Wednesday, December 04, 2002

 
ha

posted by Alex 4:03 AM

 
December, 2002
Evolutionary contributions to Social Identity Theory and Optimal Distinctiveness: The Context of ‘Domains of social life.’
Alexander Schwartz, University of California, Santa Barbara

The concept of "domains of social life" (Bugental 2000) offers an underlying theoretical framework to theories of intergroup relations. Viewing human social life as switching between relevant domains, especially coalition, mating, and reciprocity, can add clarity to social identity theory (Turner & Tajfel 1979) and optimal distinctiveness theory (Brewer 1991). The current paper addresses how these issues have been discussed in the social psychology literature to date. It also shows how this evolutionary framework has the potential to generate hypotheses that test the completeness of these social psychological models, and thus add to our understanding of intergroup relations.
The approach offered by Bugental (2000) offers a contrast to the domain general conceptualization of human social interaction. Five domains of social life are proposed as responses to problems that would have been faced by our evolutionary ancestors. The important domains in terms of this paper are the coalitional, mating, and reciprocity domains. Support for these domains exists within the social psychology literature, as does evidence for their adaptive benefit to individuals. As presented by Geary (2002), “Offspring borne in coalitions that gain control of . . . resources are healthier and survive in greater numbers.” Similarly, Brewer presents that “The human species is highly adapted to group living and not well equipped to survive outside a group context” (Brewer 1991). Buss has shown clear domain specific interactions in the mating domain and posits that “Humans seek particular mates to solve specific adaptive problems that their ancestors confronted during the course of human evolution” (Buss 1993). Finally, Rabbie (1989) provides support for the hypothesis that people will generally use reciprocity “leading to a maximization of their economic self interests.” Needs met by these domains can be seen basic to many social processes.
The Minimal Group Paradigm (MGP) (Tajfel 1971) and Social Identity Theory (SIT) (Turner & Tajfel 1979) are theories that delineate and present explanations for intergroup bias. MGP proposes that mere categorization is sufficient to activate an intergroup bias. SIT gives a causal explanation for the process.
The literature exploring issues raised by SIT is extensive. Corollary hypotheses have become integral to a full understanding of SIT; these include concepts such as group threat (Dietz-Uhler 1998), and collective self esteem (Crocker 1990). These developments supplement SIT, which provides an explanation for the process of intergroup bias based on self-esteem drives.

"It is assumed that individuals are motivated to achieve a positive self-image and that self-esteem can be enhanced by a positive evaluation of one's own group" (Turner & Tajfel 1979).

