A Tale of Two Theories: A Critical Comparison of Identity Theory with Social Identity Theory Michael A. Hogg; Deborah J. Terry; Katherine M. White Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 58, No. 4. (Dec., 1995), pp. 255-269. Stable URL: /htp:flinks,jstor-org/sici?sici~0190-2725%28 1995 12%2958%IAdZICISSZIAATOTTAG3E2 0.CO*%IB2-P Social Psychology Quarterly is currently published by American Sociological Association. ‘Your use of the ISTOR archive indicates your acceptance of ISTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use, available at htp:sseww jstor org/aboutiterms.html. ISTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you hhave obtained prior permission, you may aot download an entie issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and ‘you may use content in the ISTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use Please contact the publisher eegarding aay futher use ofthis work, Publisher contact information ray he abained at fiupiovwrjstororgoumnalfasa en Each copy of any part ofa JSTOR transenission must contain the same copyright tice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transtnission, ISTOR isan independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to creating and preserving a digital archive ot scholarly journals. For more information regarding ISTOR, please contact suppom@jstor org. up:therww itor orgy ‘Wed Sep 13 21:05:04 2006Social Piycholoy Quarterly 1995, Va. 28, Ro. 6 258-209 A TALE OF TWO THEORIES: A CRITICAL COMPARISON OF IDENTITY THEORY WITH SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY* MICHAEL A. HOGG DEBORALH J. TERRY KATHERINE M. WHITE The Universiy of Queensland doniry theory cod sacial identity theory are rwo remarkably similar perspectives om the ldynainic mediation of the socially constructed self beowcen individual behavior and social “structure, Yet there ts almost no systematte communication between these to perspectivies: ‘hey occupy parallel but separate universes. This article describes otk theavies, stanmarizes their similarities, crifcally discusses their diferences, and outlines some esearch directions. Against & background of metatheoretical similarity, we find marked differences in terms of 1) ievei af analysis, 2) the role of iaergraup behavior, 3) the relationship benveen roles and groups, and‘) sallence of ecclal camert and identsy. Differences can be traced largely to the micrasociologteal radts of identity theary and the pivcholgical root of socal identity theory. Identity theory may Be more effective un dealing llth chronic identities and with inerpersonai social interaction, while social identity tteory ‘nay be more useful im exploring intergroup divensions and in specifying the saclocognitive _generaiive devails of identity dynamics. entity theory (.g,, Burke 1980; McCall and Simmons 1978, ‘Stryker 1968; RH. ‘Tamer 1978) and social identity theory (e.£.. Hogg and Abrams 1988; Tajfel and ‘Tuer 1979; 1.€. Tomer 1982, 1985; 1.¢. Tomer et al. 1987) ate cwo perspectives on the social basis of the self-concept and on the nature of normative behavior, These (wo perspectives hhave._many similarities, Both address. the social nature of self as constituted by society, and eschew perspectives that treat self a5 independent of and_prior to society. Both regard the self as differentiated into multiple identities that reside in citcamscrihed prac- {ices @.g,, norms, roles), and they use similar words and 2 similar language—but often with ‘quite different meanings (e:g., identity, iden- ity salience, commitment) Remarkably, the two theoties occupy parallel but separate, universes, with virtually fo eross-referencing, Tae coexistence of such apparently similar explanatory frameworks is problematic for social science, and to our knowledge no published atteript has bee0 made (0 systematically compare them. ‘The aim of this article is to compare identity * Correspondence shoul be sdereste to Michael A, Hoag, Departmen of Prychology, Univers of Queece. land) Brusene, QLD 4072, Auguai. Femail ake (ipay.agede a, FAN: “r6) (y88S-4456, theory with social identity theory in order to highlight their similarities and. differences, and (0 suggest some critical observations thal may indicate possible directions for furure research. We hope 10 encourage dialogue between proponents of the two theories that may pave the way for comparative studies and subsequent distinctions between and aricula- tion of the two theories. Identity theory is principally microsocio- logical theory that sets out to explain individuals’ role related heiavioss, while so- cial identity theory is a social psychological theory that ses out to explain group processes and intergroup relations. Both theories place their major theoretical emphasis on a mult fzceted and dynamic self that giediates the relationship between social siructure and, individual behavior. General differences can be atuibuted, to a significant extent, to the diftérent disciplinary roots of the 1wo theo- sies~ sociology for ane and psychology for the other. More specific differences include the degice and type of specification of sociocognitive processes that are associated with identity-related behavior, and the rela- tive emphasis placed on roles and an imergroup relations We begin by overviewing the two theories in sufficient detail, we hope, ta give an iti 255256 understanding to someone not familiar with ‘one theory oF the other, This task is difficul in. itself because of the historical lack of cross- referencing between the two thearies, and be- cause of differences in theo:etical emphasis mang identity theorists. We go an to identity some similarities and differences between the theaties, suggest strengths and weaknesses, snd ‘conclude with some thoughts on implications for theory and research, IDENTITY THEORY Tenity theory (Stryker 1968, 1980, 1987; Suyyker and Serpe 1982; also see Burke 1980: ‘McCall and Simmons 1978; R.HL Turner 1978) explains social behavior in terms of the recip rocal relations between self and society. Ic is strongly associated with the symbolic interac: tiotist view that society affect social behavior ‘through its influence on self (Mead 1934; also sce Blumer 1969), and was developed in part in order {0 translate the central tenets of syni~ bolic interactionism into an empirically test- able set of propositions (Stryker 1980, 1987; Stryker and Serpe 1982). Identity theory, hos- fever, rejects the symbolic intcractionist view ‘af society asa “relatively undifferentiated, co- ‘operative whole” Saykee and Serpe 1982 206), arguing instead that society is “com- plesly differentiated but nevertheless soxganized” (Stryker and Serpe (982:206). This visiom of society forms che basis forthe central proposition on which identity theory is predi- cated: that as a reflection of society, the self should be regarded as a multifaceted and of ganized construct. Identity theorists refer t0 the multiple components of self as identities (or, more specifically, role identities). The no- tions of identity salience and commitment are Used in tum 9 account for the impact of role identities on social behavior Although identity theory originally was formulated. by Stryker (Stryker 1968, 1980, 1987; Suryker and Serpe. 1982), the term is now used more widely to efer also to related theoretical work that acknowledges links between a multifaceted notion of self and the wider social stencture (Burke 1980; MeCall & Simmons 1978; RH, Tumer 1978). This Wider perspective, although still clearly ‘grounded in symbolic interactionism, is not homogeneous. There are differences’ in em- phasis and interpretation: Stryker, for in- ‘tance, views identities as mare stable than do some other identity theorists, and tends to SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY place less emphasis on the key symbolic Ineractionist mechanism of “taking the role ofthe ather." Because this diverssy makes i dilficut © provide the brief overview e- uized by this article, we have opted to lean Toward Stryker's exposition, tut With appro- priate recognition of altemative emphases, ‘The general perspective of identity theory forms the basis for a relatively large hody of microsociological Iiterature concemed with predicting role-elated behavior (e.g., Simon 1992, Thoits 1991). Accordingly, identiy theorists have tended to focus on individual- istic consequences of identity-related pro- cesses (Raseners 1981). Role Idensities Symbolic interactionists such as Mead (1934) and Cooley (3902) considered the self to be. & product