Conceptualizing Social Identity: A New Framework and Evidence for the Impact of Different Dimensions

Transcription

1 TIN IDENTITY Jackson, PERSONALITY Smith / AND CONCEPTUALIZING SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL BULLE- Conceptualizing Social Identity: A New Framework and Evidence for the Impact of Different Dimensions Jay W. Jackson Indiana University Purdue University at Fort Wayne Eliot R. Smith Purdue University The authors introduce a framework for organizing conceptualizations of social identity along four dimensions: perception of the intergroup context, in-group attraction, interdependency beliefs, and depersonalization. The authors suggest that the extent to which each dimension is evoked or assessed will have an impact on the consequences attributed to social identity. Two studies test hypotheses derived from the framework and investigate the psychometric properties of several scales. In Study 1, participants completed four social identity scales, two group cohesion scales, and a measure of allocentrism. Interscale commonalities were tested through a secondary factor analysis, and the scales and secondary factors were used to predict in-group pride and intergroup bias. Study 2 included additional predictors (interdependency, conflict, competition) and outcome measures (in-group and out-group evaluations, perceived group homogeneity, and the twenty statements test). Consistent with predictions, two types of social identity were empirically extracted and were differentially related to the outcome measures. Theoretical and empirical implications are discussed. It is generally agreed that identifying with a group can significantly affect a person s social behavior. For example, the more an individual identifies with a certain political party, the more likely he or she will show support and commitment to that party through voting, funding, and attending rallies. Similarly, workers who identify strongly with their company s image are more likely to cooperate with other company members to meet productivity goals. On the negative side, high levels of ingroup identification may blind some people to valid criticisms of their own group and lead them to unfairly judge members of opposing or different groups. During the past few decades, the idea that people identify with groups has become increasingly important in explaining a variety of intragroup and intergroup phenomena (see Abrams & Hogg, 1990; Brewer & Miller, 1996; Tajfel, 1982, for reviews). Tajfel and associates introduced social identity theory to address such issues. They defined social identity as that part of an individual s self-concept which derives from his knowledge of his membership in a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to that group membership (Tajfel, 1981, p. 255). This definition has played a prominent role in much research and theorizing. However, as detailed later, for various practical, empirical, and theoretical reasons, researchers have conceptualized and operationalized the construct in numerous and sometimes quite disparate ways. Recognizing this situation, Moscovici and Paicheler (1978) stated that the concept of identity is as indispensable as it is unclear. This is why no attempt will be made to define it and we shall keep it in a zone of shaded obscurity (p. 252). Although much research on social identity has taken place since this observation, there remains a great deal of conceptual and operational inconsistency across studies and incongruence between conceptual and operational definitions of the construct within studies. A similar problem exists for scholars focusing on ethnic identity. Phinney Authors Note: Study 1 was supported by a grant from the Kinley Trust to Eliot R. Smith, administered through Purdue University. Many thanks to Cheri Sparks for her help with Study 1 and to Mike Coon, Heather Sharp, Amy Wolfe, and Ron Cruchfield at Glenville State College for their energetic assistance with Study 2. We are also grateful to Jack Dovidio, Oliver John, and three anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments. Address correspondence regarding this article to Jay W. Jackson, Department of Psychological Sciences, Indiana-Purdue University, Fort Wayne, IN 46805, jacksonj@ipfw.edu or Eliot R. Smith, Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, esmith@psych.purdue.edu. PSPB, Vol. 25 No. 1, January by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc. 120

2 Jackson, Smith / CONCEPTUALIZING SOCIAL IDENTITY 121 (1990), for example, discusses the confusion about the topic and points out that when definitions of the construct are offered, they reflect quite different understandings or emphases regarding what is meant by ethnic identity (p. 500). The fact that social identity has been empirically defined and theoretically construed in different ways may help explain some inconsistent findings reported in the literature. Various reviewers have noted that several key hypotheses derived from social identity theory have received mixed support (Brewer & Miller, 1996; Brown, 1995; Deaux, 1996; Messick & Mackie, 1989; Taylor & Moghaddam, 1994). For example, the hypothesized relationship between social identity and such variables as intergroup bias, self-esteem, and intragroup cooperation have all received uneven empirical support. One reason for the inconsistent findings may be the differential conceptual and operational definitions of social identity employed. This is true in general, but our focus will be on the social identity scales that have been developed in recent years (as opposed to different types of manipulations used to operationalize the construct). Such scales are not in agreement as to the number or the nature of the components of social identity and do not usually correspond to theoretical definitions. For example, Brown, Condor, Mathews, Wade, and Williams (1986) adhere theoretically to a three-component view of social identity based on Tajfel s (1981) definition (awareness, evaluation and affect), but empirically use a unidimensional scale. Hinkle, Taylor, Fox-Cardamone, and Cook (1989) define social identity in terms of emotional aspects, cognitive aspects, and individual-group opposition. Karasawa s (1991) scale is based on a two-dimensional view of social identity (member vs. group), and Luhtanen and Crocker s (1992) collective self-esteem scale is fourdimensional (membership, private, public, and identity). As discussed below, several other conceptual and operational definitions of