The Many Faces of Social Identity: Implications for Political Psychology Author(s): Marilynn B.

Brewer Source: Political Psychology, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Mar., 2001), pp. 115-125 Published by: International Society of Political Psychology Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3791908 Accessed: 18/04/2009 15:42
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ispp. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

International Society of Political Psychology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Political Psychology.

http://www.jstor.org

Political Psychology, Vol. 22, No. 1, 2001

The Many Faces of Social Identity: Implications for Political Psychology

Marilynn B. Brewer Departmentof Psychology Ohio State University

acrossthe social and Social identity a conceptthathas been invented reinvented is and behavioral sciencedisciplines providea criticallinkbetweenthe psychology the to of and the individual thestructure function socialgroups.This and of paperreviews various as theoretical drawing definitions social identity it is used in different of frameworks, distinctions relational identities, identities, (role-based) among person-based group-based and identities. implications thesedifferent The identities, collective of of conceptualizations with socialidentity political are that for psychology discussed, a callfor integrative theory drawson allfourdefinitions interactively.
KEYWORDS:socialidentity, collective role self. identity, identity,

The conceptof social identityhas been invokedthroughout humansciences the wheneverthereis needfor a conceptual betweenindividual grouplevels of and bridge Socialidentity a linkbetweenthepsychologyof theindividual-the analysis. provides of and representation self-and the structure processof socialgroupswithinwhichthe self is embedded. a consequence, socialidentityconcepthas beeninventedand As the reinventedin a wide varietyof theoretical frameworks acrossall the social and and behavioralscience disciplines.If one naively entersa bibliographic in database the andsocialsciencesandsearches thekeyword on "social theresult psychological identity," is a dizzyingarrayof citationsto books and articlesfrom dozens of different literatures-from psychoanalytic to the sociology of social movements.It quickly theory becomesclearthatthe termhas no single,shared the with tryingto meaning; problem extractany common definitionis that the term is integrallyembeddedin separate theoretical structures literatures littleor no cross-citation mutualinfluence. and with or As a consequence, needssome kindof a roadmap negotiateamongthe different one to associativepathsthatlead to andfromthe conceptin its different manifestations. 115
0162-895X ? 2001 International Society of Political Psychology Publishedby Blackwell Publishers,350 Main Street,Malden, MA 02148, USA, and 108 Cowley Road, Oxford, OX4 IJF, UK.

116

Brewer

Some Comparisons and Contrasts and a Taxonomy to A few reviewershave attempted bringsome orderto this conceptualanarchy theories that use the social identity term and suggesting by comparing specific dimensions along which the differentmeanings can be comparedand contrasted. Hogg, Terry,and White (1995), for instance,identifiedsimilaritiesanddifferences between social identity theory, as representedin the works of Tajfel and Turner and colleagues in the social psychological literature(e.g., Tajfel, 1981; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner,Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987), and identity tradition theory, as representedby varioustheoristsin the symbolic interactionist within sociology (e.g., McCall & Simmons, 1978; Stryker,1980, 1987; Stryker& Serpe, 1982). According to the reviewers, these theories are similar in their and intentionto "addressthe structure functionof the socially constructedself... as a dynamic constructthat mediates the relationshipbetween social structureor society and individual social behavior"(Hogg et al., 1995, p. 262). Nonetheless, the conceptualization social identitydiffersacrossthese theoreticalperspectives of in fundamentalways that reflect their differentdisciplinaryorigins and the questions they purportto address.More specifically, the theoriesdiffer in theirrelative emphasis on cognitive processes versus group processes, on intragroupversus and differentiation, on the role of social contextversusinternalstructure intergroup as determinants identity salience. of Thoits and Virshup(1997) extended the Hogg et al. review by makingmore specific comparisonsbetween Stryker's (1987) identity theory and McCall and Simmons' (1978) role-identity theory, and comparingeach of these to Tajfel's (1981) social identity theory, Turner's (Turneret al., 1987) self-categorization review, Thoits theory,andMarkus'(1977) self-schematheory.In this comparative and Virshup drew a distinction between individual or "me" identities (which includes role-based identities) and collective or "we" identities (which includes groupand social categoryidentities).Individual("me")social identitiesare "identifications of the self as a certain kind of person," whereas collective ("we") identitiesare"identifications the self witha grouporcategoryas a whole"(Thoits of & Virshup,1997, p. 106). On the basis of this distinction,the varioustheoriescan be distinguishedaccordingto whetherthey define social identitiesin termsof social roles andsocial types, or in termsof demographic characteristics organizational and or groupmemberships. In her comprehensive review of the social identificationconcept in social psychological theoriesandresearch,Deaux (1996) took a somewhatdifferenttack. Insteadof comparingspecific theories,Deaux consideredhow the social identity concept varies across different disciplinarycontexts. She identified three broad theoreticalcontexts in which the term has been defined and elaborated:developmentaltheoriesin psychology, symbolicinteractionist theoriesfromsociology, and social identity theories from the European-basedsocial psychology literature. suchas classicpsychoanalytic identification theories, models,describe Developmental

