The Social Identity Perspective社會(huì)認(rèn)同的視角

SomeCurrentIssuesinResearchоnSocialIdentityandSelf-categorizationTheories(InN.Ellemers,R.Spears,&B.Doojse(Eds.),Socialidentity:Context,commitment,content(pp.6–34).Oxford:Blackwell.)

JohnC.Turner

Introduction

Socialidentityandself-categorizationtheoriesembodyatheoreticalandresearchtraditionwhichnowstretchesbackoveraquarterofacenturytothebeginningofthe1970s.Inl971Tajfelandhiscolleagues(Tajfel,Flament,Billig&Bundy,1971)publishedtheresultsoftheirstudiesintheminimalgroupparadigm;andayearlaterTajfel(1972a)publishedachapteronsocialcategorizationinwhichheattemptedtomakesenseoftheminimalgroupdatabyinvokingtheconceptofsocialidentityandthehypothesisofamotiveforpositivesocialidentity.Nevertheless,socialidentitytheoryproperonlycameintofullshapeinthemid-1970s,whenthemorecomplexelaborationsofthetheorywhichhadbeensteadilydeveloping(e.g.,Tajfel,1974;Turner,1975)wereputintoamoresystematicanddetailedform(Tajfel,1978a;Tajfel&Turner,1979).Bythelate1970sissuesarisingfromsocialidentitytheoryandresearchhadhelpedtostimulatetheideaswhichsubsequentlybecameself-categorizationtheory(Turner,1978a,1982,1985);seeTurner&Oakes,1989,forasummaryoftheseissues).Self-categorizationtheorydidnotjustresolvesomeissuesrelevanttosocialidentitytheory;italsorepresentedamajorexpansionintherangeofapplicabilityofthesocialidentitytradition,fromintergrouprelationsandsocialconflictintotherealmofgroupprocesses,stereotypingandsocialcognition.Thisprocesshascontinued,withsocialidentityandself-categorizationideasalsonowbeingappliedtotheinterrelationshipofself-conceptandpersonalityandinfieldsotherthanmainstreamsocialpsychology(e.g.,Turner&Onorato,1999;Turner&Haslam,inpress)

Socialidentityandself-categorizationtheoriesare,despitesomeconfusiononthispoint,differenttheories,butthereisnoquestionthattheyrestonsameanti-reductionistmetatheory(seeTajfel,1972b;1979;turner,1996a;Turner&Bourhis,1996;Turner&Oakes,1986,1997)andinvokethesameconceptofsocialidentity.Self-categorizationtheoryis,asamatterofrecord,acontinuationofthetraditionbegunbysocialidentitytheory,extendingandelaboratingitsi

thatsocialidentityprocessesarefundamentaltounderstandingcollectivebehaviour.Theyaredifferenttheories,buttheyarealliedandlargelycomplementarydoingdifferentjobsfromthesamebroadsocialpsychologicalperspective.Itisthisreasonthatthetermsocialidentitytheoryissometimesused(atamoreintensivelevel)torefertoboththeories;thischapterwillspeakofthesocialidentityperspective,approachortraditiontoindicate,boththeories.

