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, Volume 58, Issue 4 (Dec., 1995), 255-269. Stable URL: http:/flinks,jstor.org/sici?sici01 90-2725 %28 1995 12%2958%3A4%3C255 HIAATOTTA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P ‘Your use of the ISTOR archive indicates your acceptance af ISTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use, available at bup:swww,jstor org/abouvtenms.html. ISTOR’s Terms and Conditions af Use provides, in part, thar unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the sereen or printed page of such transmission. Social Psychology Quarterly is published by American Sociological Association. Please contact the publisher for further permissions regatding the use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at batp:seww stor org/joumalsyasa. hl, Social Psychology Quarterly ©1995 Amtesican Sociological Association JSTOR and the JSTOR Jogo are vademarks of JSTOR, and are Registered in the U.S, Patent and Trademark Office. For more information on JSTOR contact jstor-info@umich edu. ©2002 JSTOR, hup:thrwwjstor orgy “Tue Fan 22 15:06:02 2002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