Michael A. Hogg

A tale of two theories : a critical comparison of identity theory with social identity theory

Identity theory and social identity theory are two remarkably similar perspectives on the dynamic mediation of the socially constructed self between individual behavior and social structure. Yet there is almost no systematic communication between these two perspectivies; they occupy parallel bur separate universes. This article describes both theories, summarizes their similarities, critically discusses their differences and outlines some research directions. Against a background of metatheoretical similarity, we find marked differences in terms of 1) level of analysis, 2) the role of intergroup behavior, 3) the relationship between roles and groups, and 4) salience of social context and identity. Differences can be traced largely to the microsociological roots of identity theory and the psychological roots of social identity theory. Identiy theory may be more effective in dealing with chronic identities and with interpersonal social interaction, while social identity theory may be more useful in exploring intergroup dimensions and in specifying the sociocognitive generative details of identity dynamics.

A Social Identity Theory of Leadership

A social identity theory of leadership is described that views leadership as a group process generated by social categorization and prototype-based depersonalization processes associated with social identity. Group identification, as self-categorization, constructs an intragroup prototypicality gradient that invests the most prototypical member with the appearance of having influence; the appearance arises because members cognitively and behaviorally conform to the prototype. The appearance of influence becomes a reality through depersonalized social attraction processes that make followers agree and comply with the leaders ideas and suggestions. Consensual social attraction also imbues the leader with apparent status and creates a status-based structural differentiation within the group into leader(s) and followers, which has characteristics of unequal status intergroup relations. In addition, a fundamental attribution process constructs a charismatic leadership personality for the leader, which further empowers the leader and sharpens the leader-follower status differential. Empirical support for the theory is reviewed and a range of implications discussed, including intergroup dimensions, uncertainty reduction and extremism, power, and pitfalls of prototype-based leadership.

Social Identity Theory: Constructive and Critical Advances

A critical description of many of the most important developments made by contemporary social identity researchers in Europe, North America and Australia. The work covers cognitive and motivational processes, identification, the relationships between groups and social structure.

The theory of planned behaviour: Self-identity, social identity and group norms

The aim of the present study was to examine further the role that self-identity plays in the theory of planned behaviour and, more specifically, to: (1) examine the combined effects of self-identity and social identity constructs on intention and behaviour, and (2) examine the effects of self-identity as a function of past experience of performing the behaviour. The study was concerned with the prediction of intention to engage in household recycling and reported recycling behaviour. A sample of 143 community residents participated in the study. It was prospective in design: measures of the predictors and intention were obtained at the first wave of data collection, whereas behaviour was assessed two weeks later. Self-identity significantly predicted behavioural intention, a relationship that was not dependent on the extent to which the behaviour had been performed in the past. As expected, there was also evidence that the perceived norm of a behaviourally relevant reference group was related to behavioural intention, but only for participants who identified strongly with the group, whereas the relationship between perceived behavioural control (a personal factor) and intention was strongest for low identifiers.

Social Identity Theory

Social identity theory is an interactionist social psychological theory of the role of self-conception and associated cognitive processes and social beliefs in group processes and intergroup relations. Originally introduced in the 1970s primarily as an account of intergroup relations, it was significantly developed at the start of the 1980s as a general account of group processes and the nature of the social group. Since then, social identity theory has been significantly extended through a range of sub-theories that focus on social influence and group norms, leadership within and between groups, self-enhancement and uncertainty reduction motivations, deindividuation and collective behavior, social mobilization and protest, and marginalization and deviance within groups. The theory has also been applied and developed to explain organizational phenomena and the dynamics of language and speech style as identity symbols. Chapter 1 provides a relatively comprehensive and accessible overview of social identity theory, with an emphasis on its analysis of intergroup conflict.

Subjective Uncertainty Reduction through Self-categorization: A Motivational Theory of Social Identity Processes

A motivational extension of social identity theory is proposed: the uncertainty reduction hypothesis. Building on social identity theory and self-categorization theory, a subjective uncertainty reduction model of motivation associated with social identity process and group and intergroup behavior is developed and described. Contextually generated subjective uncertainty about important, usually self-conceptually relevant, matters motivates uncertainty reduction. The processes of self-categorization and prototypical depersonalization responsible for social identification and group behaviors are well suited to subjective uncertainty reduction; they contextually assimilate self to a prescriptive prototype that guides and consensually validates perception, cognition, affect and behavior. Group membership, social category-based self-conceptualization, group behavior, and intergroup relations are motivated by uncertainty reduction. Contextual uncertainty can be reduced by group membership and group action. This model integrates self-enhancement and self-evaluative motives into a single motivational framework for social identity processes. Derivation and explanation of the model recruits literatures on social identity, self-categorization, uncertainty, social comparison processes, self-motives, self-esteem, uncertainty related motives. sociostructural motivations, intragroup processes, intergroup relations, extremism, prototypicality, entitativity. social influence, and social change. Some direct tests of the uncertainty reduction hypothesis are described.

