Social identity theory and self-categorisation theory
Overview
Imagine a man who enjoys boxing. When he contemplates his identity—that is, when he reflects upon who he is—he might consider his unique attributes. Perhaps he is 6 feet tall, enjoys baths, reads science fiction, and works in finance. In addition, he might consider the groups to which he belongs, such as his boxing community, as well as the attributes of these groups, such as the fitness and dedication of these individuals. Accordingly, each person develops both a personal identity that revolves around their distinct characteristics and a social identity that revolves around their communities or collectives. These social identities include four main variants (Lickel et al., 2001):
- intimacy groups, such as family and friends,
- task groups, such as project teams,
- social categories, such as races, ethnicities, or genders, and
- loose associations, such as people who share a similar interest.
On some occasions, the personal identity of individuals is more salient or activated. That is, during these times, people are more attuned to their distinct values, capabilities, and qualities. On other occasions, the social identity of individuals is more salient or activated. During these times, people are more aware of the groups to which they belong and the customs or qualities of these groups. When individuals are more cognisant of this social identity, their behaviour can shift significantly. For example
- they become more inclined to comply with the values and to embrace the beliefs that epitomise their communities,
- they tend to perceive individuals who belong to other groups as demonstrating the qualities that typify members of this collective; if they perceive a community as thrift, for example, they become inclined to interpret the behavior of a specific member as miserly rather than generous.
The concept of social identities is central to social identity theory (Tajfel, 1974, 1978, 1982; Tajfel & Turner, 1979, 1986) and to the extension of this framework, called self-categorisation theory (Turner, 1999; Turner et al., 1987). Specifically
- social identity theory primarily evolved to explain how individuals develop beliefs about their groups—and the effects of these beliefs on relationships between communities, such as discrimination,
- self-categorisation theory primarily evolved to explain how the beliefs that individuals develop about their groups affects their own thoughts and behaviours.
An understanding of social identity theory and self-categorisation theory is vital to appreciate the causes and consequences of collective narcissism.
Roles of social identity: Epistemic motivations and positive distinctiveness
Many events or circumstances can affect whether individuals are more attuned to their personal identity or social identity. To predict which events or circumstances affect which identity is activated, researchers first needed to clarify the reasons that individuals may identify themselves with a group or community. According to proponents of social identity theory, individuals tend to establish social identities—that is, define themselves by the groups to which they belong—primarily to fulfill two purposes. First, individuals establish social identities to clarify how they should behave. To illustrate, some individuals may
- define themselves as a conservative,
- recognise that conservatives tend to observe past traditions of their community rather than more progressive acts,
- and, thus, realise they should also observe these past traditions.
Therefore, individuals perceive their social identity as a source of clarity or information about how to behave, called an epistemic motivation (Kruglanski et al., 2006). This social identity should thus diminish feelings of uncertainty, trepidation, or apprehension. Consistent with this premise, as Hogg and Mullin (1999) revealed, when individuals experience a sense of uncertainty, they are more inclined to observe the norms of their group or community. Research indicates that collectives in which membership tends to endure, such as ethnicities, religions, or nationalities, instil this certainty more effectively than collectives in which membership changes frequently, such as project teams (see McGregor, Reeshma, et al., 2008).
Second, and more relevant to the notion of collective narcissism, individuals also establish social identities to boost their perception of themselves, called positive distinctiveness. For example, some individuals may
- define themselves as a conservative,
- orient their attention to the favourable qualities of this community, such as their wealth or morality,
- thus, perceive themselves more favourably as a consequence.
Outgroup derogation
These two benefits of social identity—the capacity of groups to diminish uncertainty over how to behave as well as the tendency of individuals to inflate the desirable qualities of these groups and thus perceive themselves favourably—can also explain prejudice and discrimination. That is, individuals naturally compare their group to other communities, called social comparison. So, individuals will often denigrate other communities to perceive their group is superior in comparison. This denigration of other communities underpins prejudice and discrimination.
To illustrate, in a study that McGregor, Reeshma, et al (2008) published, to elicit a feeling of uncertainty, participants were instructed to describe personal conflicts and uncertainties that had not been resolved. To assess outgroup derogation, Canadian participants read an essay, written by a foreigner, that was critical of Canada. The extent to which the participants disagreed and disliked this person was then assessed, generating an index of outgroup derogation. Furthermore, individuals completed a measure of personal need for structure, comprising items like “I don’t like situations that are uncertain”. As the findings revealed
- memories that elicit uncertainty—and thus most likely activated a social identity—amplified outgroup derogation,
- this observed was pronounced in participants who seek structure or clarity and thus do not like uncertainty.
As these findings imply, to enhance the degree to which they perceive their group favourably, individuals may apply two strategies. Specifically, individuals may
- attempt to derogate or undermine rival communities, called social conflict—an approach that is especially prevalent when individuals feel threatened (Haslam, 2001),
- or bias their attention, memory, or interpretations to the strengths or qualities of their group, called social creativity (Haslam, 2001).
Activation of social identity
These two benefits of social identity—to diminish uncertainty and to boost how individuals perceive themselves may offer some insight into the circumstances that shape whether people adopt a social identity rather than personal identity. Accordingly, people should be more inclined to adopt a social identity—and thus conform to the norms and customs of their communities—when they feel uncertain about how to behave and thus concerned they may be punished if they do not behave appropriately. Consistent with this premise, people are more inclined to adopt a social identity when
- they become more attuned to competition between their group and rival communities—such as when teams receive bonuses only if they outperform other workgroups (Worchel, 1998),
- they are exposed to cues they associate with danger or threat, such as darkness or masculinity (Miller et al., 2010),
- they believe that traits and qualities of people or communities tend to be stable over time—and hence the characteristics of their group are consistent (Van Veelen et al., 2011).
