Collective Self: A Comprehensive Overview

Collective Self

Definitions

  • Collective self: Self-definition in terms of group membership.
  • Contains aspects of the self-concept that differentiate in-group members from relevant out-groups.
  • Based on impersonal bonds to others derived from common identification with a group.
  • Relies on intergroup comparison processes.

Why Do We Have a Collective Self?

  • Group living is a critical feature in human evolution, offering many benefits.
  • Humans who adapted to group living had an evolutionary advantage.
  • There was an “evolution of perceptual, affective, and cognitive processes that support the development and maintenance of group membership.”

Groups Satisfy Basic Needs

  • The collective self may have evolved as a cognitive mechanism for regulating behavior within group contexts to maximize sustained group inclusion.
  • Referenced Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, including basic, psychological, and self-fulfillment needs. Visual representation shows a pyramid, but exact titles are not listed in the document.

Historical Perspective

  • Emile Durkheim (1858-1917): Believed in a collective form of self-representation (collective/common conscience).
  • William McDougall (1871-1938): Believed in group mind, suggesting groups sometimes have a mental life distinct from individual members.
  • Henri Tajfel (1919-1982): Studied prejudice, intergroup discrimination, and categorical perception; developed social identity theory.

Emile Durkheim (1858-1917)

  • German sociologist who wrote extensively about the collective or common conscience.
  • Believed in a collective form of self-representation.
  • In his book, On the Division of Labor in Society, Durkheim wrote, “Two consciousnesses exist within humans: one which represents individual personalities and the other which represents the collectivity.”

William McDougall (1871-1938)

  • Harvard psychologist recruited by William James.
  • Proposed the concept of "group mind."
  • McDougall’s group mind theory posits that crowds or groups of individuals sometimes appear to have a mental life of their own, where the traits, values, and behaviors that emerge in a group context may be quite distinct from those of the individual group members.

Henri Tajfel (1919-1982)

  • Nazi Holocaust survivor.
  • Began studying psychology in 1946.
  • Affiliated with the University of Oxford and the University of Bristol.
  • Interested in understanding prejudice and intergroup discrimination.
  • Conducted seminal work on categorical perception.
  • Developed social identity theory.

Category Accentuation Effect

  • Tajfel & Wilkes (1963) demonstrated the category accentuation effect.
  • Differences between categories are exaggerated.
  • Differences within categories are minimized.
  • The effect is stronger when people are uncertain.

Goldstone (1995)

  • Provided an example of the category accentuation effect, showing how categorization can influence perception.

Category Accentuation Effect (Revisited)

  • Differences between categories are exaggerated.
  • Differences within categories are minimized.
  • The effect tends to be stronger when people are uncertain (Corneille et al., 2002), leading them to rely more on categorical information.

Social Identity

  • Personal Identity: Idiosyncratic self-descriptions that differentiate the individual from other members of his or her social groups.
  • Social Identity: “That part of an individual’s self-concept which derives from his knowledge of his membership of a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership” (Tajfel, 1978, p. 63).
  • The world can be divided into ingroups and outgroups; ‘us’ and ‘them’.

Robber’s Cave Experiment

  • Sherif’s Intergroup Relations Project at the University of Oklahoma during the 1950s.
  • Examined the formation of intergroup attitudes in newly formed groups.
  • 22 “normal” eleven-year-old boys categorized into two groups: Eagles and Rattlers.
  • Three-stage experiment:
    • Stage 1: group formation
    • Stage 2: intergroup competition
    • Stage 3: superordinate goals

Lessons From Robber’s Cave Experiment

  • Formation of intergroup attitudes in newly formed groups was traced.
  • Group norms developed; places & objects = “ours.”
  • Realistic conflict led to hostile attitudes and derogatory stereotypes.
  • Intergroup hostility led to ingroup solidarity.
  • Not all intergroup contact was effective at reducing hostility

Is Conflict over Resources Necessary?

  • Intergroup hostility can arise out of real conflicts between groups, but is conflict necessary?
  • Why do fights break out at sporting events when there’s nothing real at stake?

Social Identity Theory

  • Mere perception of belonging to two distinct groups is sufficient to trigger intergroup discrimination.
  • Even if differences are arbitrary.
  • Why: maintain positive social identity and like positive group distinctiveness.
  • Makes the self feel good.
  • Referenced Tajfel (1982).

Principles of Social Identity Theory

  • Strive to achieve/maintain positive social identity.
  • Based on favorable comparisons between in-group & some relevant out-groups.
  • In-group must be perceived as positively distinct from out-groups.
  • If social identity is unsatisfactory, individuals will leave their existing group and join a positively distinct group and/or make their group more positively distinct.

Tajfel, 1970, Scientific American Klee & Kandinsky Experiments

  • Minimal Groups: Participants were separated into groups based on their preference for Klee paintings or Kandinsky paintings.
  • Task: Resource allocation to ingroup and outgroup members.
    • Participant receives none of the compensation.

The Minimal Group Paradigm (Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, & Flament, 1971)

  • Anonymous, no face-to-face interaction.
  • No rational link between categorization criteria & response.
  • No benefit to self of particular response.
  • Begin with Categorization, divide people into groups, perform allocation task, and award money to others
  • Results: 72% of subjects exhibited a majority of ingroup-favoring responses.
  • Even though subjects did not see any money and groups were meaningless.

Consequences of Group Membership for the Self

  • Benefits:
    • Optimal distinctiveness
    • Uncertainty reduction
  • Other effects:
    • Self-stereotyping
    • Shift in social motivation – collective interest over self-interest
  • Costs:
    • Black sheep effect

Optimal Distinctiveness Theory

  • Two fundamental human needs:
    • Assimilation (ingroup inclusion)
    • Differentiation (distinctiveness from others)
  • Membership in a group allows us to meet both needs simultaneously.
  • For example: being a UC Davis student (Brewer, 1991; Brewer & Pickett, 1999).

Uncertainty Reduction Theory

  • Reduce uncertainty by identifying with groups that provide clear normative prescriptions for behavior.
  • The reduction of uncertainty caused by in-group identification imbues people who are associated with this reduction (i.e., in-group members, including the self) with positive feelings (Hogg & Abrams, 1993).

Collective Interest vs. Self Interest

  • Kramer and Brewer (1984) investigated whether shared collective identity would increase cooperative behavior among individuals in a commons dilemma.
  • Use of shared resource entails “taking all that one can or wants at the moment – at the risk of using up the resource – or taking a little on many occasions, with the possibility of getting more in the end because the pool is able to replenish itself.”

Collective Interest vs. Self Interest

  • Subjects told they would be interacting with 5 people.
  • Shared collective identity: Santa Barbara Residents.
  • Two subgroups: elderly and young.
  • Result: In shared collective identity condition, subjects took less on each trial, helping to ensure continued viability of resource (Kramer & Brewer, 1984).

Costs of Group Membership for the Self: Black Sheep Effect

  • Being a peripheral (fringe) ingroup member can cause an individual stress and pain (e.g., depression) and can leave them vulnerable to threats.
  • Associated with more identity uncertainty.
  • May need to do more to “prove” themselves, such as derogating other peripheral members.

Levels of the Self

  • Both the relational self and the collective self are social, and part of the “extended self.”
  • “We” and “us” can mean many different things:
    • Couples, friendships, families, etc. (relational)
    • Societies, cultures, groups (collective)
  • We shift in our self-categorization depending upon what is chronically & temporarily accessible.