According to social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986), individuals hold conceptualisations of the self at both an individual and a social level (as cited in Ellemers, Spears & Doosje, 2002).
In contrast to characterisations of personal identity, which may be highly idiosyncratic, social identities assume some commonality with others; therefore, our social identities are grounded in our perceptions of social group membership (Deaux, 2001).These perceptions include an acknowledgment of, and comparison with other social groups to which we do not belong, and they create boundaries between conceptions of 'us' and 'them' (Friese, 2001). Since its original formulation, social identity theory (SIT) has grown to become a major psychological perspective on the social group, and inter group processes and relations (Augoustinos & Reynolds, 2001). SIT assumes that people are motivated to think well of themselves; at the level of personal identity, this manifests itself as a drive for positive self-esteem.At the group level though, it manifests itself as a drive for positive inter group differentiation, or positive in-group distinctiveness (Walker, 1999).
Based on two core assumptions, categorisation and enhancement; SIT posits that when group boundaries are made salient, individuals categorise people as members of their own group (in- group) or as members of another group (out- group), and thus, this motivates social comparisons that aim to enhance in-group status (Gaertner, Dovidio, Banker et al. , 2000).Individuals then adopt the prototypical behaviour, norms, and values of the group, and thus, the social standing and prestige associated with the group, which subsequently will enhance member's self esteem (Deaux, 2001). Social identity has many implications, both for the persons who claim the social identity and for others who see them as members of particular categories (Reynolds, Turner, Haslam ; Ryan, 2001). The following literature will assert that SIT has demonstrated a fundamental understanding of the psychological and motivational factors that facilitate inter-group conflict.By reviewing identity based research and theories of inter-group conflict, it will be argued that the assumptions of SIT give insight into how group characteristics, norms or outcomes will influence the perceptual, affective and behavioural responses of individuals belonging to that group.
The belief that an individuals identification with a group is sufficient to lead to in-group favouritism has been tested experimentally and extensively using the minimal group paradigm (MGP), which is an experimental strategy that involves assigning individuals to groups that have no prior meaning for them (Tajfel, 1971; as cited in Hennessy ; west, 1999).The MGP established that mere categorisation was sufficient to elicit inter-group discrimination in the allocation of real rewards or symbolic points, a finding that has proved remarkably robust (Gardham ; Brown, 2001). SIT was developed, in part, as an explanation for these results. According to SIT individuals strive for a positive social identity, which, in the context of the MGP, suggests that commitment to a subjective or perceived group introduces the motivation to differentiate the in-group (a distinctiveness motive) in positive ways (an enhancement motive), which subsequently raises the perceived group status (Otten ; Wentura, 2001).Mere categorisation into two (or more) groups, according to SIT, enhances perceptions of similarities within groups and differences between groups, emphasising social difference, and group distinctiveness (Gaertner et al.
, 2000; Marques, Abrams, Paez ; Martinez-Taboada, 1998; Schiffmann ; Wicklund, 1992). Therefore, in- group members will allocate rewards to their own group as a way of enhancing the group's status and creating a distinctive group identity.In line with these assumptions, Spears, Jetten & Scheepers (2001) have provided evidence that indicates that indistinct, minimal groups, as opposed to more meaningful groups, are more likely to differentiate themselves, as a way of creating a distinctive and positive group identity. Research using the MGP has reinforced the validity of SIT by verifying the existence of several phenomena (e.
g. inter-group differentiation, negative discrimination against outsider groups, and validation of the members of one's own group), which are all linked with a tendency to establish a positive social identity (Wagner, 2001).However, because the identity of the in-group is not directly threatened in this context, satisfaction of group distinctiveness may often be sufficient to create a positive group identity, without any need of hostility or subsequent conflict (Ellemers et al. , 2002). This explains why groups can live side-by-side without conflict. However, at times, conflict arises.
It is therefore important to consider factors that are indicated to precipitate inter- group conflict, over and above the need to establish a positive social identity.Competition led to increased hostility in Sherif's (1961, as cited in Gaertner et al. , 2000) Robbers Cave study. Sheriff observed that the introduction of competitive activities generated derogatory stereotypes and conflict among the groups (Dollar & Zimmers, 1998). Sherif subsequently asserted that the functional relation between groups is the critical factor determining inter- group attitudes. According to this position, which is also known as realistic conflict theory, increased competition occurs when a group's real or perceived ability to secure scarce resources (e.
. money, territory, power) is countered, hindered, or threatened by members of other groups (Mackie, Devos ; Smith, 2000).In Brown, Maras, Masser, Vivian ; Hewstone (2001) study involving British passengers on a cross channel ferry and blockading French fishermen; it was found that passengers who were prevented from travelling (by the blockading French fishermen) expressed more aggressive attitudes, showed a less positive orientation towards France, and a less favourable evaluation of French people, in comparison to passengers who travelled unhindered.Credit these effects as resulting from the actual experience of conflicting goals. However, the study also provided further evidence to suggest that a heightened sense of national identification with Britain was consistently associated with negative attitudes and negative evaluations of the out- group (France and French people in general). Therefore, an alternative explanation for the results could be provided by SIT, whereby conflicts of group interests act to heighten in-group identification, which increases the possibility of social competition.