Itisnoteworthy,asthisandotherrecentbookstestify(Abrams&Hogg,19..;Brewer&Miller,1996;Hogg&Abrams,1993;Oakes,Haslam&Tuber,19..;Robinson,1996;Spears,Oakes,Ellemers&Haslam,1997;Tyler,Kramer&John1999;Worchel,Morales,Paez&Deschamps,1998),thataftersometwenty-..ormoreyearsnotonlydoessocialidentityresearchcontinueunabated,butinitisbeingpursuedmorevigorouslynowthaneverbefore.Thisisquitesomeforatheoreticalperspectiveinsocialpsychology.Atthesametime,thesoidentityperspectivehasalwaysbeenrelativelycontroversialinthesensethatitalwayshaditsshareofcriticsBecauseofthecomplexityoftheideas,ithasalwaysbeensubjecttosignificantmisunderstandings.Ontheonehand,thereiscontemporaryrecognitionofquantityandqualityoftheresearchithasstimulateandofthefreshnessandnoveltyoftheinsightsitoffersintoclassicandcontemporaryproblemsinsocialpsychology.Ontheother,thereisapersistentclamongstitscritics(andevensomeofitsfriends)thattheresearchhasfailedsupportsomeofitskeyhypothesesandthattherearesignificantconceptualfalls.AtthesametimeasreviewerstellusthatthetraditionhasmajordifficultiesinfluenceoncurrentresearchcontinuestogrowandisfeltinevermoreareasThereisnotspaceinonechaptertoreviewtwenty-fiveyearsresearch,norewoulditbeeasytoreviewproperlytheworkdoneinjustanyoneareaorononeproblem.Thebookasawholewillreviewmuchoftherelevantwork.Thischapterwillcommentonwhathasbeenlearnedinaratherdifferentway.Itssummarizetheperspective,andnotebrieflysomeofitsmostimportantandradicalimplications,atthesametimerespondingtosomeofthemaincriticismswhathavebeenlevelledagainstit.Thereisnoclaimthatthetheoriesare'finishedperfect'.Thiscannotbetrueofanyscientifictheory.Bothstillhaveroomconceptualdevelopmentandsuchdevelopmentistakingplace;Bothmay…matelybeprovedwrong,inthesensethattheymaybereplacedbyadifferentbetterunderstandingoftherelevantphenomena,butweshallnotadvancebetterunderstandingbyrejectingideasforthewrongreasons.Thecoreinsightthesocialidentitytraditionwillneedtobeassimilatedinanyfuturetheories(justasthesocialidentityperspectivehasabsorbedtheinsightsoftheeagroupdynamicstradition),whichmeansthatwemustbeclearastowhattheyInmanyrespectsthebusinessofelaboratingandtestingthesocialidentityperspectivehasstillreallyonlyjustbegun,evengiventheworkthathasbeendr…sincetheideashavecontinuedtodevelopyearinandyearout,preservingvitalityandrelevanceoftheoriginalvision.

TheSocialIdentityPerspective

Socialidentitytheory

Thebodyofideasthathasbecomeknownas'socialidentitytheory'(atermcoinedbyTurner&Brown,1978,tosimplifythevariousdescriptionsoftheideasthatTajfelemployed)beganasanattempttoexplainintergroupdiscriminationinthe'minimalgroupparadigm'(Tajfel,1972a;Turner,1975,1978b).InthatparadigmTajfel,Flament,BilligandBundy(1971)foundthatthemeresocialcategorizationofpeopleintodistinctgroupscouldproduceintergroupbehaviourinwhichsubjectfavouredingroupoveroutgroupmembers(seeBrewer,1979;Turner,

1975,1981;Turner&Bourhis,1996).ItappearedthatthemereawarenessofbeinginonegroupasOpposedtoanotherwassufficientundercertainconditionstotriggerprocessesofintergroupdiscriminationandcompetition.Tajfel(1972a)andTurner(1975)arguedthatthesocialcategorizationofsubjectsinthisminimalparadigmcreatedasocialidentityforthem.Thesubjectsacceptedtheassignedsocialcategorymembershipasarelevantself-difinitioninthesituation.'Socialidentitywasconceptualizedasthataspectofaperson'sself-conceptbasedon

