What is the influence of group membership on social identity? - Chapter 6

Group membership

Self categorization is the process in which you see yourself as a member of a certain social group. Social identity encompasses those aspects of the self-concept that arise from the knowledge and feelings that a person has about the social group he or she is in. The social identity theory states that in-group bias (the 'we' instead of 'me') comes from the motivation of people to gain self-confidence from their group membership. The belonging to a social group is accompanied by both positive and negative consequences.

People learn a lot about the groups they belong to in the same ways that they learn about the characteristics of other groups: through lessons from parents, teachers, peers and the media, but especially by observing other group members. Regardless of how much you know about the group; the knowledge only has an impact when the group membership is quickly available (accessible). This knowledge can be activated by:

• Direct reminders, such as group labels (for example, get a 50+ discount)

• The presence of out-group members (one member is already enough!)

By belonging to the group that is outnumbered (the minority group). This does not necessarily have to do with ethnicity, it is purely the moment when more people from another group than your own group are present. When there is a minority, the members of this minority group tend to let their self-esteem depend on the performance of someone from their own group (the in-group).

Because of conflicts or rivalry between groups. This brings a strong group feeling forward. In collectivist cultures the group feeling is very important. People mainly see themselves as members of a group or category. In individualistic cultures one sees oneself more as an individual, but there too there is a group feeling.

The moment a group membership is very accessible to someone, this is part of that person's self-schema.

Social categorization (me, you and she)

The more people are involved with groups and especially their own group, the more typical characteristics are seen as norms / standards for behavior and the more they see themselves as typical group members. It also appears that the thoughts and behaviors are increasingly expressing themselves in a typical group way. For example, the activated knowledge of group membership influences the self-concept.

Self-esteem can also be influenced by group membership. The self-esteem is mainly increased by positive group memberships. "Bask In Reflected Glory", also abbreviated as BIRG, is a way to increase self-esteem. This means that you identify yourself with the successes or good qualities of (successful) group members.

In general, a person needs both individuality and connectedness and a balance between both aspects is optimal. Group membership can fill in both aspects. The need for individuality is satisfied as soon as differences between themselves and other group members are observed. Connectedness is observed as soon as there are agreements between ourselves and other members of the in-group. In too large groups, chances are that a person is too anonymous; in a group that is too small, there is probably little group pride. In relatively small groups there is the greatest chance of an optimal balance between equality / group identification and uniqueness / recognition of their own qualities.

Applying categories in the own group (in-group)

The extent to which a group is considered diverse depends on the degree to which group membership is accessible. The less accessibility, the more diversity we see within the group. In contrast, when group membership is very accessible, people see other in-group members as equal in their central group-linked characteristics (and less diversity is observed).

The categorization of groups has major consequences for the liking and handling of the people from the groups. People from the in-group are found nicer than people from the out-group. People from the in-group draw closer together and people from the in- and out-group deal less with each other. These effects occur even if they are randomly divided into groups that have not been made on the basis of a specific characteristic. Perdue and colleagues concluded in 1990 on the basis of their research that they have positive associations with the word 'we'.

Linguistically, it is noticeable in the use of in- and out-groups. Imagine that a member from the in-group and a member from the out-group address a lost, upset child on the street. Members of the in-group will discuss this action, when carried out by an out-group member, with concrete language, such as: "he was talking to the child". When the same action is performed by a member of the in-group, this is described in more abstract language, such as: "he helped the child" or "he cares about the child". The concreteness with which the actions of out-group members are described implies a non-generalizable, one-off event (an exception). The more abstract terms for in-group actions, on the other hand, are linked to the general positive characteristics of the member.

As opposed to people from the in-group, they generally act more honestly and altruistically. This is because people are working hard for other in-group members once a group membership has been observed.

Applying categories to other groups (out-group)

The "out-group homogeneity effect" refers to the effect in which one is inclined to view people from the out-group as more homogenous and less diverse than the in-group. There are three explanations for this effect:

• There is little familiarity with the out-group and therefore it seems as if the in-group is more diverse.

• Little (individual) interaction takes place between the different groups.

With out-group members, one tends to only focus only on group characteristics, while with in-group members, one tends to focus much more on personal characteristics.

Nevertheless, the out-group is not always seen as homogeneous. As soon as the in-group is in the minority, the in-group is seen as more homogeneous. The behavior of members can become more homogeneous because of unequal power, or because there are differences in the accessibility of group membership.

As discussed earlier, the out-group is seen as less diverse than the in-group. This is not only the case in behavior and characteristics, but also in appearance they are seen as more homogeneous. The "crossrace identification bias" means that people can easily recognize the faces of people with the same race than people of a different race. Ethnic conflicts are often explained by the following factors:

• Negative stereotyping

• Collisions in the past

• Unfamiliarity with each other and the fear that goes with it

• The distribution of resources, something that is necessary but does not go smoothly

In a so-called "minimum intergroup situation" there is a research situation in which people are randomly (for example, flipped by a coin) divided into one of the two groups, so the groups have no history at all, no conflicts and no stereotypes. Even in such groups there is consistently an in-group bias. According to social identity theory, the motivation to derive self-esteem from group membership is one of the underlying mechanisms of this in-group bias.

