Groups, organizations and societies often exist of different subgroups, and are thus not homogenous. These subgroups are based on intragroup roles, or on wider social categories such as profession, socioeconomic status (SES), gender, religion, music preferences, and many other things. In science, there are also groups. These subgroups are part of a larger group. As an explanation, think of cognitive and social psychologists. These psychologists are part of the group ‘psychologists’. Psychologists themselves are also part of a group. For example, sociologists and psychologists are both social scientists. Thus, groups often exist of subgroups with a superordinate identity group (psychologists, social scientists).
This characteristic of groups is often not captured by the commonly used ingroup-outgroup manner, in which many scientists believe social categorization to operate.
In this article, the authors explain the psychological processes that happen when group relations take place within the context of a superordinate identity. They use a social identity theory perspective for this, and they base their ideas on studies on multiculturalism, and social psychological research. The goal of the article is to present a general, integrative framework for understanding the dynamics of subgroup relations and subgroup identification. Their model is based on ideas and studies that have looked at the way that superordinate identity pressures can lead to intersubgroup conflicts. A central idea in their framework is that the superordinate identity should be viewed as a source of positive identity that does not conflict with the subgroup identity. They argue that social harmony is most likely to be achieved by maintaining and not weakening the subgroup identities.
The Social Identity Theory is about category membership and identity threat. It had a significant impact on social psychology. Originally, it focused on the relation between people’s striving for self-esteem through positive social identity and people’s beliefs about the nature of intergroup relations. Later, self-categorization theory came into existence. This theory is the same as Social Identity Theory, but incorporated an explanation of how social categorization can produce group prototype-based depersonalization. In sum, the social identity perspective states that people are motivated to identify themselves in group terms, because of two reasons: they strive for uncertainty reduction, and they want to enhance their self-esteem. This means that people want to reduce uncertainty about who they are, how they should behave, and how other people will behave. By means of social categorization, they achieve these goals, because these categorizations can help them to achieve structure and context in who they are. Self-categorization means that people define themselves in relations to others, and also prescribes one’s perceptions, attitudes, feelings, and behaviors. Thus, uncertainty is a motivation for self-categorization and can cause groups to preserve or enhance their distinctiveness and entitativity. Another motive that people have is a self-enhancement (self-esteem) motive, which means that social categorizations are often given a value (good or bad). Therefore, groups try to be better than other groups, and they strive for positive social identity and positive self-esteem for their members.
Next to ingroup and outgroup attitudes, people also hold ‘social beliefs’, which are attitudes and beliefs about the nature of the relation between groups. These social beliefs are thus about intergroup boundaries, the relative status of groups, and the legitimacy and stability of such relations. In turn, these social beliefs determine the general strategies and specific behaviors that the group members adopt to reach their goals of self-enhancement and uncertainty reduction.
The Social Identity Theory acknowledges the existence of subgroups. Thus, they state that intergroup comparisons often occur within the context of higher order similarities.
Turner and colleagues proposed three levels of self-categorization that are important to the self-concept:
- The superordinate category of the self as human being (the human identity);
- The intermediate level of the self as a member of a social ingroup, defined against other human groups (social identity);
- The subordinate level of personal self-categorizations which are based on interpersonal comparisons (personal identity).
Even though Social Identity Theory acknowledges subgroups, it does not elaborate on gradations of the intermediate level. Thus, there is a need for elaboration on the psychology of subgroup relations.
A key component of the Social Identity Theory is that people strive for positive intergroup distinctiveness. Therefore, humans engage in prejudice, discrimination, negative stereotyping, and other aggressive intergroup behaviors. These can help them to achieve positive distinctiveness. Other, more positive behaviours to achieve a positive distinctiveness is the use of ingroup solidarity, the use of totems, icons, and symbols. The question then is: what predicts a group’s tendency to engage in negative, aggressive behaviors instead of positive behaviours?
An answer is on this question is ‘threat’. This is often called ‘threat to identity’, but this term is often vague. For example, threat can emerge when a group is criticized or attacked (self-enhancement considerations). It can also emerge when the intergroup boundaries are blurred (distinctiveness). Thus, when there is identity threat, the goal for distinctiveness may lead to aggressive behaviours. When there is no identity threat (in the case of blurred boundaries), this may lead to more positive and benign strategies.