Assimilation and Diversity: An Integrative Model of Subgroup Relations:

A model of sociostructural relations among subgroups within a superordinate category is presented. Contextualized by discussion of political and social psychological models of intergroup contact, we extend principles of social identity theory to address structural differentiation within groups. Subgroup identity threat plays a pivotal role in the nature of subgroup relations, as do the social realities of specific subgroup relations (i.e., inclusiveness, nested vs. crosscutting categories, leadership, instrumental goal relations, power and status differentials, subgroup similarity). Our analysis suggests that subgroup identity threat is the greatest obstacle to social harmony; social arrangements that threaten social identity produce defensive reactions that result in conflict. Social harmony is best achieved by maintaining, not weakening, subgroup identities, and locating them within the context of a binding superordinate identity.

A SOCIAL IDENTITY MODEL OF LEADERSHIP EFFECTIVENESS IN ORGANIZATIONS

Research into leadership effectiveness has largely overlooked the implications of the fact that leadership processes are enacted in the context of a shared group membership, where leaders, as group members, ask followers, as group members, to exert themselves on behalf of the collective. In contrast, the social identity model of organizational leadership, proposed here, emphasizes the characteristics of the leader as a group member, and the leader’s ability to speak to followers as group members. In salient groups with which group members identify, leadership effectiveness rests on the extent to which the leader is prototypical of the group (i.e. representative of the group’s identity) and engages in group-oriented behavior (i.e. behavior perceived to benefit the group). Explicating the added value of our model and going beyond contemporary approaches to leadership effectiveness, we discuss how our model extends, and may be integrated with, three major contemporary approaches to leadership effectiveness (charismatic leadership theories, Leader-Member Exchange theory, and leadership categorization theories). In addition, we outline how our model provides a viable framework to integrate future developments in research on leadership such as a growing attention to leader fairness and the role of emotions in leadership effectiveness.

Uncertainty–identity theory

While I write this chapter, millions of people in the Darfur province of Sudan have been terrorized off their land; the entire population of Iraq has little idea what the future of their country will be; survivors of hurricane Katrina are dispersed across the United States; people in Britain are anxious about immigration and are toying with the idea of supporting the British National Party; people in a small town in Tasmania wait to hear if members of their community have been found alive in a mine collapse; air travelers the world over have no idea what new security arrangements await them when they get to the airport; and we all wonder about the consequences of further escalation in the price of oil and of the standoff over Irans uranium enrichment program. The world is an uncertain place, it always has been, and these uncertainties can make it very difficult to predict or plan our lives and to feel sure about the type of people we are. In this chapter, I describe how feelings of uncertainty, particularly about or related to self, motivate people to identify with social groups and to choose new groups with, or configure existing groups to have, certain properties that best reduce, control, or protect from feelings of uncertainty. I consider this uncertainty–identity theory to be a development of the motivational component of social identity theory. It addresses why, when, and how strongly people identify with groups, and why groups may have particular generic properties in certain contexts. Of particular relevance to contemporary postmodern society, uncertainty reduction theory provides an account of zealotry and the cult of the “true believer” in the thrall of ideology and powerful leadership—an account of conditions that may spawn extremism, a silo mentality, and a loss of moral or ethical perspective. In this chapter, I describe uncertainty–identity theory and some conceptual elaborations and applications, review direct and indirect empirical tests, and locate the theory in the context of related ideas and theories in social psychology. I start with a historical sketch of why, when, and how uncertainty–identity theory was developed, then go on to discuss uncertainty reduction as a motivation for human behavior. I then detail the process by which group identification reduces uncertainty and describe a program of studies showing that people who feel uncertain are more likely to identify and identify more strongly with groups. High‐entitativity groups are best equipped to reduce uncertainty through identification—entitativity moderates the uncertainty–identification relation. I discuss this idea and describe research that supports it, and then extend the analysis to deal with extremism and totalistic groups—describing how extreme uncertainty may encourage strong identification (zealotry, fanaticism, being a true believer) with groups that are structured in a totalistic fashion. Again I describe some research supporting this idea. The next section deals with extensions, applications, and implications of uncertainty–identity theory. I discuss the relation between depersonalization and self‐projection processes in uncertainty‐motivated group identification, and then, in a subsection entitled central members, marginal members, leaders, and deviants, I focus on the role of group prototypicality in uncertainty reduction processes. The role of trust, the relation between uncertainty, identity, and ideology, and the role of uncertainty in social mobilization are also discussed. The final section, before concluding comments, discusses other theories, approaches, and topics that deal with constructs related to those discussed by uncertainty–identity theory. Specifically, I discuss uncertainty as a state versus a trait, with a focus on the constructs of need for cognitive closure and uncertainty orientation; the role played by culture in uncertainty; and the relevance of terror management, compensatory conviction, self‐verification, and system justification.

Subgroup Relations: A Comparison of Mutual Intergroup Differentiation and Common Ingroup Identity Models of Prejudice Reduction

Two studies examined relations between groups (humanities and math-science students) that implicitly or explicitly share a common superordinate category (university student). In Experiment 1, 178 participants performed a noninteractive decision-making task during which category salience was manipulated in a 2 (superordinate category salience)×2 (subordinate category salience) between-groups design. Consistent with the mutual intergroup differentiation model, participants for whom both categories were salient exhibited the lowest levels of bias, whereas bias was strongest when the superordinate category alone was made salient. This pattern of results was replicated in Experiment 2 (N = 135). In addition, Experiment 2 demonstrated that members of subgroups that are nested within a superordinate category are more sensitive to how the superordinate category is represented than are members of subgroups that extend beyond the boundaries of the superordinate category.