Discrimination occurs in different groups of different status. However, the way in which people discriminate is different. Lower status groups discriminate against threats in particular on dimensions that are less relevant to status, while high status groups discriminate on grounds that are important to them and their status.

As soon as a threat is experienced, people tend to perceive the in-group even more positively than the out-group. One will also try to attack the out-group. Humiliation of the in-group is often dismissed by comparing the out-group with the in-group standard. However, the out-group is difficult to compare with the in-group standard (after all, they are not the out-group for nothing) and will therefore always fall short in such a comparison. This kind of comparison is used as an excuse for humiliation, while it is actually unfair.

As soon as the out-group is fundamentally subordinate to the in-group and the rules of justice and civilization are not applied to the out-group, extremely discriminatory behavior can arise. Often the behavior of the in-group is rationalized on the basis of the idea that the out-group itself is responsible for their behavior. Moral exclusion implies that the out-group is seen as subordinate / inferior and outside the domain in which the rules of morality apply.

The effect of group membership

Stereotyping can have an effect on various aspects. Examples of this are performance and self-esteem.

Stereotype threat is the fear of people to confirm an existing stereotype about their group and can provide a self-fulfilling prophecy (self-affirmative prediction). The idea that the performance delivered influences the whole group can be threatening. As soon as someone is aware of the fact that another person is biased, stereotypes are not expressed. Stereotype threats can be reduced by a number of interventions:

• By looking for self-confirmation

• By focusing on other group identities that are positively stereotyped in the same domain. For example: performing worse on a math test because you are a girl ("girls are worse in math than boys") can be countered by thinking that you are Japanese ("Japanese girls are super in mathematics")

• By the presence of a role model that refutes the stereotype

• By re-evaluating stereotype-relevant tasks as a challenge

Because group memberships are such an important part of the identity of the individual, a negative image of the group (stigmatization: negatively judged by others) can damage self-esteem. Bad self-esteem can have an effect on emotional and physical functioning. Yet the self-esteem is not always affected. There are two main reasons for this:

If people with a stereotype exist, they can attribute the negative image to bias. Here, therefore, attributions are used in their own advantage. The stereotype can also be seen as a bias towards the group, and not as a personal attack, which is good for your own psychological well-being. Yet this also has its drawbacks, because negative feedback can also be realistic. Overriding this feedback can stand in the way of critical self-reflection and self-improvement. The realization of this can lead to hopelessness and the feeling of loss of control.

If you can still compare with other in-group members

A striking effect in self-esteem is that women have less self-esteem than men, despite the fact that women increasingly fill in the same type of roles as men. The difference comes from social roles that have been learned from an early age.

If protection strategies of self-esteem have proven to be ineffective, individual mobility can be introduced. This means that an individual decides to (physically or emotionally) disconnect from membership of a stigmatized group by means of disidentification or dissociation.

Disidentification means that a psychological distance is created. This can be done by avoiding memories, criticizing the group or an in-group member (the so-called cut of reflected failure) or considering themselves as an exception. A disadvantage of disidentification is the possible negative reactions they receive from others.

Dissociation means that you really, physically, distance yourself from the group. This often results in people looking for a new group. This can, however, result in isolation if one is not accepted by the new group.

When such "escape" is difficult, group members can use a strategy called "social creativity": new dimensions, dimensions on which the group is superior, are introduced and emphasized. In this way, the group characteristics are redefined positively, in the hope that the evaluation of the in-group by society will be change for the better .

Social change

Finally, social change can also be a solution for removing a negative image about a group. In this case, we are looking for a way in which the prevailing view and the social situation of the group can be improved.

In the case of social change, people try to improve the social situation. This happens especially when you are strongly identified with the group. This can be expressed in social competition: a strategy that immediately tries to change the aspects that harm the in-group, for example by promoting in-group solidarity and challenging the out-group. In this way we strive for more status, power and resources. Social competition strategies can take many forms. This often means that there is a confrontation between the groups. The intention is to reduce the existing hierarchy. The result is, however, that other groups can experience the group as threatening and that it is only effective if the whole group continues to participate.

Cross-categorization means that people on one dimension belong to one's own group while they belong to the other group on other dimensions. The awareness of this can contribute to a reduction in discrimination.

The so-called "ideology of color blindness" focuses on the fact that a person's race can not influence how he or she is treated. This emphasizes individual performance, which ensures that there is less hostility and discrimination. This ideology reduces emphasis on group differences but does not always lead to intergroup acceptance. An important disadvantage of the ideology is that people from different cultures do not get to know each other's culture, while this can be an important part of someone's person. This way of thinking also denies the social identity that is very important. It is therefore also important that a good balance is found between sharing certain goals and maintaining social identity.

What is important is that no strategy is by definition the best. Different strategies can be applied successfully for different groups. The choice of strategy depends primarily on the strength of the group feeling and the extent to which people are seen as individuals within the group.