Social identity theory

Last updated

Social identity is the portion of an individual's self-concept derived from perceived membership in a relevant social group. [1] [2]

Contents

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]

Development

Social scientist William Graham Sumner Photo of William Graham Sumner.jpg
Social scientist William Graham Sumner
Social psychologist Henri Tajfel Henri Tajfel.jpg
Social psychologist Henri Tajfel

Historical background

The term 'social identity theory' achieved academic currency only in the late 1970s, but the basic underlying concepts associated with it had emerged by the early twentieth century. William G. Sumner, writing in 1906, captures the primary dynamics in this excerpt from his influential work Folkways: A Study of the Sociological Importance of Usages, Manners, Customs, Mores, and Morals:

"Loyalty to the group, sacrifice for it, hatred and contempt for outsiders, brotherhood within, warlikeness without,—all grow together, common products of the same situation. ... Men of an others-group are outsiders with whose ancestors the ancestors of the we-group waged war. ... Each group nourishes its own pride and vanity, boasts itself superior, exalts its own divinities, and looks with contempt on outsiders. Each group thinks its own folkways the only right ones, and if it observes that other groups have other folkways, these excite its scorn." [14]

By the late 1920s the collectivist perspective had all but disappeared from mainstream social psychology. [15] Over fifty years later, around the time of the first formal use of the term 'social identity theory', Tajfel wrote this on the state of social psychology:

"Thus, social categorization is still conceived as a haphazardly floating 'independent variable' which strikes at random as the spirit moves it. No links are made or attempted, between the conditions determining its presence and mode of operation, and its outcomes in widely diffused commonalities of social behaviour. Why, when and how is social categorisation salient or not salient? What kind of shared constructions of social reality, mediated through social categorization, lead to a social climate in which large masses of people feel they are in long-term conflict with other masses? What, for example, are the psychological transitions from a stable to an unstable social system?" (Original emphasis, p. 188) [16]

Thus, social identity theory in part reflects a desire to reestablish a more collectivist approach to social psychology of the self and social groups. [15]

Aspects

Henri Tajfel suggests that soldiers of opposing armies, fighting outside of view, is an illustrative example of behaviour at the extreme intergroup end of the intergroup-interpersonal continuum (shown: U.S. Marines in Fallujah, 2004). 4-14 Marines in Fallujah.jpg
Henri Tajfel suggests that soldiers of opposing armies, fighting outside of view, is an illustrative example of behaviour at the extreme intergroup end of the intergroup-interpersonal continuum (shown: U.S. Marines in Fallujah, 2004).

The interpersonal-intergroup continuum

Social identity theory states that social behaviour will want a person to change their behaviour while in a group. It varies along a continuum between interpersonal behaviour and intergroup behaviour. Completely interpersonal behaviour would be behaviour determined solely by the individual characteristics and interpersonal relationships that exists between only two people. Completely intergroup behaviour would be behaviour determined solely by the social category memberships that apply to more than two people. [4] The authors of social identity theory state that purely interpersonal or purely intergroup behaviour is unlikely to be found in realistic social situations. Rather, behaviour is expected to be driven by a compromise between the two extremes. [4] [17] The cognitive nature of personal vs. social identities, and the relationship between them, is more fully developed in self-categorization theory. [3] [18] [19] [20] Social identity theory instead focuses on the social structural factors that will predict which end of the spectrum will most influence an individual's behaviour, along with the forms that the behaviour may take. [6] [12] [19]

Positive distinctiveness

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] [12] As individuals to varying degrees may be defined and informed by their respective social identities (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] The precise nature of this striving for positive self-concept is a matter of debate (see the self-esteem hypothesis). [6] [19] [21] [22] 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 in-group in contrast to an out-group at the expense of personal self-interest. [23] Social identity matters because it shapes people's self-perceptions and interpersonal relationships. Favorable self-perception increases the likelihood that an individual would relate well to other members of the group and experience favorable feelings about themselves. People's perceptions of themselves are shaped by the group they identify with more strongly. Getting status within the group can make people feel more confident, content, and respected since belonging to that group becomes significant for how they view themselves and their talents.[ citation needed ]

