Social Categorization in Intergroup Contexts: Three Kinds of Self‐Categorization

Abstract

In reviewing self‐categorization theory and the literature upon which it is based, we conclude that individuals' attempts to form social categories could lead to three kinds of self‐categorization. We label them intergroup categorization, ingroup categorization, and outgroup categorization. We review literature supporting these three types and argue that they can help to explain and organize the existing evidence. Moreover, we conclude that distinguishing these three kinds of self‐categorization lead to novel predictions regarding social identity, social cognition, and groups. We offer some of those predictions by discussing their potential causes (building from optimal distinctiveness and security seeking literatures) and implications (on topics including prototype complexity, self‐stereotyping, stereotype formation, intergroup behavior, dual identity, conformity, and the psychological implications of perceiving uncategorized collections of people). This paper offers a platform from which to build theoretical and empirical advances in social identity, social cognition, and intergroup relations.

Multisensory Facial Stimulation Implicitly Improves Evaluations of the Goodness of Attractive Others

“…Meanwhile, it is well known that people usually categorize others as either similar to oneself or dissimilar based on body-related visual information (Leonardelli and Toh, 2015). Demographic dissimilarity such as race or gender would be one of the most salient and obvious body-related visual cues to categorize themselves and others in social contexts.…”

“…Demographic dissimilarity such as race or gender would be one of the most salient and obvious body-related visual cues to categorize themselves and others in social contexts. Although, a basic form of categorization of others is based on demographic characteristics, categorization can also be based on a variety of features that are behavioral (e.g., participation in a sports club or playing piano), attitudinal or ideological (gay liberation or conservatism), or dispositional (e.g., passionate or optimistic), as well as physical (e.g., makeup or hair styles) (Leonardelli and Toh, 2015) and would influence the development of social bias. Among them, physical attractiveness would be one of the most apparent information in order to perceive difference between self and other and appears to be a method of participating in social cognition processes, i.e., stereotyping such as “what is beautiful is good”(Dion et al., 1972; Landy and Sigall, 1974; Rhodes, 2006).…”

The Effects of Perceived Leader Narcissism on Employee Proactive Behavior: Examining the Moderating Roles of LMX Quality and Leader Identification

“…We state that LMX and leader identification are two vital components that form the basis for perceptions of belonging to a certain workgroup. Moreover, from a social categorization perspective [38], being one core element of social identity theory [64], scholars suggest that people might face identity threat in the process of social categorization. Social identity threat refers to a negative evaluation drawn by individuals based on which collectives they belong to.…”

“…We build upon implicit leadership theories [37] as well as social categorization theories [38] that are used within the social identity framework [39] and propose a recognition-based approach to how employees may react to their leader portraying narcissism by testing a moderation model. According to implicit leadership theories, individuals who label their leaders as having traits such as "dedication, charisma, attractiveness, masculinity, tyranny, and strength" [37] are likely to perceive them as more influential as these leader characteristics are congruent with the role expectations that followers have about their leader [40].…”

“…Also, following the line of argumentation from theorizing on the social categorization process [38], perceived LMX quality and leader identification affect the sense of belonging to a group as well as the sense of identity threat or cognitive dissonance, which, in turn, will influence employees' behavior and attitudes [41]. Therefore, to sum up, our hypothesized three-way interaction model examines whether LMX and employee identification with their leader attenuate the assumed negative relationship between employee perceptions of leader narcissism and employee proactive behavior.…”