of social intersction, in that people come to know who they are through theie imeractions with others; in this perspec- tive, 2 core mechanism is that of “taking the tole of the other.” Because people tend (© interact in groups, it i perbaps not surprising that people may have as many distinct selves as there are distinct groups whose. opinions matter to them Games (1890) 1950), These to ideas come together in identity theory, which views the self not as an autonomous psychological entity but as a mullifaccted social construct that emerges from people's roles in socicty; variation in self concepts is due to the different roles that people occupy, Supker proposed that we ave distinct components of self, called role identities, for each of the cole positions in society that we occupy (Stryker 1968, 1980; also see Burke 1980; Stcyker and Serpe 1982: Wiley 1991) For cxaraple, a person's role identities may include te fact taat she is @ mother, a wife, & daughter, a social worker, and a blood donor. Role identities are self-conceptions, self- referent cognitions, or selfdefinitions chat people apply to themselves as a consequence ‘of the structural role positions they occupy, and through 2 process of labeling ot self ‘definition as a member of a particular social category Burke 1980; Thoits 1991), Role idenities provide meaning for self. not only hecause they refer to concrete role specifica ‘ions, but also hecause they distinguish roles from relevant complementary or coumterroles (eg., Lindesmith and Strauss 1956). For example, “the role of mother takes on‘A TALE OF TWO THEORIES the role of father, “aoetar’ in connection with “nurse,” and 30 con" (White and Burke 1987:312), Uhimately it is though social interaction that identities actually acquire self-meaning; they are reflex- ive (Burke and Reitzes 1981). Others respond to a pesson in terms of his or her role jdentities. These responses, in tum, form the basis for developing a sense of self-meaning and self-Aefinition. entity isthe pivexal concept linking social structure. with individual action; thus. the prediction of behavior requires an analysis of the relationship between self and social structure, While society provides roles that are the basis of identity and self, the self is also an “active creator of social betavior” (Siryker 1980:385}. Role identities, by defini- tion, imply action (Callera 1985:305). From an identity cheory perspective, a role is a set of expectations prescribing behavior that is considered appropriaic by others (Simon 1992), ‘Satisfactory enactment of roles not only confirms and validates a person's status as a role member (Callero 1985} but also reflects positively on self-evaluation. The pecception that one is enacting a role satisfactorily should entiance feelings of self-esteem, whereas perceptions of poor role performance may engender doubts about one's self-worth, ard may even produce symptoms of psychological distress (Thoits 1991; also see Hoelter 1983; Stryker and Serpe 1982), Distress may arise if feedback from others—in the form of reflected appt als or perceptions of the self suggested by ‘otters’ behavior—is perceived t0 be incon- fruent with one's identity. According to Burke (1980, 1991; Burke and Reitzes 1991), identities act as cybernetic contro) systems they bring into play a dissonanee-reduction mechanism whereby people modify their behavior to achieve a match with their internalized identity standards. ‘This process in turn reduces distress. entity theorists focus on the self defining roles that people occupy in society, rather ‘than on she wider range of different social atvibures that can be ascribed to self. These latter attributes, which might include gender, race, ethnicity, and so fort, often function as, mmasier statuses (Stryker 1987) because in many contexts they overtide all other charac- teristies of the person. They are structurally base atributes tha reflect the features of the social stnicire in which people's role ident as7 lies are embedded, but because they do not carry specific sets of behtavioral expectations Thoits 1991) they are not separate compo- nenis of self. Nevertheless, social attributes are considered to have an indirect impact on self torough their effect on the cole positions people can hold, the relative importance of their role identies, and the nature of their interactions with others. Identity theories disagree, however, about how to treat social attributes," Héensity Salience Identity theory Tinks role identities to behavioral and affective outcomes, and ae knowledges that some identities have more self-relevance than athers. Role identities are organized hlecarchically in the self concegt with regard to the probability that they will form the basis for action. Those positioned neat the top of the hievazchy are more likely to be invoked in a particular situation, and hence are more selF-defining than those near the bottom (McCall and Simmons 1978; Stryker 1968; Wiley 1991). Stryker (1987) argues that the notion of identity salience is cistinguishable from other related micrasacio- logical constructs, such as role-person merger (RH. Tame: 1978), psychological centrality (Rosenberg 1979), nd identity prominence (McCall and Simmons 1978), becouse it is Sefined behaviorally rather than psychologt- cally. Idensity salience is conceptualized (ard operationalized) as the likelihood chat che identicy will be izwoked in diverse scuatons In contrast, other concepts (such a5 role person merger) focus more strongly om the Detson’s perception of the importance or significance of the identity eelative to other identities (see Nuttbrock and Freadiger 1991), ‘The direct and explici implication of this behavioral notion of identity salience is that identities positioned higher in the salience hierarchy are tied more closely to behavior. Thus people withthe same role identities may behave differently in a given context because ‘of differences in identity salience (€... Callero 1985; Thoits 1991). For example, one "Taeny tons disagree abou how eat social ncinutes, ang theeforeatoxt whether they omy betavien expectations. For example, Burke (eg 1991) (eats hers as ents, Thats C195") as ioiveces ot Montes, ard Seer and Sespe (1982) 36 soca feucral fei taeifuence ident egoimatnent258, person may Work on the weekend while another may spend time with the children, although both_may have 2 “parent” role identity. The difference in behavior is due to differences in identity salience (cf. Serpe 1987). People also may enact role-congruent behavior even in situations dat are not role-relevant: for example, people with a salient “parent” identity may, at work, engage inappropristely in hehaviors related to their roles as parents (ef. Nuttbrock and Freudiger 1991). Althougit identity theory specifies clearly the hypothesis that salient identities engender role-congruent behavier, Stryker (1968) acknowledges that ia some situations, contextual demands may be so strong that che choice of behavior will be determined solely by ihe naure of the situation rater than by identicy salience. ‘As well as affecting behavior, salient fdentities have affective outcomes: their ‘enactment should exert moce influence then o identities [ower in the hierarchy on a person’s sense of selmeaning, fecling of self-worth, and level of psychological well- being (Callero 1985; Thoits 1991). This idea ccan be traced back to James's early view that le-cangruent behaviors have self-evaluative implications which vary according 10 dhe relative importance of che different compo- nents of self. Tames writes: 1 whe fae he time have staked my all on being 2 psychologist, am mortified if others know ‘much more psychology than 1. But Cam contented to wallow in tbe gtossest ignorance of Greek. My deficiencies there give me no sense fof persanal humiliation at all. Had T “peeten- sions” 19 be a linguist, it would have been just the reverse [1890] 1950:309), In addition to behavioral and affective ‘autcames, identity salience influences peo- ple’s relationships, particularly their pereep- tions and evaluations, of others (Callero 1985; McCall and Simmons 1978). Although not extensively developed, one proposal is tirat salient identities are associated with positive evaluations af others who accupy the same role. Another, more fully explored proposal is that the nurmber and importance of Social relationships premised on 2 particular role identity may influence the salience of that identity, This idea is captured by the notion of commitment, SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY