Social identity - summary of chapter 6 of Social Psychology by Smith, E, R (fourth edition)

Social psychology
Chapter 6
Social identity

Being a member of a group influences many of our thoughts, feelings and actions.

Categorizing oneself as a group member

Some group memberships are so important that they become a basic apart of our view of ourselves.

Self-categorization: the process of seeing oneself as a member of a social group.
Flexible and can readily shift depending on social context.

Social identity: those aspects of the self-concept that derive from an individual’s knowledge and feelings about the group membership he or she shares with others.
Extends the self out beyond the skin to include other members of our groups.

Most group memberships are stable en enduring.

Learning about our groups

People learn about the groups to which they belong in the same ways that they learn the characteristics of other groups: by observing other group members or from the culture.

What we and other group members do often becomes the basis for group stereotypes.
But what we do is strongly influenced by our roles.

Performing a role based on membership in some group can shape our future behaviors and, ultimately, our self-knowledge.

Feeling like a group member

Knowledge about group membership may be activated by direct reminders, such as:

• Group labels
• The presence of out-group members
• Being a minority
• Intergroup conflict

Group membership is significant in some cultures and for some individuals, who tend to see the world in terms of that group membership.

Direct reminders of membership

The process is often subtle.
Circumstances remind us of our similarities with others, and this activates group membership.
The mere presence of other in-group members can be a potent reminder.

When group similarities are highlighted membership and all it entails becomes even more accessible.
This is powerful enough to overcome alternative categorizations that might be important in other circumstances.

Presence of out-group members

The presence of even a single out-group member is enough to increase our sense of in-group membership.

Being a minority

People are more likely to think of themselves in terms of their membership in smaller groups than in larger groups. Especially when they are sole representatives of their group in a situation.

Conflict or rivalry

The most potent factor that brings group membership to mind is ongoing conflict or rivalry between groups.
The importance of conflict also means that people identify more strongly with groups that they learn are targets of discrimination from the society at large.

Me, you, and them: the effects of social categorization

‘I’ becomes ‘we’: social categorization and the self

Activated knowledge about a group membership has multiple effect on people’s self-concept and self-esteem.

• The group’s typical characteristics become standards for member’s behavior.
• Group membership also influence people’s mood and self-esteem as they feel bad about their group’s failures or group about their successes

Relatively small groups typically have the greatest effects.

Seeing oneself as a group members

Seeing oneself as a group member means that the group’s typical characteristics become norms or standards for one’s own behavior.
People tend to think and act in group-typical ways.

Gender group norms are usually highly valued, so acting in accordance with those norms tends to make people feel good about themselves.

Liking ourselves: social identity and self-esteem

Our groups are part of ourselves.
We play up group membership that makes us feel good about ourselves.

BIRG: a way of boosting self-esteem by identifying oneself with the accomplishment or good qualities of fellow in-group members.
Particularly when self-esteem is threatened.

Social identity and emotions

Group memberships lead us to experience emotions or behalf of our groups, as well as affecting our self-esteem.
People experience anger, fear, pride, guilt or other emotions in response to events that affect their groups because identification with a group makes the group part of the self, giving the group emotional significance.
These emotional reactions are not just a form of empathy. They appear to be truly an integral part of group membership.

Balancing individuality and connectedness

Group membership can simultaneously satisfy both. Perceiving the differences between our group and other groups provides feeling of being unique and special. Seeing the similarity among members withing our group can help us feel connected and similar.
The best balance for most people most of the time involves membership in relatively small groups.

Others become ‘we’: social categorization and the in-group

When group membership is highly accessible, people see other in-group members as similar in their central group-linked characteristics. However, extensive personal interaction (when group membership is not activated) also provides knowledge about their unique and diverse personal characteristics. People like fellow in-group members and tend to treat in fair, humane, and altruistic ways, seeing the other members as similar to themselves in their goals and interests.

Perceiving fellow in-group members

when group membership is accessible, we think mostly about the features we believe we share with the group.
We also manage to learn quite a lot about other in-group members, the things that make them unique as individuals. This awareness develops as we interact with other members in a variety o contexts and situations.
Knowing about others’ unique characteristics helps us to find our own place in the group.

