Social identity theory
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 social psychologists Henri Tajfel and John Turner in the 1970s and the 1980s,[3] social identity theory introduced the concept of a social identity as a way in which to explain intergroup behaviour.[4][5][6] "Social identity theory explores the phenomenon of the 'ingroup' and 'outgroup', and is based on the view that identities are constituted through a process of difference defined in a relative or flexible way depends on the activities in which one engages."[7] This theory is described as a theory that predicts certain intergroup behaviours on the basis of perceived group status differences, the perceived legitimacy and stability of those status differences, and the perceived ability to move from one group to another.[4][6] This contrasts with occasions where the term "social identity theory" is used to refer to general theorizing about human social selves.[8] Moreover, and although some researchers have treated it as such,[9][10][11] 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][6][12] which built on the insights of social identity theory to produce a more general account of self and group processes.[3][6]
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.[6][12][13] Social identity theory suggests that an organization can change individual behaviours if it can modify their self-identity or part of their self-concept that derives from the knowledge of, and emotional attachment to the group.[4]
Controversies[edit]
Self-esteem hypothesis[edit]
Social identity theory proposes that people are motivated to achieve and maintain positive concepts of themselves. Some researchers, including Michael Hogg and Dominic Abrams, thus 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 to in-group bias in two ways. Firstly, successful intergroup discrimination elevates self-esteem. Secondly, depressed or threatened self-esteem promotes intergroup discrimination.[45][46] Empirical support for these predictions has been mixed.[21][47]
Some social identity theorists, including John Turner, consider the self-esteem hypothesis as not canonical to social identity theory.[19][21] In fact, the self-esteem hypothesis is argued to be conflictual with the tenets of the theory.[6][19][48] It is argued that the self-esteem hypothesis misunderstands the distinction between a social identity and a personal identity. Along those lines, John Turner and Penny Oakes argue against an interpretation of positive distinctiveness as a straightforward need for self-esteem or "quasi-biological drive toward prejudice".[48] They instead favour a somewhat more complex conception of positive self-concept as a reflection of the ideologies and social values of the perceiver. Additionally, it is argued that the self-esteem hypothesis neglects the alternative strategies to maintaining a positive self-concept that are articulated in social identity theory (i.e., individual mobility and social creativity).[6][19][34]
Positive-negative asymmetry[edit]
In what has been dubbed the Positive-Negative Asymmetry Phenomenon, researchers have shown that punishing the out-group benefits self-esteem less than rewarding the in-group.[49] From this finding it has been extrapolated that social identity theory is therefore unable to deal with bias on negative dimensions. Social identity theorists, 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".[50] This important qualification is subtly present in social identity theory, but is further developed in self-categorization theory. Empirical support for this perspective exist. It has been shown that when experiment participants can self-select negative dimensions that define the ingroup no positive–negative asymmetry is found.[51]
Intergroup similarity[edit]
It has been posited that social identity theory suggests that similar groups should have an increased motivation to differentiate themselves from each other.[46][52] 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.[46] Elsewhere it has been suggested that this apparent inconsistency may be resolved by attending to social identity theory's emphasis on the importance of the perceived stability and legitimacy of the intergroup status hierarchy.[52]
Predictive power[edit]
Social identity theory has been criticised for having far greater explanatory power than predictive power.[26][15][53] 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. A rebuttal to this charge is that the theory was never advertised as the definitive answer to understanding intergroup relationships. Instead it is stated that social identity theory must go hand in hand with sufficient understanding of the specific social context under consideration.[6][19][54] 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]
SIT-lite[edit]
Some researchers interpret social identity theory as drawing a direct link between identification with a social group and ingroup favoritism.[55][56][57][58][59] This is because social identity theory was proposed as a way of explaining the ubiquity of ingroup favoritism in the minimal group paradigm. For example, Charles Stangor and John Jost state that "a main premise of social identity theory is that ingroup members will favour their own group over other groups".[60] This interpretation is rejected by other researchers.[6][12][19][34][61][62][63] For example, Alex Haslam states that "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".[64] The likening of social identity theory with social competition and ingroup favouritism is partly attributable to the fact that early statements of the theory included empirical examples of ingroup favouritism, while alternative positive distinctiveness strategies (e.g., social creativity) were at that stage theoretical assertions.[8] Regardless, in some circles the prediction of a straightforward identification-bias correlation has earned the pejorative title "social identity theory-lite".[62] This raises the problem of whether social identity theory really does explain the ubiquity of ingroup favoritism in the minimal group paradigm without making recourse to "the generic norm hypothesis" originally proposed by Tajfel but later abandoned.