A group to which a person belongs and with which he or he feels a sense of identity

5 Self-Categorization (and Social Identity) Theory

Social identity theory was proposed in social psychology by Tajfel and his colleagues (Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Social identity refers to the ways that people's self-concepts are based on their membership in social groups. Examples include sports teams, religions, nationalities, occupations, sexual orientation, ethnic groups, and gender. (As discussed earlier in the chapter, psychologists’ identification with a particular theoretical approach can also constitute a social identity.) Social identity theory addresses the ways that social identities affect people's attitudes and behaviors regarding their ingroup and the outgroup. Social identities are most influential when individuals consider membership in a particular group to be central to their self-concept and they feel strong emotional ties to the group. Affiliation with a group confers self-esteem, which helps to sustain the social identity. Some key processes associated with important social identities include within-group assimilation (pressures to conform to the ingroup's norms) and forms of intergroup bias (positively evaluating one's ingroup relative to outgroup [i.e., ingroup favoritism] and possibly negatively evaluating the outgroup). In developmental psychology, social identity theory has been used to explain conformity and socialization in peer groups (e.g., Archer, 1992; Harris, 1995; Leaper, 2000) and group-based prejudice (e.g., Bigler & Liben, 2007; Nesdale, 2004).

Theory and research on social identity complemented psychology's historical emphasis on personal identity (e.g., Erikson, 1968; Marcia, 1980). Whereas social identity refers to people's self-categorizations in relation to their group memberships (the “we”), personal identity refers to the unique ways that people define themselves as individuals (the “I”). For example, this might include people's personal interests and values. To incorporate both domains, Turner and his colleagues (Turner, 1985; Turner et al., 1987) introduced self-categorization theory. That is, people's self-concepts (i.e., self-categorizations) comprise both personal identity and social identity. Depending on the social context, one's personal or social identity may be more salient for the person (Hewstone, Rubin, & Willis, 2002). For example, when alone or interacting with a close friend, personal identity may guide behavior. In contrast, when interacting with a group of peers on the playground, social identity may be more important. Research indicates that group stereotyping and prejudice are more likely when social identities are salient; conversely, downplaying the salience of intergroup differences can mitigate prejudice (Bigler & Liben, 2006; Hewstone et al., 2002). For example, assigning children from different social groups (e.g., based on gender or race/ethnicity) to work cooperatively on a task can reduce prejudice.

3.3.1 Positive distinctiveness

Social identity theory offers a motivational explanation for in-group bias. First, judgments about self as a group member are held to be associated with the outcome of social comparisons between the in-group and relevant out-groups. Second, it is assumed that people desire a satisfactory self-image, and positive self-esteem. Positive self-evaluation as a group member can be achieved by ensuring that the in-group is positively distinctive from the out-group. Usually group members will engage in social competition with out-groups to try to make the in-group positively distinctive. For example, in minimal group experiments, people show a consistent bias both towards maximizing in-group profit and toward maximizing differential profit in favor of the in-group, even when the total in-group profit suffers. The theory does not argue that material considerations are unimportant, but that the symbolic meaning of the group's position relative to other groups is a powerful motivating consideration.

Social Identity Theory

Social Identity Theory considers how group membership is incorporated into our self-concept and how this affects our views of other members and nonmembers of our groups as well as members of rival groups. The theory has been used extensively in considering in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination but has received only minimal attention with respect to substance use. Specifically, social identity has been found to moderate the influence of others on substance use. For example, perceptions of the prevalence and approval of drinking among other members of one's group have been found to be more strongly associated with one's own drinking when the individual identifies more closely with the group. Identification with others augments their influence on us. In considering social groups among high school students, an athlete should be more influenced by other athletes, whereas drama club students should be more influenced by other drama club students. Identification with other substance users is highly correlated with personal substance use behavior. This is likely due in part to selection (substance users seek affiliation with other substance users) and socialization (affiliation with other substance users influences substance use). In sum, the people with whom we most strongly identify have the largest influence on our behavior.