Commitment Identity theory proposes thatthe salience of a particular identity will be determined by the petson’s commitment « that cole, Commit. ment, defined is the “degree to which the individual's celetionships to paticular others ate dependent on being a given kind of person” (Suryker and Stratham 1985:345), reflects the extent to which important signif cant others are judged to want the person to occupy a particular role position. Commit. ment (o 4 particular role identity is high if people perceive that many of their important social relationships arc predicated on oocu- paney of that role, The consequence of vacating such a role is Joss ofa social nerwork that is psychologically important, for examn- ple, for the self-concept and for self-esteem ‘(Hoelter 1983) Stryker (1980) identified two types af com- rmitment: 1) interactional commitment, rflect- ing the number of roles associaied with a par- ‘ieular identity (dhe extensivicy of commitment), and 2) affective commitment, referring to the inmportance of the relationships associated with the idenity —in other words, the level of af fect associated with the potential loss ofthese social relationships (the iniensivity of commit= rent). The rare strongly committed a person isto an identity—in terms of both interactional and affective comaitment—the higher the level ‘of identity salience will be. In terms of net work relationships, the mare fully @ person's important social relationships are bases. on o- ‘eupancy of a particular identity, in comparison With other identities, the more salient that iden tity wil be. Similarly the larger the number of persons included in such a set of social rela- tionships, che more selient the identity (Stryker and Serpe 1982) By acknowledging the impact of social networks on people's self-concepts, identity theory links the wider social. structure. Gin terms of role postions) andthe person's more, intimate social networks (thcough levels of ‘commitment (9 different role positions) to the self-concept, and also connects social struc lure to the development and maintenance of social relationships (Serpe 1987) Swormary In summary, identity theory postulates that self reflects the wider social structure insofar as self is a collection of identities derivedA TALE OF TWO THEORIES from the role positions occupied by the person, Society im the form of role postions provides a person with sense of seli- rearing and influences social behavior through these role-related components of sell Hence the impact of society on behavior is mediated by self-referent role identities, In an sxtension to this basic proposition, identity theory distinguishes among identities in tecms of their hierarchical positon in a person's structure of identties—a distiction that is used © account for variation in behavioral choice and that has implications for affective utcares. The relative salience of different ‘demttes, in tun, is based on the number and strengih of important social relationships that depend on occupancy af specific roles Central characteristics of identity theory are that 1) ic represents 4 social psychologicel model af self in that social factors are seen 10 define self, 2) the social nature of self is conceived &s derived from the role positions that peaple occupy ie the social world; 3) in an enduting sense, these cole identities are proposed to vary in regard to their salience; and 4) although identity taeocists acknowl ‘edge that eciprocal links exist between self and society, they have been mos jnterested in individualisic oucomes of identity-related processes. The impact of role ideatiies on relations with others as not been an important focus of the theory, and their influence of the broader social structure has rot been spelled out clearly. SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY Social identity theory is intended to be a social psychological theory of intergroup relations, group processes, and the social self It has its origins in carly work in Britain by Henri Tajfel on social factors in perception .g., Talfel 1959, 1969) ard on eagritive and social belief aspects of racism, prejudice, and diserintination (¢.g,, Tajfel 1963, 1969b, 1970), but was developed and fully formu: lated in collaboretion with John Tumer and. cotiiers in the mid-late 1970s atthe University of Bristol (e.g., Taifel, 1974, 1978, 1982: Tajfel and Tumer 1979; J.C ‘Tumer 1982), During the 1980s significant theoretical and empirical advances were made as an increasing, number of researchers, rmzinly in Enrope but also in North America and Australia, came under its umbrella, Sock pomularity has quite naturally spawned 259 healthy controversy (ef, Abrams and Hoxg 1990), but also has produced number of ‘books that document strong and continuing development (e.g., Hogs 1992; Hoge and Abrams 1988; Oakes, Haslam, and Turner 1994; Tafel 1984; 1.C. Tumer 1991; Tuer and Giles 1981; Turner et al. 1987). During the early to mid-1980s John Turner initiated an important theoretical development of social identity theory to produce self: categorization theory (.C. Turner 1985; ‘Tumer et al. 1987). Although distinet fom social identity theory in some respects, it is ‘elated closely enough t0 be considered as part of the same theoretical and metatheoret cal enterprise 25 social identity theory (ef. Hogg foxtheoming; Hogg and MeGacty 1990), ‘The development of sociel identity theary is intertwined with the development of distinct European social psychology. Since the late 1960s European sactal psychologists hhave considered themselves zo have a slightly different social and theoretical agenda than Nosh American social psychologists (e.g... Taspars 1980, 1986; Tajfel 1972, 1984)—one that recognizes metatheoretical and concep- tual limitations of theoretical reductionism ‘and. instead socks theories that ssticulate individual psychological processes and wider social forces (ef. Doise 1986; Lorenzi-Cioldi and Doise 1990). These goals also fcame social identity theory and its more. recent ‘extension into self-calegorization theory. The regional distinction between Europe and North America, however, is now blurred (Moreland, Hogg, and Hains 1994), Social Idensty Theory Social identity cheory is specified in detail lsewhere (e.g. Hous 1992, 1993; Hogg and Nbrams 1988, Taifel and Tummer 1979, 1.C Tamer 1982). The basic idea is that a socal category (€.g., nationality, political affili- ‘tion, sports team) into which one falls, and ta which one feels one belongs, provides 2 definition of who one is in terms of the defining. characteristics of the. category—a self-definition that is a part of the sel concept. People have a repertoire of such discrete category memberships that vary in telative overall. importance in the scli- concept. Fach of these memberships is represented in the individual siembec's mind 435-4 social ideutity that both describes and260 prescrites one's atibutes a8 a member ofthat sroup—that is, what one saould think and feel, and how one should behave. Thus, when 2 specific social identity becomes the salient ‘basis for selFregulation in a particular cortex, selEperception and conduct become inegroup stercorypiea! and normative, pereep- tions of relevant out-group members become ‘out-group stereotypical, ané iatergsoup be- havior azquires competitive and diserimina- tory properties co varying degrees depending fon the nature of relations between the groups Social identities are nat only deseriptive and prescriptive; they are also evaluative. They fucnist sn evaluation (generally widely shared or consensual) of a social catagory, and thus of its members, lative to other relevant social eategories. Because social identities have these important self-evaluative conse- quences, grouns and their members are strongly’ motivated to adopt behavioral strate- ses for achieving or mainuining in-group! ‘uc-group comparisons that favor the in- group, and thus of course the self. To account for social identicy phenomena, social identity theary invokes che operation of two underlying Scclocagnitive processes. 1) Categorization. sharpens intergroup bound aes by producing group-disineive stereo {ypical and noxmative perceptions and_ac- tions, and. assigns people, including self, to the contexiually relevant category. Catega ation isa basic cognitive process that ‘operates on social and nonsocial stimuli slike to highligh znd bring into focus those aspects of experience which are subjectively mear- ingful in a particular context (see “Self Categorization Theory” below). 