Which theory suggests that the reason people help others is to make themselves feel better?

Distinctiveness threat

Social identity theory posits that people strive to achieve and maintain a sense of positive distinctiveness for their group memberships (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Positive distinctiveness entails feeling both valuable and distinct vis-à-vis other groups. The drive to view our ingroups favorably makes intuitive sense from a self-esteem perspective, but distinctiveness also serves an epistemic function. Group memberships allow us to “know” ourselves by making intergroup comparisons with similar outgroups. However, when the ingroup and outgroup being compared are too similar, the insufficient contrast between groups thwarts their value as tools for self-knowledge. When “they” are too similar to “us,” the distinction between these categories ceases to be meaningful; this dilemma is the heart of distinctiveness threat (Branscombe, Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 1999).

People experience losses to ingroup distinctiveness negatively in part because these losses can arouse anxiety about the ingroup’s future viability as a separate entity. Social identity theory predicts that group members’ responses to distinctiveness loss, such as cultural assimilation, will depend on their degree of identification with the relevant subgroup; low identifiers tend to assimilate more readily, and high identifiers tend to resist assimilation by showing greater self-stereotyping (Spears, Doosje, & Ellemers, 1997) and ingroup bias (Jetten, Spears, & Manstead, 1997). This is particularly relevant for minority group members whose identities often become overshadowed by the majority group’s culture and values. For example, immigrants who move to the United States and attempt to use a language other than English often encounter pressure to assimilate by only speaking English in public.

Wohl, Giguère, Branscombe, and McVicar (2011) demonstrated in a series of experiments that people exposed to distinctiveness threat, relative to those in a control condition, reported higher levels of support for policies aimed to maintain the ingroup’s distinctiveness by distancing it from the relevant outgroup. One of these experiments manipulated distinctiveness threat by exposing some participants, French Canadians, to a newspaper article about the merging of French Canadian and Anglophonic culture (distinctiveness threat condition), and exposing the remaining participants to an article about the geography of Quebec (control condition). The researchers measured self-reported desire for Quebec sovereignty as the primary outcome, because sovereignty from the rest of Canada would allow French Canadians to maintain their group’s distinctiveness. As the authors predicted, group identification moderated the effect of the distinctiveness threat manipulation on concerns about the group’s future and desire for Quebec sovereignty as an entity separate from Canada. High identifiers in the distinctiveness threat condition reported greater concerns about the group’s future and greater desire for sovereignty than low identifiers in the same condition. In addition, support was found for a model in which the effect of distinctiveness threat on support for ingroup protective action (Quebec sovereignty from Canada) was moderated by group identification and mediated by concerns about the group’s future. These findings demonstrate the importance of distinctiveness threat and its potential consequences for distancing from a higher order inclusive identity.

Such distinctiveness motives have implications for interminority relations. Indeed, research shows that the relative position of different minorities within society vis-à-vis the mainstream affects attitudes toward other minorities (White, Schmitt, & Langer, 2006). White et al. demonstrated that minority group members expressed more negative attitudes toward a more mainstream, compared to a less mainstream, similar minority outgroup. These negative evaluations occur because a similar minority outgroup that bears too much resemblance to the mainstream threatens the distinctiveness of the minority group. For example, vegans may evaluate vegetarians negatively because they blur the boundaries between the mainstream, omnivores, and the minority.

In sum, merging with members of other groups to form a superordinate group can trigger social identity threat (Branscombe et al., 1999). Threat to the distinctiveness of a social identity is particularly relevant to a discussion of solidarity, because, as we have argued in this chapter, perceived similarity promotes solidarity. Greater perceived similarity can also instigate distinctiveness threat, and this effect occurs most strongly for high identifiers (Spears et al., 1997).

Although subgroup identification positively predicts ingroup bias and susceptibility to distinctiveness threat, it does not necessarily deter identification with a superordinate group. Huo and Molina (2006) suggest perceptions of subgroup respect, defined as “…feelings that one’s subgroup is recognized, accepted, and valued by the members of the common group…” (p. 360), play an important role in shaping how subgroup members respond to the prospect of more inclusive categorization. They describe two perspectives to illustrate this dilemma. First, from an assimilationist perspective, subgroup members must disidentify with their subgroup before they can fully commit to the superordinate group; this view holds that identification with the subgroup acts as an obstacle to identification with a superordinate group. Second, from a pluralistic perspective, subgroup members can maintain high levels of identification with both groups; this view holds that strong subgroup identification only deters identification with the superordinate group when subgroup members perceive a lack of respect from the larger group. Consistent with this pluralistic perspective, Huo and Molina (2006) found that greater perceptions of societal respect toward one’s ethnic subgroup in the United States were associated with more positive affect toward Americans, less distrust of the justice system, and less subgroup favoritism. These findings offer hope for the formation and maintenance of more inclusive categories.

Encouraging sufficient commonality between groups to build solidarity, while avoiding distinctiveness threat, requires a delicate balancing act. Overcoming the tension between these competing forces presents a major obstacle for those attempting to apply this knowledge. We recommend careful attention to perceptions of subgroup respect as one promising means of attenuating distinctiveness threat. Feeling that one’s subgroup membership is valued and respected by the superordinate group should combat this tendency to reject more inclusive categorization when people experience distinctiveness threat.