The "black is beautiful" movement and the associated African American embrace of African hairdos (like afros), culture, traditions, and music was provided by Tajfel and colleagues as an example of the cognitive creativity of low-status groups in the face of stable intergroup relations (shown: Lauryn Hill, 2005). LaurynHill cropped.jpg
The "black is beautiful" movement and the associated African American embrace of African hairdos (like afros), culture, traditions, and music was provided by Tajfel and colleagues as an example of the cognitive creativity of low-status groups in the face of stable intergroup relations (shown: Lauryn Hill, 2005).

Positive distinctiveness strategies

Building on the above components, social identity theory details a variety of strategies that may be invoked in order to achieve positive distinctiveness. 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 (e.g., whether a group member may pass from a low status group into a high status group), as well as the perceived stability and legitimacy of the intergroup status hierarchy. [4] [12] The self-enhancing strategies detailed in social identity theory are detailed below. 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. [12]

Individual mobility

It is predicted that under conditions where the group boundaries are considered permeable individuals are more likely to engage in individual mobility strategies. [4] [12] That is, individuals "disassociate from the group and pursue individual goals designed to improve their personal lot rather than that of their ingroup". [27]

Social creativity

Where group boundaries are considered impermeable, and where status relations are considered reasonably stable, individuals are predicted to engage in social creativity behaviours. Here, low-status ingroup members are still able to increase their positive distinctiveness without necessarily changing the objective resources of the ingroup or the outgroup. 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. [4] [12]

Social competition

Here an ingroup seeks positive distinctiveness and requires positive differentiation via direct competition with the outgroup in the form of ingroup favoritism. [28] 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 when group boundaries are considered impermeable, and when status relations are considered to be reasonably unstable. [4] [12] Although not privileged in the theory, it is this positive distinctiveness strategy that has received the greatest amount of attention. [29] [30]

Political psychology

In political science, social identity theory has been incorporated as the subconsitituency politics theory of representation. [31] This theory holds that political elites are individually rational, and they use identity instrumentally to cultivate minimum winning constituencies (e.g., via the "microtargeting" of ads). An example of microtargeting is Russian use of social media advertising alleged to have influenced the United States 2016 presidential election. [32] Separately, a recent Science Advances article validates a computational model of in-group favoritism and political economy developed by Princeton political scientist Nolan McCarty using public opinion polling data. [33]

Implications

Ingroup favoritism

In-group favoritism (also known as "ingroup bias", despite Turner's objections to the term [19] ) 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 permeability). [4] [34] 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, sexual orientation, and first languages). [35] [36]

Continued study into the relationship between social categorization and ingroup favoritism has explored the relative prevalences of the ingroup favoritism vs. outgroup discrimination, [37] explored different manifestations of ingroup favoritism, [34] [38] and has explored the relationship between ingroup favoritism and other psychological constraints (e.g., existential threat). [39]

System justification theory was originally proposed by John Jost and Mahzarin Banaji in 1994 to build on social identity theory and to understand important deviations from ingroup favoritism, such as outgroup favoritism on the part of members of disadvantaged groups (Jost & Banaji, 1994; Jost, 2020).

Social identity threat was also inspired by social identity theory and developed by Branscombe and colleagues in 1999 as a mechanism to understand and explain the different types of threats that arise from group identity being threatened. [40]

Prosocial behaviors

Social identification can lead individuals to engage in prosocial behaviours towards others. [41] Examples include contexts such as food drives [42] or even shared purchasing patterns, as might occur for motorcycle riders. [43] Interestingly, consumers may have sub-identities that are nested into a larger identity. As a result, "[w]hen consumers identify with the overall community, they assist other consumers. However, consumers are less likely to help consumers in the overall community when identifying with a subgroup". [43]