theirgroupmemberships;itwasaperson'sdefinitionofselfintermsofsomesocialgroupmembershipwiththeassociatedvalueconnotationsandemotionalsignificance(e-g.,aself-definitionas'uswomen'or'weAmericans').Itwasarguedthatsincepeopleevaluatedthemselvesundercertainconditionsintermsoftheiringroupmemberships,therewasapsychologicalrequirementinherentinsocialidentificationthatrelevantingroupscomparefavourablywithrelevantotgroups.Therewas,ineffect,aneedforpositivesocialidentity,expressedthroughadesiretocreate,maintainorenhancethepositivelyvalueddistinctive-nessofingroupscomparedtooutgroupsonrelevantdimensions,andarousedunderconditionswherepeopledefinedandevaluatedthemselvesintermsoftheirgroupmemberships.Tajfel(e.g.,1979,p.184)referredtothisbasicpsychologicalanalysisofamotivationforpositivesocialidentityproducingadriveforingroupsuperiorityasthesequenceofsocialcategorization-socialidentity-socialcomparison-positiveingroupdistinctiveness.Thebasichypothesishere-whichisatthepsychologicalheartofthetheory-isthenotionthatsocialcomparisonsbetweengroupswhicharerelevanttoanevaluationofone'ssocialidentityproducepressuresforintergroupdifferentiationtoachieveapositiveself-evaluationintermsofthatidentity.(or'collectiveself-esteem';seeCrocker&Luhtanen,1990).Manyreadingsofthetheoryassumethatthispsychologicalanalysiswastheendofthestory.Infact,itwasonlythebeginning.Thepsychologicalanalysiswasthenappliedtothecomplexitiesofreal-lifeintergrouprelationsinsociallystratifiedsocieties(seeTajfel&Turner,1979,forasummary).Itwasusedtoexplorethepsychologicalconsequencesformembersofthedifferentstatuspositionsofgroups(e.g.,highorlow)andtheperceivednatureofintergroupstatusdifferences(e.g.,secureorinsecure)andtoelaboratethedifferentwaysinwhichgroupmemberscouldandwouldreacttothechallengesposedtotheirsocialidentitiesbytheirdifferentlocationsinthesocialstructureandtheirsharedbeliefsaboutthenatureofthesocialstructure.

Moreover,thiswasnotasimplematterofarguingthatlowstatusgroupmemberswouldbemorediscriminatoryorethnocentricthanhighstatusgroupmembers,orthatpeoplewouldshowmoreoutgroupdiscriminationthemoretheyidentifiedwithsomeingroup.(ForTajfelandTurner(1979)thecharacterofintergroupattitudesandactionispredictedbyaninteractionbetweentheneedforpositivesocialidentityandgroupmembers'collectivedefinition,perceptionandunderstandingofthesocialstructureofintergrouprelationships(Turner,1996b,1996c).Thus,forexample,dependingonwhethertheyperceivedgroupboundariesaspermeableorimpermeableandstatusrelationshipsassecureorinsecure(stableandlegitimateorunstableandillegitimate),lowstatusgroupmembersmightadoptastrategyofupwardindividualmobilityorsocialcreativity!orastrategyofcollective,ethnocentric,socialcompetition.Similarly,highstatusgroupmembersmightbehighlydiscriminatoryandethnocentricunderconditionswheretheysawtheirlegitimatesuperiorityasthreatenedbythelowstatusgroup,butnotwheretheyperceivedtheirsuperiorityasillegimate.Groupwouldadoptquitedifferentstrategiestoachievepositivesocialidentity(andingroupbiasorsocialcompetition'isonlyoneofthesestrategies)asafunctionofaninteractionbetweentheirstatusposition(highorlow),theirbeliefsaboutthenatureofgroupboundaries,theintensityofingroupidentificationandtheircollectiveideologiesandsharedbeliefsaboutthenatureofthesocialsystemandintergroupdifferencesofstatus,powerandwealth.Tosuppose,therefore,asmanyresearchershavedone,thatsocialidentitytheoryholdsthatthereshouldbesimplecorrelationsbetweeningroupbiasinsomereal-worldsettinganddegreeofingroupidentification,orstatusposition,orsomemeasureofpersonalself-esteem,isseriouslytomisconstruethetheory.