social identity have also been advocated in the literature. Thus, although much progress has been made, several important questions remain unanswered: How should we best conceptualize social identity? Is it a unidimensional construct? If there are several basic dimensions, what are they? How are they related to each other? And how are they related to such theoretically important outcomes as intergroup bias, in-group pride, perceptions of group homogeneity, and attributes of the self-concept? Furthermore, how is social identity similar to and different from such constructs as group cohesion and allocentrism? To address these issues, we introduce a framework for classifying conceptual definitions and operationalizations of social identity and then present two studies comparing how various measures of social identity are related to each other, to other similar constructs, and to theoretically important outcome variables. FRAMEWORK FOR CONCEPTUALIZING SOCIAL IDENTITY Our framework for organizing conceptualizations and operationalizations of social identity is based on four primary dimensions of social identity: perceptions of the intergroup context (the extent to which an out-group is salient and perceived to have competitive rather than cooperative relations with the in-group), attraction to the in-group (positive affect toward the in-group), interdependency beliefs or common fate (the future wellbeing of the self and the in-group are bound together), and depersonalization (thinking of the self more in terms of a group member and less in terms of a unique individual). Perception of the Intergroup Context Both Sherif (1966) and Tajfel (1978) emphasized that group identity is necessarily embedded in a context of intergroup realities. That is, identification with an ingroup is defined, in part, by the intergroup situation. Several researchers have taken similar stances in their conceptualizations of social identity. For example, selfcategorization theory (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) defines social identities as cognitive groupings of oneself and some class of stimuli as the same... in contrast to some other class of stimuli (p. 44). Oaks, Haslam, and Turner (1994) assert that categorization is determined by comparative relations (p. 95), and Hogg (1992) suggests that measures of social identity need to consider the specific nature of the group and its social history of relations with other groups (p. 98) and that a proper understanding of social attraction must be grounded in a discussion of intergroup relations (p. 103). Messick and Mackie s (1989) conceptualization of social identity also emphasizes the intergroup context, and Van Knippenberg and Ellemers (1993) note that theoretically social identity is established though comparisons with other relevant social categories (p. 87). Finally, Brewer s (1991, 1993) optimal distinctiveness theory conceptualizes social identity as a tension between inclusion and distinctiveness, with the latter being obtained though intergroup comparisons, and Deaux (1996) in a recent review states that the comparison function is central to social identity theorizing (p. 780). Researchers who focus on ethnic groups also typically conceptualize identity in terms of in-group/out-group relations (e.g., Berry, Trimble, & Olmedo 1996; Hutnik, 1990; Verkuyten & Kwa, 1996). For example, Helms s (1990) developmental model and measurement scale emphasize identity in the context of other ethnic groups, as does the Ethnic Identification Scale developed by

3 122 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN Rosenthal and Hrynevich (1985). Phinney (1990) sums up the issue by stating that ethnic identity is not an issue except in terms of a contrast group (p. 509). Given the above, it is surprising that only a few measures of social identity include items that directly reflect this dimension. Luhtanen and Crocker s (1992) Collective Self-Esteem Scale contains one such item ( Most people consider my social groups, on the average, to be more ineffective than other social groups ). Bond and Hewstone s (1988) measure includes items that tap this dimension (e.g., How important is it to place the [ingroup] in a positive light relative to the [out-group]? ), as does the measure used by Ellemers, Van Knippenberg, De Vries, & Wile (1988) (e.g., Do you think it would be nicer to be in another group? ). However, social identity is most typically assessed without explicit reference to comparison groups. Usually, the focus is on attraction to the in-group. Attraction to the In-Group Although Brown et al. (1986) and Kelly (1988) failed to derive a separate affective component from factor analyses, their scales seem to emphasize positive affect or attraction to the group (e.g., glad to be a member, group is important, annoyed with the group, make excuses for being a member). Using similar items, Hinkle et al. (1989) obtained an emotional factor containing four items (e.g., glad to belong to group, identifies with group). Luhtanen and Crocker s (1992) private subscale of the Collective Self-Esteem Scale contains similar items (e.g., glad to be a member, feel good about the group). Brown et al. (1986) also suggested that interpersonal friendship was a major component of group identity, and Bat-Chava (1994) assessed group identification in terms of friendship patterns and involvement with the in-group. These conceptualizations are very similar to the concept of group cohesion, which has been defined as an individual s desire to identify with and be an accepted member of the group (Evans & Jarvis, 1986, p. 204) and a group property with individual manifestations of feelings of belongingness or attraction to the group (Lieberman, Yalom, & Miles, 1973, p. 337). These definitions form the respective bases of two widely used measures of cohesion, the Group Attitude Scale (Evans & Jarvis, 1986), and the Gross-Yalom Cohesion Questionnaire (Stokes, 1983). In practice, group cohesion has been studied primarily as an intragroup phenomenon by researchers not so much interested in intergroup relations but rather in such topics as group productivity, group decision making, communication patterns, and group therapy. It is perhaps for this reason that measures of group cohesion do not typically invoke an out-group but rather focus on attraction to the group as a whole and its members. Consider, for example, items from the Evans and Jarvis (1986) Group Attitude Scale (e.g., I want to remain a member of this group ) and from Stokes s (1983) Gross-Yalom Cohesive Questionnaire (e.g., How well do you like the group you are in? ). In sum, although social identity and group cohesion have been distinguished theoretically (see Hogg, 1992; Turner et al., 1987), scales designed to assess the two constructs have never been empirically compared and differentiated. In terms of our framework, attraction to the group is merely one dimension of social identity. Interdependency Beliefs (Common Fate) Interdependency beliefs as a dimension of social identity is rooted in Sherif s definition of group and theory of intergroup relations (e.g., Sherif, 1966; Sherif & Sherif, 1953). By Sherif s definition, norms and values regulate the behavior of group members as they pursue common goals and react to in-group and out-group members. Sherif also postulated that an encounter between two individuals could be more or less interpersonal or intergroup in nature depending on the extent to which they interact in terms of their reference group identification (Sherif & Sherif, 1979, p. 9). Reference group identification was defined in terms of perceived interdependency or common fate, that is, that self-identity and self-interests are based on group membership. Several contemporary researchers also stress this dimension of social identity. For example, in their studies of commons dilemmas, Kramer and Brewer (1984) (see also Brewer & Kramer, 1986) used manipulations of common fate to operationalize social identity. In a major review, Deaux (1996) considers interdependence to be one of three basic mechanisms of social identification (the others being cognitive and affective). Gurin and Townsend (1986) specify a sense of common fate as one of three properties of gender identity (the other two being perceived similarity to other group members and centrality of gender to the sense of self), and Der- Karabetian (1980) uses such items as My fate and my future are bound up with that of [my group] to assess ethnic identity (see also Phinney, 1990; Zak, 1973). Triandis and associates (e.g., Triandis, Leung, Villareal, & Clark, 1985; Triandis, McCusker & Hui, 1990) consider perceived interdependence a defining characteristic of allocentrism, which similar to group cohesion, is conceptually similar to social identity but has not been adequately distinguished. Consider the three separate themes of allocentrism identified by Triandis et al. (1985): extension of the self to the in-group, subordination of personal goals to the goals of the in-group, and the in-group as a source of identity. These themes are perfectly compatible with social identity theory, and furthermore, unlike the theoretical distinctions between social identity and group cohesion approaches (Hogg,

4 Jackson, Smith / CONCEPTUALIZING SOCIAL IDENTITY ; Turner et al., 1987), no fundamental theoretical conflicts are apparent between social identity and allocentrism. Despite the lack of objective interdependence in the minimal group paradigm, some researchers have theorized that perceived interdependence may be the driving force behind discrimination in such settings (Horwitz & Rabbie, 1982; Vivian & Berkowitz, 1992). Supporting this view, Rabbie, Schot, and Visser (1989) found that participants in the minimal group paradigm expected either bias or favoritism from out-group members depending on perceived interdependence with the in-group or the out-group. The equity-reciprocity approach of Ng (1981, 1984) and Diehl (1989) draws a similar conclusion. Their research suggests that if participants believe that out-group members will discriminate against the ingroup, they will discriminate to prevent inequality. Consistent with these views, Jackson (1997) found that participants in a modified minimal group paradigm clearly expected discrimination based on group membership, and such expectations were correlated with discrimination. In sum, perceived interdependence has a long history of association with social identity and continues to be used interchangeably with the construct or considered a part of social identity by several researchers. The next dimension we consider is more contemporary in terms of formal theoretical developments. Depersonalization The notion of depersonalization plays a prominent role in self-categorization theory (Turner et al., 1987), optimal distinctiveness theory (Brewer, 1993), and Hogg s (1992) reconceptualization of group cohesion as social attraction. According to self categorization theory, social identity entails increasing levels of depersonalization, that is, a shift towards the perception of self as an interchangeable exemplar of some social category and away from the perception of self as a unique person (Turner, et al., 1987, p. 50). Hogg (1992) postulates that as social attraction is increased, in-group members are relatively interchangeable they are depersonalized (p. 103). According to Brewer s (1993) optimal distinctiveness theory, Social identities are categorizations of the self into more inclusive social units that depersonalize the self-concept and satisfy the need for inclusions (p. 3). Several social identity measures include items that seem to tap this dimension of social identity, although none have been developed to do so purposefully. For example, Karasawa s (1991) identification scale ascertains the extent to which participants see themselves as typical in-group members. Bond and Hewstone s (1988) measure contains several items assessing how similar participants see themselves relative to other ingroup members; Luhtanen and Crocker s (1992) identity subscale of the Collective Self-Esteem emphasizes the in-group as a part of the self-concept. Whereas several measures (Brown et al., 1986; Kelly, 1988; Hinkle et al., 1989) ask participants directly how much they identify with a group, it is not clear that participants interpret such questions in ways that match the concept of depersonalization. Implications for Theory We propose that the extent to which a measure or manipulation evokes each dimension will have an impact on the consequences attributed to social identity. When assessed simply or primarily in terms of in-group attraction (which is the basis of several measures), the impact of social identity should be moderate or inconsistent, because other crucial dimensions may be high or low. We believe that the consequences of social identity will depend critically on those other three dimensions and argue that two specific configurations are particularly important. Suppose someone feels strong affective ties