To summarize, SIT proposes that “positive discrepant” social comparisons lead to positive social identity. Positive social identity in turn enhances self esteem. I will call this process of social comparison -> social identity -> self esteem the “SIT mechanism.” A logical question arising out of this analysis is, "what is the purpose of this process?" I propose that the organizing context in Social Identity Theory is the coalitional domain, and specifically the “need for a coalition.”
Coalitions are a human construct, inasmuch as they are not defacto present in the individual’s environment. In order for the coalition to provide the individual with benefits, this construct must be activated and maintained. I propose that SIT describes the mechanism by which the construct is activated and maintained.
My hypothesis is that the contextual need for a coalition will activate the process described in SIT. This makes the general prediction that the need for a coalition will lead to positive discrepant social comparisons, and thus the raise one's self esteem based on positive social identity.
Greenberg’s Terror Management Theory gives partial support for this phenomenon. Greenberg et al. (1986) propose that in response to mortality salience, a “cultural buffer” is invoked to ward off “paralyzing terror.” They show that making mortality salient has similar effects as SIT, inasmuch as it produces intergroup bias (Harmon-Jones & Greenberg 1996). In this study, they shown that even in groups defined by the MGP, mortality salience causes an increased intergroup bias. As this does not fit with the cultural buffer view , they propose that “thinking about death threatens self esteem,” and thus increases ingroup bias. Though it has been proposed (as a logical consequent of SIT) that that threatened self esteem will motivate intergroup bias (in addition to intergroup bias enhancing self esteem) (Aberson et al. 1990), this prediction has not been borne out. (Hewstone 2002) There is clearly a different mechanism at work. Here, I attempt to reorganize the mechanism activated by mortality salience, and show how it relates to SIT.
In the evolutionary environment, mortal threats would have taken the form of aggression (war, inter-clan feuds), old age, sickness, and natural disaster (famine, flood). In all of these contexts, the need for a coalition would be high. (Kelly 1995). Thus mortality salience should activate a need for coalition. I propose that this activates the coalitional contruct, which in turn activates the SIT mechanism. We find support for this phenomenon in that mortality salience leads to in social comparisons, and increased positive social identity. (Harmon-Jones & Greenberg 1996) Further support would be found by testing the prediction that mortality salience should result in higher self esteem, as the SIT mechanism has been activated. If the prediction is validated, the process can be seen as a process which reinforces the activation and maintenance of the coalitional construct.
In my model, activation of the coalitional contruct (or the ingroup contruct) is a step that follows assessment of need for coalition. I propose that as a consequence, mere activation of the coalitional domain will activate the SIT mechanism. This idea has empirical support in the literature. Mullen et al, in a meta-analysis of the intergroup bias literature, show that
“The ingroup bias should increase as the salience of the ingroup increases. This prediction received support from three separate lines of research” (Mullen 1992).
A further prediction of this is that the strength of need for coalition will moderate the activation of the SIT mechanism. This hypothesis proposes that experimentally manipulating subjects’ perceived need for a coalition will result in the activation of the SIT mechanism, ultimately leading to an increase in self esteem.
This organization integrates such concepts as threat and collective self esteem. The benefits that a group can offer are greatest when the group is strong. Thus one should find coping mechanisms to deal with threat that would maximize the strength of the group. The results of Dietz-Uhler (1998) can be interpreted in exactly this way. They found that as a result of high threat as opposed to low threat of subject’s ingroup, subjects responded with increased positive affirmations (in this study, of their university). This is exactly what one would predict if the main goal of SIT was to maintain the coalition construct. Turner (1992) finds a similar phenomenon in her study of “groupthink.” Though she posits “groupthink” to be a deleterious decision making process, the study finds “groupthink [is] a process in which group members attempt to maintain a shared, positive view of the functioning of the group in the face of a collective threat” (Turner 1992). Lastly, Cocker proposes that in contrast to personal self-esteem being the only result of the SIT, “comparisons result in a positive social identity, or high collective self-esteem” (Cocker 1990). Collective self-esteem is consistent with the idea that social identity can vary depending on the ingroup, or coalition. However, if this is a domain specific phenomenon relating to group processes, it can be assumed that it serves a need of the group, as opposed to individuals. The significance of this will be discussed later in relation to a potential coalitional group maintenance mechanism.
Optimal distinctiveness theory (Brewer 1991) was proposed to qualify social identity theory. Brewer posits that “individuals need a certain level of both similarity to and differentiation from others.” This is presented in the context of (opposing) basic human needs for validation and for uniqueness. This is presented in the context of a four part model, in which the conflict for these two needs is resolved when humans choose the social identity that best addresses the competing needs named above. The fourth tenet is presented as follows.
A4. The optimal level of a category distinctiveness or inclusiveness is a function of the relative strength (steepness) of the opposing drives for assimilation and differentiation. For any individual, the relative strength of the two needs is determined by cultural norms, individual socialization, and recent experience.
(Brewer 1991)

