Social Identity

Social identity Social identity is a theory formed by Henri Tajfel and John Turner[1] to understand the psychological basis of intergroup discrimination. It is composed of four elements: •

Categorization: We often put others (and ourselves) into categories. Labeling someone a Muslim, a Turk, a Gimp or a soccer player are ways of saying other things about these people.

•

Identification: We also associate with certain groups (our ingroups), which serves to bolster our self-esteem.

•

Comparison: We compare our groups with other groups, seeing a favorable bias toward the group to which we belong.

•

Psychological Distinctiveness: We desire our identity to be both distinct from and positively compared with other groups[2].

As developed by Tajfel, 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 to outsiders. 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 behaviour. Reacting against individualistic explanations of group behaviour (e.g. Floyd Allport) on one hand, and tendencies to reify the group on the other, Tajfel sought an account of group identity that held together both society and individual. Tajfel first sought to differentiate between those elements of selfidentity derived from individual personality traits and interpersonal relationships (personal identity) and those elements derived from belonging to a particular group (social identity). Each individual is seen to have a repertoire of identities open to them (social and personal), each identity informing the individual of who he is and what this identity entails. Which of these many identities is most salient for an individual at any time will vary according to the social context. Tajfel then postulated that social behaviour exists on a spectrum from the purely interpersonal to the purely intergroup. Where personal identity is salient, the individual will relate to others in an interpersonal manner, dependent on their character traits and any personal relationship existing between the individuals. However, under certain conditions "social identity is more salient than personal identity in selfconception and that when this is the case behaviour is qualitatively different: it is group behaviour." "Social identities... are associated with normative rights, obligations and sanctions which, within specific collectivities, form roles. The use of

standardized markers, especially to do with the bodily attributes of age and gender, is fundamental in all societies, notwithstanding large cross-cultural variations which can be noted." by Giddens In the sphere of economics, two separate papers by Akerlof and Kranton[3][4] incorporate social identity factor to principal-agent model. The main conclusion is that when the agents consider themselves insiders, they will maximize their identity utility by exerting the high effort level comparing with the prescription behavior. On the other hand, if they consider themselves outsiders, they will require a higher wage to compensate their lose for behavior difference with prescription behaviors. While this macroeconomic theory deals exclusively with already well established categories of social identity, Laszlo Garai when applied the concept of social identity in the economic psychology[5] takes into consideration identities in statu nascendi[6]. This theory that is referred to the macro-processes based on a large-scale production later gets applied to the individual creativity's psychology: Garai derived it from the principal's and, resp., agent's identity elaboration. Chen and Li[7] test the social identity effect in the lab using strategic method and find that when people are matched with ingroup members, they will be more likely to have “charity” concern[8] and less likely to have “envy” concern. Another experiment conducted by Oxoby[9] has the same results with Chen and Li in the aspect of positive reciprocity, but in the negative reciprocity, evidences from Oxoby show that people will be more likely to take revenge when they get negative reciprocity from in-group members in sequential games, which leaves it as an open question in both experimental economics and social identity theory. History and Orientation Social Identity Theory was developed by Tajfel and Turner in 1979. The theory was originally developed to understand the psychological basis of intergroup discrimination. Tajfel et al (1971) attempted to identify the minimal conditions that would lead members of one group to discriminate in favor of the ingroup to which they belonged and against another outgroup. Core Assumptions and Statements In the Social Identity Theory, a person has not one, “personal self”, but rather several selves that correspond to widening circles of group membership. Different social contexts may trigger an individual to think, feel and act on basis of his personal, family or national “level of self” (Turner et al, 1987). Apart from the “level of self”, an individual has multiple “social identities”. Social identity is the individual’s self-concept derived from perceived membership of social groups (Hogg & Vaughan, 2002). In other words, it is an individual-based perception of what defines the “us” associated with any internalized group membership. This can be distinguished from the notion of personal identity which refers to self-

knowledge that derives from the individual’s unique attributes. Social Identity Theory asserts that group membership creates ingroup/ selfcategorization and enhancement in ways that favor the in-group at the expense of the out-group. The examples (minimal group studies) of Turner and Tajfel (1986) showed that the mere act of individuals categorizing themselves as group members was sufficient to lead them to display ingroup favoritism. After being categorized of a group membership, individuals seek to achieve positive self-esteem by positively differentiating their ingroup from a comparison outgroup on some valued dimension. This quest for positive distinctiveness means that people’s sense of who they are is defined in terms of ‘we’ rather than ‘I’. Tajfel and Turner (1979) identify three variables whose contribution to the emergence of ingroup favoritism is particularly important. A) the extent to which individuals identify with an ingroup to internalize that group membership as an aspect of their self-concept. B) the extent to which the prevailing context provides ground for comparison between groups. C) the perceived relevance of the comparison group, which itself will be shaped by the relative and absolute status of the ingroup. Individuals are likely to display favoritism when an ingroup is central to their self-definition and a given comparison is meaningful or the outcome is contestable. Conceptual Model Haslam, Alexander S. (2001), Psychology in Organizations - The Social Identitty Approach, Sage Publications Ltd, London. Chapter 2: The Social Identity Approach, pp. 26-57 Favorite Methods Experiments. Scope and Application Social Identity Theory has a considerable impact on social psychology. It is tested in a wide range of fields and settings and includes prejudice, stereotyping, negotiation and language use. The theory has also implications on the way people deal with social and organizational change. Example In further research this example is referred to minimal group studies. Schoolboys were assigned to groups, which were intended as meaningless as possible. They were assigned randomly, excluding roles of interpersonal discrimination such as history of conflict, personal animosity or interdependence. The schoolboys assigned points to anonymous members of both their own group and the other group. Conclusions were that even the most minimal conditions were sufficient to encourage ingroup-favoring

responses. Participants picked a reward pair that awarded more points to people who were identified as ingroup members. In other words, they displayed ingroup favoritism.