to the in-group, perceives his or her fate to be intertwined with the in-group, experiences a high degree of depersonalization, and perceives a strongly competitive intergroup context. Competitive intergroup relations pose a strong identity threat to someone with high levels of group attraction, common fate, and depersonalization, because all of these factors tie personal and group identity closely together; thus, this situation could be termed one of insecure social identity. Most important, in this situation, intergroup bias is predicted to be high. In contrast, suppose someone with equally strong affective ties to the in-group does not perceive high levels of common fate, depersonalization, or intergroup competition or conflict. Group membership supports the individual s identity, but the perceived intergroup situation does not pose a strong identity threat. We term this situation secure social identity and predict a lower degree of intergroup bias (compared to insecure social identity). Thus, contrary to the view that social identity should be directly and consistently related to intergroup bias, discrimination, and so forth (Brown, 1995; Hinkle et al., 1989; Kelly, 1988; Taylor & Moghaddam, 1994; Tajfel & Turner, 1986), we suggest that the relationship will depend on what dimensions of social identity are activated or measured in a particular situation. One could have a strong social identity defined as attraction to the in-group and low levels of out-group negativity as long as the social identity is secure as defined here. As outlined above, taking these different dimensions into account may help explain some of the inconsistencies in the literature concerning the hypothesized link between social identity and intergroup bias. For example, Brown and associates have found very mixed results in several studies (Brown et al., 1986; Brown & Williams,

5 124 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN 1984; Oaker & Brown, 1986). Hinkle et al. (1989) found group identity unrelated to intergroup bias, but Kelly (1988) found a significant relationship between group identification and intergroup bias. The measures used in these studies, however, assessed primarily the attraction to the in-group dimension. The key components for predicting biased reactions, according to our framework depersonalization, perceived interdependency, and intergroup perceptions were not directly assessed. Studies that have incorporated one or more of these components have obtained results more consistent with the theory. For example, Kramer and Brewer (1984) (see also Brewer & Kramer, 1986) defined social identity in terms of common fate and found that it had a strong impact on cooperative responses to a social dilemma. Karasawa s (1991) Group Identification subscale, which assesses depersonalization and interdependency (in our judgment), was found to be a much more consistent and stronger predictor of evaluating the in-group compared to a member identification subscale. Likewise, the minimal group studies that have consistently generated intergroup bias effects are, as designed, situations of extreme depersonalization with all other dimensions equalized. Finally, some studies have found that a strong sense of ethnic group identity can actually facilitate favorable intergroup attitudes and relationships (Parham & Helms, 1985; Phinney, 1990; Rosenthal & Cichello, 1986; Rosenthal & Hrynevich, 1985). OVERVIEW OF THE STUDIES To test the validity of our integrative framework and examine the psychometric properties of several social identity scales, we conducted two studies. Although several scales have been constructed, there is disagreement as to the nature of social identity and the number of basic components. Furthermore, the scales have not been previously compared with one another for evidence of convergent validity, and none have been empirically compared to measures of group cohesion to assess discriminant validity. Only one (the Collective Self-Esteem Scale) has been previously compared to allocentrism, another related concept. Finally, the scales have not been previously compared in terms of predicting theoretically central outcome variables such as in-group pride and in-group bias. In Study 1, we examine the psychometric properties of four social identity scales, two group cohesion scales, and a measure of allocentrism. The internal consistency of these scales is tested, and their interrelationships investigated through correlation analyses and a secondary factor analysis. Then, the scales and secondary factors are compared in terms of their relationships to an index of in-group pride and a measure of evaluative in-group bias. In Study 2, we replicate the basic findings of Study 1 and include additional variables to test hypotheses related to our conceptual framework, namely the differential structure and consequences of a secure versus an insecure social identity. STUDY 1 METHOD Participants and Procedures In several sessions, Purdue University undergraduate participants (N = 229) first completed a social group questionnaire, which was Luhtanen and Crocker s (1992) Collective Self-Esteem Scale, with instructions and wording as presented in Luhtanen and Crocker. Next, participants completed a Purdue University student questionnaire containing Brown et al. s (1986) social identity scale, Karasawa s (1991) social identity scale, Hinkle et al. s (1989) social identity scale, Evans and Jarvis s (1986) Group Attitude Scale (designed to measure group cohesion), and Stokes (1983) Gross- Yalom Cohesion Questionnaire. Responses were made on 7-point Likert-type scales, and the items were adapted to specify the school as the in-group (e.g., I am glad to belong to this group was changed to I am glad to belong to this school ). Second, participants completed a Purdue store survey in which they indicated how many items of university clothing they owned, how often they wore such clothing, and how many other university items they owned and displayed. These items represent our measure of ingroup pride. Third, participants completed a student social attitude scale, which was Hui s (1988) Individualism-Collectivism scale. Finally, participants completed a social comparison survey, our measure of evaluative ingroup bias. They indicated how the in-group compared to out-groups (three other universities) across seven 7-point semantic differential scales (creative/uncreative, inferior/superior, helpful/unhelpful, friendly/ unfriendly, uncooperative/cooperative, knowledgeable/ignorant, and open-minded/closed-minded). About half of the total number of items were reverse scored. STUDY 1 RESULTS Means, Standard Deviations, and Reliability of the Measures Means, standard deviations, and alpha coefficients for all scales and subscales are presented in Table 1 (left side). These results closely match what has been reported in the literature for each scale. Scale Commonalities To examine the commonalities among the scales, we created a correlation matrix consisting of the Collective Self-Esteem Scale, the other three social identity scales, the two group cohesion scales, and the Individualism-