2) Seif enhancement guides the social categorization process such that in-group norms and stereo: (yes largely favor the in-geonp. Ie is assumed that people have a basic need to see themselves in a positive light iv celation to relevant others (ie., to have an evaluctively positive self-concept), ané chat self-enhance- iment can be achieved in geoups by making ‘comparisons between the in-gcoup and rele- ‘vant outgroups in ways that favor the group (out See Hogg and Abrams 1993) For example, comparisons can be made on stereotypical dimensions chat favor the in r0up rather than an those which are less Fietering tothe ingroup. ‘An important feature of social identity iseory is that in onder to explain. gp0up mmemibers' behavior, it formally articulates SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY these basic sociacagnitive processes of eate- ‘aorization. and self-enhencement with subjec- ve belief structures, The latter refer to people’s beliefs about the nature of relations between their own group and relevant out. groups. These belieis (wick are not neces- sarily accurate reflections of reality because they can be, and often are, ideological coostructs) concen the stability and legiti- macy of intergroup status relations and the possibility of social mobility (psychologically passing from one group to another} or social change (psychologically changing the self evaluative consequences of existing in-group membership). Subjective belief structures influence the specific behaviors that group members adopt in the pursuit of self ‘enhancement through evaluative positive <0- cial identity. For example, a group tat believes its Fower status position is relatively legitimate and stable but that it is quite possible to pass psychologically into. the ominant group (1.e., aoquire a social identity as a member of the higher-ststus group) will be unlikely to show much solidarity ar engage in rauch direct intergroup competition. In- stead members will attempt, as indivicuals, 1a disidentify and gain psychological entry €o the dominant group. In contrast, 2 group chat believes its lower status position is illegiti ‘mate and unstable, thar passing is nox viable, and that a different social order is achievable will show marked solidarity and will engage in direct incergroup competition, Self: Categorization Theory Self-cetegorization. theory (LC. Tuner 1985; Turner et al. 1967; also see Oakes eal 3994; J.C. Tumer 1991) is a recent develop: ment that elaborates in detail the operation of the categorization process as the cognitive basis of group behavior. The process of categorization accentuates both perceived similarities between stimuli (physical objects ‘or people, including self) belonging to the same category and perceived differences between stimuli belonging to different catego ries, This accentuation effect occurs on dimensions that the categorizer believes are conelated with the categarizstion. Thus, for example, when feminists who believe thet mien ate mote agaressive than women catego rize themselves as ferninists, they will tend to exaggerate men's aggressiveness, © sce all men as more aggressive chan all women,A TALE OF TWO THEORIES sec litle difference in aggressiveness among men, and to see litle difference in nonazgres- siveress among women {including self). The categorization-accertuation process a8 a ‘whole serves an important function for the individual. 1c highlights ineergroup disconti- nulties, ultimately renders experience of the ‘worl subjectively meaningful, and identities those aspects which are relevant 0 action in a partieular context. Ceaegorization of self and others into in-group and out-group defines people's social identity and accentusies their perceived similacty to people's cognitive representation ‘of the cefining features of the group (e., taeie group prototypicality, or normative. ness). People are essentially “depersonal- ined”: they are perceived as, are reacted to, and act as embodiments of the relevant ic-sroup prototype rather than 28 unique individuals. Depersonalization of self is the basic process underlying group phenomena— for example, social stereotyping, geoup cohe- sion and ethnocenirism, cooperation and altruism, emotional contagion anc empathy, collective behavior, shared norms, and the ‘muita! influence process. It has none of the negative implications of terms such “dehumanizetion” or “deindividuation”s it siraply refers to a contextual change in the fevel of identity (from unique individual to group member), not to a Toss of identity ‘Through depersocalization, self categoriza tion effectively brings self-perception and behavior into line with the contextually relevant in-group prototype, and chus trans- forms individuals into group meraters and individuality into group behavior. According. to self-categorization theory, people cognitively represent social groups in ferms of prototypes. A prototype isa subjective representation of the defining. attributes (€.g., beliefs, atitudes, behaviors) of a social category, which is ectively ‘constructed ftom relevant social information inthe immediate or mote enducing interactive context (ef. Fiske and Taylor 1991). Because members of the sanie group generally find themselves placed relatively similarly in the same social field (Le, they are exposed co Similar information tea the same perspec tive), their prototypes usually are very similar—that is, shared, Prototypes ordinarily are unlikely to be checklists of stteibutes hough of course they can be elicited in this form by probing). Rather, they are fuzay sets 261 tat capture the context-denendeat featues of, group membership, often in the form of representations of exemplary members (actual group members who embody the group} most fully or ideal wypes (a celatvely cbulous attraction of group features), People can assess the proiouypicality of real group members, including self—that is, the extent (0 which a member is perceived to be close ot similar to the group protorype. Because group prototypes define groups as distinct entities, they are constructed as a dynamic balance hetween competing cogni- tive pulls to mivimize intzacategory clfer- ences ard to maximize intexcategory differ ‘ences—& process governed hy the principle of retaconicast. For tis reasos. prototypes are influenced stongly by what outgroup is salient. Therefore relatively enduring changes in prototypes acd thus in elf-conception can ‘occur if the relevant comparison our group ‘changes over time—for instance, if Cathalies gradually come 19 defive themselves in contradistinction to Muslims esther than ta Protestants. Such changes ate also. very transitory insofar as they are ied to wheiever out-group is salient in the immediate social context. Thus social identity is highly dy- namic: it is responsive, in both type and Content, to intergroup dimensions of immedi- ale social comparative contexts ‘This responsiveness of social identity to immediate social contexts is @ central feature of social identity and sef-categorization theory. The cognitive system, in seeking to maximize meaning ina specific context, engages whatever categorization is coset tively most readily available and best explains ‘or fits the similarities and differences among, people, For example, we might initially “wy On" the readily available. categorization of “mawiveman” to make sense of a particular social content (eg., what people are doing, saving, wearing}. The category of “man” or of “woman,” however, would ot become fully activated the basis of sell-cateporiza- tion and depersonalization unless it made adequate sense of celevant similarities and differences (.