Towards a Clearer Understanding of Social Identity Theory’s Self-Esteem Hypothesis

Abstract

Social identity theory was developed by Henri Tajfel and John Turner in the 1970s (Tajfel & Turner, 1979 ;Turner, 1975 ). It provides a nonreductionist social psychological explanation of intergroup confl ict. Its most fundamental assumption is that group behaviour is more than a collection of individuals behaving en masse . Instead, group behaviour is linked to the group's psychological representation or social identity . Hence, social identity theory, or SIT, focuses less on how individuals operate within social groups and more on how social groups operate within the minds of individuals.In this chapter, we focus on a key proposition in SIT-that group members are motivated to protect and enhance the positivity of their group in order to protect and enhance their self-esteem. We begin by explaining this self-esteem hypothesis in detail and summarising the results of research that has tested the hypothesis. We then explain several theoretical caveats of the self-esteem hypothesis and discuss recent work that proposes a dynamic relation between collective self-esteem and group-related outcomes. Based on these caveats and new research, we present a reformulated version of the self-esteem hypothesis. We conclude by explaining how the self-esteem hypothesis can be broadened to take into account other identity management strategies and by outlining some directions for future research.

Kill or Cure? Different Types of Social Class Identification Amplify and Buffer the Relation between Social Class and Mental Health

“…Specifically, we found that aspects of social identification that are associated with the psychological centrality of social class identity (i.e., importance and salience) tended to amplify the association between social class and anxiety and satisfaction with life, whereas aspects of social identification that are associated with a sense of belonging and connectedness with other members of one's social class (i.e., perceived self-class similarity) reduced the association between social class and depressive symptoms. Consistent with prior theorizing, we suggest that the importance and salience of social class identity amplify the relation between social class and mental health because they indicate the extent to which one's social class and its social status are associated with self-definition (Martiny & Rubin, 2016;Rubin & Hewstone, 1998, 2004. Social class' status has a greater impact on mental health when people value their social class as an important and salient part of their identity.…”

“…SIT researchers have proposed that the more people identify with a social group and believe it to be an important part of their self-concept, the stronger the psychological connection between their group's social status and their own self-esteem (Crabtree, S. A. Haslam, Postmes, & C. Haslam, 2010, p. 564;Ellemers, Kortekaas, & Ouwerkerk, 1999;Martiny & Rubin, 2016;McCoy & Major, 2003;Rubin & Hewstone, 1998, 2004. In other words, the positive relation between a group's social status and its members' self-esteem and psychological well-being should increase as a positive function of members' social identification because people who identify strongly with their group are more likely to be psychologically affected by its (positive or negative) social status.…”

“…On the one hand, stronger social class identification may amplify the observed association between social class and mental health because identification strengthens the relation between the social status of the social class group and group members' self-definition (Crabtree et al, 2010;Ellemers et al, 1999;Martiny & Rubin, 2016;McCoy & Major, 2003;Rubin & Hewstone, 1998, 2004. On the other hand, stronger social class identification may weaken the observed association between social class and mental health because it is associated with a sense of belonging and connectedness that buffers the negative effects of membership in low social class groups (Crabtree et al, 2010;Cruwys et al, 2014;Elliott & Doane, 2015;Greenaway et al, 2016;Jetten et al, 2012;Kawachi & Berkman, 2001;Sani et al, 2012).…”

Modeling stereotypes and negative self‐stereotypes as a function of interactions among groups with power asymmetries

“…Social Identity Theory (SIT) has become pretty much the standard account of stereotypes and has had a wide influence on psychology (Brown, ; Scheepers & Derks, ). According to SIT, categorizing people as “similar to us” and “different to us” serves the function of establishing a positive ingroup status, and consequently tends to increase the self‐esteem of the individual making the comparison, provided that the “us” refers to a personally relevant group and to relevant dimensions for comparison (Martiny & Rubin, ; Tajfel & Turner, /2001). Because this occurs even in experimental conditions in which participants have never actually interacted with members of the outgroup (Tajfel & Turner, /2001), the ingroup‐bias has been considered a spontaneous cognitive and motivational tendency.…”

“…Social Identity Theory (SIT) has become pretty much the standard account of stereotypes and has had a wide influence on psychology (Brown, 2000;Scheepers & Derks, 2016). According to SIT, categorizing people as "similar to us" and "different to us" serves the function of establishing a positive ingroup status, and consequently tends to increase the self-esteem of the individual making the comparison, provided that the "us" refers to a personally relevant group and to relevant dimensions for comparison (Martiny & Rubin, 2016;Tajfel & Turner, 1979/2001.…”