Facesof SocialIdentity

117

as a process (often unconscious) of emulatinga significantother who serves as a the model, ultimatelyincorporating otherinto the self. The focus in these theories is on the dyad as the unit of identification,as in Freud's (1921/1960) analysis of group psychology, which originates in identification with the group leader, although he also acknowledged mutual ties among group members as a form of identification. In contrastto developmentaltheoriesthat focus on the acquisitionof identity in the process of socialization at the dyad level, sociological theories startwith a focus on the differentiationof the social system into functional roles and status positions and the structuredrelationshipsamong these. Within this framework, social identitiesrepresentthe internalization the rules, expectations,and norms of associatedwith specific social roles as aspects of the individualself. In selecting a particularrole, the individual places himself or herself into a defined position relative to othersand to the social system as a whole. Social identity theory in social psychology also startswith differentiationof the social system, but it focuses on categoricaldistinctionsratherthanfunctionsor roles as the basis of differentiation. sociological role-identitytheory,the social In "ingroup"is a set of individualswho interactby enacting different and complementaryroles;withinthe group,individualshave differentsocial identitiesdepending on the role or position they occupy. In social identity theory, by contrast,the or ingroupis a set of people who sharea commoncharacteristic social experience. Social identities in this frameworkrepresenta process of identificationwith, or assimilationto, others who sharethe common groupmembership. My own taxonomy of social identityconcepts is somethingof an amalgamation of the distinctions and dimensions of comparison identified in previous reviews. I startfrom the assumptionthat all conceptualizationsof social identity refer in some way to the idea that an individual's self-concept is derived,to some extent and in some sense, from the social relationshipsand social groupshe or she participatesin. This propertyis capturedin Tajfel's (1981) early generic definition of social identity as "thatpartof the individual'sself-concept which derives from his knowledge of his membershipof a social group (or groups) togetherwith the value andemotionalsignificanceattachedto thatmembership" 251). Fromthis (p. common startingpoint, conceptualizations differ significantlyin what this derivation process refersto. On the basis of this criticaldistinction,I have identifiedfour importantvariationson the social identitytheme thatcapturemost of the usages I know of in the social science literature. purposesof conceptualclarification,I For am proposingfour differenttermsto distinguishthese differentmeaningsof social identity. Person-basedsocial identities. This termis intendedto referto definitionsof social identity that are located within the individual self-concept. In this usage, social identitiesare aspectsof the self thathave been particularly influencedby the fact of membershipin specific social groups or categories and the sharedsocialization experiences that such membershipimplies. In Thoits and Virshup's(1997)

