Identity Theory and Social Identity Theory

Identity Theory and Social Identity Theory Author(s): Jan E. Stets and Peter J. Burke Source: Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 63, No. 3 (Sep., 2000), pp. 224-237 Published by: American Sociological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2695870 Accessed: 15/08/2010 04:54 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asa. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Psychology Quarterly. http://www.jstor.org Social Psychology Quarterly 2000, Vol. 63, No. 3,224-237 Identity Theory and Social Identity Theory* JAN E. STETS PETER J. BURKE Washington State University In social psychology, we need to establish a general theory of the self which can attend to both macro and micro processes, and which avoids the redundancies of separate the- ories on different aspects of the self For this purpose, we present core components of identity theory and social identity theory and argue that although differences exist between the two theories, they are more differences in emphasis than in kind, and that linking the two theories can establish a more fully integrated view of the self The core components we examine include the different bases of identity (category/group or role) in each of the theories, identity salience and the activation of identities as discussed in the theories, and the cognitive and motivational processes that emerge from identities based on category/group and on role. By examining the self through the lens of both identity theory and social identity theory, we see how, in combination, they can move us toward a general theory of the self In contrast to Hogg and his colleagues (Hogg, Terry, and White 1995), we see sub- stantial similarities and overlap between social identity theory and identity theory. We think that this overlap ultimately will cause these theories to be linked in fundamental ways, though we do not think that time has come. To show how such a merger is possible, we outline some important similarities between the theories; at the same time we note the differences in language, orientation, and coverage of the two theories as they cur- rently exist.' We believe that three areas are central to linking the two theories. First are the differ- ent bases of identity in the two theories: cate- gories or groups for social identity theory, and roles for identity theory. A related issue is the place of person identities. The second area is the activation of identities and the concept of salience as used in each of the the- * An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 1998 meetings of the American Sociological Association, held in San Francisco. We wish to thank members of the Social Psychology Graduate Training Seminar in the Department of Sociology at Washington State University for their helpful com- ments on an earlier version of this paper. Direct all correspondence to Jan E. Stets, Department of Sociology, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-4020; e-mail stets@wsu.edu. 1 We recognize that this goal is a moving target because both theories are under active development. ories. The third area involves the core processes that arise once an identity is acti- vated. In this regard we discuss the cognitive processes of depersonalization (in social identity theory) and self-verification (in iden- tity theory) as well as the motivational processes of self-esteem (in social identity theory) and self-efficacy (in identity theory). For those less familiar with social identi- ty theory and identity theory, we begin with a brief review of the concept of identity as used in both theories. Then we review the theories on the points identified above, with a focus on identifying the ways in which each might reinforce and complement the other. To out- line identity in the two theories, we first dis- cuss how each theory conceptualizes the self. THE CONCEPT OF IDENTITY In social identity theory and identity the- ory, the self is reflexive in that it can take itself as an object and can categorize, classify, or name itself in particular ways in relation to other social categories or classifications. This process is called self-categorization in social identity theory (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, and Wetherell 1987); in identity the- ory it is called identification (McCall and Simmons 1978). Through the process of self- categorization or identification, an identity is formed. 224 IDENTITY THEORY AND SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY 225 In social identity theory, a social identity is a person's knowledge that he or she belongs to a social category or group (Hogg and Abrams 1988). A social group is a set of individuals who hold a common social identi- fication or view themselves as members of the same social category. Through a social comparison process, persons who are similar to the self are categorized with the self and are labeled the in-group; persons who differ from the self are categorized as the out- group. In early work, social identity included the emotional, evaluative, and other psycho- logical correlates of in-group classification (Turner et al. 1987:20). Later researchers often separated the self-categorization com- ponent from the self-esteem (evaluative) and commitment (psychological) components in order to empirically investigate the relation- ships among them (Ellemers and Van Knippenberg 1997). The two important processes involved in social identity formation, namely self-catego- rization and social comparison, produce dif- ferent consequences (Hogg and Abrams 1988). The consequence of self-categoriza- tion is an accentuation of the perceived simi- larities between the self and other in-group members, and an accentuation of the per- ceived differences between the self and out- group members. This accentuation occurs for all the attitudes, beliefs and values, affective reactions, behavioral norms, styles of speech, and other properties that are believed to be correlated with the relevant intergroup cate- gorization. The consequence of the social comparison process is the selective applica- tion of the acceiituation