6 Jackson, Smith / CONCEPTUALIZING SOCIAL IDENTITY 125 TABLE 1: Means, Standard Deviations, and Reliability Coefficients for Scales and Subscales Study 1 Study 2 Measure X s α X s α Luhtanen and Crocker s (1992) Collective Self-Esteem Scale Private Public Identity Member Karasawa s (1991) Identification Scale Group Member Brown, Condor, Mathews, Wade, and Williams s (1986) Group Identification Scale Hinkle, Taylor, Fox-Cardamone, and Cook s (1989) Group Identification Scale Emotion Individual-Group Cognitive Evans and Jarvis s (1986) Group Attitude Scale Stokes s (1983a) Gross-Yalom Cohesion Questionnaire Hui s (1988) Individualism-Collectivism Scale Spouse Parent Kin Neighbor Friends Coworkers In-Group Pride Intergroup Bias Bat-Chava s (1994) Group Identification Scale Kelly s (1988) Group Identification Scale Bond and Hewstone s (1988) Social Identity Scale Identification With the In-Group Intergroup Differentiation Satisfaction With Status Quo Triandis, McCusker, and Hui s (1990) Allocentrism- Idiocentrism Scale Self-Reliance Family Integrity Interdependence Distance From In-Group Competitive Intergroup Comparisons Perception of Incompatible Goals Group-Self Interdependency In-Group Evaluation Out-Group Evaluation Perceived In-Group Homogeneity Perceived Out-Group Homogeneity Responses to the Twenty Statements Test (%) Personal attributes Group attributes Interpersonal attributes Other NOTE: Except where noted, scales ranged from 1 to 7, with higher numbers indicating more of the attribute. The short version of the Individualism-Collectivism Scale (no subscales) was used in Study 2. In Study 2, bias was calculated as the difference between in-group and out-group evaluations; thus, possible scores ranged from 6 to 6, with positive numbers indicating bias in favor of the in-group and negativenumbers indicating bias in favor of the out-group. Reliability coefficients are not reported for in-group and out-group homogeneity because they were single-item measures. Intercoder reliability for the Twenty Statements Test is reported in the text. Collectivism Scale. The three total scales measuring social identity were all significantly intercorrelated (average r =.70), providing convergent validity. Each social identity scale was also significantly correlated with the Collective Self-Esteem Scale (average r =.45). Discriminant validity was lacking, however, as both group cohesion scales were significantly related to each social identity scale, with rs ranging from.42 to.78 (average r =.61).

7 126 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN TABLE 2: Results of the Secondary Factor Analysis: Study 1 Collective Scale/Subscale Group Attraction Self-Esteem Allocentrism Brown, Condor, Mathews, Wade, and Williams s (1986) Group Identification Scale.896 Hinkle, Taylor, Fox-Cardamone, and Cook s (1989) Group Identification Scale/Emotion.866 Group Cohesion Questionnaire.801 Group Attitude Scale.797 Hinkle et al. s (1989) Group Identification Scale/Cognition.774 Karasawa s (1991) Identification Scale/Group.723 Hinkle et al. s (1989) Group Identification Scale/Individual-Group.629 Karasawa s (1991) Identification Scale/Member.400 Collective Self-Esteem Scale/Private.831 Collective Self-Esteem Scale/Member.803 Collective Self-Esteem Scale/Public.673 Collective Self-Esteem Scale/Identity.617 Individual-Collectivism Scale/Kin.812 Individual-Collectivism Scale/Coworker.704 Individual-Collectivism Scale/Friend.649 Individual-Collectivism Scale/Parents.498 Individual-Collectivism Scale/Neighbor.432 Individual-Collectivism Scale/Spouse.402 NOTE: Only factor loadings greater than.40 are shown. Factor Allocentrism was also significantly related to the social identity measures, with rs ranging from.33 to.42 (average r =.38). Next, we subjected the correlation matrix (leaving out the total scales when subscales existed because they would be redundant) to a principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation. The scree test indicated the three-factor solution shown in Table 2. The first factor included all of the social identity measures and both group cohesion scales, which fits our dimension of attraction to the in-group. Note that this factor empirically captures social identity and group cohesion measures, although conceptually the two constructs have been considered distinct. The second factor contained all four subscales of the Collective Self-Esteem Scale. This is not surprising because this scale assessed the participants feelings about their social groups in general, whereas the other measures specified the school as the in-group. The third factor consisted of the six subscales of the Individualism-Collectivism Scale, a measure of allocentrism at the individual level. Predicting Intergroup Bias and In-Group Pride Given the condition of multicollinearity among our predictor variables, we performed both bivariate correlation and multiple regression analyses to investigate the predictive importance of each scale (see Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Correlations were first performed to determine how each scale was related to intergroup bias and in-group pride while ignoring all other predictors. Regression analyses were then performed to examine the contribution of each scale to the prediction of each dependent measure while holding the impact of the other scales constant. As shown in Table 3 (left side), virtually all social identity and group cohesion scales were significantly correlated with intergroup bias, with rs ranging from.33 to.45. Given the strong interrelationships among the social identity and cohesion scales, it is not surprising that none of the individual scales offered a significant degree of unique predictive ability, but the multiple R was significant (R =.516, R 2 =.266, F(7,169) = 8.74, p <.001). As the bottom of Table 3 shows, the secondary factor of group attraction was significantly correlated with intergroup bias and made the only unique contribution to the prediction of intergroup bias. In-group pride was significantly correlated with each individual measure, and the multiple R was highly significant (R =.559, R 2 =.313, F(7, 165) = 10.73, p <.001). Karasawa s (1991) Identification Scale was the only measure that made a significant unique contribution to the prediction of in-group pride. Furthermore, all of the secondary factors were significantly correlated with ingroup pride, and the multiple regression analysis was significant, R =.555, R 2 =.309, F(3, 169) = 25.14, p <.001. However, group attraction was the only factor that accounted for any unique variation. STUDY 1 DISCUSSION As predicted from social identity theory, the in-group attraction secondary factor was significantly associated with intergroup bias and in-group pride and was the only