Personal and collective motives in social identity theory

Social identity theory proposed the valuable distinction between individual and collective responses to social disadvantage and presented them as incompatible (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). This incompatibility stems from their conceptualization as emerging from different mindsets and having very different consequences for the individuals and groups involved. From a social identity perspective, individual responses warrant an individual mobility mindset in which hierarchical relations in society are perceived to be legitimate and stable, but permeable. With an individual mobility mindset, people try to improve their individual position, because they believe that is the only way in which their social standing can be improved. Collective responses, by contrast, require a social change mindset in which hierarchical group relations in society are seen as unstable, illegitimate, and not permeable. In such a situation, individual mobility cannot take place, and the improvement of one’s social standing can only emerge through social change. Importantly, what matters for a strategy to qualify as collective is not that it is engaged in conjunction with other people, but that it is done on behalf of the group as a whole (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Therefore, members of disadvantaged groups with a social change mindset attempt to improve the status of their group through collective action, irrespective of whether they do so on their own or accompanied by other ingroup members (Wright, 2001).

Research provided ample evidence for the links between socio-structural conditions and associated mindsets (individual mobility vs social change mindsets), group identification, and behavioral intentions. In addition, it has been demonstrated that social systems that foster one type of (individual or collective) response tend to inhibit the other (Ellemers, 2001; Wright, 2001, but see Tausch, Saguy & Bryson, 2015). For instance, individual mobility attempts (leaving one’s disadvantaged group) have been shown to reduce group identification and to reduce collective action intentions (e.g., Ellemers, 2001; Wright, 2001).

Intergroup Gender Bias

Social identity theory and cognitive theories of gender development would predict that with knowledge of and identification with a gender category there should be a corresponding increase in gender bias. Young children's favoritism for their own gender group has been documented as remarkably robust with reportedly higher preference and liking for members of their own gender over others (Martin and Ruble, 2010). They also tend to rate their own gender more positively (e.g., smart, friendly) and less negatively than other genders. These patterns have been found across multiple nations (e.g., US, Canada, Wales, Italy), ethnic groups (African-American, Latinx, Chinese-American, European-American), and socioeconomic groups (low-income to upper middle-income). Empirical evidence suggests in-group (same-gender) bias thrives and persists well into middle childhood. Interestingly, while most children's groups show gender bias, some groups may have heightened gender bias. Multiple studies have found that girls show stronger gender bias than boys (see Halim et al., 2017). Although the reasons are unknown, the differences may relate to gender stereotypes: girls are seen as ‘good,’ whereas boys are ‘bad’ (Heyman, 2001). On some measures, two separate studies also found evidence for Latinx children showing greater gender bias than Chinese-, European-, and African-American children (Halim et al., 2017; Halim et al., 2019). For Latinx children, gender categories may be more emphasized and distinct than in other cultural groups. Few studies have directly tested whether children's gender knowledge and identification predicts higher gender intergroup bias. Recently, Halim et al. (2017) found that, consistent with a few other studies (Egan and Perry, 2001; Susskind and Hodges, 2007), 5-year-olds’ stronger private regard was associated with more biased gender attitudes. Conversely, more flexibility in gender knowledge (e.g., less gender stereotyping) was associated with less biased gender attitudes. Additionally, having a greater number of friendships with children from the other gender and increases in such friendships over time have been found to lead to more positive attitudes toward the other gender a year later (Halim et al., 2019; Zosuls et al., 2011).

Social Standing

Social identity theory suggests that individuals tend to categorize other people on the basis of characteristics such as educational attainment as a means of self-comparison. Differences in relative standing – whether due to less education or less wealth – can be a source of anger, envy, or stress. The long human history of bloody wars fought over social class, such as the Bolshevik Revolution, suggests both that these feelings can be powerful and that they can have direct consequences for health and mortality. It has been suggested that the modern manifestations of lower social standing include both internalized physiological disruptions and crime. This hypothesis was initially drawn from heavily confounded ecological studies assessing the effects of income inequality on mortality and crime, but it is now supported by a stronger base of outcome measures and research designs.