Tajfel(1979)pointedoutexplicitlythatsocialidentitytheoryhadthreeaspects,eachofwhichwasanindispensablepartofthestory.Onewasthepsychologicalanalysisofthecognitive-motivationalprocessesproducinganeedforpositivesocialidentity.Anotherwastheelaborationofthisanalysisinitsapplicationtoreal-worldintergrouprelationsnotedabove.Thethirdwasthehypothesis'ofthe'interpersonal-intergroupcontinuum'(Tajfel,1974,1978a,ch.2).Tajfelsuggestedthatsocialbehaviourvariedalongacontinuumfrominterpersonaltointergroup.Atthe'intergroup'extreme,allofthebehaviouroftwoormoreindividualsto-wardseachotherisdeterminedbytheirmembershipofdifferentsocialgroupsorcategories(i.e.,bygroupaffiliationsandloyaltiestotheexclusionofindividualcharacteristicsandinterpersonalrelationships).The'interpersonal'extremereferstoanysocialencounterinwhichalltheinteractionthattakesplaceisdeterminedbythepersonalrelationshipsbetweentheindividualsandtheirindividualcharacteristics(i.e.,idiosyncraticpersonalqualitiesaretheoverridingcausalinfluences).Tajfelusedtheinterpersonal-intergroupcontinuumtoexplainwhensocialidentityprocessesarelikelytocomeintooperationandhowsocialinteractiondiffersqualitativelybetweentheextremes.Hearguedthat,asbehaviourbecamemoreintergroup,attitudestotheoutgroupwithintheingrouptendtobecomemoreuniformandconsensualandoutgroupmemberstendtobeseenmoreashomogeneousandundifferentiatedmembersoftheirsocialcategory.

Shiftalongthecontinuumwasafunctionofaninteractionbetweenpsychologicalandsocialfactors.Tajfelemphasized,inparticular,thedegreetowhichgroupmemberssharedanideologyof'individualmobility'or'socialchange'andsawthesocialsystemascharacterizedbyrigidandintensesocialstratification.Hesuggestedthatsubjectiveandobjectivebarrierstomovingbetweengroups,leadingtotheperceivedimpermeabilityofgroupboundaries,tendedtobeassociatedwitha'socialchange'belief-system,aviewthatpeoplecannotresolvetheiridentityproblemsthroughindividualactionandmobility,butcanonlychangetheirsocialsituationbyactingcollectivelyintermsoftheirsharedgroupmembership.Insocialidentitytheory,then(butnotself-categorizationtheory,inwhichingroupidentificationandtherelativesalienceofthatidentificationinaspecificsocialcontextaregivencausalprominence-see,e.g.,Ellemers,Spears&Doosje,1997),itwasimpermeablegroupboundariesandthesocialchangebeliefsystemthatwereseenasthekeyfactorsinshiftingbehaviouralongthecontinuumtowardstheintergrouppole.Theyplayedacentralroleindeterminingcollectivereactionsbygroupsmemberstoinsecurestatusinthesocialsystem.

Thehypothesisofaninterpersonal-intergroupcontinuumhasseveralimplications.Itpointstotheideaofaqualitativepsychologicaldistinctionbetweenindividualandgroupbehaviour.Itdrawsacleardistinctionbetween'identification'withasocialgroupandthecurrent'salience'ofthatsocialidentityinaspecificsocialsituation,similartothedistinctionbetweenthe'stored'andthe'working'self-concept(Markus&Wurf,1987;Turner,1982).Italsodirectsonetolookmorecarefullyattheissueofhowsocialidentityprocessescomeintoplayand,inparticular,athowsocialidentitiesbecome'salient'(Oakes,1987).Finally,thequestionsareraisedoftheinterrelationshipofinterpersonalandintergroupbehaviourandoftheprocessesthatdeterminetheirspecificcharacteristics.Thesequestions,amongstothers,ledtothedevelopmentofself-categorizationtheory(seeTurner&Oakes,1989),whichbeganwiththeinsightthatthedistinctionbetweeninterpersonalandintergroupbehaviourcouldbeexplainedbyaparallelandunderlyingdistinctionbetweenpersonalandsocialidentity(Turner,1978a,1982).

