Social Identity Theory

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The theory of social identity is a social-psychological theory presented in 1986 by Henri Tajfel (died 1982) and John C. Turner under the title The social identity theory of intergroup behavior , which attempts to grasp and explain psychological processes that arise from (Inter ) - group processes are involved. The “minimal group” experiments from the 1970s are an essential empirical basis for the theory.

The minimal group paradigm

The experiments on the minimal group paradigm were carried out by Henri Tajfel and a number of colleagues in 1970 and 1971 (Tajfel 1970; Tajfel et al. 1971). In this test subjects - students at a school that knew each other well - divided initially into two random groups. These groups were designed in such a way that the test subjects were given, for example, fictitious feedback about their preference for either the painter Paul Klee or the painter Kandinsky . Accordingly, each test subject then belonged to either the Klee group or the Kandinsky group.

In the second part of the study, the test subjects were then asked to split certain amounts of money between two other test subjects. The subjects, as well as other factors, were not aware of exactly who these people were. The test subjects only knew that one of the two people belonged to their own group , while the other person belonged to the other group . In addition, it was excluded that the test subjects could assign the money to themselves or otherwise obtain the money.

At this point in time there was no social interaction between the groups , the test subjects did not know any of the members of their own or another group as such beforehand, and there was no indication that this could happen in the future. The group only existed in the head of the test subjects, was purely cognitive and is therefore referred to as a minimal group (Tajfel & Turner, 1986).

These “minimal group” experiments brought very astonishing results, because although the test subjects showed a certain degree of fairness, it was quite clear that people from their own (but essentially irrelevant) group were preferred. The same result was even shown when the test subjects, as they could see, were randomly assigned to one of two groups (Billig & Tajfel, 1973).

It was even more astonishing that the test subjects, if they already preferred their own group, did not split the money in such a way that the members of their own group would get the greatest possible benefit from it (Tajfel & Turner call this strategy maximum in-group profit ), but rather that the difference between the amounts was maximum (this strategy is called maximum difference ).

This means that among various alternatives for dividing the money, the test subjects did not choose the one that would have provided their own group with the highest possible amount of money. Instead, the test subjects opted for an alternative that ensured the greatest possible difference between the amounts of money to be allocated. Obviously, there was a preference for one's own group , an ingroup bias (“ ingroup error”). The theory of realistic group conflict by Muzaffer Şerif assumes a real conflict between groups over scarce resources for in-group bias to occur. Such a conflict should have resulted in the subjects trying to raise the highest amount of money for their own group. With their theory of social identity , Tajfel & Turner try, among other things, to explain this contradiction.

Basic assumptions

In 1986 Tajfel and Turner define a (social) group "as a collection of individuals who perceive themselves to be members of the same social category, share some emotional involvement in this common definition of themselves, and achieve some degree of social consensus about the evaluation of their group and of their membership in it. ”In simple terms, one could say that a social group is a plurality of people who are perceived by themselves and by others as a social group. Of course, this definition also includes the fact that every individual can be a member of several social groups at the same time.

Their own from the perspective of an individual group in social psychology ingroup called ( ingroup ) and each foreign to this comparative dimension group outgroup ( outgroup ). Individuals can now come into contact with one another in one way or another. To distinguish whether and how these contacts are colored by membership in various social groups, Tajfel and Turner 1986 introduced four theoretical continua.

The first theoretical continuum

The first continuum distinguishes between interpersonal and intergroup behavior. One extreme of this continuum describes an interaction between two or more individuals that is exclusively shaped by the interpersonal relationship and its individual characteristics. An example of this extreme is the relationship between spouses. The other extreme of this continuum describes an interaction between two or more individuals or groups that results exclusively from the group membership of the participants and is in no way influenced by the inter-individual relationships of the persons involved. Behaviors that are close to this extreme can be observed, for example, between the soldiers of two warring armies during combat. However, according to Tajfel and Turner, neither of the two extremes described can be found in a pure form in real life, especially not over a longer period of time, because even the intimate relationship between two lovers will in one situation or another be colored by their gender role.