Reluctance to bet against identity-relevant outcomes

Social identities are a valued aspect of the self, and people will sacrifice their pecuniary self-interest to maintain the self-perception that they belong to a given social group. Political partisans and fans of sports teams (e.g., Republicans and Democrats, or MLB, NFL, NCAA fans) are reluctant to bet against the success of their party or team because of the diagnostic cost such a bet would incur to their identification with it. As a result, partisans and fans will reject even very favorable bets against identity-relevant desired outcomes. More than 45% of N.C.A.A. basketball and hockey fans, for example, turned down a free, real chance to earn $5 if their team lost its upcoming game. [44]

Controversies

Self-esteem hypothesis

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

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

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

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

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.[ citation needed ]

See also

Related Research Articles

The out-group homogeneity effect is the perception of out-group members as more similar to one another than are in-group members, e.g. "they are alike; we are diverse". Perceivers tend to have impressions about the diversity or variability of group members around those central tendencies or typical attributes of those group members. Thus, outgroup stereotypicality judgments are overestimated, supporting the view that out-group stereotypes are overgeneralizations. The term "outgroup homogeneity effect", "outgroup homogeneity bias" or "relative outgroup homogeneity" have been explicitly contrasted with "outgroup homogeneity" in general, the latter referring to perceived outgroup variability unrelated to perceptions of the ingroup.

In-group favoritism, sometimes known as in-group–out-group bias, in-group bias, intergroup bias, or in-group preference, is a pattern of favoring members of one's in-group over out-group members. This can be expressed in evaluation of others, in allocation of resources, and in many other ways.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">In-group and out-group</span> Sociological notions

In sociology and social psychology, an in-group is a social group to which a person psychologically identifies as being a member. By contrast, an out-group is a social group with which an individual does not identify. People may for example identify with their peer group, family, community, sports team, political party, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or nation. It has been found that the psychological membership of social groups and categories is associated with a wide variety of phenomena.

System justification theory is a theory within social psychology that system-justifying beliefs serve a psychologically palliative function. It proposes that people have several underlying needs, which vary from individual to individual, that can be satisfied by the defense and justification of the status quo, even when the system may be disadvantageous to certain people. People have epistemic, existential, and relational needs that are met by and manifest as ideological support for the prevailing structure of social, economic, and political norms. Need for order and stability, and thus resistance to change or alternatives, for example, can be a motivator for individuals to see the status quo as good, legitimate, and even desirable.

The minimal group paradigm is a method employed in social psychology. Although it may be used for a variety of purposes, it is best known as a method for investigating the minimal conditions required for discrimination to occur between groups. Experiments using this approach have revealed that even arbitrary distinctions between groups, such as preferences for certain paintings, or the color of their shirts, can trigger a tendency to favor one's own group at the expense of others, even when it means sacrificing in-group gain.

Stephen Alexander "Alex" Haslam is a professor of psychology and ARC Australian Laureate Fellow in the School of Psychology at the University of Queensland.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Henri Tajfel</span> Polish-born British psychologist (1919–1982)

Henri Tajfel was a Polish social psychologist, best known for his pioneering work on the cognitive aspects of prejudice and social identity theory, as well as being one of the founders of the European Association of Experimental Social Psychology.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Black sheep</span> Idiom for oddness or disreputability

In the English language, black sheep is an idiom that describes a member of a group who is different from the rest, especially a family member who does not fit in. The term stems from sheep whose fleece is colored black rather than the more common white; these sheep stand out in the flock and their wool is worth less as it will not dye.

Stephen David Reicher is Bishop Wardlaw Professor of Social Psychology at the University of St Andrews.

Optimal distinctiveness is a social psychological theory seeking to understand ingroup–outgroup differences. It asserts that individuals desire to attain an optimal balance of inclusion and distinctiveness within and between social groups and situations. These two motives are in constant opposition with each other; when there is too much of one motive, the other must increase in order to counterbalance it and vice versa. The theory of optimal distinctiveness was first proposed by Dr. Marilynn B. Brewer in 1991 and extensively reviewed in 2010 by Drs. Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Cynthia L. Pickett, and Marilynn Brewer.