The idea that social status affects health came to light in studies of government workers in England. These studies found that, among persons with good jobs in the same government department and equal access to healthcare, occupational class was still inversely linked to premature mortality. More surprisingly, this health gradient extended all the way into white-collar jobs; even those with high-level jobs were at greater risk of premature mortality than those in the most prestigious jobs. Similar gradients were subsequently found for income and education, and these gradients have been observed in a wide variety of cultural and economic contexts. In fact, it is possible that the social prestige conferred by an educational degree is a more important determinant of life expectancy than the skills acquired with each year of education (see Figure 2).

These findings are corroborated by animal studies. Primates, low in social standing, measured in part by the size of the animals and dominance behavior, have higher levels of cholesterol and higher levels of stress mediators. When a dominant male is removed, the subordinate's laboratory tests improve. Likewise, when a dominant male is put among still larger males, his laboratory tests deteriorate. Such findings are, of course, only consistent among stable social hierarchies. Dominant primates whose authority is constantly challenged show opposite results, but most human primate hierarchies (e.g., corporate or government offices) more closely resemble stable nonhuman primate hierarchies than unstable ones.

The implications of social-standing research for education policy are unclear. All of human society is hierarchical, and the top and bottom of the hierarchy may be better delimited by those in one's immediate environment than by the relative social distance between the wealthiest and poorest members of society.

Distinctiveness threat

Social identity theory posits that people strive to achieve and maintain a sense of positive distinctiveness for their group memberships (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Positive distinctiveness entails feeling both valuable and distinct vis-à-vis other groups. The drive to view our ingroups favorably makes intuitive sense from a self-esteem perspective, but distinctiveness also serves an epistemic function. Group memberships allow us to “know” ourselves by making intergroup comparisons with similar outgroups. However, when the ingroup and outgroup being compared are too similar, the insufficient contrast between groups thwarts their value as tools for self-knowledge. When “they” are too similar to “us,” the distinction between these categories ceases to be meaningful; this dilemma is the heart of distinctiveness threat (Branscombe, Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 1999).

People experience losses to ingroup distinctiveness negatively in part because these losses can arouse anxiety about the ingroup’s future viability as a separate entity. Social identity theory predicts that group members’ responses to distinctiveness loss, such as cultural assimilation, will depend on their degree of identification with the relevant subgroup; low identifiers tend to assimilate more readily, and high identifiers tend to resist assimilation by showing greater self-stereotyping (Spears, Doosje, & Ellemers, 1997) and ingroup bias (Jetten, Spears, & Manstead, 1997). This is particularly relevant for minority group members whose identities often become overshadowed by the majority group’s culture and values. For example, immigrants who move to the United States and attempt to use a language other than English often encounter pressure to assimilate by only speaking English in public.

Wohl, Giguère, Branscombe, and McVicar (2011) demonstrated in a series of experiments that people exposed to distinctiveness threat, relative to those in a control condition, reported higher levels of support for policies aimed to maintain the ingroup’s distinctiveness by distancing it from the relevant outgroup. One of these experiments manipulated distinctiveness threat by exposing some participants, French Canadians, to a newspaper article about the merging of French Canadian and Anglophonic culture (distinctiveness threat condition), and exposing the remaining participants to an article about the geography of Quebec (control condition). The researchers measured self-reported desire for Quebec sovereignty as the primary outcome, because sovereignty from the rest of Canada would allow French Canadians to maintain their group’s distinctiveness. As the authors predicted, group identification moderated the effect of the distinctiveness threat manipulation on concerns about the group’s future and desire for Quebec sovereignty as an entity separate from Canada. High identifiers in the distinctiveness threat condition reported greater concerns about the group’s future and greater desire for sovereignty than low identifiers in the same condition. In addition, support was found for a model in which the effect of distinctiveness threat on support for ingroup protective action (Quebec sovereignty from Canada) was moderated by group identification and mediated by concerns about the group’s future. These findings demonstrate the importance of distinctiveness threat and its potential consequences for distancing from a higher order inclusive identity.