¢., fit the data well). Oace fully activated on the basis of perceived similaities and differences among. stimuli, categories organize themselves around contextually rele- ‘vant prototypes and are used as a basis for the perceptual secentuation of ines group similae- tes "and intergroup differences, thereby maximizing separateness. and clatity. Sell262 estegorization in terms of the activated jn-group category then depersonalizes behav. ‘or in terms af the in-group protatype. ‘The subjective salience af social categories is governed net only by the mechanics of stimulus-eaiepory fit, but also by the mot vated availability af social categories. That is, peaple eagage actively in more or lest competitive (and more or less successful) renegotiation of the frame of reference in carder to achieve a self-categarization that is ‘more favorable for conceptuslization of self in that context. For instance, a nontraditional male at a feminist meeting might try 10 avoid the contextually negative implications of self-categotization as male by drawing atten- tion to contextually less negative self- categorizations. Stonmary ‘The social identity and self-categorization models of group processes have a number of important features: 1) they are general thearies of the socia! group, not constrained by group size, dispersion, and so forth; 2) they incorporate the cole of both the inne ate and the more enduring intergroup context in group behavior; 3) they account for the range of group behaviors (e.g., conformity, stereoryping, discrimination, ethnocentrism) in terms of 2 limited number of theoretcelly integrated generative principles; 4) they are basically sociocognitive; and 5) they do not construct group processes from iniexpersonal rocesses. The process of self-eategorization depersonalizes perception, feelings, and ac tion in terms of the contextually’ relevant self defining in-sroup prototype. Behavior thus is influenced by the categorical structure of society via the mediation of social ide and the accompanying process of self categorization, The contextual salience of specific social identities rests on the extent to which they render maximally meaningful @ particular context, avd contextual factors influence the form taken by identty-contin- scent cognitions and behaviors, Because social identities are auached 10 vaive, a complex social dynamic exists in which groups vie for relatively positive social identity. Imergcoup relations and social identity thus are dynami- cally intertwined. SOME SIMILARITIES Because identity and sociel identity theory are isolated scientifically from one another, it SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY hhas been necessary 1 provide a somewhat derailed overview of bath perspectives. This review enables us to idemify some of the principal similarities and differences between them—similarities and differences which ‘must be understood in their wider disciplinary context as reflecting the fact that identity theory is ultimately a sociological teory and social identity theary a psychological theory. Both theories address the structure and, function of the socially constructed self (called identity or social identity) as a dynamic construct that mediates the relation- ship between social structure ar society and individual social behavior. Reciprocal links ‘between society and self are acknawledged by Doth theories, Behavior is considered to he organized ino. meaningful units that are subsumed by specific self definitions: identity theory discusses the organization of behavior im terms of rales, while sacial identiy theory talks of norms, stereotypes, and prototypes. Just as behavior is organized into diseonuinu- ‘us clusters, the self is structured inta discrete identities that are interrelated in various important ways. Both theories also discuss the way in which identities are internalized and used to define self: social identity theary speaks of social idemifiestion and the process of self-cazogorization, while identity theory discusses the process of Isbeling or naming oneself as a member of a social category, of ‘of commitment. ‘One reason for these similarities may be ‘hat social identity zheory is relatively distinct ‘among receat social psychological theories, in ways that make it more comparable to sociological theories. Contemporary social psychological theories tend to focus only on Inteapsychie processes and interpersonal rele tions, while social identity theory attempts to ‘explain group behavior in terms of concepts that articulate societal and psychological processes and that recognize the primacy of society aver individual, SOME DIFFERENCES Conceptually more interesting are the differences erween identity and social iden- tity theory, In general ic is not appropriate to ccastigate theories for failing to do what they id nat set out to do in the frst place: a theory ‘ought to be assessed against its self proclaimed explanatory scope. Therefare in this respect it would be easier ( justify anA TALE OF TWO THEORIES aucempt to criticize soclal identiy and self ategendation theories for falling to. meet their gosl of ariculaing psychological and Social factors it the expienation of group processes than to justify aertcism of identity theory for faiing to expan ot the sociocog nitive processes. underpinning identity. We believe, however, thatthe coexistence af (0 such similar frameworks warrants some comimert onthe extent to which these theories fan articulate sociecy ard individual ard describe generative processes, We compare the theones from the standpoint af # social identity theorist an idemiry theorst's stend- point might be expected to raise different Issucs orto place a differnt interpretation on fosues? Level of Analysis ‘One of the most important sources of differences ig the fact that identity theory is not essentially = psychological theory, and therefore does not place much emphasis on deseribing generative cogniaive processes. fo this respect, social identity theory, as a psychological theory, may have some advan- tages over identity. theory—acvantages that stem from its more detailed specification of seciocoanitive processes For instance, identity theory focuses on the process of labeling oneself as belonging, to 2 particular social category, acknowledges the role that others may play is supporting this categorization, and relates self-conception to behavior via behavioral prescriptions embod- ied by roles. Yet it generally stops short of specifying in any detail the cognitive pro cesses and sicuctures (€.g., categorization, prototypes) that may underlie identity dynem” Jes and may produce conformity to noms Burke (1991; Burke and Reitzes 1991), however, has described a dissonance-reduc” tion process in which the self, 26 a cybernetic control mechanism, is motivated to bring T Akerstve interpretations might incl the fllowe tog: 1) Symbatc iterations places "aking the re of the other” at center cage a8 cognitive process tous Identty theory, whichis bused a Bynbole keane ‘se, does explore cognitive groceses. 2) Sore Henly heaey petapeciNes (eg , MeCal and Simmons 1978) ate explicit abou he iniueee of sitions, facts 0 iden ensccents, heel eat theory ication ally dyceri 3} Depending on bo roles ae defined, eter socal sebines ae vieed bp soate tenny ‘one a crying Henavoralexpesanon te, zee toh 263 self-conception into line with reflected ap. praisals (perceptions of self suggested by others” behavior) by modifying own behavior. People. behave in ways that are consistent with their role identities as a consequence of reducing or avoiding incongruency between intemalized identity. standards and others’ perceptions of self. With tne exception of this proposed mechanism, saciocognitive mecha- nisms do not occupy a cectral role in identity theory. Although the original symbolic inter- actionist emphasis on “taking the role of the ‘thes aciually invites a soctocognitive anal- ysis, such as that proposed by Burke, tole-taking processes are largely not exami- ined empincally or claborated by identity theorists, but rather are assumed. [in contrast, such processes and structures form the theoretical and empirical core of social icemtity theory, particularly self-categoriza- tion theory, which specifies in detail 8 social psychological process that links identity to behavior via depersonalization and confor iy. ‘Stemming from differences in emphasis on, and type of, sociocogaitive process, identity theory only hincs atthe possinility that people may favorably evaluate others who have the same role identities as themselves and that this favorable evaluation may be stronger 2s 2 function of identity salience. This idea is explored tore fully by social identiy/self categorization theory through the notion of depersonalized social attraction (Hozg 1992, 1993), Finally, idemtiy theory's lesser em- phasis on generative sociocognitive process may also be partly responsible for its tendency to underplay the role of the immediate coniext and instead 0 attribute identity changes (o changes in tole position (see below). Social idenbty theory, in con- trast, has = somewhat more dynamic and more highly elaborated perspective, which explains contextual salience in terms of social comparative factors, self-esicem motivation, uncertainty reduction, and social explanation This approach may be able to account more fully for the responsiveness of social behavior to the immediate context, We believe that one of the