Self-categorization theory is a theory in social psychology that describes the circumstances under which a person will perceive collections of people as a group, as well as the consequences of perceiving people in group terms. Although the theory is often introduced as an explanation of psychological group formation, it is more accurately thought of as general analysis of the functioning of categorization processes in social perception and interaction that speaks to issues of individual identity as much as group phenomena. It was developed by John Turner and colleagues, and along with social identity theory it is a constituent part of the social identity approach. It was in part developed to address questions that arose in response to social identity theory about the mechanistic underpinnings of social identification.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stereotype</span> Generalized but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing

In social psychology, a stereotype is a generalized belief about a particular category of people. It is an expectation that people might have about every person of a particular group. The type of expectation can vary; it can be, for example, an expectation about the group's personality, preferences, appearance or ability. Stereotypes are often overgeneralized, inaccurate, and resistant to new information. A stereotype does not necessarily need to be a negative assumption. They may be positive, neutral, or negative.

In social psychology, self-stereotyping is a process by which an individual integrates and internalizes commonly held characterizations of an in-group into their self-concept. It is described as part of social identity theory (SIT) and, more specifically, self-categorization theory (SCT).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social identity approach</span> Research and theory pertaining to two intertwined, but distinct, social psychological theories.[

"Social identity approach" is an umbrella term designed to show that there are two methods used by academics to describe certain complex social phenomena- namely the dynamics between groups and individuals. Those two theoretical methods are called social identity theory and self-categorization theory. Experts describe them as two intertwined, but distinct, social psychological theories. The term "social identity approach" arose as an attempt to mitigate against the tendency to conflate the two theories, as well as the tendency to mistakenly believe one theory to be a component of the other. These theories should be thought of as overlapping. While there are similarities, self categorisation theory has greater explanatory scope and has been investigated in a broader range of empirical conditions. Self-categorization theory can also be thought of as developed to address limitations of social identity theory. Specifically the limited manner in which social identity theory deals with the cognitive processes that underpin the behaviour it describes. Although this term may be useful when contrasting broad social psychological movements, when applying either theory it is thought of as beneficial to distinguish carefully between the two theories in such a way that their specific characteristics can be retained.

John Charles Turner was a British social psychologist who, along with colleagues, developed the self-categorization theory. Amongst other things, the theory states that the self is not a foundational aspect of cognition, but rather that the self is an outcome of cognitive processes and an interaction between the person and the social context. The self-categorization theory was developed as a companion theory to the social identity theory, and the two theories taken together are known as the social identity approach.

Collective self-esteem is a concept originating in the field of psychology that describes the aspect of an individual's self-image that stems from how the individual interacts with others and the groups that the individual is a part of. The idea originated during the research of Jennifer Crocker, during which she was trying to learn about the connection between a person's self-esteem and their attitude towards or about the group that the person is part of.

There is a great deal of research on the factors that lead to the formation of prejudiced attitudes and beliefs. There is also a lot of research on the consequences of holding prejudiced beliefs and being the target of such beliefs. It is true that advances have been made in understanding the nature of prejudice. A consensus on how to end prejudice has yet to be established, but there are a number of scientifically examined strategies that have been developed in attempt to solve this social issue.

Intergroup relations refers to interactions between individuals in different social groups, and to interactions taking place between the groups themselves collectively. It has long been a subject of research in social psychology, political psychology, and organizational behavior.

In social psychology, social projection is the psychological process through which an individual expects behaviors or attitudes of others to be similar to their own. Social projection occurs between individuals as well as across ingroup and outgroup contexts in a variety of domains. Research has shown that aspects of social categorization affect the extent to which social projection occurs. Cognitive and motivational approaches have been used to understand the psychological underpinnings of social projection as a phenomenon. Cognitive approaches emphasize social projection as a heuristic, while motivational approaches contextualize social projection as a means to feel connected to others. In contemporary research on social projection, researchers work to further distinguish between the effects of social projection and self-stereotyping on the individual’s perception of others.