Such distinctiveness motives have implications for interminority relations. Indeed, research shows that the relative position of different minorities within society vis-à-vis the mainstream affects attitudes toward other minorities (White, Schmitt, & Langer, 2006). White et al. demonstrated that minority group members expressed more negative attitudes toward a more mainstream, compared to a less mainstream, similar minority outgroup. These negative evaluations occur because a similar minority outgroup that bears too much resemblance to the mainstream threatens the distinctiveness of the minority group. For example, vegans may evaluate vegetarians negatively because they blur the boundaries between the mainstream, omnivores, and the minority.

In sum, merging with members of other groups to form a superordinate group can trigger social identity threat (Branscombe et al., 1999). Threat to the distinctiveness of a social identity is particularly relevant to a discussion of solidarity, because, as we have argued in this chapter, perceived similarity promotes solidarity. Greater perceived similarity can also instigate distinctiveness threat, and this effect occurs most strongly for high identifiers (Spears et al., 1997).

Although subgroup identification positively predicts ingroup bias and susceptibility to distinctiveness threat, it does not necessarily deter identification with a superordinate group. Huo and Molina (2006) suggest perceptions of subgroup respect, defined as “…feelings that one’s subgroup is recognized, accepted, and valued by the members of the common group…” (p. 360), play an important role in shaping how subgroup members respond to the prospect of more inclusive categorization. They describe two perspectives to illustrate this dilemma. First, from an assimilationist perspective, subgroup members must disidentify with their subgroup before they can fully commit to the superordinate group; this view holds that identification with the subgroup acts as an obstacle to identification with a superordinate group. Second, from a pluralistic perspective, subgroup members can maintain high levels of identification with both groups; this view holds that strong subgroup identification only deters identification with the superordinate group when subgroup members perceive a lack of respect from the larger group. Consistent with this pluralistic perspective, Huo and Molina (2006) found that greater perceptions of societal respect toward one’s ethnic subgroup in the United States were associated with more positive affect toward Americans, less distrust of the justice system, and less subgroup favoritism. These findings offer hope for the formation and maintenance of more inclusive categories.

Encouraging sufficient commonality between groups to build solidarity, while avoiding distinctiveness threat, requires a delicate balancing act. Overcoming the tension between these competing forces presents a major obstacle for those attempting to apply this knowledge. We recommend careful attention to perceptions of subgroup respect as one promising means of attenuating distinctiveness threat. Feeling that one’s subgroup membership is valued and respected by the superordinate group should combat this tendency to reject more inclusive categorization when people experience distinctiveness threat.

C Social Identity and Social Cognitive Theory

Social identity theory proposed by Tajfel and Turner (1986) suggests that individuals experience collective identity based on their membership in a group, such as racial/ethnic and gender identities. Social identity leads individuals to categorize themselves and other salient groups into “us” versus “them.” Self-categorization based on group membership might be so salient that it can get activated automatically even with subtle stimuli. To maintain positive social identity, people engage in intergroup comparisons that demonstrate a favorable bias toward their in-group, display discriminatory behaviors toward out-groups, and use coping mechanisms such as internal/external causal attributions for group failures (Brewer, 1979; Brewer, Manzi, & Shaw, 1993; Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Hewstone, 1990).

Media stereotyping studies have applied social identity perspectives to understand effects on both majority and minority group members. Group identity is especially salient for members of minority groups, and studies show that they prefer content featuring members of their minority in-groups in the media (Appiah, 2001, 2002; Fujioka, 2005). Audience members from minority groups are conscious of features that might mark them as distinct from the majority group and are particularly sensitive to how they are represented in popular media, in which they are often typically invisible. According to the ethnolinguistic identity theory, viewing media programs that feature members of their group increases their in-group vitality, especially when depicted in a positive light (Abrams, Eveland, & Giles, 2003; Giles, Bourhis, & Taylor, 1977).