effect, primarily to those dimensions that will result in self- enhancing outcomes for the self. Specifically, one' s self-esteem is enhanced by evaluating the in-group and the out-group on dimen- sions that lead the in-group to be judged pos- itively and the out-group to be judged negatively. As Hogg and Abrams (1988) make clear, the social categories in which individuals place themselves are parts of a structured society and exist only in relation to other contrasting categories (for example, black vs. white); each has more or less power, prestige, status, and so on. Further, these authors point out that the social categories precede individuals; individ- uals are born into an already structured soci- ety. Once in society, people derive their identi- ty or sense of self largely from the social categories to which they belong. Each person, however, over the course of his or her person- al history, is a member of a unique combina- tion of social categories; therefore the set of social identities making up that person's self- concept is unique. In identity theory, self-categorization is equally relevant to the formation of one's identity, in which categorization depends upon a named and classified world (Stryker 1980). Among the class terms learned within a culture are symbols that are used to designate positions-the relatively stable, morphologi- cal components of social structure that are termed roles. Thus, like social identity theory, identity theory deals principally with the com- ponents of a structured society. Persons acting in the context of social structure name one another and themselves in the sense of recog- nizing one another as occupants of positions (roles). This naming invokes meanings in the form of expectations with regard to others' and one's own behaviors (McCall and Simmons 1978; Stryker 1980). In identity theory, the core of an identity is the categorization of the self as an occu- pant of a role, and the incorporation, into the self, of the meanings and expectations associ- ated with that role and its performance (Burke and Tully 1977; Thoits 1986). These expectations and meanings form a set of stan- dards that guide behavior (Burke 1991; Burke and Reitzes 1981). In addition, as McCall and Simmons (1978) make clear, the naming within identity theory includes all the things (including self and other) that take on meaning in relation to our plans and activi- ties. More recently, identity theorists have drawn on this meaningful relationship between persons and things to incorporate the concept of resources (things that sustain persons and interactions) as a central compo- nent in identity processes (Freese and Burke 1994). Much of the meaningful activity within a role that is governed by an identity revolves around the control of resources (Burke 1997); this feature as much as anything, defines social structure. In general, one's identities are composed of the self-views that emerge from the reflex- 226 SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY ive activity of self-categorization or identifica- tion in terms of membership in particular groups or roles. Thus, although the basis of self-classification is different in the two theo- ries (group/category versus role), theorists in both traditions recognize that individuals view themselves in terms of meanings imparted by a structured society (McCall and Simmons 1978; Stryker 1980; Turner et al. 1987). The bases of identity constitute the first area relat- ed to linking these two theories. THE BASES OF IDENTITY Much of social identity theory deals with intergroup relations-that is, how people come to see themselves as members of one group/category (the in-group) in comparison with another (the out-group), and the conse- quences of this categorization, such as ethno- centrism (Turner et al. 1987). Here, however, we address the view of social identity on what occurs when one becomes an in-group mem- ber; and later we compare this with the view of identity theory on what occurs when one takes on a role. Having a particular social identity means being at one with a certain group, being like others in the group, and seeing things from the group's perspective.2 In contrast, having a par- ticular role identity means acting to fulfill the expectations of the role, coordinating and negotiating interaction with role partners, and manipulating the environment to control the resources for which the role has responsibility. Herein lies an important distinction between group- and role-based identities: the basis of social identity is in the uniformity of percep- tion and action among group members, while the basis of role identity resides in the differ- ences in perceptions and actions that accom- pany a role as it relates to counterroles. In group-based identities, the uniformity of perception reveals itself in several ways (Hogg and Abrams 1988; Oakes, Haslam, and Turner 1994). These may be categorized along cognitive, attitudinal, and behavioral lines. Social stereotyping is primary among the cognitive outcomes: researchers have found that stereotyped perceptions of in- 2 Rather than continuing to use the awkward group/category designation, we will generally use the term group. group members and out-group members are enhanced and are made more homogeneous by identification with the in-group (Haslam, Oakes, McGarty, Turner, Reynolds, and Eggins 1996). Similarly, others have found strong evidence that group identification influences the view of the self as prototypical in the group (Hogg and Hardie 1992). Still others have found that in-group homogene- ity is especially strong when no motivational forces exist to distinguish the self from others within the group (Brewer 1993; Simon, Pantaleo, and Mummendey 1995).3 Along attitudinal lines, people uniformly make positive evaluations of a group, when they become group members. For example, social identity researchers have found that individuals who identify with the group feel a strong attraction to the group as a whole, inde- pendent of individual attachments within the group (Hogg and Hardie 1992). Similarly, oth- ers have found that in-group identification leads to greater commitment