Furthermore, support for this explanation has been demonstrated by Hennessy ; West (1999), who investigated both SIT and RCT in the context of a community hospital in the U. K. Their results revealed that perception of inter- group conflict for scarce resources and a strong identification with the work group (as opposed to the organisation as a whole) was related to strong in-group identification and out- group discrimination, a finding that has been mirrored in an organisational setting (Dewsnapp ; Jobber, 2002).Therefore, strong group identification (cohesion) can be suggested to be a predictor of discriminatory behaviour, especially when in the context of perceived in-group competition or threat (e. g.
Depret ; Fiske, 1999; Hunter ; Stringer, 1999; Perreault ; Bourhis, 1998). In this context, threat can take one of two forms: threats to group distinctiveness and threat in terms of value (in terms of status or morality) (Walker, 1999). According to SIT, such threats will be met by actions designed to restore self-esteem at the group level (e. g. Lalonde, Doan ; Patterson, 2000; Stott, Hutchinson ; Drury, 2001).
SIT would assert that since the definition and maintenance of groups, and also of the social identities linked with belonging to such groups are strengthened by inter-group opposition and conflicts (see Brown, 2000), aggressive behaviour towards, and discriminatory behaviour against outsider groups can be a means for the group to stabilise its threatened identity (Wagner, 2001). Furthermore, SIT also recognises the role of group identity in achieving positive self-esteem.An individuals' sense of self worth is enhanced when his or her group has positive distinctiveness (i. e. when the in- group can be perceived as better than relevant out- groups) (Stroebe, Kruglanski, Bar-Tal & Hewstone, 1988). Threats toward group prestige could facilitate action to restore a distinctive group status and identity, such as social comparison (enhancement and accentuation), a strengthening of group boundaries, and discriminatory behaviour such as prejudice, stereotyping, and in- group bias (Ellemers et al.
, 2002).An enhanced in- group status is typically achieved by social comparisons that favour the in- group; groups that perceive themselves to be of high status on particular dimensions will choose those as the basis of comparison. Low status groups will minimise differences on those dimensions or choose new dimensions (Matheson & Dursun, 2001). For example, people from some Middle Eastern Islamic countries might regard their country as inferior to the West in terms of economic and technological advancement, but might regard their way of life as being morally superior (Verkuyten & Lay, 1998).In essence, positively discrepant comparisons, or those that achieve positively valued distinctiveness lead to the attainment of a positive social identity, heightened self-esteem, and enhanced group status (Hunter & Stringer, 1999). Groups' feelings of being deprived or disadvantaged are based on comparisons they make rather than the absolute value of their condition (e.
g. Birt ; Dion, 1987; Walker, 1999).A feeling of resentment and the sense of injustice that arises from perceiving that one's in- group has less than they deserve (compared with others) is called fraternal deprivation (Brewer & Crano, 1994). In a study by Ellemers & Bos's (1998) involving native shopkeepers in Amsterdam under threat from the emergence of immigrant owned stores, they noted that the experience of fraternal deprivation was related to people's identification as native shopkeepers.
Additionally, native shopkeepers were more likely to discredit immigrant entrepreneurs and credit native shopkeepers with more positive traits and qualities. SIT maintains that, as the native shopkeepers perceive themselves to be comparatively disadvantaged, due to the emergence of immigrant store owners, which has challenged their rights and/ or privileges, they will seek to protect their position by defending their status, their collective self esteem, and group distinctiveness (Reynolds et al. , 2001).In this example, prejudiced attitudes, 'gratuitous' discrimination and stereotypic strategies, as well as in- group bias, were employed to restore group distinctiveness, and thus, a positive group identity. To conclude, since in- group/ out- group distinctions do not always involve intense (or even mild) competition or conflict, there is a need for an explanation of the evolution of social groups that does not depend on inter- group conflict per se (Abrams & Hogg, 1988).
SIT has provided this explanation.There is an abundance of empirical support for SIT, however, early indicators focused on findings from MGP experiments, hence, several researchers have challenged the explanations for conflict proposed by SIT (e. g. Breakwell, 1993; Schiffmann & Wicklund, 1992).
However, contemporary research in naturalistic settings has demonstrated the applicability of SIT to 'real world issues and conflicts' (e. g. Brown et al. , 2001; Dewsnapp & Jobber, 2002; Hennessy & West, 1999). Therefore, it can be asserted that SIT does provide a plausible explanation as to the psychological and motivational factors that effect inter-group relations.
SIT explains discrimination, in the absence of competition or threat because individuals probably assume that inter-group status is unstable and changeable, and will therefore strive to obtain a positive and distinctive group identity by using available resources (e. g. allocation of real or symbolic points) to enhance the group's status. With relevance to RCT, although competition contributes to potential conflict, it could be argued that competition is not the only motivational factor in this context.In particular, perceived threat to group identity or self-esteem will facilitate the use of collective group strategies to protect group boundaries and restore status, thus, the group's self- esteem and positive identity will be protected.
To this end, it can be asserted that the development of SIT has advanced our understanding of the psychological, affective and behavioural motivational processes that underlie inter- group conflict, both in experimental and naturalistic settings.