With regard to research on majority group members, when media representations of out-groups “accommodate” in-group norms, minority group members in real-life are evaluated less stereotypically (Coover, 2001). Media stereotyping serves as an avenue for categorizing other groups, especially when the stereotype serves the in-group positively and the out-group negatively. For example, Mastro (2003) showed that White audiences, especially those with higher racial identification, would have a greater tendency to judge Latinos in a negative light after exposure to televised portrayals of Latino criminality and also reported higher self-esteem when exposed to Latino criminality on television.

Another theoretical perspective that tries to integrate real-world experiences with mediated ones in shaping identities and behaviors is the social cognitive theory. It suggests that people cognitively process information and internalize responses to situations based on observations, even when they do not experience them firsthand, and adapt them to their own contexts (Bandura, 1977, 2002). Although very complex and broad in scope, some key concepts from this theory, such as abstract modeling, inhibitory and disinhibitory processes, vicarious learning, and positive/negative reinforcement, have been applied to media stereotyping studies. For example, Ortiz and Harwood (2007) examined whether positive intergroup interactions role-modeled in the media would lead to positive attitudinal outcomes through abstract modeling and identification. Fujioka (1999) found that the nature of vicarious contact (positive or negative) with African-Americans via television portrayals shaped Japanese international students’ attitudes toward this group. Behm-Morawitz and Mastro (2009) found that sexualized portrayals of female characters in video games can negatively influence self-esteem and self-efficacy in female gamers. Ward and Friedman (2006) found that adolescents who viewed stereotypical media portrayals of women as sex objects were more likely to be supportive of sexist behaviors.

Identity

According to social identity theory (Hogg, 2006), people categorize themselves into different social categories to build their own social identity. Thus, groups like sport teams are more or less part of this identity. The underlying social categories are built from prototypical attributes of other group members. Attributes can be norms, rules, and values, but also perceptions, feelings, and behaviors (Zepp, Kleinert, & Liebscher, 2013). According to the social identity theory, it could be expected that a group identity within a sport team, which is shared by the majority of the members, will have positive influence on the team’s performance, but also on other team-related constructs. Until today, no scientific studies exist in sport that aim to link team identity to team performance. Still, team identity was shown to have positive correlations with group cohesion (Carron, Colman, Wheeler, & Stevens, 2002) and effective team leading (Cremer, van Dijke, & Mayer, 2010).

4.4 Identification and Strategies for Escaping an Unsatisfactory Social Identity

A central idea in social identity theory is that biased intergroup comparisons are directly linked to social identification. Presumably, the more important a group is to its members, the more bias group members should show in its favor. However, in many studies, there have been rather unstable correlations between group identification and in-group bias. Hinkle and Brown suggested that the psychological processes proposed by social identity theory might not be operative in all groups. They hypothesized that this would depend on the prevailing level of individualism or collectivism in the group or group members, on the one hand, and their inclination to engage in intergroup comparisons, on the other. Group comparisons may be more important for relational groups (e.g., sports teams) and less important for autonomous groups (e.g., families). A strong link between group identification and in-group favoritism would be expected only in groups simultaneously characterized by collectivist and relational orientations. Some support has been found for this idea.

For low-status groups, the outcome of available group comparisons is often negative for their self-esteem. One reaction to this is simply to leave the group, and there are many examples of members of “inferior” groups distancing themselves physically or psychologically from their groups. Such an individualist strategy of social mobility might not always be possible, especially if the group boundaries are relatively fixed and impermeable, as is the case with many ethnic and religious groups. In cases such as this, social identity theory suggests that a number of other avenues may be pursued. One is to limit the comparisons made to other similar or subordinate groups. Another is to sidestep the main dimensions of comparison and to either invent new dimensions or change the value of existing dimensions. These ways are expressions of social creativity. Yet another route is to directly confront the dominant group’s superiority by agitating for social and economic change.

Which of these tactics will be chosen might well depend on the prevailing social climate. If it is such that no real alternatives to the status quo may be conceived, subordinate groups are unlikely to openly challenge the existing order and attempt social change. A key factor in generating social unrest among subordinate groups is a sense of relative deprivation, either in relation to their own groups in the past or (more often) in relation to the dominant group. The implications of broader social and cultural influences for intergroup bias are discussed further in the next two sections.