C Social Identity and Social Cognitive Theory

Social identity theory proposed by Tajfel and Turner (1986) suggests that individuals experience collective identity based on their membership in a group, such as racial/ethnic and gender identities. Social identity leads individuals to categorize themselves and other salient groups into “us” versus “them.” Self-categorization based on group membership might be so salient that it can get activated automatically even with subtle stimuli. To maintain positive social identity, people engage in intergroup comparisons that demonstrate a favorable bias toward their in-group, display discriminatory behaviors toward out-groups, and use coping mechanisms such as internal/external causal attributions for group failures (Brewer, 1979; Brewer, Manzi, & Shaw, 1993; Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Hewstone, 1990).

Media stereotyping studies have applied social identity perspectives to understand effects on both majority and minority group members. Group identity is especially salient for members of minority groups, and studies show that they prefer content featuring members of their minority in-groups in the media (Appiah, 2001, 2002; Fujioka, 2005). Audience members from minority groups are conscious of features that might mark them as distinct from the majority group and are particularly sensitive to how they are represented in popular media, in which they are often typically invisible. According to the ethnolinguistic identity theory, viewing media programs that feature members of their group increases their in-group vitality, especially when depicted in a positive light (Abrams, Eveland, & Giles, 2003; Giles, Bourhis, & Taylor, 1977).

With regard to research on majority group members, when media representations of out-groups “accommodate” in-group norms, minority group members in real-life are evaluated less stereotypically (Coover, 2001). Media stereotyping serves as an avenue for categorizing other groups, especially when the stereotype serves the in-group positively and the out-group negatively. For example, Mastro (2003) showed that White audiences, especially those with higher racial identification, would have a greater tendency to judge Latinos in a negative light after exposure to televised portrayals of Latino criminality and also reported higher self-esteem when exposed to Latino criminality on television.

Another theoretical perspective that tries to integrate real-world experiences with mediated ones in shaping identities and behaviors is the social cognitive theory. It suggests that people cognitively process information and internalize responses to situations based on observations, even when they do not experience them firsthand, and adapt them to their own contexts (Bandura, 1977, 2002). Although very complex and broad in scope, some key concepts from this theory, such as abstract modeling, inhibitory and disinhibitory processes, vicarious learning, and positive/negative reinforcement, have been applied to media stereotyping studies. For example, Ortiz and Harwood (2007) examined whether positive intergroup interactions role-modeled in the media would lead to positive attitudinal outcomes through abstract modeling and identification. Fujioka (1999) found that the nature of vicarious contact (positive or negative) with African-Americans via television portrayals shaped Japanese international students’ attitudes toward this group. Behm-Morawitz and Mastro (2009) found that sexualized portrayals of female characters in video games can negatively influence self-esteem and self-efficacy in female gamers. Ward and Friedman (2006) found that adolescents who viewed stereotypical media portrayals of women as sex objects were more likely to be supportive of sexist behaviors.

Identity

According to social identity theory (Hogg, 2006), people categorize themselves into different social categories to build their own social identity. Thus, groups like sport teams are more or less part of this identity. The underlying social categories are built from prototypical attributes of other group members. Attributes can be norms, rules, and values, but also perceptions, feelings, and behaviors (Zepp, Kleinert, & Liebscher, 2013). According to the social identity theory, it could be expected that a group identity within a sport team, which is shared by the majority of the members, will have positive influence on the team’s performance, but also on other team-related constructs. Until today, no scientific studies exist in sport that aim to link team identity to team performance. Still, team identity was shown to have positive correlations with group cohesion (Carron, Colman, Wheeler, & Stevens, 2002) and effective team leading (Cremer, van Dijke, & Mayer, 2010).

4.4 Identification and Strategies for Escaping an Unsatisfactory Social Identity

A central idea in social identity theory is that biased intergroup comparisons are directly linked to social identification. Presumably, the more important a group is to its members, the more bias group members should show in its favor. However, in many studies, there have been rather unstable correlations between group identification and in-group bias. Hinkle and Brown suggested that the psychological processes proposed by social identity theory might not be operative in all groups. They hypothesized that this would depend on the prevailing level of individualism or collectivism in the group or group members, on the one hand, and their inclination to engage in intergroup comparisons, on the other. Group comparisons may be more important for relational groups (e.g., sports teams) and less important for autonomous groups (e.g., families). A strong link between group identification and in-group favoritism would be expected only in groups simultaneously characterized by collectivist and relational orientations. Some support has been found for this idea.

For low-status groups, the outcome of available group comparisons is often negative for their self-esteem. One reaction to this is simply to leave the group, and there are many examples of members of “inferior” groups distancing themselves physically or psychologically from their groups. Such an individualist strategy of social mobility might not always be possible, especially if the group boundaries are relatively fixed and impermeable, as is the case with many ethnic and religious groups. In cases such as this, social identity theory suggests that a number of other avenues may be pursued. One is to limit the comparisons made to other similar or subordinate groups. Another is to sidestep the main dimensions of comparison and to either invent new dimensions or change the value of existing dimensions. These ways are expressions of social creativity. Yet another route is to directly confront the dominant group’s superiority by agitating for social and economic change.

Which of these tactics will be chosen might well depend on the prevailing social climate. If it is such that no real alternatives to the status quo may be conceived, subordinate groups are unlikely to openly challenge the existing order and attempt social change. A key factor in generating social unrest among subordinate groups is a sense of relative deprivation, either in relation to their own groups in the past or (more often) in relation to the dominant group. The implications of broader social and cultural influences for intergroup bias are discussed further in the next two sections.

Which theory of helping behavior states we help others to benefit ourselves in some way?

What theory is helping others?

What are the three theories of helping?

What are the theories of altruism in psychology?