8 Jackson, Smith / CONCEPTUALIZING SOCIAL IDENTITY 127 TABLE 3: Results of Correlation and Multiple Regression Analyses for Total Scales and Secondary Factors Predicting Intergroup Bias and In-Group Pride Study 1 Study 2 Intergroup Bias In-Group Pride Intergroup Bias In-Group Pride Measure r β r β r β r β Total scales Collective Self-Esteem Scale ** ** **.002 Karasawa s (1991) Identification Scale.33** **.224**.38**.272**.58**.270** Brown, Condor, Mathews, Wade, and Williams s (1986) Group Identification Scale.42** ** ** **.144 Hinkle, Taylor, Fox-Cardamone, and Cook s (1989) Group Identification Scale.40** ** ** **.143 Group Attitude Scale.44** ** ** **.183 Group Cohesion Questionnaire.45** ** ** **.375** Individualism-Collectivism Scale.15* ** ** *.089 Kelly s (1988) Group Identification Scale.28** **.341 Bat-Chava s (1994) Group Identification Scale.25** **.044 Bond & Hewstone s (1988) Social Identity Scale.29** **.065 Allocentrism Scale.32** **.067 Competitive Comparisons **.096 Incompatible Goals.25**.285** Interdependency Beliefs.37**.253**.27**.005 R 2.266**.313**.385**.538** Secondary factors Group attraction.47**.500**.55**.525** Collective self-esteem **.079 Allocentrism.14* **.125 Secure social identity.19**.231**.59**.312** Insecure social identity.40**.577**.65**.438** Allocentrism R 2.211**.309**.214**.473** *p <.05. **p <.01. secondary factor to account for unique variation in both of these outcome measures. Individually, the social identity measures were significantly correlated with the measures of in-group pride and intergroup bias, providing good predictive validity for each measure. Karasawa s (1991) scale was the only scale that accounted for unique variation in in-group pride. All of the social identity scales were highly intercorrelated, thus providing convergent validity. However, the social identity measures were also highly related to the scales designed to assess the theoretically distinct variable of group cohesion, and the group cohesion and social identity scales loaded together in the secondary factor analysis. These results bring into question the distinction between social identity and group cohesion and fit with our framework that group attraction is but one dimension of social identity. We conducted a follow-up study to replicate these key findings and to examine more closely the hypotheses suggested by our framework. First, different categories of social identity should emerge when we include such variables as intergroup comparisons, perceived interdependency, and depersonalization. We test this hypothesis by including several scales that correspond to these dimensions and combine them with the previously used scales in a secondary factor analysis. More specifically, we hypothesize that two basic types of social identity will emerge: one that is characterized primarily by attraction to the in-group, moderate levels of depersonalization, low levels of perceived interdependency, and a positive perception of the intergroup context (secure social identity), and one that is characterized by attraction to the in-group and relatively high levels of depersonalization, high levels of perceived interdependency, and an unfavorable perception of the intergroup context (insecure social identity). Our second hypothesis is concerned with the differential consequences of a secure versus insecure social identity. For reasons outlined in the introduction, our primary prediction is that intergroup bias will be more strongly related to an insecure social identity than to a secure social identity. We also include some additional dependent measures that should be differentially related to a secure versus an insecure social identity: separated indices of in-group and out-group evaluations, self-categorization into social groups, and

9 128 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN perceptions of in-group and out-group homogeneity. In addition, in Study 2 the Collective Self-Esteem Scale was modified to refer to a specific in-group (as do all the other scales). STUDY 2 METHOD Participants and Procedures Undergraduates (N = 220) from a small college in central West Virginia volunteered to complete the Mountain Region Social Inventory II for extra credit. This inventory contained the same measures used in Study 1 as well as the additional ones described below. In an effort to broaden the generality of our findings beyond the university in-group used in Study 1, in Study 2 residents of the state of West Virginia were the in-group and other states the out-group. Except for the openended Twenty Statements Test (described below), all responses were made on 7-point scales, and about 40% of the items were reverse scored. Measures Social identity. Seven measures of social identity were employed in Study 2. In addition to those used in Study 1, the following were administered: (a) Kelly s (1988) 10-item unidimensional measure of social identification, which is a modification of Brown et al. s (1986) scale with three unique items (e.g., I see myself as supporting West Virginia ); (b) Bat-Chava s (1994) two-item measure of social identification ( I prefer most of my friends to be from West Virginia and I am involved with activities unique to West Virginia ); and (c) Bond and Hewstone s (1988) 10-item measure of social identification, which contains three subscales: in-group identification (e.g., My West Virginia background is important to the way I view myself ), intergroup differentiation (e.g., I prefer to see people from other states as being different from West Virginians ), and satisfaction with the status quo (e.g., I am satisfied with the present conditions of