I argue that this fourth "basic tenet" of the optimal distinctiveness model can be made more complete by including domain specific processes of individuation/disindividuation. I predict that domain specific social contexts will be the defining factor in finding the state of optimal distinctiveness. In these contexts, the needs for validation and uniqueness will give way to different basic needs. These social domains relevant for optimal distinctiveness are mating, coalition and reciprocity.
Access to mates is a necessary prerequisite to mating, and thus is an essential part of inclusive fitness (Dawkins 1976). Thus mating presents specific a specific problem for our evolutionary ancestors.” Buss presents the evolutionary view of mating strategies in his 1988 paper.
“Evolutionary considerations suggest that desirable members of the opposite sex are reproductively valuable resources over which members of the same sex compete. One of the chief strategies of competition is to make oneself more attractive than others of the same sex by using certain tactics and displaying certain resources (Buss 1998).
Though, “using certain tactics” is admittedly vague, the clear picture is that humans distinguish themselves from same-sex rivals in order to gain access to mates. I propose that the drive for differentiation can be activated by the need for mate attraction. This is a complement to the need for uniqueness, and clarifies under what circumstances the need for uniqueness will be high. This hypothesis can be tested using several different techniques, as in merely priming the mating domain, or manipulating subjects perceived need for a mate.
Need for coalition, as explored in the first half of this paper, necessarily plays into the drive for disindividuation. In fact, Brewer (2001) proposes this theory from an evolutionary perspective.
When a person feels isolated or detached from any larger social collective, the drive for inclusion I aroused; on the other, immersion in an excessively large or undefined social collective activates the search for differentiation (Brewer 2001)
This domain specific context is related to Social Identity Theory; the SIT mechanism offers an explanation of how disindividuation is reinforced in the individual. When need for coalition arises, the SIT mechanism is activated, resulting in increased self esteem in the individual.
Finally, I will describe how the differentiation drive can be activated in the context of the reciprocity domain. Reciprocity would have been a difficult problem in our evolutionary history, because of what is known as the “Banker’s Paradox.” (Tooby & Cosmides 1996) This explains that “just when individuals need money (or other resources) most desperately, they are also the poorest credit risk.” In other words, when you are in the most need, you are also in a position least likely to repay someone for their investment. How then, would individuals insure that ingroup members would come to their aid when in need? One solution for this is “becoming irreplaceable.” This strategy leads to a set of behavior patterns that cultivate individual attributes, attainment of special skills, and habitual activities that are unique to them. (Tooby & Cosmides 1996) Thus, the in the domain of reciprocity, it can be seen how the need for differentiation will be high. This conceptualization hypothesizes that when reciprocity becomes salient, the need for differentiation will be high. This is yet another hypothesis predicted by viewing the context of social domain as an organizing concept.
This organization jives with a recent development in the conceptualization of self-esteem as a sociometer (Leary, 2001). This idea postulates that self-esteem is a “measure of social inclusion.” Sociometer theory has been developed as potentially more domain specific by Kirkpatrick et al (2001). They propose that
Multiple sociometers should monitor inclusion in such functionally distinct domains as mateships, coalitions, and familial networks. (Kirkpatrick 2001)
This fits in extremely well with the viewpoint that the coalitional domain activates the SIT, and that the end result of SIT should be positive self-esteem. The purpose of this “social monitoring” process then is to maintain adaptive social relationships be reinforcing the activation of these. As was presented earlier, collective self-esteem can be viewed as such a reinforcing phenomenon relating specifically to the group domain. To my best knowledge, there has been no research on the self-esteem implications of reciprocity interactions. This sociometer model would predict that the activation of a reciprocal relationship will increase self-esteem, or a related analogous process involving the dyadic self-esteem. This may prove to be a fruitful area of research.
In conclusion, the conceptualization of SIT and ODT using the domains of social life proves to be a fruitful one. I have explained how these domains offer insight into the causal mechanisms of the theory. In addition, I have shown how the evolutionary perspective can supplement basic human drives that may underlie context dependent instances of these theories. Finally, I have proposed several possibilities for testable hypotheses given this evolutionary viewpoint. This includes the re-conceptualization of mortality salience as activating the coalitional domain, as opposed to lowering self-esteem. In fact, my organization of the causal structure of mortality salience predicts the exact opposite of Harmon-Jones & Greenberg (1996). The evolutionary perspective is only as strong as the testable hypotheses that it generates, and I hope to have shown this potential here.
Brewer, Marilynn B. (2001) Ingroup identification and intergroup conflict: When does ingroup love become outgroup hate? In: Richard D. Ashmore, Ed; Lee Jussim, Ed; et al. Social identity, intergroup conflict, and conflict reduction.. Oxford University Press: London,. p. 17-41 of xii, 270pp.

Brewer, M.B. (1991). The social Self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), 475-483

Bugental, D. B. (2000). Acquisition of algorithms of social life: a domain-based approach. Psychological Bulletin, 126(2), 187-219.