The second theoretical continuum

The second continuum is called a "quasi-ideological dimension of attitudes, values ​​and convictions" (Tajfel & Turner, 1986, 9). This continuum is again characterized by its two extremes, which are referred to as "social mobility" and "social change", ie social mobility and social change. Both extremes describe the beliefs of individuals about the structure of the various social systems and groups that surround them. Social mobility means the belief that it is relatively easy to leave one social group and instead become part of another. Usually this belief is about advancement within a social system. For example, a simple worker can be convinced that, with the help of a lot of diligence and cleverness, he can become self-employed and thus move up into the group of higher earners. The "American dream" (from dishwasher to millionaire) is an example of a general (as opposed to the individual just described) belief in social mobility. The other extreme, social change, is the belief that it is nearly impossible for an individual to leave one group and become part of another group. For example, it is conceivable that in an economically difficult situation such as B. in Germany in June 2003 (unemployment rate between 10 and> 20% depending on the federal state) an unemployed person can be convinced that no matter what he does or fails to do, he has no chance of getting a job and thus within the social system to ascend. On a smaller scale, the conviction of social change can be made even clearer, so it is easy to imagine that it is almost impossible for a fan of a football team to switch to the opposing team's side during a game, especially since such behavior is considered treason would be viewed. The term “social change” may seem unclear at first, but its occurrence cannot be explained without anticipating some essential concepts of the theory of social identity. See further below.

The third theoretical continuum

The third continuum concerns a person's behavior and attitudes and is very closely related to the first two continuums. One extreme describes the behavior of people - quite variable within a group - who, in situations on the first two continua, are very close to the extremes of interpersonal behavior or social mobility. Mummendey (1985) called this extreme in her German-language presentation of the theory of social identity individual variability, while she called the other extreme of this continuum a maximum of uniformity. This maximum of uniformity can be observed in situations in which individuals or groups are very close to the extremes of intergroup behavior and social change.

The fourth theoretical continuum

The fourth continuum concerns the treatment and perception of out-group members and is also very closely linked to the first two continuums mentioned. The further an individual is in a situation on the extremes of interpersonal behavior and social mobility, the more likely it is that members of the out-group perceive it differently and treat them that way. However, in situations that tend to be based on the two extremes of intergroup behavior and social change, the members of a group perceive the members of the out-group as "undifferentiated items". The example of the hostile armies should make this point very clear.

The theory of social identity

In 1982 Tajfel defined social identity (compare cultural identity ) as that part of an individual's self-concept “which is derived from his knowledge of his membership in social groups and from the value and emotional significance with which this membership is occupied”.

Three basic assumptions

Tajfel and Turner (1986) derive their theory from the following three basic assumptions:

  1. Individuals strive to get a positive self-assessment or to improve their self-assessment.
  2. Part of this self-assessment is social identity, which is made up of membership in various social groups and the evaluation of this membership.
  3. The evaluation of group membership results from the comparison of this group with other relevant groups - depending on how this comparison turns out, one's own prestige decreases or increases.

Three theoretical principles

The following theoretical principles result from these basic assumptions:

  1. Individuals strive to maintain or improve a positive social identity.
  2. A positive social identity is obtained through comparisons with relevant out-groups. The comparison serves to strengthen the social identity when one's own group stands out positively from the out-group.
  3. If this comparison turns out negative, individuals try to leave their own group and join another group or upgrade their own group.

The central hypothesis of the theory

The actual hypothesis of the theory of social identity then arises from these three principles. The pressure to rate the in-group positively compared to the out-group leads to social groups trying to differentiate themselves from one another. However, this process of "distinguishing from one another" is subject to some restrictions:

  1. The individuals must have internalized their group membership ; it is not enough for others to assign them to a group. For example, a scholar could be assigned to the group of “egg heads” from his environment without assigning himself to this group.
  2. Individuals belong to different groups at the same time (e.g. ethnicity, gender). In order for an individual to perceive themselves primarily as part of a certain group in a situation, their respective characteristics must be salient (meaningful). For example, a person could belong to the gender group of men and the group of “Star Trek” fans (so-called Trekkies) at the same time. It is easy to imagine that at a meeting of a feminist party, belonging to the group of men would become much more salient than belonging to the group of Trekkies.
  3. Members of a group do not compare themselves with every conceivable out-group, but only with groups that are perceived as a relevant out-group. It is conceivable that a fan of one soccer club will compare himself to a fan of another soccer club, but will not compare himself to a fan of a handball club because this group is simply not relevant to him.

Strategies for negative comparison results

But what happens if the comparison made with a relevant out-group does not bring the desired result (a positive differentiation from the out-group)? Here Tajfel and Turner name three different possible strategies.