my life in West Virginia ). Group cohesion. The same measures used in Study 1 were employed in Study 2. Allocentrism. Whereas the full 63-item Individualism- Collectivism Scale was employed in Study 1, the short version (nine items) of the scale was used in Study 2 (Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai, & Lucca, 1988). An additional measure of allocentrism was administered in Study 2: Triandis et al. s (1990) 16-item Allocentrism Scale, which contains four subscales self-reliance (e.g., One should live one s life independently of others as much as possible ), family integrity (e.g., Aging parents should live at home with their children ), interdependence (e.g., I can count on my relatives for help if I find myself in any kind of trouble ), and distance from the in-group (e.g., Children should not feel honored even if their father were praised and given an award by the government ). Competitive comparisons, perceived incompatible goals, and interdependency beliefs. Competitive intergroup comparisons were assessed with six items adapted from Brown, Hinkle, Ely, Fox-Cardamone, Maras, and Taylor (1992) that indicate a concern with salient out-groups (e.g., I am concerned about how West Virginia compares to other states ). A perception of intergroup goal incompatibility (adapted from Jackson, 1990) was assessed with three items: The everyday concerns of West Virginians are not in line with the everyday interests of people living outside of the state, There is a basic conflict of interests between West Virginia and other states, and When other states obtain their goals, it is harder for West Virginia to obtain its goals. Theoretically, people who hold self-group interdependency/reciprocity beliefs assume that the in-group is obligated to favor them more than out-group members and that they, in turn, are obligated to favor the in-group over an out-group. Therefore, to assess this construct four difference scores were computed (e.g., the response If my car broke down, I would expect to receive help from someone from West Virginia minus the response to If my car broke down, I would expect to receive help from someone from another state ). Thus, with this measure, a score of zero reflects no group interdependency beliefs, a score above zero reflects a degree of self in-group interdependency beliefs, and a score below zero reflects a degree of self out-group interdependency beliefs. Major Outcome Variables In-group pride. In addition to the items used in Study 1, two new items were added to Study 2: I don t like to openly display pride in West Virginia, and I often exhibit my admiration of West Virginia. In-group evaluations, out-group evaluations, and intergroup bias. In Study 1, intergroup bias was assessed with a semantic differential scale that precluded independent evaluations of the in-group and the out-group. This limitation was avoided in Study 2 by having participants evaluate the in-group and the out-group separately on five positive (honest, strong, friendly, creative, cooperative) and five negative (irresponsible, insensitive, stupid, rude, incompetent) traits. Intergroup bias was calculated as the difference between in-group and out-group evaluations and thus ranged from 6 to +6, with positive numbers indicating in-group favoritism and negative numbers indicating out-group favoritism. Perceptions of in-group and out-group homogeneity. These variables were assessed with single items: I think people

10 Jackson, Smith / CONCEPTUALIZING SOCIAL IDENTITY 129 from West Virginia are similar to one another (in-group homogeneity), and I think people from other states are similar to one another (out-group homogeneity). Content of the self-concept. The Twenty Statements Test (Kuhn & McPartland, 1954) was used to measure different aspects of the self-concept and was the first task administered to participants. Participants completed 20 open-ended items that began with I am [fill in the blank]. On the next page, the participants were given further instructions to go back to the responses you made on the last page, and place a check mark next to the five responses that are most important to your overall evaluation of yourself. A coding scheme, based in part on Trafimow, Triandis, and Goto (1991), was developed. This coding scheme (available from the first author on request) consists of 27 microcategories and four macrocategories: personal, group, and interpersonal aspects of the self-concept and an other category. Three research assistants independently coded all responses. The average intercoder agreement for the four macrocategories was 81.17%, and the average intercoder agreement rate for the 27 microcategories was 75.37%. Disagreements were resolved through discussions with the first author. In theory, social identity should be related to group aspects of the self but not personal aspects of the self, and group cohesion should be more related to interpersonal aspects of the self. For brevity, we report only the analyses of the five most important responses, because they were chosen by the participants themselves as being most central. However, the pattern of results are the same when considering all 20 responses. STUDY 2 RESULTS Means, Standard Deviations, and Reliability of the Measures The right side of Table 1 displays the means, standard deviations, and alpha reliability coefficients for all measures used in Study 2. Again, the results closely match what has been reported by others. Table 1 also shows the means and standard deviations for the macrocategories of the Twenty Statements Test. These data suggest that for this sample, on average, nearly 60% of the self-concept consisted of personal attributes, about 17% consisted of group attributes, and about 10% consisted of interpersonal attributes. It is important to note that selfcategorization theory postulates that the self-concept is a fluid rather than static entity and subject to situational influences (Turner, Oakes, Haslam, & McGarty, 1994). It is thus important not to misinterpret these percentages as necessarily having broad applicability across situations. Nevertheless, these results are important for several reasons. First, the situation the participants were in could be considered quite typical, and it thus demonstrates that for typical students on a typical day, group membership is an important part of the self. Participants could have picked any five responses to represent the most important aspects of themselves but chose, at substantial rate, group attributes. Second, these