Buss, David M. (1988) The evolution of human intrasexual competition: Tactics of mate attraction. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. American Psychological Assn.: US, Apr. 54 (4): p. 616-628

Buss, David M.; Schmitt, David P. (1993) Sexual Strategies Theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review. American Psychological Assn.: US, Apr. 100 (2): p. 204-232

Crocker, Jennifer; Wolfe, Connie T. (2001) Contingencies of self-worth. Psychological Review. American Psychological Assn: US, Jul. 108 (3): p. 593-623

Crocker, Jennifer; Luhtanen, Riia (1990) Collective self-esteem and ingroup bias. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. American Psychological Assn.: US, Jan. 58 (1): p. 60-67

Dawkins, Richard (1989) The selfish gene, New ed. Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press,

Dietz-Uhler, Beth; Murrell, Audrey,(1998) Effects of social identity and threat on self-esteem and group attributions. Group Dynamics. Mar Vol 2(1) 24-35

Gaertner, Lowell; Insko, Chester A.(2000) Intergroup discrimination in the minimal group paradigm: Categorization, reciprocation, or fear? Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. Jul. 79 (1): p. 77-94

Geary, David C.; Flinn, Mark V. (2000) Sex differences in behavioral and hormonal response to social threat: Commentary on Taylor et al. Psychological Review. American Psychological Assn: US, 2002 Oct. 109 (4): p. 745-750

Goldenberg, Jamie L.; McCoy, Shannon K.; Pyszczynski, Tom; Greenberg, Jeff. (2000) The body as a source of self-esteem: The effect of mortality salience on identification with one's body, interest in sex, and appearance monitoring. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. Jul. 79 (1): p. 118-130

Harmon-Jones, E., Greenberg, J. (1996) The effects of mortality salience on intergroup bias between minimal groups. EJSP, 26, 677-681

Hewstone, Miles; Rubin, Mark; Willis, Hazel Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology. Annual Reviews: US, 2002. 53 (1): p. 575-604

Kelly, Robert L. (1995) The foraging spectrum : diversity in hunter-gatherer lifeways. Washington : Smithsonian Institution Press,.

Kirkpatrick, Lee A.; Waugh, Christian E.; Valencia, Alelhie; Webster, Gregory D. (2002) The functional domain specificity of self-esteem and the differential prediction of aggression. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. American Psychological Assn: US, May. 82 (5): p. 756-767

Leary, M. R. & Baumeister, R. F. (2001). The nature and function of self-esteem: Sociometer theory.(In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.)

Pickett, Cynthia L.; Brewer, Marilynn B. Assimilation and differentiation needs as motivational determinants of perceived in-group and out-group homogeneity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. Academic Press Inc: United Kingdom, 2001 Jul. 37 (4): p. 341-348

Rabbie, J.M., Schot, J.C., Visser, L. (1989) Social Identity theory: a Conceptual and empirical critique from the perspective of Behavioural interaction model. EJSP, 19(3), 171-262

Rosenblatt, Abram; Greenberg, Jeff; Solomon, Sheldon; Pyszczynski, Tom; and others. Evidence for terror management theory: I. The effects of mortality salience on reactions to those who violate or uphold cultural values. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. American Psychological Assn.: US, 1989 Oct. 57 (4): p. 681-690

Simon, Linda; Greenberg, Jeff; Arndt, Jamie; Pyszczynski, Tom; Clement, Russell; Solomon, Sheldon Perceived consensus, uniqueness, and terror management: Compensatory responses to threats to inclusion and distinctiveness following mortality salience. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin. Sage Publications, Inc.: US, 1997 Oct. 23 (10): p. 1055-1065

Tajfel, Henri; Billig, M. G.; Bundy, R. P.; Flament, Claude (1971) Social Categorization and Intergroup Behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology. John Wiley & Sons Inc: US,. Vol. 1 (2): p. 149-178

Tooby, John; Cosmides, Leda (1996) Friendship and the banker's paradox: Other pathways to the evolution of adaptations for altruism. In: W. G. Runciman, Ed; John Maynard Smith, Ed; et al. Evolution of social behaviour patterns in primates and man.. Oxford University Press: New York, NY, US,. p. 119-143 of vi, 297pp.

Turner, J. C.; Brown, R. J.; Tajfel, Henri (1979) Social comparison and group interest in ingroup favouritism. European Journal of Social Psychology. John Wiley & Sons Inc: US, Apr-Jun. 9 (2): p. 187-204

Turner, John C.; Oakes, Penelope J. (1986) The significance of the social identity concept for social psychology with reference to individualism, interactionism and social influence. British Journal of Social Psychology. Sep. 25 (3): p. 237-252

Turner, Marlene E.; Pratkanis, Anthony R.; Probasco, Preston; Leve, Craig (1992) Threat, cohesion, and group effectiveness: Testing a social identity maintenance perspective on groupthink. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. Nov Vol 63(5) 781-796








posted by Alex 4:02 AM