Developing the social identity theory of leadership: Leader agency in leader group prototypicality

The social identity theory of leadership is a unique perspective in leadership research in capturing how responses to leadership are informed by how the leader is perceived through the lens of the group identity shared by leaders and followers. I review the theory in broad strokes to make the case that a particularly valuable future development of the theory is to complement the theory's emphasis on group member (follower) perceptions of leader group prototypicality, the extent to which the leader is perceived to embody the group identity, with theory and evidence speaking to leader agency in influencing such perceptions.     

When failing feels good—Relative prototypicality for a high-status group can counteract ego-threat after individual failure

Two studies demonstrate that members of high-status groups (i.e., men and students of business administration) but not members of low-status groups (i.e., women and education students) react with an increase in state self-esteem after an alleged poor performance on a fictitious intelligence test. This Failure-as-an-Asset (FA) effect is only observed when the high-status ingroup (i.e., men) is outperformed by a low-status outgroup (i.e., women). In this case, a poor performance will lead to a strong identification with the ingroup due to high ingroup prototypicality. As predicted, the effects of experiencing success or failure on self-esteem were mediated by identification with the ingroup.     

Towards tolerance: Representations of superordinate categories and perceived ingroup prototypicality

According to Mummendey and Wenzel (1999), group members tend to perceive their ingroup, relative to an outgroup, as more prototypical of the superordinate category encompassing both groups. Hence, they tend to regard the outgroup as deviating from the norms of the superordinate category. Factors that inhibit perception of relative ingroup prototypicality should thus promote intergroup tolerance. In two experiments, the representation of the superordinate category was manipulated. Both an undefinable prototype (Experiment 1; N=63) and a complex representation (Experiment 2; N=88) led to a decrease in relative ingroup prototypicality. Dual identification with the ingroup and the superordinate category increased relative ingroup prototypicality, which was negatively correlated with positive attitudes towards the outgroup. The findings supported Mummendey and Wenzel’s assumptions about the conditions that lead to intergroup tolerance.     

The effects of realistic threat and group identification on social dominance orientation

Based on social identity and intergroup threat theories, we argue that social dominance orientation (SDO) can increase as a result of realistic threat, or perceived obstacles to the ingroup’s position and general welfare. However, this effect should be strongest among highly-identified group members, who are particularly concerned with protecting their ingroup against threat. Study 1 found that among non-Asian Americans, racial group identification moderated the relationship between perceptions of realistic threat from Asian Americans and SDO. Study 2 replicated Study 1 using an experimental, rather than correlational, design. Using different social groups, Study 3 showed that non-science college majors who identified strongly with their field of study exhibited higher SDO after being made to feel threatened by science majors. The results from these studies have implications for research on the meaning and antecedents of SDO.     

The fundamentality of group principles and perceived group entitativity

We argue that the level of consensus about a set of social identity principles, and their perceived fundamentality, can influence the degree to which members perceive their group as an entity. This idea was explored through an experiment in which participants judged the entitativity of specific (in)groups on the basis of the distribution of the opinions held by their members about three identity-related principles that participants had previously rated for fundamentality. The results demonstrated that the more fundamental a principle was judged to be in comparison to other principles, the more important consensus about that principle was for producing group entitativity, relative to consensus about other principles.     

Deviant but desirable: Group variability and evaluation of atypical group members

Two studies investigated how group variability affects reactions to atypical group members. In Study 1 (N = 65) we manipulated group variability and found that an atypical group member was evaluated more positively when the group was heterogeneous than when the group was homogeneous. In Study 2 (N = 276) we also manipulated group value and found a significant interaction whereby an atypical group member was evaluated more positively when the group was homogeneous and group members valued heterogeneity, but was evaluated more negatively when the group was heterogeneous and group members valued homogeneity. The results suggest that deviant or atypical members will not inevitably be rejected by the group, but rather that reactions to deviance are shaped and guided by the dynamic relationship between how the group is perceived by its members and their ideological beliefs about what is good for the group.     