Social identity threat is a theory in social psychology derived from social identity theory to explain the different types of threats that arise from group identity being threatened as opposed to personal identity. This theory distinguishes between four distinct types of social identity threats: categorization threat, distinctiveness threat, threats to the value of social identity, and acceptance threat. Each type is associated with particular social contexts that make the threats more or less likely to occur. This theory emphasizes how the level of commitment with the social identity shapes the nature of the threat experienced.

References

  1. 1 2 Turner, John; Oakes, Penny (1986). "The significance of the social identity concept for social psychology with reference to individualism, interactionism and social influence". British Journal of Social Psychology. 25 (3): 237–252. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.1986.tb00732.x .
  2. ↑ Social Psychology in Action: Evidence-Based Interventions from Theory to Practice. Springer Link: Springer Nature. 2020. ISBN   978-3-030-13790-8. OCLC   1182516016. The thoughts and feelings that arise when you think about the group you belong to form your social identity.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 Turner, J. C.; Reynolds, K. J. (2010). "The story of social identity". In T. Postmes; N. Branscombe (eds.). Rediscovering Social Identity: Core Sources. Psychology Press.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Tajfel, H.; Turner, J. C. (1979). "An integrative theory of intergroup conflict". In W. G. Austin; S. Worchel (eds.). The social psychology of intergroup relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. pp. 33–47.
  5. ↑ Tajfel, H.; Turner, J. C. (1986). "The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour". In S. Worchel; W. G. Austin (eds.). Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall. pp. 7–24.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Turner, J. C. (1999). Ellemers, N.; Spears, R.; Doosje, B. (eds.). "Some current issues in research on social identity and self-categorization theories". Social Identity. Oxford: Blackwell: 6–34.
  7. ↑ Benwell, Bethan; Stokoe, Elizabeth (2006). Discourse and Identity. Edinburgh University Press. ISBN   978-0-7486-1749-4. JSTOR   10.3366/j.ctt1r2356.
  8. 1 2 Haslam, S. A.; Ellemers, N.; Reicher, S. D.; Reynolds, K. J.; Schmitt, M. T. (2010). Postmes, T.; Branscombe, N. R. (eds.). "The social identity perspective today: An overview of its defining ideas". Rediscovering Social Identity. Psychology Press: 341–356.
  9. ↑ Doosje, B.; Haslam, S. A. (2005). "What Have They Done for Us Lately? The Dynamics of Reciprocity in Intergroup Contexts". Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 35 (3): 508–535. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02133.x.
  10. ↑ Brown, R. J.; Zagefka, H. (2006). "Choice of comparisons in intergroup settings: the role of temporal information and comparison motives". European Journal of Social Psychology. 36 (5): 649–671. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.311 .
  11. ↑ Ashmore, R. D.; Deaux, K.; McLaughlin-Volpe, T. (2004). "An organizing framework for collective identity: Articulation and significance of multidimensionality". Psychological Bulletin. 130 (1): 80–114. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.1.80. PMID   14717651. S2CID   14130215.
  12. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Haslam, A. S. (2001). Psychology in Organizations. London, SAGE Publications. p 26-57
  13. ↑ Postmes, T. & Branscombe, N. (2010). "Sources of social identity". In T. Postmes & N. Branscombe (Eds). Rediscovering Social Identity: Core Sources. Psychology Press.
  14. ↑ Sumner, W. G. Folkways: A Study of the Sociological Importance of Usages, Manners, Customs, Mores, and Morals. New York: Ginn, 1906. p. 13.