responses should be predictably related to the measures and thus will be useful in establishing predictive validity. Scale Commonalities All seven social identity scales were significantly interrelated, with correlations ranging from.21 to.96 (average r =.58,allps <.01). Including only the scales used in the first study resulted in an average r of.72, which is very close to the average r of.70 found in Study 1. Likewise, the two group cohesion scales were intercorrelated (r =.81, p <.01), as were the two measures of allocentrism (r =.44,p <.01). These data provide some convergent validity for the scales, although the wide range of correlations suggest different dimensions may be involved. However, as in Study 1, there was a lack of discriminant validity: Both group cohesion scales were highly related to each of the social identity scales (correlations ranged from.36 to.85, average r =.67, all ps <.01). Both allocentrism measures were also significantly related to the measures of social identity (average r =.33)withthe following exceptions: Bat-Chava s (1994) measure was unrelated to either measure of allocentrism, and Bond and Hewstone s (1988) measure was unrelated to the short version of Hui s (1988) measure of allocentrism. Both measures of allocentrism were correlated with both measures of group cohesion (average r =.44,allps <.01). Next, a correlation matrix consisting of all subscales and unidimensional scales (total scales containing subscales were left out because they are redundant) was created and subjected to a principle components factor analysis with varimax rotation. The scree plot of the eigenvalues indicated the three-factor solution shown in Table 4. The first factor is represented by group attraction (Kelly s [1988] scale, Brown et al. s [1986] scale, Hinkle et al. s [1989] self/group subscale, the collective selfesteem private subscale, the group attitude scale, and Bond and Hewstone s [1988] satisfaction subscale) along with a cooperative orientation toward out-groups (negative loadings on the incompatible goals measure and Bond and Hewstone s [1988] intergroup differentiation subscale), feeling the in-group is viewed positively by out-groups (public subscale of the collective self-esteem scale), satisfaction with the status quo (Bond & Hewstone s [1988] subscale), and a feeling of self-reliance (the subscale of Triandis et al. s [1990] allocentrism measure). Thus, this factor encompasses attraction to the in-group, a strong sense of the personalized self, and a favorable judgment of the intergroup context. This

11 130 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN TABLE 4: Secondary Factor Analysis: Study 2 Factor Scale/Subscale Secure Social Identity Insecure Social Identity Allocentrism Kelly s (1988) GIS Brown, Condor, Mathews, Wade, and Williams s (1986) GIS Hinkle, Taylor, Fox-Cardamone, and Cook s (1989) GIS/Individual-Group.713 Collective Self-Esteem Scale/Private.699 Group Attitude Scale Bond and Hewstone s (1988) SIS/Satisfaction Status Quo.649 Bond and Hewstone s (1988) SIS/Differentiation.588 Intergroup Goals Incompatible.587 Allocentrism/Self-Reliance.575 Collective Self-Esteem Scale/Public.461 Bat-Chava s (1994) GIS.726 Group Cohesion Questionnaire Bond & Hewstone s (1988) SIS/Identification Hinkle et al. s (1989) GIS/Emotion Karasawa s (1991) Identification Scale/Member.630 Group-Self Interdependency Beliefs.593 Karasawa s (1991) Identification Scale/Group Collective Self-Esteem Scale/Identity Competitive Intergroup Comparisons.528 Hinkle et al. s (1989) GIS/Cognition.519 Allocentrism/Interdependence.438 Individual-Collectivism Scale.817 Allocentrism/Distance from the in-group.744 Collective Self-Esteem Scale/Member.604 Allocentrism/Family.401 NOTE: Only factor loadings greater than.40 are shown. GIS = Group Identification Scale. SIS = Social Identification Scale. factor matches fairly closely our notion of a secure social identity. The second factor contains measures of group attraction (Bat-Chava s [1994] identity measure, the group cohesion scale, both subscales of Karasawa s [1991] identification scale, the cognitive and emotional subscales of Hinkle et al. s [1989] scale, Bond and Hewstone s [1988] identification subscale, and the identity subscale of collective self-esteem) along with feelings of self in-group interdependency (group interdependency beliefs and the interdependence subscale of Triandis et al. s [1990] scale), and a salient in-group/out-group competitive orientation. Thus, this factor corresponds rather closely to our notion of insecure social identity. The third factor is made up of the short version of Hui s (1988) collectivism scale, two of the four subscales of Triandis et al. s (1990) measure of allocentrism, and the member subscale of the collective self-esteem scale. This factor clearly captures the construct of allocentrism. Predicting Outcome Measures Intergroup bias and in-group pride. As shown in Table 3 (right side), all of the scales were significantly correlated with intergroup bias except the measure of competitive comparisons. Turning to the multiple regression results, in combination the measures strongly predicted intergroup bias, R =.620, R 2 =.385, F(14, 190) = 8.48, p <.001. However, only Karasawa s (1991) identity scale, perceived incompatible goals, and self in-group interdependency beliefs provided unique predictive power. All of the social identity scales, both group cohesion scales, competitive intergroup comparisons, perceived interdependency, and allocentrism were also significantly correlated with in-group pride. The multiple regression results demonstrated the overall strong predictive ability of the scales taken together, R =.734, R 2 =.538, F(14, 188) = 15.66, p <.001, the unique predictive power of Karasawa s identification scale and the group cohesion scale. These results are similar to those from Study 1. Of the secondary factors, insecure identity was, as expected, strongly correlated with intergroup bias (r =.40, p <.01) and demonstrated unique predictive power (β =.577, p <.01). On the other hand, consistent with our framework, secure identity was not as strongly correlated with bias and in fact predicted less intergroup bias in the regression. In contrast, both dimensions of social identity were strongly positively correlated with in-group pride, and both made unique predictive contributions to this outcome measure. In-group and out-group evaluations. As shown in Table 5, all of the scales were significantly correlated with positive