The impact of individualist and collectivist group norms on evaluations of dissenting group members

Two experiments were conducted to investigate the impact of individualist and collectivist norms on evaluations of dissenting group members. In the first experiment (N = 113), group norms prescribing individualism or collectivism were manipulated and participants were asked to evaluate a group member who expressed an attitude dissenting from or concordant with the group. In line with predictions, group members with concordant attitudes were evaluated more positively than group members with dissenting attitudes when norms prescribed collectivism. However, for high identifiers, we found an attenuation of the preference for concordant over dissenting attitudes when norms prescribed individualism. These findings were replicated in a second experiment (N = 87), where dissent was operationalized in a way that did not reveal the content of the attitude. The discussion focused on the importance of individualist norms for broadening latitudes of acceptable group member behavior.     

Assimilation and contrast to group primes: The moderating role of ingroup identification

This research examined the conditions under which behavioral contrast would be observed in relation to ingroup and outgroup primes. The authors tested the hypothesis that differing levels of commitment to the ingroup would predict diverging behavioral responses to outgroup but not ingroup primes. Across two studies, featuring both age and gender groups, we found that ingroup identification predicted responses to outgroup primes with higher identifiers showing an increased tendency to contrast, that is, behave less like the outgroup, and more like the ingroup. Ingroup identification did not predict responses to ingroup primes. The implications of these findings for social comparison and social identity theories are discussed.     

The solace of radicalism: Self-uncertainty and group identification in the face of threat

From uncertainty–identity theory, it was hypothesized that where people feel their self-relevant values and practices are under threat, self-uncertainty strengthens identification with “radical” groups, and either has no effect on or weakens identification with “moderate” groups. Since this hypothesis was tested on Australian students, who prefer to identify with moderate groups, the context-specific expectation was for that preference to disappear under uncertainty. This prediction was confirmed by a laboratory experiment in which self-uncertainty and group radicalism were manipulated in a 2 × 2 design (N = 82); the preference to identify with a moderate over a radical group disappeared under uncertainty because uncertainty strengthened identification with the radical group. This effect was directly mirrored in people's intentions to engage in specific group behaviors, and behavioral intentions were mediated by identification. The research is framed by a discussion of the relationship between uncertainty and social extremism, and implications for future research are noted.     

Superordinate identities and intergroup conflict: The ingroup projection model

This chapter summarises results from a research programme on the psychological basis of tolerance and discrimination in intergroup relations, with particular consideration of the role of superordinate identities. According to the ingroup projection model, a relevant superordinate group provides dimensions and norms for comparisons between ingroup and outgroup. Groups gain positive value or status when they are considered prototypical for the (positively valued) superordinate group. Group members tend to generalise (project) distinct ingroup characteristics onto the superordinate category, implying the relative prototypicality of their ingroup. To the extent that outgroup difference is regarded as a deviation from the ethnocentrically construed prototype it is evaluated negatively. Our research studied consequences and determinants of ingroup projection, as well as moderators of its implications. The findings contribute to a deeper understanding of the processes involved in intergroup discrimination and indicate new pathways for the reduction of prejudice, towards mutual intergroup appreciation and tolerance.     

Group identification moderates attitudes toward ingroup members who confront discrimination

Three studies examined the hypothesis that group identification moderates African Americans’, Asian Americans’, and women’s attitudes toward fellow ingroup members who challenge an outgroup member’s discriminatory comments or who do not speak up about the comments. Highly identified racial minorities expressed more positive attitudes toward ingroup members who confronted discriminatory comments compared to those who did not confront; whereas weakly identified minorities did not express different attitudes across the two conditions. Among women, the weakly identified expressed more negative attitudes toward other women who confronted discrimination relative to those who did not confront; whereas highly identified women did not differentially evaluate ingroup members in the two conditions. The less women identified with their group, the more negatively they evaluated ingroup members who confronted sexism. This research highlights the important role of group identification in understanding how members of devalued groups respond toward ingroup members who take a stand against discrimination.     