strengths of so- ‘ial identity’self-categorization theory, among social psychological theories, is that it ties systematically to articulate (Cf. Doise 1986: Lorenzi-Cioldi and Doise 1990) the psycho= logical level of analysis (sociocognitive pro- esses) with the “sociological” level (socio64 historical dimensions of intergroup relations) Ti tis respect, social identity isa social con stct that mediates individel and society. Prac tically, however, researchers tend to put their conceptual energy into psychological, princi pally cognitive, factors; they lean, if anyching, foward the péyechologization of behavior. Al. though a grest deal of detail is provided on selfecategorization and depersonalization, eat renily there is Jess work on how social struc- tural variables or socal belief sructures really ‘enter the picture (but ef. Taylor and Moghad- dam_ 1987, van Kaippenberg and Ellemers 1993). Some ctitcs have been led to ask ta what extent the theory in fact meets its meia- theoretical objectives (e.g., Condor 1990; Wethetell and Potter 1992), Identity theory does not confront this problem because it does fot test 0 explicitly on sociocognitive pro- cesses. As a more sociological perspective, it perceives 2 direct reciprocal link between ine dividual and society mediated by the social constnict of role identity. Ih doing s0 it does not reduce the social io the individual; nor, on the ather hand, does it fully elaborte inter- vening sociocognitive mechanisms. Can so- cial identity theory perheps help provide the missing socigeogniive dimension, and iden- {ity theory help keep socla identity theory away from the Jagged rocks of psychological reduc- tionistn? Inuergroup Behavior Another important source of differences oetween the theories is that social identity ‘henry is about intergroup relations and group Laehavior, while identity theory concems role fochavier, Tdentity theory thus is focused differently than social identity theory. it concentrates on role behavior and role identities, and does nat consider in any dicect sense the impact of other social attributes on self, These “other sttribuxes” are mainly large-scale category aernberships such as ethnicity, set, race, and nationality. For social idemtity theory these are the most significant solrces of social identity; social idectity dynamics are contextualized by the social relations hecween sch categories, Social identity theory places emphasis on intergroup relations and thus on the role played by outaroups; identity theory does not, Instead identity theory addresses counter roles (Guz, father-daughter), which are not necessarily the same thing as out-groups (i.e. SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY Burke and Tully 1977), fa addicion, counter- roles are comsideced relevant only insofar a8 they help 10 clarify the meanings of role identities. Sdemtity theory places litle empha- sis on the impact of people's identities on their relations with outgroup others. Io ccntast, social identity theory ties to specify the effects of salient social identity on people's perceptions of and conduct toward others, panicularly out-group others. Social identity theory tierefore goes further than identity theory. Not only does it explicate a person's individual behavioral choices, as does identity theory: it also explicates peo- ple's relations with out-gcoup others and consequently allows some understanding of intergroup behavior. Building on a character- ization of society as hierarchicelly structuted in terms of relations between. (large-scale) social categories, social identity theory is actually able to specify how a pecson’s position in the social world (mediated by self) sffects social bekavior. (Prom a sociological perspective, however, research has focused ‘mainly on individual and group rather than on inaividual and society.) Paradoxically, then, the more psychalogi- cal perspective of social identity theory, because ofits intergraup analysis, may come loser to achieving the more sociological goal of identity cheory to address the cynamic impact of society on self. The “psyctologi- cal” perspective not only has more (0 say about underlying psychological processes, but also may have more explanatory unity in regard to teuly social outcomes. In contrest, the “sociological” perspective seems to be ceancemed more strongly with individuelistic ‘auccomes of identity stich as role behavior and, recently, with affective outcomes such as psychological well-being Roles and Groups Social identity theory does not explicitly discuss roles, though it would probably consider roles to refer to positions in a given group (eg., leader, comic, bureauerat, of. Hogg 1995, fothcaraing). From this perspec- live ove might argue that roles provide a sense of distinet individual identity within a ‘group, perhaps satisfying a_need for intra sroup’ differectiation (ef. Brewer's (1991, 1993] nation of optimal distinctiveness} ot even 2 need for personal identity, bat that they do noc provide a social identity in theA TALE OF TWO THEORIES strict sense of the tern. This idea contrasts quite sharply with identity theory, whic considers sel-definition to derive principally from roles, via role identities, rather than from the broad range of wider social attibutes dat social identity theory considers to be the basis of social identity. Social identity theory therefore permits a concepival differentiation between roles (differential behavioral pre- scriptions within @ group) and identity based ‘on group membership. In contrast, iGemticy eory's wotioa of roles has many properties ‘of both group membership and éitferential behavioral prescriptions withia 2 group: in this sense, gcoup membership and coles may not be distinguished from one another. Social Contexe and Identity Salience Finally, we believe, the rwo theories differ in how contextually’ responsive and how dynamic they consider the self-concept to be. Bath formulations consider the self to be structured into relatively discrete identities, but identity theory, particularly Steyker's formulation, regards this structure as. rela- tively stablé, changing primarily in response co changes ‘in role positions (e.g., Serpe 1987), Others, such as McCall and Simmons (1978) and Burke (.g., 1980, {991}, view identilies 23 more responsive t@ context Roles themselves, however, are dynamically constructed and reconstructed through inter- personal interaction. The chronic relative salience of identities within the self-concept is considered to be relatively stable: except in rare circumstances, the chronic saliance af a person’s identity determines his or her behavioral responses. For instance, the in pact of identities on affective outcomes directly reflects the chronic salience of a petson’s identity. Identity theory acknow!- ‘edges that situationa! factors may be ipor- tant @g., McCall and Simmons 1987), ‘certainly in construction and reconstruction of roles, but places Tess emphasis than does social identity theory on elaboration of sociocognitive processes that cause self to be highly responsive to immediate contextual cues. Burke (1981), however, suggests ways which a cybemetic model of identity can explain the “rare” occasions when perceived incongruence produces identity change eather than behavior change. Tn contrast, although social identity theory views social identity as an enduring consiruet 265 that changes with changing imergroup rela- tions, it also places at center stage the view that the content af social identity is dynami- cally responsive to immediate contextual factors: different contexts may prescribe different contextually relevant behaviors con- fingent on the same social identity. Being Australian in the Unived States, for instance, ‘ean vary in chronic importance from person. 