Self-categorizationtheory

Self-categorizationtheorybegan(Turner,1978a,1982,1984)withthedistinctionbetweensocialidentity(self-definitionsintermsofsocialcategorymemberships)andpersonalidentity(self-definitionsintermsofpersonaloridiosyncraticattributes).Itdrewonevidenceofsituationalvariationsinself-conceptfunctioning(salience)tosuggestthat'socialidentityissometimesabletofunctiontotherelativeexclusionofpersonalidentity'(Turner,1984,p.527)andhypothesizedthat:Theadaptivefunctionofsocialidentityistoproducegroupbehaviourandattitudesitisthecognitivemechanismwhichmakesgroupbehaviourpossible'(ibid.).

Thebasicprocesspostulatedisself-catcgorization,leadingtoself-stereotypingandthedepersonalizationofself-perception.Itisarguedthatwherepeopledefinethemselvesintermsofasharedsocialcategorymembership,thereisaperceptualaccentuationofintragroupsimilaritiesandintergroupdifferencesonrelevantcorrelateddimensions.Peoplestereotypethemselvesandothersintermsofsalientsocialcategorizations,leadingtoanenhancedperceptualidentitybetweenselfandingroupmembersandanenhancedperceptualcontrastbetweeningroupandoutgroupmembers.Wheresocialidentitybecomesrelativelymoresalientthanpersonalidentity,peopleseethemselveslessasdifferingindividualpersonsandmoreasthesimilar,prototypicalrepresentativesoftheiringroupcategory.Thereisadepersonalizationoftheself-a'cognitiveredefinitionoftheself-fromuniqueattributesandindividualdifferencestosharedsocialcategorymember-shipsandassociatedstereotypes(Turner,1984,p.528)anditisthisprocessthattransformsindividualintocollectivebehaviouraspeopleperceiveandactintermsofashared,collectiveconceptionofself:'Theidentityperspective...reinstatesthegroupasapsychologicalrealityandnotmerelyaconvenientlabelfordescribingtheoutcomeofinterpersonalprocessesandrelations'(Turner,1984,p.535).Thus,socialidentitywasreconceptualizedastheprocesswhichtransformsinterpersonalintointergroupbehaviours.Initially,followingthehypothesisoftheInterpersonai-intergroupcontinuum,itwasassumedthatpersonalandsocialidentitywerealsoatthepolesofabipolarcontinuum.However,subsequently(Turner.1985;Turner,Hogg,Oakes,Reicher&Wetherell,1987;Turner&Oakes,1989).thisconceptionwassubstantiallyrevised.Theideathatsalientpersonalaridsocialidentitieswouldtendtohaveopposingeffectsonself-perception,producing,respectively,personalizationanddepersonalization,wasretained,buttheconceptualizationofpersonalandsocialidentityasformingabipolarcontinuumwasreplacedbythenotionthattheyrepresenteddifferentlevels(ofinclusivenessofself-categorization.Theselfcanbecategorizedatmanydifferentlevelsandthefactorswhichmakeforthesalienceofanygivenlevelneednotbeinverselyrelated.Onthecontrary,itcanbeassumedthatinmanysituationstherewillbefactorsmakingforthesalienceofboththepersonalandthesocialcategoricallevelsofself-definition.Itistherelativesalienceofdifferentlevelsofself-categorizationinaspecificsituationwhichdeterminesthedegreetowhichself-perceptionispersonalizedordepersonalized,thedegreetowhichbehaviourexpressesindividualdifferencesorcollectivesimilarities.Thus,althoughtheforcesdeterminingthesalienceofdifferentlevelsofself-categorizationneednotbeinverselyrelatedtheperceptualeffectsofthedifferentlevelswillstilltendtoworkagainsteachotherasafunctionoftheirrelativestrength.Initspresentformthetheoryprovidesananalysisofvariationinself-categorization.Itassumesthatself-conceptionreflectsself-categorization,thecognitivegroupingoftheselfasidenticaltosomeclassofstimuliincontrasttosomeotherclassofstimuli.Asisthecasewithallsystemsofnaturalcategories,self-categorizationscanexistatdifferentlevelsofabstractionrelatedbyclassinclusion.Thatis,agivenself-category(e.g.,'scientist')isseenasmoreabstractthananother(e.g.,'biologist')totheextentthatitcancontain,butcannotbecontainedby,theother:allbiologistsarescientists,butnotallscientistsarebiologists.Self-categoriescanbebothmoreorlessinclusivethanpersonalandsocialidentity,butthesearethemostimportantlevelsforunderstandinggroupbehaviour.

