Social Identity Theory

Social Identity Theory
Social identity theory sees social actors as having multiple identities that get activated by
different social contexts. Here, the emphasis is on category memberships (e.g., being a
Muslim, a Catholic, an American, a doctor). Consider the elements of your own identity in
terms of race, ethnicity, sex, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, generation, religious
affiliation, education, occupation, as well as memberships in sports teams, social clubs,
professional organizations, online communities, church groups, school clubs, activist
groups, volunteer organizations, etc.
1. In your opinion, which identities have the strongest effect on how you perceive yourself?
Why? Which identities have the greatest effect on how others perceive you? Why?
When a category membership becomes salient (relevant to the social context),
self-perception and conduct become in-group normative. Again, consider the elements of
your own identity in terms of the above categories. Think of a time when one of these
categories became particularly relevant to the social context in a way that, to some degree,
shifted your self-perception and behavior to better reflect what is expected of someone in
that group.
2. Describe the situation, which identity was most salient, and what about the social context
prompted you to recognize this identity as most salient in the moment. How did it shift
your self-perception in the moment and/or in the long-term?
3. In what ways did you change your behavior, language, expressions, etc. to better reflect
in-group normative conduct? How did you know this conduct was in-group normative?
Were you treated differently or interacted with differently as a result?
Perceptions of other groups become out-group stereotypical. Depending on the nature of
the relationship between the groups (e.g., whether it is competitive or status-ranked), selfand perceptions of the other can shift toward different types of perceptual bias as actors
are motivated to make comparisons that favor the in-group (and sometimes disparage the
out-group). The strength of this tendency varies, depending on the potential for mobility –
it is stronger for immutable ascribed categorizations (e.g., race, sex, nationality) than for
achieved categorizations (e.g., educational attainment, membership in sports teams,
occupation, etc.), especially if the higher status is within reach. Therefore, the social
environment and, in particular, the relevant group contrasts within that environment
determine what dimensions of self-perception, other-stereotyping, and intergroup
competition/discrimination occur.
Again, consider the elements of your own identity in terms of the above categories. Think
of a time when, as a result of the social context, one of these categories became particularly
relevant in relation to another group.
4. Describe the situation, which identity was most salient, and what about the social context
prompted you to recognize this identity in relation to another group present. What was
the nature of the relationship between your group and the other(s)? What sorts of
comparisons did you make? How did these comparisons favor your own group and
diminish the other group? Were any of these judgments based on stereotypes or other
types of perceptual bias?
5. What was there to gain from making these comparisons (e.g., status, money, trophy,
bragging rights, prestige, promotion, etc.)? Did these comparisons shift your
self-perception in the moment or in the long-term? Why or why not? As a result of these
interactions and group dynamics, did the nature of the relationship between your group
and the other(s) shift in any way?
II. Identity Theory
Identity theory views the self as multifaceted and composed of multiple identities, which
are arranged hierarchically in an identity salience structure. This means that identities are
ranked or could be arranged in terms of importance like in a pyramid, of sorts.
6. What identities do you think about most often? Why do you think about them more often
than others? What identities do you think about least often? Why might you not think
about them as often as you do others?
7. Consider factors that influence and make up your unique personality (e.g., favorite music,
skills and achievements you are proud of, favorite movie, favorite book, favorite food,
personal motto, adjectives you would use to describe yourself, etc.). In what ways are
these things related to, influenced by, or shaped by your identities?
The more salient an identity, the higher the probability of it being invoked in an
interaction, especially interactions where the person has some agency and choice in terms
of their behavior.
8. Which of your identities do you invoke most often? Why? Have there been situations
when you were unable to invoke this identity or others? Why or why not?
The salience itself is based on two dimensions of one’s commitment to the identity:
interactional and affective. Interactional commitment is the extensiveness of the
interactions a person has in a social network through a particular identity (e.g., the number
of persons one interacts with based on the identity). Affective commitment is a person’s
emotional investment in relationships premised on the identity (e.g., how emotionally close
others in the role relationship are to the individual).
9. Which of your identities has the highest interactional commitment? Why? Which of your
identities has the highest affective commitment? Why?
From an identity theory perspective, multi-level social structures both facilitate and
constrain one’s opportunity for and strength of commitment to particular role-identities
(i.e., family, work, and volunteerism). For example, on the meso-level, your school or
workplace may influence your commitment most by fostering in-group identity-based
relationships. This means that because you are all attending the same school or all work in
the same place, you share a common identity based on these places (i.e., student, OSU
student, occupation, employee, employee of X company, etc.) and your social network
contains a significant number of social ties based on these identities.
10. Which meso-level institution(s) [e.g., school, workplace, place of worship, hangout spot,
social club, etc.] most influence your commitment to certain identities? How have
enacting different identities shaped your interactions within these institutions?
Ultimately, identity theory focuses on the self-structure for motivating the enactment of
identities and the long-term social experience for the internalized meanings.
11. Based on your interactions with others and self-perception over time, have you at all
altered the time, place, or manner in which you enact different identities? How so? Why
or why not?