Strategies to cope with negative social identity: Predictions by social identity theory and relative deprivation theory.

Abstract

Predictions by social identity theory (SIT) and relative deprivation theory (RDT) concerning preferences for strategies to cope with a negative in-group status position were tested. The focus of the present research was a comparison of the theories regarding their differential patterns of prediction. For this purpose, a natural sample within a specific historical situation was investigated: East Germans after the German unification. First, the predictive power of SIT and RDT variables was tested separately. In a second step, a possible integration of the theories was addressed. Combining the SIT variables and RDT variables led to an integrated model indicating a differential pattern of prediction for intergroup strategies. The RDT components explained the collective responses, whereas SIT constructs were related to individual strategies. People prefer a positive self-evaluation that is based on their own judgments as well as those of others (Taylor & Brown, 1988). They try to differentiate themselves positively from others. One important source of self-evaluation is the relative status position of the groups people belong to and identify with. Depending on the outcome of a comparison with relevant out-groups, this status position may be characterized as advantaged or as disadvantaged. Such an unsatisfactory status position leads to engagement in strategies to cope with and overcome an unsatisfactory status position. Likewise, if questioned, people tend to defend a satisfactory status position and maintain a positive in-group evaluation. These strategic responses are modes of intergroup behavior. Theories of intergroup relations provide explanatory concepts to understand and, more important, to predict preferences for various kinds of intergroup behavior. Two prominent theories in this domain are social identity theory (

Findings, theories and methods in the study of children's national identifications and national attitudes

“…More recent research inspired by SIT (e.g., Crocker & Quinn, 2001;Ellemers & Barreto, 2001;Ellemers, Spears & Doosje, 1999;Mummendey, Kessler, Klink & Mielke, 1999;Simon, 2004) has examined the consequences of belonging to a social group which is perceived to be under threat. This work has revealed that members of threatened groups tend to have higher levels of identification with the ingroup, show higher levels of outgroup prejudice and/or ingroup favouritism, are more sensitive to status differentials between groups, and perceive the ingroup as being more homogeneous and more cohesive.…”

Values, identities and social constructions of the European Union among Turkish university youth

“…On the other hand; they may reject system justification beliefs, blame the system, demand retribution, and seek social change (Taylor & McKirnan, 1984). Research and theory indicates that permeability and legitimacy of group boundaries, intra versus intergroup social comparison, attributions, and identification with subgroup determine low status group member's reactions to denial of entry into high status groups (Ellemers, Baretto, & Spears, 1999;Tajfel, 1981;Mummendey, Kessler, Klink, Mielke, & Wenzel, 1999;Taylor & McKirnan, 1984). A minimal degree of permeability, perception of self as being close to the criteria of entry, system justification beliefs, seemingly acceptable reasons for exclusion, and blame attributions to in-group are associated with attempts at individual social mobility rather than group oriented attempts at social change (Hine & Montiel, 1999;Kappen & Branscombe, 2001;Sidanius & Pratto, 1999;Wright, Taylor, & Moghaddam, 1990).…”

Identity-based motivation and health.

“…Moreover, following from a social identity perspective, if groups compete over a self-defining characteristic, all things being equal, higher resource groups are likely to have an advantage in claiming valued characteristics as in-group identifying (e.g., Lemaine, 1974;Mummendey, Kessler, Klink, & Mielke, 1999; for reviews see Blanton, Christie, & Dye, 2002;Branscombe & Ellemers, 1998). If White and middle-class Americans are identified with health promotion through media campaigns or product advertising, or even as a consequence of easier access to health services, this in itself may reduce the salience of health promotion as a potential in-group attribute for other Americans who are racial or ethnic minorities or have low incomes.…”