In sum, social identity threat can provoke behavior that is aimed at protecting or enhancing a social identity. This social identity can be threatened if a group has the possibility of a loss of status, an absence of the possibility to improve low status, if there is uncertainty about the intergroup boundaries, low entitativity, or a poorly defined ingroup prototype. When groups perceive threat, this strengthens subgroup solidarity, sharpens intergroup boundaries, accentuates ethnocentric attitudes and behavior, inhibits superordinate group identification, and it produces a more polarized ingroup prototype, that lead to a more orthodox subgroup with more hierarchical leaderships and power structures.
The paradox in this is that the superordinate group identification can bind subgroups together in a more powerful group, but it can also destroy subgroup identities.
Studies on conflict and harmony between subgroups have followed two different approaches. First, there is the political science perspective on assimilation and multiculturalism. Second, there is social psychological research on intergroup contact and social harmony.
Assimilation and Multiculturalism
Assimilation
Encouraging members of competing groups to define their similarities at the superordinate level to encourage assimilation within the superordinate group, is called ‘assimilation’. Assimilation is based on the idea that the system becomes intragroup and that problematic intergroup boundaries diminish.
There are two types of assimilation. Melting-pot assimilation refers to the belief that through shared goals and intensive social interaction, old ethnic loyalties melt away and change into a new, homogenous society. Minority-group assimilation refers to that nondominant subgroups adopt the language, values, and systems of a dominant subgroup. These political models are different, but they share a common idea that subgroup identification reflects a problematic or immature stage of development. Thus, all effort should be put in toward refocusing group loyalties: from the subgroup level to the superordinate level. Examples of assimilation-related quotes are: “One nation, one flag”, and “It does not matter if you are Black or White, we are all humans”.
Multiculturalism
Multiculturalism is different than assimilation, because it assumes that ethnic identities are inescapable and that they are fundamental to humans’ self-concept. Therefore, individuals are motivated to retain their cultural heritages. Multiculturalism aims to preserve this integrity, while also stimulating ethnic groups to interact and coexist harmoniously. A limitation of traditional multiculturalism research is that it is often global and descriptive, and is not able to examine underlying psychological processes. It also does not seem to be generalizable outside the specific context in which it was studied. Another limitation is that it is narrow in its focus. It lacks a general, theory-based model of subgroup relations that can apply to all subgroups.
The common ingroup identity model states that contact is beneficial when an individual’s representation changes from two separate groups (us, them) to one (we). It does not try to eliminate group boundaries. Instead, it describes a process by which group boundaries are defined by a superordinate identity. When a person is categorized as ‘an ingroup member’, then evaluations of this person should become more positive, and biases should be reduced. This common ingroup identity may be reached by making the superordinate identity more salient, or by introducing certain factors such as shared goals. This increases the entitativity of the superordinate group.
Studies and experiments have shown that contact reduces intergroup bias, because it changes the perception from ‘two groups’ to ‘one group’.
It is a bit similar to the assimilationist models. However, the common identity theory argues that the superordinate category should be strengthened, and that subgroups should not be eliminated. The best situation is one in which the group members remain a distinct identity, but perceive themselves as part of the same team. But why is this the best situation? Well, if outgroup members are perceived as the same, then contact will not help to change people’s feelings of that group. Thus, previous subgroup identities should not be eliminated, because it reduces the likelihood that positive attitude changes will be generalized outside of the cooperative environment.
According to the mutual intergroup differentiation model, there are historical and sociological reasons in many intergroup settings that suggest that it would be impossible to completely diminish social identities. Attempts to do so will be perceived as ‘a threat to those groups identities’. In turn, a reaction could be increased intergroup differentiation or dislike, because the group will try to reassert their distinctiveness. The model proposes two methods of minimizing threat. First, each group’s areas of expertise should be recognized, and each expertise area should be equally valued. Second, when the groups get in contact, the salience of the original group should be preserved. This model is a bit similar to multiculturalism.
The models described above, the common ingroup identity model and the mutual intergroup differentiation model were originally specified to account for intergroup contact. However, their principles can be extended to noncontact situations. This is very important, because in real life the types of contact necessary to achieve successful intergroup contact are rare. Then, the strategies described by Gaertner and colleagues to invoke a common intergroup identity (physical proximity, cooperation on a common task) are not useful. In these cases, the ‘one group identity’ can be achieved by categorizing participants at the superordinate level, without any reference to subgroup identity.