  15. 1 2 3 Hogg, Michael A.; Williams, Kipling D. (1 January 2000). "From I to we: Social identity and the collective self". Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice. 4 (1): 81–97. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.4.1.81.
  16. ↑ Tajfel, H. (1979). "Individuals and groups in social psychology". British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 18 (2): 183–190. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8260.1979.tb00324.x.
  17. 1 2 Tajfel, H. (1978). Tajfel, H. (ed.). "Interindividual and intergroup behaviour". Differentiation Between Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. London: Academic Press: 27–60.
  18. ↑ Oakes, Penny; Haslam, Alex; Turner, John (1994). Stereotyping and social reality. Blackwell: Oxford.
  19. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Turner, J. C.; Reynolds, K. H. (2001). "The Social Identity Perspective in Intergroup Relations: Theories, Themes, and Controversies". In Brown, S. L.; Gaertner (eds.). Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Intergroup Processes. Vol. 3. pp. 133–152. doi:10.1002/9780470693421.ch7. ISBN   9780470693421.
  20. ↑ Haslam, S. Alexander; Reicher, Stephen D.; Platow, Michael J. (2011). The new psychology of leadership: Identity, influence and power . New York, NY: Psychology Press. pp.  45–76. ISBN   978-1-84169-610-2.
  21. 1 2 3 Long, K.; Spears, R. (1997). Spears, R.; Oakes, P. J.; Ellemers, N; et al. (eds.). "The self-esteem hypothesis revisited: Differentiation and the disaffected". The Social Psychology of Stereotyping and Group Life. Oxford: Blackwell: 273–295.
  22. ↑ Rubin, M.; Badea, C.; Jetten, J. (2014). "Low status groups show in-group favoritism to compensate for their low status and to compete for higher status". Group Processes and Intergroup Relations. 17 (5): 563–576. doi:10.1177/1368430213514122. S2CID   144009575.
  23. ↑ Turner, J. C. (1978). H, Tajfel (ed.). "Social categorization and social discrimination in the minimal group paradigm". Differentiation Between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. London: Academic Press: 235–250.
  24. ↑ Tajfel, H. (1978). Tajfel, H. (ed.). "The achievement of group differentiation". Differentiation Between Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. London: Academic Press: 77–100.
  25. ↑ Tajfel, H. (1974). "Social identity and intergroup behavior". Social Science Information. 13 (2): 65–93. doi:10.1177/053901847401300204. S2CID   143666442.
  26. 1 2 Miller, D. (1983). Children and race. Sage publications.
  27. ↑ Haslam, A. S. (2001). Psychology in Organizations. London, SAGE Publications. p. 38
  28. ↑ Tajfel, Henri; Billig, M. G.; Bundy, R. P.; Flament, Claude (1971). "Social categorization and intergroup behaviour". European Journal of Social Psychology. 1 (2): 149–178. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420010202.
  29. ↑ Ouwerkerk, J. W.; Ellemers, N.; de Gilder, D. (1999). Ellemers, N.; Spears, R.; Doosje, B. (eds.). "Group commitment and individual effort in experimental and organizational contexts". Social Identity. Oxford: Blackwell: 184–204.
  30. ↑ Haslam, S. A.; Ellemers, N.; Reicher, S. D.; Reynolds, K. J.; Schmitt, M. T. (2010). Postmes, T.; Branscombe, N. R. (eds.). "The social identity perspective tomorrow: Opportunities and avenues for advance". Rediscovering Social Identity. Psychology Press: 357–379.
  31. ↑ Bishin, Benjamin G. (2009). Tyranny of the minority : the subconstituency politics theory of representation. Philadelphia, PA: Temple Univ. Press. ISBN   978-1-59213-660-5. OCLC   369179329.
  32. ↑ Wagner, Kurt (2018-05-10). "Congress just published all the Russian Facebook ads used to try and influence the 2016 election". Vox. Retrieved 2022-05-28.
  33. ↑ Stewart, Alexander J.; McCarty, Nolan; Bryson, Joanna J. (2020-12-11). "Polarization under rising inequality and economic decline". Science Advances. 6 (50): eabd4201. arXiv: 1807.11477 . Bibcode:2020SciA....6.4201S. doi:10.1126/sciadv.abd4201. ISSN   2375-2548. PMC   7732181 . PMID   33310855.