Demonstrating knowledge: The effects of group status on outgroup helping

We examined, in two experiments, the notion that members of low status groups, more than members of high status groups, use outgroup helping as a strategic tool to demonstrate their group's knowledge and boost its reputation. In Study 1 (N = 103), we compared outgroup helping in response to requests for help with offering help. As predicted, participants' knowledge was positively related to outgroup helping in response to requests, but only among members of low status groups. Knowledge also predicted the offering of help among members of high status groups. The second study (N = 75) replicated the findings from the requested help condition and showed that the effect disappeared in a condition in which help could not reflect ingroup knowledge. Additional data support a conclusion in terms of a collective strategy to boost the ingroup's reputation by demonstrating ingroup knowledge to the outgroup. The implications for promoting outgroup helping in a salient intergroup context are discussed.     

Looking down and ramping up: The impact of status differences on effort in intergroup contexts

This paper examines how the status of an out-group impacts effort in intergroup settings. The results provide evidence that people work harder when their individual performance is compared to a lower, as opposed to higher, status out-group member. Moreover, comparisons to a lower status out-group were found to elicit motivation gains as these participants worked harder than participants in the control (Studies 1-3) or in-group comparison conditions (Studies 2 and 3). In Study 4, evidence for the role of threat as an underlying mechanism was provided as gains in effort for those compared with a lower status out-group member were eliminated when participants self- or group-affirmed prior to comparison. Finally, Study 5 shows that both social identity threat and self-categorization threat underlie increases in effort for participants compared to a lower status out-group member. We detail a theoretical basis for our claim that performance comparisons with lower status out-group members are especially threatening, and discuss the implications for this research in terms of social identity and self-categorization theories as they relate to effort in intergroup contexts.     

Dissidence from within: Examining the effects of intergroup context on group members’ reactions to attitudinal opposition

The successful achievement of a group’s goals often requires a broad base of support among members. Because group and individual interests can diverge, however, dissension is likely. We argued that reactions to such dissension on an issue that is relevant to the group’s status can vary as a function of contextual goals. Whereas dissension from an ingroup member would be rejected in an intergroup context, it might be tolerated in an intragroup context. Regression analyses of women’s (N=96) responses to dissension on an attitudinal issue (abortion on demand) indicated that in an intergroup context, women derogated a dissenting woman more if they had a strong gender identity and viewed the issue as gender relevant. Dissent in an intragroup context was evaluated more positively. The results provided insight into the factors involved in defining a collective identity.     

The role of dual categorization and relative ingroup prototypicality in reparations to a minority group: An examination of empathy and collective guilt as mediators

In the current study, we investigate factors that facilitate or otherwise obstruct reparations of a perpetrating group (i.e. Muslims) to a victim group (i.e. Christians). The study (N = 200) reveals that among Muslim participants, the role of dual Abrahamic categorization in positively predicting reparation attitude towards Christians was mediated by the first group's prosocial emotions of empathy and collective guilt towards the latter group. In addition, relative Muslim prototypicality negatively predicted dual Abrahamic categorization and each of the two prosocial emotions. Empathy and collective guilt in turn mediated the role of relative ingroup prototypicality in negatively predicting reparation attitude. Moreover, as hypothesized, we found that the roles of empathy and collective guilt in predicting reparation intention, as manifested in participants' willingness to engage in collective action on behalf of the victim group, were not significant on their own, but were mediated by reparation attitude. These findings shed light on the importance of the relationship between the perpetrating group's shared identity with the victim group, reduced ingroup focus and its support for making reparations to the victim group. Theoretical implications, study limitations and practical strategies highlighting how to decrease relative Muslim prototypicality are discussed.     