118

Brewer

terms, this is the meaning of social identity that is invoked in response to the question "Whatkind of person am I?" or "Whoam I as an X?" (where "X"refers to a social category membership).This is the conceptualizationof social identity that is most often studied developmentally,as one aspect of the acquisitionof a self-conceptthroughprocesses of socializationand interalization. Quintessential models of social identityof this type aredevelopmentaltheoriesof genderidentity (e.g., Skevington & Baker, 1989), ethnic or racial identity (e.g., Cross, 1991; Phinney, 1990), and culturalidentity (e.g., Ferdman,1995). The emphasishere is on the content of identity, the acquisition of psychological traits, expectations, customs, beliefs, and ideologies that are associatedwith belonging to a particular refersto the centralityof a particular social social groupor category.Identification to the individual'ssense of self and the meaningthatis derived groupmembership from thatidentity. Relational social identities. According to Thoits and Virshup (1997), role identities are also "me"identities in the sense that they are identificationsof the self as a certain kind of person. However, unlike person-basedidentities, role identities define the self in relation to others (Stryker, 1980). For this reason, Brewer and Gardner(1996) have arguedthat role identities are among a type of social identity that derives from interpersonal relationshipswithin a largergroup context. This correspondsclosely to the concept of the "interdependent self' as defined by Markusand Kitayama(1991) in theiranalysis of culturaldifferencesin self-construals.Relationalidentities include occupationalrole relationships(docfamilial relationships(parent-child,sibling-sibling), tor-patient,teacher-student), and close personalrelationships(friendshipsand sexual partnerships). This category also includes group identities when the groups involved are defined by a network of interpersonalrelationships among interacting individuals, such as families, work teams, and social clubs. Relational social identities are interdependent the sense that the traitsand in behaviors expressed by one individual are dependent on and responsive to the behavior and expectancies of the other parties in the relationship.Even highly needs, prescribedsocial roles mustbe adaptedto some extentto the characteristics, andskills of the specific other(s)occupyingcomplementary roles. Hence,relational identitiesreflect the influence on the self-concept of societal norms and expectations associatedwith occupying particular roles or social positions, and the nature of the specific interpersonal within which thatrole is carriedout. relationships Group-basedsocial identities. Whereasperson-basedsocial identitiesreflect the extent to which a group or category membershipis representedas an integral part of an individual's self-concept, group-based social identities refer to the perceptionof self as an integralor interchangeable partof a largergroupor social unit. Thus, these two meanings of social identity are essentially inverses of each other, reversingthe natureof the part-wholerelation.Group-basedsocial identity is best capturedby Turner'sself-categorizationtheory,in which social identityis definedas a "depersonalized" sense of self entailing"ashift towardsthe perception

Facesof SocialIdentity

119

of self as an interchangeable exemplarof some social categoryand away from the of self as a uniqueperson"(Turner al., 1987, p. 50). This is the essence et perception of what Thoits and Virshupreferredto as collective or "we"identities,identification of the self with the group as a whole. Group identities are not forged from interpersonalrelationshipsbetween and among individual group members, but ratherfrom common ties to a sharedcategorymembership.' Group-basedsocial identity influences the self-concept in two ways. First, when a group identity is engaged, the construal of self extends beyond the between self and individualpersonto a more inclusive social unit. The boundaries between othergroupmembersareeclipsed by the greatersalienceof theboundaries and outgroups.The fortunesand misfortunesof the group as a whole are ingroup incorporatedinto the self and responded to as personal outcomes (e.g., Hirt, and Zillmann,Erickson,& Kennedy, 1992). Second, the attributes behaviorsof the to the representationof the group as a whole, individual self are assimilated enhancingthose featuresthatmake the groupdistinctivefrom othersocial categories and at the same time enhancinguniformityand cohesion within the group(cf. Turneret al., 1987, chapter5). Collective identities. Although group-basedsocial identities affect the content of self-representations throughthe processesof identificationandassimilation, social identity theory is primarily concerned with the process by which such are group-selfrepresentations formedratherthanthe meaningattachedto specific group identities. Thus, it is useful to make a furtherdistinction between social identity as identificationwith a collective and collective identity as the norms, values, and ideologies that such an identificationentails. The term collective identity is associated with the sociological literatureon social movements (e.g., Klandermans,1997; Melucci, 1989; Taylor & Whittier, 1992). Like group-basedsocial identities, the concept of collective identity inof volves sharedrepresentations the groupbased on common interestsand experiences, but it also refers to an active process of shaping and forging an image of whatthe groupstandsfor andhow it wishes to be viewed by others.Thus,collective identities representan achievementof collective efforts, above and beyond what categorymembershave in commonto begin with.As such,the conceptof collective identityprovidesa criticallink betweensocial identity(atbothindividualandgroup levels) and collective action in the political arena (Gamson, 1992) and is a key concept in the study of "identitypolitics."