  34. 1 2 3 4 Ellemers, N.; Barreto, M. (2001). "The impact of relative group status: affective, perceptual and behavioural consequences". In Brown, S. L.; Gaertner (eds.). Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Intergroup Processes. Vol. 3. pp. 324–343. doi:10.1002/9780470693421.ch16. ISBN   9780470693421.
  35. ↑ Brewer, Marilynn B. (1 January 1979). "Ingroup bias in the minimal intergroup situations: A cognitive motivational analysis". Psychological Bulletin. 86 (2): 307–324. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.307.
  36. ↑ Hogg, M.A.; Turner, J.C. (1987). "Intergroup behaviour, self-stereotyping and the salience of social categories". British Journal of Social Psychology. 26 (4): 325–340. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1987.tb00795.x.
  37. ↑ Ahmed, Ali M. (1 June 2007). "Group identity, social distance and intergroup bias". Journal of Economic Psychology. 28 (3): 324–337. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2007.01.007.
  38. ↑ Krumm, Angela J.; Corning, Alexandra F. (1 December 2008). "Who Believes Us When We Try to Conceal Our Prejudices? The Effectiveness of Moral Credentials With In-Groups Versus Out-Groups". The Journal of Social Psychology. 148 (6): 689–709. doi:10.3200/SOCP.148.6.689-710. PMID   19058658. S2CID   45138670.
  39. ↑ Giannakakis, Andrew Erik; Fritsche, Immo (1 January 2011). "Social Identities, Group Norms, and Threat: On the Malleability of Ingroup Bias". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 37 (1): 82–93. doi:10.1177/0146167210386120. PMID   20956355. S2CID   36524029.
  40. ↑ Branscombe, N.R.; Ellemers, N.; Spears, R.; Doosje, E.J. (1999). The context and content of social identity threat. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 35–55.
  41. ↑ Hackel; Zaki; Bavel. (2017). "Social identity shapes social valuation: evidence from prosocial behavior and vicarious reward". Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 12 (8): 1219–1228. doi:10.1093/scan/nsx045. PMC   5597888 . PMID   28402506.
  42. ↑ Shipley (2008). "Social Comparison and prosocial behavior: An applied study of social identity theory in community food drives". Psychological Reports. 102 (2): 425–434. doi:10.2466/pr0.102.2.425-434. PMID   18567213. S2CID   10310516.
  43. 1 2 Johnson; Massiah; Allen (2013). "Community identification increases consumer-to-consumer helping, but not always". Journal of Consumer Marketing. 30 (2): 121–129. doi:10.1108/07363761311304933.
  44. ↑ Morewedge, Carey K.; Tang, Simone; Larrick, Richard P. (2016-10-12). "Betting Your Favorite to Win: Costly Reluctance to Hedge Desired Outcomes". Management Science. 64 (3): 997–1014. doi:10.1287/mnsc.2016.2656. ISSN   0025-1909.
  45. ↑ Hogg, M. A.; Abrams, D. (1990). Abrams, D.; Hogg, M. A (eds.). "Social motivation, self-esteem, and social identity". Social Identity Theory. Constructive and Critical Advances. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf: 44–70.
  46. 1 2 3 Brown, Rupert (1 November 2000). "Social Identity Theory: past achievements, current problems and future challenges". European Journal of Social Psychology. 30 (6): 745–778. doi: 10.1002/1099-0992(200011/12)30:6<745::AID-EJSP24>3.0.CO;2-O .
  47. ↑ Rubin, M.; Hewstone, M. (1998). "Social identity theory's self-esteem hypothesis: A review and some suggestions for clarification". Personality and Social Psychology Review. 2 (1): 40–62. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0201_3. hdl: 1959.13/930907 . PMID   15647150. S2CID   40695727.
  48. 1 2 Turner, J. C.; Oakes, P. J. (1997). McGarty, C.; Haslam, S. A. (eds.). "The socially structured mind". The Message of Social Psychology. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell: 355–373.
  49. ↑ Bourhis, R. Y.; Gagnon, A. (2001). "Social Orientations in the Minimal Group Paradigm". In Brown, S. L.; Gaertner (eds.). Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Intergroup Processes. Vol. 3. pp. 133–152.