1 petsan, and the meaning and behavioral prescriptions of this identity can vary as a function of changing intergroup relations berween Australia and the United States Purtheomore, immediate contextual factocs ihe situation and the interactants) will influence what aspect of Australian identity is prescribed: a colloquium presentation and a cocktail party might clic very different “Australian” behaviors, This, we believe, is fa mare dynamic treatment of the telationship between self and identity (on the one hand) ‘and immediate social context (on che other) than is offered by identity theory, In sddition, self-categorization theory, because ofits more highly elaborated cognitive emphasis, ex- plores in greater detail than identity theory zhe sociocognitive generative mechanisms 2ss0ci- ated with cransitary identity salience. dendity theory, however, goes further than social identity theory in describing the conditions under which patticular ideutities will be “chronically” salient, and perhaps has gone further toward theozetically and empit cally considering the impact af chronic levels of identity salience. It also places greater emphasis on analysis of interpersonal social jnteraction as an infuence on enaction and modification of roles, and thus om identity ynamics ‘CONCLUSIONS AND PROSPECTS ‘The aien of this article has been to compare identity theory with social idenityseif categorization theory as (wo perspectives on the dynamic mediation between individual social behavior and society (or social struc ture) ofthe socially constricted self. Ideoity theary originates in the discipline of sociol- ‘ogy, and deals with the stuetute and funetion of people's idemity as related to the behav- ioral roles they play in society. Social identiyiselfeacegorizaion theory ariginaes in the discipline of psychology, and deals wich the structure and funesion of identiy as related to people's membership in groups266 “These two perspectives ate remarkably simi- lar yet, to our knowledge, no attempe has ‘been made to formally contrast and compare them, Such a comparison is long overdue #8 the first step in a debate on conceptual inegration, cemarcation, and differentiation ‘of the 140 perspectives, Both theocies consider secial behavior 1 be structured into meaningful units Gat are sub- sumed by specific self definitions (entities) ‘which themselves ae interrelated parts of a dif- fecentiated and stuctured self-concept. Empha- sis is placed om explicating the processes re spansible for intemalizing identities and for making dfecent idemttes the salient bases for seifeonception and conduct in particular ean- texts, Against the background of these broad ‘conceptual and metatheoretial similarities, fam, the standpoiat of a social identity theorist, a rurmber of significant differences exist. First, identity theory is a perspective on the relationship between the roles peaple play in society and the ientcies chat sueh roles confer. The focus is on individual behavior 28 ic is mediated by role identities. In contrast, social identity theory concerns intergroup relations and group processes, with a focus on the generative role of identity in group and intergroup aspects of behavior (e.g, confor imily, collective action, stereotyping, group solidarity, ethnocentrism). We believe that ‘eecause of ths difference in emphasis, social identity theory may be better placed to Tink individual social behavior to dynamic features ‘of social srnctue, Second, social identity theory, pacticuianly its recent extension into self categorization theary, goes further than identity theory in claborating the sociocognitive generative pro- cesses that underlie the operation of identcy ‘This may be an advantage that allows social iemtcy theory to specify in areate detail than idemity theory haw identities are intemalized, hhov contextual factors make different identi tics salient, and how identities produce identicy-consistent behavior. It has been suggesied, however, that social identity theory, especially. its recent extension inco selt-categorization theory, may have become too strongly concerned with cogoitive pro- cesses alone. This problem does not apply 10 identity theory. which has the advantage of focesing more explicitly on interindividual social interaction as an influence an identity ‘Third, identity theory concerns behavioral roles and role identities rather than broader SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY social category membership; the opposite is tte of social identity theory. Fourth, social identity theory views identity as ¢ dynamic construct that cesponds to changes in both long-term intergroup relations end immediate interactive contexts, and elaborates the uader- lying socioeagnitive mechanism, Tdentity theory tends more to view identity as a relatively static propery of roles, ard focuses fon the dynamics of interpersonal. social interactive contexts that influence the con- struetion and reconstruction of rales Generaliy it is inadvisable (0 attempt co integeate very different theories (ef. Bilig's (1976) ceitical analysis of efforts to integrate Marist ith Preudian perspectives on the explanation of prejudice). Often ic is prefera- bie to pit one theory against the other in aa empirical or conceptual attempt to establish ‘which is better. One way in which the two theories discussed here could be pitted against ‘one another might be through research into underiying sociocognitive processes. Con {casting predictions could be examiged erapir- ically to compare the self categorization and social, comparison processes specified by social identity theory and sef-categorization theory with the cybernetic mechanism. sug- rested by Burke (1991, Burke and Reitzes 1991). Another approach might be ebroash research into the predictive utility of inter. group analyses. Contrasting predictions could bbe examined empiricaliy (o compare the intergroup analysis specified by social iden tity theory with the role analysis suagested by identity theory Iceni theory and social identi theary it fer, we believe, in the degree and type of con- textual responsiveness that they assign to iden- tity. would be worthwhile to devise empirical {ests in which the more static conception of identities, as envisaged by identity theory, could be pited against che more contextual respon sive conoeptuaization af social idenuiytself categorization theory (ef. Oakes ets]. 1988) Social identity theory, however, could benefit fom considetation of identity theary's mare deisited specification of the dynamics of ehran- icaly saliem idemiies, and its fuller stenion to interpersonal social interactive factors. Fix nally, identity theory links self aaitude (den- tity) ta behavior fairly automatically vie the no- tion of roles, while bacdly specifying how this happens, whereas social identity theory speci- fies quite exactly the processes that link self uitude (dency) with normative behavior. PerA TALE OF TWO THEORIES hhaps the two theories can be coocdinated to help explain the general relationship between atiuudes and ovedt behavior (cf. Hogg forth- coming; Terry and Hoge forcoming) We have tried here to show that identity theory is useful in its own domain; it has particular strengths in its analysis of the impact of chronic identities on (mostly individualistic) outcomes, and in its emphasis 6n interpersonal social interactive contexts. Social identity theory is also useful in its own. domain; i¢ is particularly strong in its elaboration of sociacognitive processes and its emphasis on intergroup relations, These strengths, we suggest, may allow one 10 actually liek society with individual sociai behavior more effectively. It may be possible in some way to integrate or articulate identity theory with social identity theory. For exam- ple, it may be possidle to focate the concept ‘of role and identity theory's attendant analysis, ‘of interpersonal social interaction within social identity theory's broader intergroup analysis and its more fully elaborated socio cognitive analysis. In the first instance, however, it may be more useful to explore conceptually and empirically, the difference between role idemities and social identines What ave the differences between identities that arise from behavioral roles within groups, identities that arise from group membership in large-scale social eategories? REFERENCES ‘Abram, Dominic and Michael . Hoga, 1990, Sacat Hantiy Peary Constructive and Creal Advances Landon: Harecte/Whestheat Bllig, Mitac. 1976, Socal Pachology and Tuerereup etalon. London Acadernc Press. Blumer, Hetbart. 1969. Sole Inttacion: Persp the nd Method. Engle Clie, Ne Prace Kal. Brewer, Marlyn. 1981. "The Social Sells On Being the ‘Same aed Diferent st the Same Time.” Personality and Sovial Paychatagy Bilin (7475-92. 1095. "The Role of Disinctveress ia Saal TGentty and Group Benssiowr” Pp. 1-16 te Group Mosivation: Soria! Peyehologiea! Pespactves, eed bby Michael A: Hogs and Domamic Abrams. Londo: Barester Wheaties Boke, Pear. 1980, "The Self: Measurrett Reguee ‘oeris from an Totersetonis Perepecive,” Social Prychology Quarry 41829. 