to the group and to less desire to leave the group, even when the group's status is relatively low (Ellemers, Spears, and Doosje 1997). Finally, people behave in concert within a group with which they identify. Even in a low-status minority group, for example, indi- viduals who use the group label to describe themselves are more likely than not to partic- ipate in the group's culture, to distinguish themselves from the out-group, and to show attraction to the group in their behavior (Ethier and Deaux 1994; Ullah 1987). Similarly, groupthink or extreme concur- rence in decision-making groups is much more likely under conditions of high social identification (Turner, Pratkanis, Probasco, and Leve 1992). In addition, social identifica- tion is one of the prime bases for participa- tion in social movements (Simon, Loewy, Stuermer, Weber, Freytag, Habig, Kampmeier, and Spahlinger 1998). In general, we find uniformity of percep- tion and action among persons when they take on a group-based identity. This point contrasts somewhat with the consequences 3 Perhaps because of the strong focus on homo- geneity, a social identity theory of intragroup differ- entiation and structure has not yet been developed (Hains, Hogg, and Duck 1997). IDENTITY THEORY AND SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY 227 of taking on a role identity. Role identity the- orists have focused on the match between the individual meanings of occupying a par- ticular role and the behaviors that a person enacts in that role while interacting with - others (Burke 1980; Burke and Reitzes 1981). This match includes the negotiation of meanings for situations and identities, and how they fit together to provide a situated context for interaction. By taking on a role identity, persons adopt self-meanings and expectations to accompany the role as it relates to other roles in the group, and then act to represent and preserve these meanings and expectations (Thoits and Virshup 1997). The meanings and expectations vary across persons in the set of roles activated in a situation. Early in the development of role identi- ty theory, McCall and Simmons (1978) dis- cussed the importance of negotiation in working out the differential performances, relationships, and interconnections of roles within a group or interaction context. If each role is to function, it must be able to rely on the reciprocity and exchange relation with other roles. Individuals do not view them- selves as similar to the others with whom they interact, but as different, with their own interests, duties, and resources. Each role is related to, but set apart from, counterroles; often the interests compete, so that proper role performance can be achieved only through negotiation. Evidence of negotiated roles is revealed in identity research. For example, research on leadership role identity found that when individuals could not negotiate differential leadership performances in a group that ver- ified their identity, they became less satisfied with their role and less inclined to remain in the group (Riley and Burke 1995). Other research found that the different gender roles in marriage result in different (albeit negotiated) behaviors for men and for women (husbands and wives) (Stets and Burke 1996).4 In later work, Burke and Stets (1999) showed that when different but inter- related role behaviors and meanings are 4Taking the role of the other seems to move indi- viduals toward the other's identity (Burke and Cast 1997). negotiated so that role identities are verified, a strong attachment to the group develops. Still other research has shown the disruptive effects that can occur in the family when fathers begin to take on some of the role behaviors that traditionally are performed by mothers (Ellestad and Stets 1998). In group-based identities, only the actor's perceptions and actions are directly involved; in role-based identities, other indi- viduals in the group who occupy counter- roles are directly involved in the role performance (Burke 1980; Burke and Reitzes 1981). In group-based identities, the actor need not interact with group members. Indeed, the minimal group experiments in social identity theory precluded any interac- tion (Turner et al. 1987). When most of the actors in a category hold the same percep- tions, those perceptions are mutually rein- forced, and group formation is the result (Turner et al. 1987). Acting in unison, howev- er, is the behavioral consequence for individ- ual members, because they all have the same perceptions. In role-based identities, some form of interaction and negotiation is usually involved as one performs a role (McCall and Simmons 1978). Relations are reciprocal rather than parallel. Different perspectives are involved among the persons in the group as they negotiate and perform their respec- tive roles, creating micro social structures within the group (Riley and Burke 1995; Stets 1997; Stets and Burke 1996). Thus a role-based identity expresses not the unifor- mity of perceptions and behaviors that accompanies a group-based identity, but interconnected uniqueness. The emphasis is not on the similarity with others in the same role, but on the individuality and interrelat- edness with others in counterroles in the group or interaction context. By maintaining the meanings, expectations, and resources associated with a role, role identities main- tain the complex interrelatedness of social structures. When researchers focus on the different ways in which people are linked to groups, through social identities and through role identities, they conceptualize groups differ- ently. Social identity theorists regard the group as a collective of similar persons all of 228 SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY whom identify with each other, see them- selves and each other in similar ways, and hold similar views, all in contrast to members of outgroups. Identity theorists regard the group as a set of interrelated individuals, each of whom performs unique but integrat- ed activities, sees things from his or her own perspective, and negotiates the terms of interaction. The group and the role bases of identity corre