Liking in-group members: to be us is to be lovable

Because they share our attributes, fellow in-group members become part of ‘me and mine’, and so we like then, usually much more than we like out-group members.

The in-group bias is stronger when the groups are real and meaningful.

The very concept ‘we’ seems to have positive connotations, as compared to the concept ‘they’.
The label ‘we’ automatically activates positive associations that faciliate the recognition of other positive words.

Attraction in group situations seems to depend merely on group membership.

Treating the in-group right: justice and altruism

We will treat in-group as we ourselves would like to be treated.
Groups prosper when their members are willing to subordinate personal interests to the group and to help other members in times of need.
When group memberships are uppermost in people’s minds, they often act in these altruistic was, showing more concern for treating others fairly than for getting the largest share of rewards.

When people see the world through the lens of their group memberships, what is best for the group blurs together with what is best of the individual.

Others become ‘they’: social categorization and the out-group

People see out-groups as uniform and homogeneous. People also dislike, devalue and discriminate against out-group members, depending on the extent to which they are seen as threatening to the in-group. When the out-group is simply different, it elicits mild dislike.
When the out-group is seen as outdoing the in-group, this more serious threat results in resentment, dislike and over discrimination.
Out-groups are seen as severe threats to the in-group elicit murderous hatred, severe discrimination, aggression or moral exclusion.

Categorization into an out-group has a range of negative consequences.

Perceiving the out-group as homogeneous: they’re all alike

Out-group homogeneity effect: the tendency to see the out-group as relatively more homogeneous and less diverse than the in-group.

Explanations:

• Familiarity
• The relatively constrained nature of typical interactions with out-group members.
• People habitually focus on the personal characteristics that make them unique and different from others.

Effects of mere categorization: minimal groups

We think different about in-group versus out-group members, even when the groups are not real of meaningful.

Minimal intergroup situation: a research situation in which people are categorized, on an arbitrary or trivial basis, into groups that have no history, no conflicts of interests, and no stereotypes.

Simple categorization into groups seems to be sufficient reason for people to dispense valued rewards in ways that favor in-group members over those who are ‘different’.

Discrimination and social identity

Expectation of rewards is not the driving force behind intergroup discrimination.
Group members want to make their group better, stronger, and more lovable in any way available to them.

Social identity theory: the theory that people’s motivation to derive self-esteem from their group membership is one driving force behind in-group bias.

Effects of perceived mild threat

Group membership can serve to enhance self-esteem.
People can increase self-esteem by discriminating against out-groups. People are particularly likely to choose this tactic when their self-esteem is threatened.

When higher-status groups are threatened, they tend to discriminate on dimensions that are centrally relevant to the group distinction.
Lower-status groups show more discrimination to other dimensions that are less directly relevant to status.
Unequal status amplifies intergroup discrimination.

Effects on perceived extreme threat: moral exclusion and hate crimes

When prejudice turns from dislike to extreme hatred, it usually reflects the perception that what ‘they’ stand for threatens what ‘we’ stand for.
When people perceive such extreme threat, they usually response in two interrelated ways:

• They exalt in-group symbols and values.
• They begin to hate the out-group.

In these situations, out-groups may also be viewed as fundamentally inferior to the in-group.
Moral exclusion: viewing out-groups as subhuman and outside the domain in which the rules of morality apply.

People’s reactions to out-groups usually stop short of virulent hatred, moral exclusion, and violent hate crimes.
Though they range from mild to intense, they are always negative.

They don’t like us: consequences of belonging to negatively perceived groups.

Stigmatized: negatively evaluated by others.

We are stigmatized: effects on what we do and how we feel

Negative stereotypes about the abilities of a group’s members can become self-fulfilling actually harming the member’s performance. Belonging to a devalued group also poses a threat to self-esteem.

Effects on performance

Stereotype threat: the fear of conforming other’s negative stereotype of your group
Can act as a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Harms performance even for members of generally high-status and non stigmatized groups.

