if they share a salient social identity

Barriers to communication increase across self-categorical boundaries

Enduring social identities lead groups to develop shared and distinctive communication practices


Decision-making

Group decisions are likely to be polarized under conditions of inter-group conflict

Group decisions based on a shared identity will be associated with enhanced desire for, and achievement of, consensus

Groups whose members have a strong sense of shared identity are more likely to make courageous decisions


Negotiation

Negotiated settlements to social conflict that are based only on personal relationships and understandings will tend to be short-lived

When their social identity is salient, parties’ satisfaction with negotiated outcomes increases if group-based differences have been addressed

Integrative solutions to group differences are more likely to be preceded by conflict than by concession-making


Power

Non-contingent treatment of employees (I.e. petty tyranny) increases where those employees are perceived to be an outgroup

Empowerment and power sharing will be increased when parties share a salient social identity

Power use will be interpreted more positively (e.g. as leadership) when it is perceived to be predicated on shared social identification


Group Productivity

Individuals in groups will tend to underperform when a relevant social identity is not salient or a group goal is prescribed by an outgroup

Labour will be divided more effectively if group members share a salient social identity

Productivity on a group task will increase to the extent that group goals are congruent with a salient social identity


Collective Action

Identification with a group increases an individual’s sensitivities to injustices against it

Tokenism reduces the likelihood of collective action

Shared social identification is a necessary pre-condition of collective action

Technology

Social identity theory etg2006