Social Identity Complexity and Outgroup Tolerance

Destiny DallmannLiselle ElizondoHeather Puebla

Rebekah Pangrac

Social Identity Complexity

Roccas and Brewer proposed that multiple social identities can be presented along a continuum of complexity and inclusiveness, reflecting the degree to which different identities are both differentiated and integrated in the individual’s cognitive representations of his or her group memberships.

Social Identity Theory

• The need to partition people into ingroups and outgroups.

• You can feel good about yourself in two ways either by your own achievements or by the achievements of the group that you belong to.

Defining Social Identity Complexity

• Social Identity Complexity- The sum of the perceived overlap among parties of ingroup memberships.

• Low Social Identity Complexity• High Social Identity Complexity

How do individuals construct their social identities?

• Having a complex social identity is based on two conditions:

-Awareness - Recognition• Social identity complexity requires the use

of cognitive resources.

Types of Groups

• Cross-Cutting Groups- People with high Social Identity complexity are able to see their groups as cross-cutting.

• Overlapping Groups- People with low Social Identity Complexity see the groups to which they belong to as highly overlapping.

Social Identity Complexity and Tolerance

• Roccas and Brewer believed that social identity complexity would be associated with tolerance of outgroups.

• High/Complex social identity complexity leads to increased tolerance among individuals.

• Low/Simple social identity complexity leads to decreased tolerance among individuals.

***The IMPORTANCE of a Complex Social Identity***

• ***THREE REASONS*** why people with complex social identities should be more tolerant and show less discrimination.

• -CROSS CUTTING.• Overlapping groups do NOT FEEL THE NEED TO

COMPARE THEMSELVES WITH OTHER GROUPS.• Being in MULTIPLE GROUPS DECREASES THE

IMPORTANCE OF ANY ONE INDIVIDUAL GROUP.

Social Identity Complexity and Tolerance Cont.

• Cognitive Inconsistencies• Extended Contact Effect

Method

1st phase: Mail Questionnaire - random sample of households in Ohio- screening instrument

2nd phase: Computer Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI)

- follow up to mail questionnaire- selected subsample of respondents to phase 1 - primary data of interest

Mail Questionnaire• Purpose: “to elicit information on respondents’

important group memberships”– Basic demographic information– Series of probes

• Membership in various organizations/ social groups – Religious, political, or fraternal organizations, occupational or

ethnic/national identities, and recreational/sports groups

• Yes/No questions & if answered yes an open-ended response was asked to be written to specify

– Review all of the groups/organizations listed & select 3-5 groups that were “most important”

– If willing to be contacted for a telephone interview• Name & Number

Mail Questionnaire

• Mailed to 1,500 addresses– Randomly picked from Ohio telephone

directory listings

• 497 completed questionnaires returned from eligible respondents – 291 men & 206 women– ~300 respondents offered to do the follow-up

telephone survey

Telephone Interview • 242 respondents selected

– Criteria for selection: “listed at least four different group memberships (including America), across different domains, among those “most important” to them”

• Interviews conducted by trained interviewers from the Ohio State University Center for Survey Research.

• 222 interviews successfully completed– Final sample used for data analysis

CATI Content

• The names of the specific four groups each respondent had chose in phase 1.

• All U.S. citizens (important identity shared- American* was everyone’s 1st group)

• Interview questions generated to assess social identity complexity

Sections of CATI• Complexity– One section measured perceived overlap between groups

by respondents• High overlap scores = low social identity complexity

• Tolerance– Another section measured respondents’ attitudes toward

multiculturalism, affirmative action & feelings toward specific groups

• Contact with members of other ethnic/racial groups

Results

• 222 respondents who completed the interview, 12 were dropped.– Because they provided undifferentiated responses to all 12

overlap pairs (ex. All 10’s or all 5’s)

• Remaining 210 respondents (118 men, 92 women)– Age range from 21 to 81– 184 White/Caucasian Americans and 26 Non-White minorities– Because there were too few non-white respondents, analyses was

conducted on data from the white respondents only (106 men, 78 women)

Correlates of Overlap Complexity• A correlational analyses was conducted to determine what respondent

characteristics were correlated with their overlap complexity index score

– Found no significant difference between male and female respondents in mean complexity.

– But, overlap complexity was marginally significantly correlated with age of respondent.• Older respondents tended to have higher social identity

complexity and lower overlap scores. – Complexity was significantly negatively related to level of education

with more education associate with higher complexity.– Complexity scores were significantly correlated with self reported

political ideology .• More liberal respondents had a higher complexity than more

conservative respondents.

Social Policy Attitudes

The primary interest is the relationship between overlap complexity scores and measures of tolerance and acceptance of outgroups. High complexity was associated with greater

acceptance of multicultural diversity and positive attitudes toward affirmative action principles.

Thermometer ratings and ingroup -outgroup distance.

• Group affect– No significant correlation between complexity and

ingroup affect.– Overlap complexity did correlate with outgroup

affect.

• Relationship between complexity and all three tolerance measures remained significant even when controlling for age, education, and ideology.

Discussion

• Some “important” groups had little effect on complexity scores– Religion

• Included by majority of respondents • But the mean & variance were identical for those who did not list

religion in their important ingroups• Consistent with research: religiosity and prejudice

– Religious affiliation is unrelated to outgroup attitudes

Discussion

• “Important” ingroup: Sports Fan– Did affect complexity and inclusiveness scores– Associated with low complexity

• (And higher perceived overlap between the sports group and their other groups)

– Believe fellow fans make up a homogeneous group of people like them

Discussion

• Complexity and Inclusiveness– Complex representations may be facilitated by presence of

an all-inclusive, superordinate category • Cognitive balance

• Reducing intergroup prejudice– Formula:

• Cross-cutting category structure • Identifying with multiple ingroups • Awareness of ingroup diversity / high complexity

B

C

D

A

Discussion

• Why do people develop exclusive definitions?– High need for certainty or cognitive simplification

• Uncertainty about group membership classification• Simple strategy reduces stress of uncertainty

– Ingroup Overexclusiveness Effect (Leyens & Yzerbyt, 1992)• When in doubt, assume the other is NOT part of the ingroup

– Optimal Distinctiveness Theory of Social Identification (Brewer, 1991)• Social identification motivated by 2 opposing needs:

» Need for Inclusion with others» Need for Distinction from others

• When one feels lost in the crowd, they seek distinction• When one feels alone, they seek inclusion