1981 Identity Processes ard Socal Stes.” “American SciangiealHeview 36: E3649 ‘ork, Pecee J. aed Donald ©. Reiges, (981. “The Link ‘ctveen Henny abs) Role Peforoance.” Social Pochotogy Quarry 4883-92 1981, An deny Angee to Commitment.” “Sokal Poychalag Quseiy $8 28086 267 Burke, Peter. se Jody ly, 1977. “The Measuremert of Roledemie." Soca! Forces 3'880-97 Callero, Beer, 1985. “Rele-lensty Selene.” Socat Peychology Quarter’ 48.205-15, Colle, Peter L., Jat A Howard ane Fane A. Plvin 1987. "Hlping Beal a Bale Beaver: Disclosing SocilStrucare and Hist io the Avalpss of Presoca Action,” Sorel Prychoingy Quarterly $0:247-56, conden, Susin 1980,”Scil Stereotypes ane Soda den. Ty.” Bp. 230-49 lo Sac! Manat Theor Contre the and Creal atvances, edited by Domine Abrars nd Mctae! A. Hogg. Lonioa: Hares Wheasbeat Cooley, Chats. 1902. umn Nature and Socal Order New York: Seniboers Deise, Willem. 196, Lets of Explanation in Socal Pay- ‘shelog Cemvidge, UR: Camidge Unversity Pres. Fiske, Susan T. and Sheley E. Taylor 1981. Social ‘Copnitin, Ind et, New York: Mees Hil oer, Joho W. 1983. "The ErTect of Role Fvsiuaton ‘ed Commins ot Idemlty Salence ” Social Pay ohaiogs Quarry 4140-17 ‘Hogs, Michael A. 1992. The Socal Peychlogy of Grows ‘Cohertenat: From Atraction 1. Social Ment Landon: HavenerWhesehest _ATT95, “Group Conesivenss: A Creal Review ted Soe Now Dieions." Ewepear Raves of Social Pepeatogy 485-111 ——— Fochsoming. "Social Ment, Sele Cegoriza ion and the Small Group.” in Gaderstnding Grows Behanar, Vol 2 Small Group’ Pracesset and Irwerpersonal Relations eed by Tames Davis snc re Wiue, Hise, Mi Exoaur Fotheaning "Taagioup.Praceses, Stusase and Social ews" lt Soca ety: The Developing Legacy of Hott Tafel, ted by W Pete Roblaten, Oxfore. BusersortsFelcenan Hogg, Mica! ane Docnnie Abrams. 1589, Social onefcanons: & Social Pechology af heergroup Relations end Grave Processes. London: Rolsege Tosh “Towarcs a Stgle-Process Urcenaely- ‘Refucion Medel of Socal Metivaan ie Gauss.” PS 173-50 lo Group Modsetums Scetal Payeotogical Perspectives, edted #Y MLA. Hoge acd D. Abcam, Landon: Haren Whesttesh Hogg, Michael A. and Cisig McGary. 1990. "Set (Cetegonzationané Soc Identity" Pp 10-77 i Savi! Hy Theory Contraciveand Crea advances led by D.Abvars and MA. Hoga. Loedin: Harvester Wheisest Jamas, Wiliaro (1890) 1980. The Principle of Bese ‘gy. New York. Dover. ‘spurs, Joseph MP. 1980, “The Coming of Age of ‘Social Payetiolgy ia Emope.” European Journal of Social Psehalogy 1:42)-29. 1986, "Forum and Focus: A Persona) View of Elvepean Saal Peychology." European Jounal of Social Pychotogy 162 Lincesmitn, Aled and A. Stacse 1986. Social PPaclaiogy, New York: Holt, Reha and Weston Lawrai Cou, Fedo and Willer, Deise 1990, “Levels ‘of Analysis tnd Sail deity "Pp. 788i Social Iiantey Theory: Consrucive and Eriscal Aduances, cited by Derinie Abrams aed Michcel A. Hage, Tentoa: Harvester Whestseat. McCall, George ana Jey Siowvons. (978. ldenttss and Inceraetont Revised ed, New Yor Fee ress. Mead, George. 1914. Mind. Self ant Szeet Frome the “Standpait of a Sail Bokavionan eed ad ith268 incoduaion by CW. Manis Chicago: Cxivesiey of Chicago Press. Marcia, Bessie L., Michel A. Hage, and Sarah C aioe, 1994 "Back tthe Furre: Soa Peyealogi= cal Research a Groups." Sour of Experiment Social Psjhology 30:527-85. Doutiaek, Cast aed Peieis Freuiger 1991, “entity Salence and Mothertent: A Test of Stree’ ‘Thoary.” Spelt Payehology Quarterly $4:146-57 Oakes, Penelope J, 8. Alexander lam, Jabn C “Tames. 1996. Seretyping and Social Realy, On fend: Blackvel| Pilavin, Jee A., Doras Evans and Peter Calera, 1984 “Tamaleg te) Give 19. Uenamed Stengers Tae races of Commatment t Regular Blond Donation." Pp. 471-92 ip The Development and Meiaenance of ‘Prosocial Behavior. Insrnannal Parpectives, eed bby E Staub, Darel BarTel, Jecxy Kary, ad “nusz Rejowek. New York: Ple, Rosenberg, Mocis. (378. Conceive the Self. New "York Buse Beaks. MRL, “The SeltCaneepe: Soci Product and Sesial Pere.” Pp. £62-92 in Sacial Pychology: Sociological Parsrecves, eit by Mavs Rasebeg land Raleh H Turner. New Vere: Basie Backs. ‘Serpe, Richace T. 197 Sablty and Chane it Sel: A ‘Structural Symbolic Teractenise Explain." So. ial Pychotogy Quarary 040035, Siren, Robi W. 1992. "Paonal Roe Sal, Salisnce ff Pawenal Meni, ant Gender Dilfeences oe Paychoingcal Dione.” Jounal of eslh aed Social Beaigr 3328-38 Sepker. Shed. 1968, “Ideniy Sallence ang Role Perfomance Tae Impowsree of SjuboleInersion "Theor foe Faruly Reseach” Jowal af Mawnase and the Family 30°555-68 580" Sytie Imeractintam: A Social Srvc ‘ava Version, Pal Ato: Beppu. 1987. "identity Theory: Develeprents ard Ticisions.” p$9-104 te Soff and Idenay. edited bp K. Yardley and T. Honess, New York. Wiiey Stier, Sheldon a Richtd . Serpe, 1642. “Cogznite ‘nl, [deol Sales, and Role Bebavir.” Pp. 195-218 in Parzonalin, Ret, cmd Sotil Behar, ‘Aiod by W. Tees an E'S. Keowles, New York Sprang Vertes Suyker, Sneldoe ted Anno Stuhem. 1985. “Suebelic Totetician ata Rele Thea.” Pp. 311-78 sm The Handbook of Socal Prycholoy, 4rd, eited by G, Lindoey @E. Aronson. New Vosk: Random House “Tafel, Henn. 1989. "Quartitive Iudgrent 98 Soci Perception.” Brith Jownal of Prchotogs S0:16-25 "1968. "Stareiypes." Race 5-1 toga. “Seeal aed Catal Pairs in Pexceo- lau” Pp. 315-94 in Handbook of Social Prychalgy, Vel. 3, ecied by G. Lindasy ont E. Aronson Reasng, Ma: Addison-Wesley. 18K “Cogeive Aspects of Prejudice” Towne of Social sues 1579-97 SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY 1970. “Baperinens oy Inersoup Dien BoE" Selencne American 2:96-102 1972. "Some Developmen In Baapese Sci Pepchnlogy” Europenn tourna! of Social Pachoteny orm 19, "Socal Monty and Tnwxsroup Bena: Tou” Soria Sience Information 135-38, ed. 197%. Difereniaion datween Sciat “Grove. Lacon: Academic Pese. ea. 98D. Set Toney and regroup Rela Tors Combed, UR: Catrige Ueivesty Press ed, 1982) The Social Dimancon: Burapeon Davelopnanes in Social Prychoiogy. Canbedge, UK: Camecge University res Taj, Heo and Joho C. Taree. 1978. “An Iegrative “Theny of Tnexproup Conc.” Pp. 33-47 The Sec Pochodnty of Iergraup Relations edited by WG. austin and, Worchsl Mocieroy: Brooks Cole ‘Taylor, Donald M. and Fatal, Moghaddam. 1957 Thaorls of uerroig Relais. NewYork Pseget. Teay, Deborah 1 ad Michael Hogg. Pothconung “Group Norms afd ie Attnude-Behavoe Rela ships A Rove for Group Mewes.” Personality lant Serial Piychalagy dite ‘Thain, Bessy A. 1991. "On Merging Lenity Theory nd Sess Reser.” Social Poichlngy Quarry seit “Tamer, John C. 1982. “Touards « Cognitive Rede: tr of he Social Group." Pp. LS-a0 te Soc! Henasy tnd Itucrqroup Relaionr, edited by. Tafel (Cambie, UK: Cambridge University Pres 1983. “Soe Categczaion and the Self Concent: A Soci Capris Theory of roan Behavibut.” Pp. 77-(28 te Adbances Grow Processes’ Theory ond Research, Val_ 2, edd Sy B. Lewtee,Greznwien, CT: TA! 1981, Scat Intenze, Milo Keynes: Open Urverity ress ‘Tuer, Joho C. and H. Giles, eds. 1981, fveravcup ‘Beaviowr. Onfnd: Blake, ‘Tamer. Jahn C-, Michael A. Hogg, PJ. Oakes, SD. Reicher, and MS. Wetherall 198) Redscering the Social Groups A Self Cateyoriation Theory. Ons Blackwell ‘Tomer, algh H. 197%, “Tae Role and the Person." ‘American tourna of Sclology $4123 van" Kespoenterg, Ad and Naons! Elleers, 1995, “suatepes i inengcasp Relations.” Pe 17-23 in Group Monation: Soci Poiehotonical Perspeces, ‘elied by Meael A. Hoge and Donicie Abs Trancon: Harvest Wheaties Welirell, Margaret Sand Jocathac Potzr. (992 png the Language of Race, Lacon Heres went. Wiite, Clovis L, acd Pott J. Burke 1987 “Func Role entity rng Black and White Clicge Seiden.” Sectolagial Pripecives 30'310-3% ‘Wiley Mary G. 1991. "Geuze, Work, nd Suess: The Pocetal Inpact of Roleldemity Salieae and Com icin Sorological Quarterly 32.495-515, Michael A. Hogg is Reader ix Social Psychology and Director of the Contre for the Sudy of Group Processes at the University of Queensland. His research Imeress are group processes and intergroup relations from the perspective of cia! identity theory and self.caregarization theory. He is ewrentty ‘researching group cohesion, siructure, motivation and attitudes, and 1s revising his 1988 social identity {ext Social Idenitications.A TALE OF TWO THEORIES 269 Deborah J. Terry is Senior Lecturer in Psychology at the University of Queensland. Her research Interests ave attinude-behavior relations and atitude change. She is currently researching the effects of sroup membership and mode of behavioral decision making on attiude phenomena. Katherine M. White is pursuing her doctoral suies atthe University of Queensland. Her thesis explores the vote of group mambar ship 0 atiude-behzsior relations, and is part of a wider ymaras i etiudinad and normative phenamena.