A related discussion can be found in Prentice, Miller, and Lightdale's (1994) distinction between "common-bond" "common-identity" and social groups.

120

Brewer

An Illustration: What Does Being a Mom Mean? To make the above taxonomicdistinctionsmoreconcrete,I will use one of my own cherished social identities-motherhood-as an illustrationof the different meanings of the identityconcept. At the personallevel, becoming a motherhad a profoundeffect on my definition of the kind of person I am. Just as the demands into andresponsibilitiesof raisinga child hadto be integrated my lifestyle anddaily routines,the fact of being a motherhad to be integratedwith otherconceptionsof myself as a woman, a professional,and a political liberal.The mutualadjustments and accommodationsamongthese differentaspectsof my life shapedthe development of my personalsocial identityas a mother. Societal Being a motheris also a social role I occupy in relationto my daughter. normsandexpectationsassociatedwith fulfilling the parentalrole not only became partof my own identitybut also defined the kind of social unit I could form with my daughterand affected my relationshipsto othersas well. (As a mother,I found thatmany of the behaviorsappropriate my young-and-singlesocial role were no to considered fitting to my new station in life.) Although the specific role longer behaviorsrequired motherhood by changedandadaptedas my daughter grew from to young adulthood, the nature of our relationship(and our respective infancy identitieswithinthatrelationship)is andalways will be constrainedandchanneled of roles. by our sharedunderstandings the mother-daughter Women who sharethe experienceof motherhoodalso constitutea meaningful social category, sometimes with legal and financial regulations distinguishing between those of us who have children and those who do not (a category often furtherdifferentiatedon the basis of the ages of one's children).Thinkingof us mothersas a social categoryratherthana social role has significanteffects on my orientation toward others who share that identity. When motherhoodis a role social comparisonandI evaluate identity,othermothersaretargetsof interpersonal my own effectiveness by whetherI am doing better or worse than others in the same role. As a social category member,however, my concern is for the relative in to positionof mothers generalcompared othersocialgroups,andmy self-evaluation is assimilatedto (rather thancontrasted from)the fate of my fellow groupmembers. (I also find that I am much more tolerantof other people's childrenwhen I think of motherhoodas a sharedgroupidentityratherthanan individualrole!) Finally, motherhood(like applepie) is a collective identity-a socially shared image that invokes specific collective values and ideals. It is a collective identity frequentlyexploited for commercialpurposes (especially on Mother's Day) but also serves as a basis for mobilization to social action groups such as Mothers Against DrunkDriving.

Faces of Social Identity

121

Managing Multiple Social Identities In using motherhoodas an example social identityfor illustrativepurposes,it was clearthatI was choosing one amongmany social identitiesI could have drawn upon from my own experience. All social identity theories share the recognition that individualscan-and usually do-derive their identitiesfrom more than one social group. But the different conceptualizationsof what social identity is give rise to very different views of what it means to have multiple social identities. Theoriesof person-basedsocial identitygenerallyassume thatthe traits,attitudes, in and values thatan individualinheritsfrommembership differentprimarygroups and social categories are integratedinto a global self-concept. Consciousnessof a particulargroup membershipmay affect the relative salience of these different aspectsof the self-concept,but ultimatelythey areall partof a single representation of the individualself. Role identities,on the otherhand,areusuallyconceptualizedas structured sets of interrelatedbehaviors, obligations, and orientations toward others that are specific to that social role and hence differentiatedfrom other role identitiesthat the same individualmay hold. Theories of role-basedor relationalidentities thus view the self as multifaceted,composedby a set of discreteidentities.By this usage, "personspotentially have as many identities as there are organized systems of in role-relationships which they participate" (Stryker,2000, p. 28). However, the self is also viewed as an organized system that structures relationshipsamong the differentidentitiesand determineswhich identityis invoked at a particular time as a function of the relative salience and centralityof identities within and across social situations(Stryker& Serpe, 1994). When social identityis defined as partof an individualself-system, managing multipleidentitiesis somethinglike an internal juggling act. On an ongoing basis, the individual(eitherconsciously or subconsciously)weighs andassesses available aspectsof the self to determinewhich areactivatedorengagedas guidesto behavior in the currentsituation.The individualmay be awarethat differentidentitieshave conflicting implicationsfor behavior,in which case self-expressionreflects some choice or compromiseamong differentaspects of the self-concept. Actualization or enactmentof differentidentities is influenced by the demandsof the situation or social context, but the process is one of selecting from a repertory of identities or self-representations reside within the individual. that A subtledifferencebetween person-basedor role identitytheoriesand groupbased social identity theories is whether alternativeidentities are selected and activated by the individual or elicited by the social context. In group identity of theories, identities reside in the sharedrepresentation the social category as a which may change as a function of the intergroupenvironment.Thus, the whole, "same"social categoryidentitymay actuallyreferto a differentingroup-outgroup distinctionin differentsocial contexts, sometimes being defined more inclusively and sometimes more exclusively as a function of intergroupcomparisons.In the