Personalidentityreferstoself-categorieswhichdefinetheindividualasaUniquepersonin‘term’,oftheirindividualdifferencesfromother(ingroup)persons.Socialidentityreferstosocialcategorizationsofselfandothers,self-categorieswhichdefinetheindividualintermsofhisorhersharedsimilaritieswithmembersofcertainsocialcategoriesincontrasttoothersocialcategories.Socialidentityisthesocialcategoricalself(e.g.,'us'versus'them',ingroupversusoutgroup,uswomen,men,whites,blacks,etc.).Itisamoreinclusivelevelofself-perceptionthanpersonalidentityinthesensethatthecategory'scientist'ismoreinclusivethan'biologist'.

Thetheoryimpliesthatwhenweperceiveourselvesas'we'and'us'asopposedto'I'and'me',thisisordinaryandnormalself-experienceinwhichtheselfisdefiniteintermsofotherswhoexistoutsideoftheindividualpersondoingtheexperiencingandthereforecannotbereducedtopurelypersonalidentity.Atcertaintimesthesubjectiveselfisdefinedandexperiencedasidentical,equivalent,similartoorinterchangeablewithasocialclassofpeopleincontrasttosomeotherclass.Psychologically,thesocialcollectivitybecomesself.

Thecentralhypothesisforgroupbehaviouristhat,assharedsocialidentitybecomessalient,individualself-perceptiontendstobecomedepersonalized.Thatisindividualstendtodefineandseethemselveslessasdifferingindividualpersonsandmoreastheinterchangeablerepresentativesofsomesharedsocialcategorymembership.Forexample,whenanindividualwomantendstocategorizeherselfisawomanincontrasttomen,thenshe(subjectively'we')tendstoaccentuateperceptuallyhersimilaritiestootherwomen(andreduceheridiosyncraticpersonaldifferencesfromotherwomen)andenhanceperceptuallyherstereotypicaldifferencesfrommen(Hogg&Turner,1987;Lorenzi-Cioldi,1991;Onorato&:Turner,1996,1997).Herselfchangesinlevelandcontentandherself-perceptionandbehaviourbecomedepersonalized.Depersonalizationoftheselfisthesubjectivestereotypingoftheselfintermsoftherelevantsocialcategorization.

Thetheoryexplainsvariationinthesalienceofanygivenlevelofself-categorizationasafunctionofaninteractionbetweentherelativeaccessibilityofaparticularself-category(or'perceiverreadines',thereadinessofaperceivertouseaparticularcategorization)andthefitbetweencategoryspecificationsandthestimulusrealitytoberepresented(thematchbetweenthecategoryandreality).Relativeaccessibilityreflectsaperson'spastexperience,presentexpectationsandcurrentmotives,values,goalsandneeds.Itreflect,theactiveselectivityoftheperceiverinbeingreadytousecategorieswhicharerelevant,usefulandlikelytobeconfirmedbytheevidenceofreality.Oneimportantfactoraffectingaperson'sreadinesstouseasocialcategoryforself-definitioninspecificsituationsistheextentoftheiridentificationwiththegroup,thedegreetowhichitiscentral,valuedandego-involving(see,e.g.,Doosje&Ellemers,1997;Gurin&Markus,1988).