Group status is related to group prototypicality in the absence of social identity concerns

Based on self-categorization theory, group status should be positively related to group prototypicality when the relevant superordinate category is positively valued. In this case, high-status groups should be perceived to be more prototypical than low-status groups even in the absence of concerns about maintaining a positive social identity. To test this hypothesis, a minimal group study was conducted in which participants (N = 139) did not belong to any of the groups involved. Consistent with predictions, participants perceived high-status groups to be significantly more prototypical than low-status groups. Consistent with self-categorization theory's cognitive analysis, these results demonstrate that the relation between group status and group prototypicality is a relatively basic and pervasive effect that does not depend on social identity motives.     

E pluribus unum: Dual identity and minority group members' motivation to engage in contact, as well as social change

Recent work on social change illustrates that disadvantaged-group members are sometimes less influenced by prejudice-reduction strategies than are advantaged-group members, and interventions to improve intergroup relations (e.g., commonality) can sometimes have the unintended consequence of reducing social-change motivations among members of disadvantaged groups. Focusing on disadvantaged groups' (i.e., racial/ethnic minorities) orientations toward advantaged groups, the present research experimentally investigated the potential of dual, relative to common, identity to produce greater willingness to engage in contact, while maintaining social change motivation. Relative to common identity, dual identity produced not only greater willingness to engage in contact, which was mediated by perceptions of shared values, but also greater social change motivation, mediated by decreased optimism about future relations. Thus, for dual identity, enhancing approach motivation (willingness for contact) does not necessarily undermine social change motivation. Implications for intergroup relations and more broadly social change are discussed.     

The threat vs. challenge of car parking for women: How self- and group affirmation affect cardiovascular responses

This study examines cardiovascular responses indicating challenge (vs. threat) during motivated performance of women under social identity threat. Low gender identified women should primarily be concerned with their personal identity and self-worth, leading them to benefit from self-affirmation under social identity threat. Highly identified women, conversely, should care more for the value of their group and benefit more from group affirmation. Among 64 female participants social identity threat was induced by emphasizing gender differences in car-parking ability. Then, participants received an opportunity to affirm the self or the group and worked on a car-parking task. During this task, cardiovascular challenge versus threat responses were assessed according to the biopsychosocial model (Blascovich, 2008). Results confirmed predictions by showing that self-affirmation elicited cardiovascular patterns indicating challenge in low identifiers, while group affirmation elicited challenge in high identifiers. Theoretical implications for work on social identity are discussed.     

“License to Fail”: Goal definition,leader group prototypicality,and perceptions of leadership effectiveness after leader failure

Leaders who fail to achieve group or organizational goals risk losing follower endorsement. We propose a model in which leader characteristics (leader group prototypicality—the leader’s representativeness of group identity) and goal definition (a maximal goal that ideally would be reached vs. a minimal goal that ought to be reached) interact to affect leadership perceptions after failure. Group prototypical (vs. non-prototypical) leaders are proposed to receive more trust in leadership and, therefore, to be evaluated as more effective by their followers after failing to achieve a maximal goal, but not after failing to achieve a minimal goal. This model was supported in a series of four studies including experimental, field, and scenario paradigms. In addition, we showed that this model holds only after failure and not after success, and more for followers who identify strongly (vs. weakly) with their group.     

Hiring you makes me look bad: Social-identity based reversals of the ingroup favoritism effect

The current research attempts to explain reversals of ingroup favoritism in terms of one of the prevalent mechanisms generally used to account for positive ingroup bias: Tajfel’s social identity theory. We propose that individuals strategically evaluate ingroup targets in order to maximize their own self-esteem and to avoid costly errors. This strategic evaluation typically results in ingroup favoritism toward an ingroup target member. However, if a positive evaluation of the target poses a significant self-esteem threat, denigration of the target will result. Two studies examined how ingroup and outgroup targets were evaluated when applicants were qualified versus unqualified (Study 1), or when the ingroup target might confirm a negative ingroup stereotype (Study 2). Study 1 results indicated that participants showed ingroup favoritism only toward qualified applicants. Study 2 demonstrated that, when a marginally qualified ingroup applicant has the potential to confirm a negative stereotype, bias against the ingroup is observed. Results of both studies both confirm and provide explanations for ingroup denigration.