Similarly, people should be more inclined to adopt a social identity if this perception could boost their perception of themselves. Consistent with this principle, people are more inclined to adopt a social identity when
- they perceive their group as influential (van Zomeren et al., 2010),
- they feel respected by their group—such as when the leader seeks their feedback or opinion (e.g., Knight & Haslam, 2010),
- they believe that other respected individuals in the community, such as the leader, also identify strongly with the group (Kraus et al., 2012),
- each person in their community, such as a workgroup, is assigned a distinct role and is thus valued (Jans et al., 2012).
Functional antagonism
These findings imply that, at any time, individuals are aware of their personal identity, such as their unique qualities, or their social identity, such as the groups to which they belong. Hence, activation of the personal identity should inhibit the social identity and vice versa, called functional antagonism (Turner et al., 1987).
Although a cardinal principle of self-categorisation theory, some research shows that functional antagonism may be more nuanced that first assumed. To illustrate, Swann et al. (2009) showed that some individuals demonstrate a fused identity, in which they believe their personal identities and social identities overlap, almost entirely. When these individuals receive feedback about themselves that diverges from their expectations—an experience that should activate their personal identity—they actually become more willing to die or kill to preserve their collective. Hence, at least in some individuals, when the personal identity is activated, the social identity is simultaneously amplified rather than inhibited.
Similarly, according to Eidelman and Silvia (2010), the social identity of some individuals—that is the customs and norms of their community—become embedded in their personal identity. Cues that activate the personal identity of individuals may activate this social identity as well. To demonstrate, in one study, conducted in America, some participants sat in front of a mirror. This procedure, designed to prime the personal identity of individuals, increased the extent to which participants who identify strongly with America perceived themselves as materialistic. Seemingly, the mirror, intended to activate the personal identity of participants, also primed attributes that people associate with their national identity.
Depersonalisation
As these examples imply, some people identify closely with their social identity. That is, they regard their collectives, such as their boxing community or political affiliation, as central to who they are. According to Turner et al. (1987), individuals who identify closely with their social identity often perceive all members of this group or community as interchangeable on some level. They feel that everyone in this community, including themselves, shares the same underlying values or inclinations. This tendency, a central tenet of self-categorisation theory, is called depersonalisation.
Prototypes
Despite their tendency to depersonalise members of a collective, people recognise that some individuals are more likely than other individuals to typify the group. That is, some members closely observe the customs or norms of their group—the attitudes, values, beliefs, goals, and behaviours that exemplify this collective. These members are called prototypical.
Prototypical members enjoy several benefits. For example, according to the social identity theory of leadership, leaders who are prototypical tend to be regarded as more effective than other supervisors or managers. That is, leaders who typify the norms of their group—rather than resemble the schema or beliefs about the qualities of effective leaders (Lord et al., 1982; Lord & Maher, 1991)—are more likely to be perceived as effective, charismatic, and persuasive leaders (Hains et al., 1997; Platow et al., 2006). These leaders can maintain this respect even if they do not fulfil their aspirations (Giessner & van Knippenberg, 2008).
Researchers have uncovered several reasons to explain why prototypical leaders are often the most respected and appreciated. First, because of a principle called positive discrimination, members tend to inflate the status or qualities of their group. These members thus tend to perceive the norms of their group, such as the attitudes this collective espouse, favourably. Therefore, members will tend to perceive prototypical leaders, who epitomise these norms, favourably as well (Hogg, 2010).
Second, if a leader is prototypical, members assume this person is motivated by the same needs as are they. Because of these shared values, these members are more inclined to trust the motives of this leader (Hogg & van Knippenberg, 2003). Indeed, because of this trust, members will even accept leaders who espouse change—perceiving the suggestions or initiatives of these leaders as creative attempts to fulfill traditional values rather than as a means to challenge these traditions. These leaders are thus perceived as cooperative rather than adversarial (De Cremer et al., 2010).
Several conditions and circumstances affect the degree to which members prefer these prototypical leaders. For example, individuals are especially likely to prefer these prototypical leaders if these members
- prefer familiar and predictable settings, and eschew uncertain circumstances, called a need for closure (Pierro et al., 2005),
- similarly, feel a sense of uncertainty about their lives or future (Rast et al., 2012),
- identify closely with this collective (e.g., Hains et al., 1997).
Levels and kinds of identification
Because of depersonalisation and similar principles, when social identity is activated, individuals tend to conform to the norms and customs of their community. For example, if their community tends to advocate a specific position, such as contempt towards capitalism, individuals who identify with these communities will also generally advocate these positions.
As many studies reveal, the degree to which individuals conform to the norms and customs of their community will depend on the extent to which they identify with this group—that is, the extent to which they perceive this group as central to who they are. Recent studies, however, indicate that individuals may experience two kinds of identification with a group or community: attachment and glorification (Roccas et al., 2006). Specifically,
- individuals who experience ingroup attachment feel the group is compatible with who they are—and they feel dependent on the fate or success of this collective,
- individuals who experience ingroup glorification, in contrast, perceive this group as superior.
The consequences of ingroup attachment and ingroup glorification differ from one another. When ingroup attachment is elevated, individuals feel especially ashamed or guilty over the atrocities their community may have committed. In contrast, when ingroup glorification is elevated, individuals experience diminished levels of shame or guilt (Roccas et al., 2006). Arguably, to maintain their perception that perhaps their community is superior, individuals evoke more defensive responses or contemplate excuses (for comparable results, see Leidner et al., 2010).