  1. Individual mobility. Individuals try to leave their group and rise to a higher status group. By definition, the closer the situation is to the extreme of social mobility, the more likely it is.
  2. Social creativity. This means that members of a group of lower status try to either change the comparison dimension (for example, farmers from one village might find that they have fewer cows than farmers from another village and then no longer succeed as farmers in the number of Cows, but measure in the number of pigs) or change the interpretation of the attributes (for example a farmer who makes a living with a particularly small number of cows could be viewed as a particularly good farmer instead of a farmer who has a particularly large number of cows) A third possibility is to change not the comparison dimension but the comparison group (so one no longer compares oneself with farmers from one village, but with farmers from another village).
  3. Social competition. The direct confrontation with the out-group is sought in order to then re-evaluate the status of the two groups. The clash between two soccer teams is an example of social competition, as are the Șerif camp experiments mentioned above.

Social mobility and social change

The strategies presented now also make the definition of “social mobility” and its opposite, “social change” clear. If an individual is unable to leave his group of lower status in order to become part of a group of higher status, then only the two strategies “social creativity” and “social competition” are available to him to develop his own group upgrade. A reassessment of the groups, however, also means a change within society, i.e. a social change. The example of the women's movement, which had its heyday in the 1970s and 1980s, should make this very clear.

Explanation of the minimal group paradigm

With the help of the theoretical principles described above, the results of the minimal group paradigm can now be easily explained. The test subjects were divided into two different groups from outside, so they had no opportunity to change groups. Likewise, the money to be distributed was the only available dimension on which to compare the two groups. The test subjects did not choose the strategy of “maximum in-group profit” but rather the strategy of “maximum difference” because it was not about the money itself (the test subjects would not have received any of it anyway), but because the money was only one Dimension was where social competition took place. By maximizing the difference, the participants set their own group apart from the other group as much as possible, thus creating a positive social identity for themselves.

Similar theories

The self-categorization theory is a further development of the theory of social identity.

Fields of application of the theory in social psychology and management research

The theory of social identity has been used in scientific research in an interdisciplinary range of applications to explain human and organizational behavior. Scientific studies in specialist journals use the perspective of social identity to analyze work motivation, staff turnover, company mergers and the adoption of new technologies as part of innovation management.

literature

  • Michael Billig, Henri Tajfel : Social Categorization and similarity in intergroup behavior. In: European Journal of Social Psychology. Volume 3, No. 1, January 1973, pp. 27-52 (English; doi: 10.1002 / ejsp.2420030103 ).
  • Henri Tajfel: Experiments in intergroup discrimination. In: Scientific American. Volume 223, November 1970, pp. 96-102 (English; JSTOR 24927662 ).
  • Henri Tajfel, Michael Billig, RP Bundy, C. Flament: Social categorization and intergroup behavior. In: European Journal of Social Psychology. Volume 1, No. 2, April 1971, pp. 149-178 (English; doi: 10.1002 / ejsp.2420010202 ).
  • Henri Tajfel: Group conflict and prejudice. Hans Huber, Bern a. a. 1982, ISBN 3-456-81219-1 .
  • Henri Tajfel, JC Turner: The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In: S. Worchel, WG Austin (Ed.): Psychology of intergroup relations. Nelson-Hall, Chicago 1986, ISBN 0-8304-1075-9 , pp. 7-24 (English).

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Daan van Knippenberg: Work Motivation and Performance: A Social Identity Perspective. In: Applied Psychology: An International Review. Vol. 49, 2000, pp. 357-371, doi: 10.1111 / 1464-0597.00020 .
  2. ^ Daan van Knippenberg, Rolf van Dick, Susanna Tavares: Social Identity and Social Exchange: Identification Support and Withdrawal from the Job. In: Journal of Applied Social Psychology. Vol. 37, 2007, pp. 457-477, doi: 10.1111 / j.1559-1816.2007.00168.x .
  3. ↑ Deborah J. Terry: Intergroup Relations and Organizational Mergers. In: Michael A. Hogg, Deborah J. Terry (Eds.): Social Identity Processes in Organizational Contexts. Philadelphia 2001, ISBN 1-84169-007-4 , pp. 229-248.
  4. ↑ Jan Wieseke, Florian Kraus, Thomas Rajab: An interdisciplinary approach to the management of technology adoption barriers . In: Journal for Business Research. 62nd volume, 2010, pp. 822-859.