  50. ↑ Turner, J. C. & Reynolds, K. J. (2010). The story of social identity. In T. Postmes & N. Branscombe (Eds). Rediscovering Social Identity: Core Sources. Psychology Press. p. 142
  51. ↑ Reynolds, K. J.; Turner, J. C.; Haslam, S. A.; Ryan, M. K. (2000). "When are we better than them and they worse than us? A closer look at social discrimination in positive and negative domains". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 78 (1): 64–80. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.1.64. PMID   10653506.
  52. 1 2 Brown, R. J. (1984). "The role of similarity in intergroup relations". In Tajfel, H. (ed.). Vol. 2. Cambridge: University Press. pp. 603–623. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511759154.012. ISBN   9780511759154.{{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  53. ↑ Duckitt, John (1992). "5". The social psychology of prejudice. London: Praeger Publishers. pp. 84–90.
  54. ↑ Tajfel, H. (1984). "Intergroup relations, social myths and social justice in social psychology". In Tajfel, H. (ed.). Vol. 2. Cambridge: University Press. pp. 695–715. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511759154.016. ISBN   9780511759154.{{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  55. ↑ Stangor, C.; Jost, J. T. (1997). Spears, R.; Oakes, P. J.; Ellemers, N; et al. (eds.). "Commentary: Individual, group and system levels of analysis and their relevance for stereotyping and intergroup relations". The Social Psychology of Stereotyping and Group Life. Oxford: Blackwell: 336–358.
  56. ↑ Smith, E.R.; Smith, E. R. (1999). "Reconceptualizing social identity: a new framework and evidence for the impact of different dimensions". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 25: 120–135. doi:10.1177/0146167299025001010. S2CID   144774507.
  57. ↑ Operanio, D.; Fiske, S. T. (2001). "Stereotypes: Content, Structures, Processes and Context". In Brown, R.; Geartner, S. (eds.). Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Intergroup Processes. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 22–44.
  58. ↑ Triandis, H.C.; Trafimow, D. (2001). "Culture and its implications for intergroup behavior". In Brown, S. L.; Gaertner (eds.). Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Intergroup Processes. Vol. 3. pp. 367–385. doi:10.1002/9780470693421.ch18. ISBN   9780470693421.
  59. ↑ Brewer, M. B.; Gaertner, S. L. (2001). "Toward reduction of prejudice: intergroup contact and social categorization". In Brown, S. L.; Gaertner (eds.). Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Intergroup Processes. Vol. 3. pp. 451–472. doi:10.1002/9780470693421.ch22. ISBN   9780470693421.
  60. ↑ Stangor, C.; Jost, J. T. (1997). Spears, R.; Oakes, P. J.; Ellemers, N; et al. (eds.). "Commentary: Individual, group and system levels of analysis and their relevance for stereotyping and intergroup relations". The Social Psychology of Stereotyping and Group Life. Oxford: Blackwell: 346.
  61. ↑ Spears, R.; Doosje, B.; Ellemers, N. (1999). Ellemers, N.; Spears, R.; Doosje, B. (eds.). "Commitment and the context of social perception". Social Identity. Oxford: Blackwell: 59–83.
  62. 1 2 McGarty, C (2001). "Social Identity Theory does not maintain that identification produces bias, and self-categorization Theory does not maintain that salience is identification: Two comments on Mummendey, Klink and Brown". British Journal of Social Psychology. 40 (Pt 2): 173–176. doi:10.1348/014466601164777. PMID   11446223.
  63. ↑ Rubin, M.; Hewstone, M. (2004). "Social identity, system justification, and social dominance: Commentary on Reicher, Jost et al., and Sidanius et al". Political Psychology. 25 (6): 823–844. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00400.x. hdl: 1959.13/27347 .
  64. ↑ Haslam, A. S. (2001). Psychology in Organizations. London, SAGE Publications. p. 40

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.