122

Brewer

most extreme version of self-categorizationtheory (e.g., Turner,Oakes, Haslam, & McGarty, 1994), different categorical identities are mutually exclusive and completely context-dependent.But other group identity theorists (e.g., Abrams, 1999) allow for more enduring ingroup identifications, with social categories whose definitionandboundaries remainrelativelystableacrosstime andsituations. When group identities are enduring,it is possible for an individual to have multiple group-basedsocial identities at one time. Because group identities go for beyondthe individualself andset the boundaries a person's sense of connection andconcernfor others,managingmultipleidentitiesat this level is somethingquite different from balancing different identities at the intrapsychiclevel. Different group identities imply differentloyalties and allegiances to others externalto the individual self. Because group identities are shared,the individualcannot easily redefine or adjustone social identityto betterfit with otheridentitiesthatconnect him or her to a differentset of persons. Consideringgroup identities as loyalties or allegiances to a collective, there are at least four differentstrategiesthat an individualcan use to managemultiple identities. One possibility is to commit to one dominantgroup identificationand subordinate otheraffiliationsto this one identity(e.g., selectingnationalidentity all as primaryand supportingsubgroupinterestsonly to the extent thatthey converge with nationalinterests,as opposed to selecting a subgroupidentityas primaryand subscribingto nationalidentityonly when not in conflict with one's own subgroup interests).A second strategyis to segregatedifferentgroup identities to different domainsso thatmultipleidentitiesarenot activatedat the same time (e.g., adopting nationalidentity in the international arena,occupationalidentity when economic interestsare at stake, and ethnic identityin the culturaldomain). When multiple group identities that involve overlappingbut not equivalent sets of persons2are salient at the same time and in the same circumstance,two strategiesfor combiningingroupidentitiesare available.The inclusive strategyis additive: Shared ingroup identity is extended to all members of the respective identitygroups(e.g., the AfricanAmericanwho identifies with all Americansand all blacks as common ingroupmembershipssimultaneously).The alternativeis a conjunctive strategy in which the ingroup is defined as the intersectionof the multiplecategories, includingonly those with overlappinggroupmembershipsin common (e.g., the AfricanAmericanwho identifiesonly with those who sharethe combinedidentity as AfricanAmericans).Thus, the awarenessof multipleidentities can have the effect of either increasing the inclusiveness of an individual's social identity or narrowingthe group identification,dependingon which combinationrule is used.

Membershipsamong a person's multiplegroupidentitiesare of necessity overlappingto some extent because, at minimum,they containat least one person(the individualhimself or herself) in common.