Accounts:

• The very knowledge that other people hod a negative stereotype about your group’s performance.

Worries about the impact of failure.

Interventions

• Involves self-affirmation
• Focusing on other group identities that are stereotyped positively in that same domain.
• The presence of role models who exemplify high performance by members of the stereotyped group.
• If stereotype-relevant tasks are framed as a challenge.

Effects of self-esteem

Belonging to a socially devalued group can have effects on self-esteem that are more subtle, but perhaps ultimately even more severe.

• Feelings about group membership do have a major impact on the emotional and physical well-being of members of stigmatized groups.

Defending individual self-esteem

Belonging to a group that is disliked and discriminated against by others can have a major impact on the individual. But this experience does not inevitably lead to lowered self-esteem, because people can attribute negative reactions to others’ prejudice or compare themselves to fellow in-group members.

Using attributions to advantage

Attributing negative outcomes to others’ prejudice against one’s group instead of to one’s personal failings can protect self-esteem against the negative psychological effects of failure.

• Making attributions to group-based prejudice appears to be uniquely effective, more than attributions to other external factors.

But it carries costs

• Negative feedback is sometimes realistic, and discounting it can prevent accurate self-assessment and self-improvement.
• May breed a sense of hopelessness and loss of control.
• May face social penalties.
• Can destroy trust in positive feedback.

Making the most of intragroup comparisons

Social comparisons are an important source of self-evaluation.
Intragroup comparison boosts self-esteem by showing we are better of than some others and remind us of in-group members who are doing particularly well, even if they are not.

Individual mobility: escaping negative group membership

If self-protective strategies are insufficient, people can attempt to escape from membership in a negatively regarded group.
They can psychologically dis-identify with the group.
Or disassociate.

Individual mobility: the strategy of individual escape, either physical or psychological, form a stigmatized group.

Disidentification: putting the group at a psychological distance

Individual mobility can be purely psychological, as when people disidentify, or minimize their personal connections to the group.

• Avoid reminders of membership in a stigmatized group.
• Publicly criticizing and devaluing an in-group member’s poor performance. → the black sheep effect. It makes clear chat the critic regards the poor performance as unrepresentative of the group.
• Consider oneself to be an exception rather than a typical group member.

Dissociation: putting the group at a physical distance

Dissaociating involves actual escape from a disadvantaged group or concealment of group membership.

Can be successful.

Social creativity: redefining group membership as positive

Sometimes group members attempt to change society’s evaluation of their in-group, through redefining group characteristics in positive terms.

Social creativity: the strategy of introducing and emphasizing new dimensions of social comparison, on which a negatively regarded group can see itself as superiod.

Social change: changing the intergroup context

Group members may engage in direct intergroup conflict or struggle to achieve equitable treatment. Strategies may reduce prejudice do not necessarily lead to better objective outcomes for groups, and strategies that improve outcomes often increase prejudice.
Social change: the strategy of improving the overall societal situation of a stigmatized group.

Social competition

Social competition: the strategy of directly seeking to change the conditions that disadvantage the in-group.

A strategy that leads to in-group bias.
Social competition strategies are likely to provoke a backlash from powerful groups.

• Disadvantaged group members are often penalized.
  Claiming that one has been subject to discrimination can lead to bad treatment.
• Collective actions to advance a group’s interests are often most effective when group members stick together, emphasizing their homogeneity in attitudes and values.
  Social competition take many forms
• Drives for self-sufficiency, autonomy, and separatism.

Social competition or prejudice reduction: mutually exclusive goals?

Strategies that can reduce prejudice toward groups often undermine desires for social competition, and conversely engagement in social competition often increases group dislike.
Positive contact between groups can also smooth over perceptions of group inequality.

One goal, many strategies

Those who most strongly identify with a group and see group boundaries as fixed tend to choose social change rather than individual mobility strategies. But, no single approach is always best for dealing with a negatively evaluated group membership, just as no single coping strategy is uniformly the best to handle threats to the individual self.

Factors:

• Strength of their group identification
• Perceptions of the possibility of individual mobility.