Fithastwoaspects:comparativefitandnormativefit(Oakes,1987).Comparativefitisdefinedbytheprincipleofmeta-contrast(Turner,1985),whichstatesthatacollectionofstimuliismorelikelytobecategorizedasanentity(ahigher-orderunit)tothedegreethattheaveragedifferencesperceivedBetweenthemarelessthantheaveragedifferencesperceivedbetweenthemandtheremainingstimuliwhichcomprisetheframeofreference.Statedinthisform,theprincipledefinesfitintermsoftheemergenceofafocalcategoryagainstacontrastingbackground.Itcanalsobeusedtodefinefitforthesalienceofadichotomousclassification.Forexample,anycollectionofpeoplewilltendtobecategorizedintodistinctgroupstothedegreethattheintragroupdifferencesperceivedwithintherelevantcomparativecontextaresmalleronaveragethantheperceivedintergroupdifferences.

Normativefitreferstothecontentaspectofthematchbetweencategoryspecificationsandtheinstancesbeingrepresented.Forexample,tocategorizeagroupofpeopleasCatholicsasopposedtoProtestants,theymustnotonlydiffer(inattitudes,actions,etc.)fromProtestantsmorethanfromeachother(comparativefit),butmustalsodosointherightdirectiononspecificcontentdimensionsofcomparison.Theirsimilaritiesanddifferencesmustbeconsistentwithournormativebeliefsaboutthesubstantivesocialmeaningofthesocialcategory(Oakes.Turner&Haslam,1991;Turner,Oakes,Haslam&McGarty,1994).

Self-categorizationisseenasadynamic,context-dependentprocess,determinedbycomparativerelationswithinagivencontext.Themeta-contrastprincipleindicatesthat,topredictcategorization,theentirerangeofstimuliunderconsideration,ratherthanisolatedstimuluscharacteristics,mustbeconsidered.Byproposingthatcategoriesformsoastoensurethatthedifferencesbetweenthemarelargerthanthedifferenceswithinthem,meta-contrastcontextualizescategorization,tyingittoanon-the-spotjudgementofrelativedifferences.Forexample,wemightcategorizeanindividualas'Australian'totheextentthat,inthecurrentcomparativecontext,thedifferencesbetweenindividualAustraliansarelessthanthedifferencesbetweenAustraliansandAmericans.Alternatively,thesalientcategorymightbe'English-speaking'inacontextwherethedifferencebetweenvariousEnglishspeakinggroups(suchasAmericansandAustralians)islessthanthedifferencebetweenEnglishandnon-Englishspeakers(Haslam&Turner,1992).

Theemphasisoncategorizationashighlyvariableandcontext-dependentproducesaconcomitantemphasisonthecontext-dependenceofperceivedsimilarityanddifference,themajoroutcomeofcategorization.Peoplewhoarecategorizeandperceivedasdifferentinonecontext(e.g.,'biologists'and'physicists'withinasciencefaculty)canberecategorizedandperceivedassimilarinanothercontext(e.g.,as'scientists'ratherthan'socialscientists'withinauniversity)withoutanyactualchangeintheirownpositions.Whetherpeopleseethemselvesassimilarofdifferent,andtheextenttowhichtheydoso,isnotafixed,absolutegiven,butvarieswithhow,andthelevelatwhich,peoplecategorizethemselvesandothers.Arisingfromthecomparisonsspecifiedinthemeta-contrastprinciple,self-categorizationsubjectivelytransformspeople'srelationsintosimilaritiesanddifferences,andfromperceivedsimilaritiesanddifferencesflow,thetheoryhypothesizes,perceptionsofattractionanddislike,agreementanddisagreement,cooperationandconflict.Self-categorizationisassumedtoprovidethefundamentalbasisofoursocialorientationtowardsothers.

Insum,asanaccountofthepsychologicalgroup,thetheory'skey