The authors state that, based on the research on intergroup relations, it seems important to acknowledge category-based differences to achieve harmonious intergroup relations. Thus, one should not try to eliminate intergroup differences and threaten people’s need for distinct subgroup identities. Instead, one needs to nourish distinct subgroup identities, within the context of a superordinate identity. If this happens, then subgroups have a complementary relationship, rather than a competitive relationship. This is called ‘dual categorization’, and thus refers to activating the superordinate and subgroup identities simultaneously. This provides two types of benefits. First, others who are normally seen as out-group members will now be seen as ingroup members. Second, dual categorization protects the distinctiveness of the group, which seems necessary according to multiculturalists for people to be generous toward outgroup members. This dual categorization is beneficial in multi-ethnic contexts, but it can also be extended to other intergroup contexts, for example organizations. It seems that in the case of organizational mergers, it’s best to focus on a common ingroup identity, because otherwise negative relationships can emerge.
Dual categorization or identification may also be beneficial in intergroup negotiations. Why? Well, it has generally been assumed that category-based processing is a negative predicting factor for achieving successful negotiation outcomes. In this case, it seems that successful resolutions of group conflicts involve arriving at a shared superordinate definition of both groups, as well as acknowledging the subgroup level of definition.
Keep in mind that it’s not always necessary to strengthen the common superordinate identity. It can also be that it should be weakened, and this may depend on certain social realities, such as perceptions of superordinate inclusiveness and intergroup similarity.
Perceptions of Inclusiveness
An important factor that influences subgroup identification is how inclusive the superordinate group is perceived to be. According to Optimal distinctiveness theory, there is a dynamic tension between opposing drives for distinctiveness and inclusiveness. So, if people feel overly distinctive or unique, they will experience anxiety and feelings of discomfort. Then they will experience a drive to achieve greater inclusiveness, which can be achieved by identifying with a group or category. The other way around is also true: if a group feels over-inclusive, then this will activate a drive to achieve greater distinctiveness.
Research findings on inclusiveness
Brewer and Weber (1994) found that, in highly inclusive conditions, identification with the group weakens and the group fragments into individuals. Hornsey and Hogg (1999) found that the more inclusive the superordinate category is perceived to be, the more people strive for differentiation at the subgroup level.
Intersubgroup Similarity
Subgroup members dislike being categorized exclusively on a superordinate level, when this means that category boundaries are ignored. This would make them feel as if the superordinate category is an illegitimate way to structure the social world. Thus, subgroup members will resist being categorized entirely at the superordinate level if the subgroups are seen as essentially different.
Nested groups mean that groups can be hierarchically nested within, or crosscut with, a superordinate category. Sometimes, the subgroups are nested entirely within the superordinate category. For example, arts and science students are nested entirely within the superordinate category of ‘university student’.
Not surprising, groups are often directed by representatives, figureheads, or leaders. Often, subgroup members obtain their intergroup attitudes from what they hear their leaders say. According to a social identity analysis, it seems that effective leaders need to be highly ingroup prototypical. This means that when a superordinate identity is perceived as a threat to the subgroup identity, the subgroup leaders need to fight this. In these cases it is common that more extreme subgroup leaders emerge.
Often, cooperation between subgroups is beneficial for all of these groups. This means that subgroups need to work together within an overarching superordinate identity. This helps to transform a competitive intergroup orientation into an intergroup role differentiation, in which the different groups work together toward pursuing shared goals.
Subjective ethnolinguistic vitality refers to beliefs that people have about how well an ethnic-cultural subgroup is going to survive in a multi-ethnic setting in which there is a single dominant cultural group. This subjective vitality depends on beliefs about subgroup status (control of one’s destiny, pride in the group’s language, history, and culture), subgroup demography (absolute numbers, relative numbers, population growth and decline), and institutional support (representation in the culture and leadership of the larger society). When vitality is high, people remain highly identified with their subgroup and no not identify strongly with their superordinate group.
When a member is of a low-status subgroup, it is possible for these members to enhance their identities by self-categorizing at a superordinate level. For example, a member of a low-status university may be motivated to think of themselves as ‘a university student’. In contrast, someone from a high-status university may identify him or herself with the specific university, instead of ‘a university student’. Thus, for a low-status subgroup, the superordinate identity may be ‘additive’, while for the high-status subgroup the superordinate identity may be ‘subtractive’.
Often, social psychologists view intergroup relations in a binary way: in-group and out-group. However, in reality there are multiple groups within a superordinate identity. This article is one of the first to attempt to integrate the different streams of research and theory into one single framework of subgroup relations.
Add new contribution