Faces of Social Identity

123

When the demands of different group allegiances are not in conflict, the additive strategyis relatively easy, limited only by constraintson an individual's time and attention to different constituencies. However, when multiple groups make competingdemandsor imply differentagendas,managingcombinedidentities becomes more problematicand effortful.When combined identities are each strong, the individualis likely to exert efforts towardcompromiseand reconciliation-efforts that have the effect of reducing conflict and increasingtolerance. The alternativesolution of conjunctive identity has the effect of removing the individual from conflicting demands by contracting the boundaries of group identificationandenlargingthe outgroup,with the effect of reducingtoleranceand potential cooperation.In a large, pluralisticsociety, then, multiple criss-crossing social identities can become a source of increasing fractionationor enhanced stability,dependingon how competing identitiesare managed. Toward an Interdisciplinary Integration Throughoutthis essay, I have triedto make it evident that social identity-in all of its manifestations-is a key concept for political psychology. As an interdisciplinaryenterprise,political psychology should provide a playing field in which concepts from different disciplines and theoretical traditions can be brought together in an integrative framework.Rather than attemptingto extract some common definitionof a concept like social identity,the value of differentperspectives should be recognized and acknowledged.Ultimately, all of the meaningsof social identitywill be necessaryto develop a comprehensivetheoryof the psychobetweenindividualsandthe social groupsto which they belong logical relationship or are assigned. Whetherone is trying to explain individualsocial behavioror the uniformity of collective behavior, some understandingof the reciprocal relations between groupboundariesandcollective identitieson the one handand individualself-concept on the other will be essential. Groupidentificationis based on awarenessof sharedidentities,which presupposesthatgroupmembershave the groupmembership as partof their individualsocial identities. Some level of identificationwith the groupas a whole may be partof the process of introjectionand interalization of groupnorms,values, and sharedexperiencesat the individuallevel. Neitherthe "we"nor the "me"definitionof social identitycan be consideredprimaryor prior to the other. Ultimately, it is the dynamic relationshipbetween these that makes grouplife and collective action possible.

124

Brewer

AUTHOR'S ADDRESS regardingthis article should be sent to MarilynnB. Brewer, Correspondence of Psychology, Ohio StateUniversity, 1885 Neil Avenue, Columbus, Department OH 43210. E-mail:brewer.64@osu.edu REFERENCES
Abrams, D. (1999). Social identity, social cognition, and the self: The flexibility and stability of self-categorization. In D. Abrams & M. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity and social cognition (pp. 197-229). Oxford:Blackwell. Brewer, M. B., & Gardner,W. (1996). Who is this "we"? Levels of collective identity and self Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 71, 83-93. representations. Cross, W. E. (1991). Shades of black: Diversity in African-American identity.Philadelphia:Temple UniversityPress. Deaux, K. (1996). Social identification.In E. T. Higgins & A. Kruglanski(Eds.), Social psychology: Handbookof basic principles (pp. 777-798). New York:Guilford. In Ferdman,B. M. (1995). Culturalidentityand diversityin organizations. M. Chemers,S. Oskamp,& M. Costanzo (Eds.), Diversity in organizations:New perspectivesfor a changingworkplace(pp. 37-61). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage. Freud, S. (1960). Group psychology and analysis of the ego. New York: Bantam. (Original work published 1921) Gamson,W. A. (1992). Talkingpolitics. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress. Hirt,E. R., Zillmann,D., Erickson,G., & Kennedy,C. (1992). Costs andbenefitsof allegiance:Changes in fans' self-ascribedcompetencies after team victory versus defeat. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 63, 724-738. Hogg, M. A., Terry,D. J., & White, K. M. (1995). A tale of two theories:A critical comparisonof identitytheorywith social identitytheory.Social Psychology Quarterly,58, 255-269. B. Klandermans, (1997). Thesocial psychology ofprotest. Oxford:Blackwell. H. (1977). Self-schemataandprocessinginformation aboutthe self. Journalof Personalityand Markus, Social Psychology, 35, 63-78. Markus,H., & Kitayama,S. (1991). Cultureand the self: Implicationsfor cognition, emotion, and motivation.Psychological Review, 98, 224-253. McCall, G., & Simmons, J. (1978). Identitiesand interactions.New York:Free Press. Melucci, A. (1989). Nomads of the present. Social movementsand identity needs in contemporary society. London:HutchinsonRadius. Review of research.Psychological Phinney,J. S. (1990). Ethnicidentityin adolescenceand adulthood: Bulletin, 108, 499-514. to Prentice,D. A., Miller, D. T., & Lightdale,J. R. (1994). Asymmetriesin attachments groupsand to theirmembers:Distinguishingbetween common-identityandcommon-bondgroups.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 484-493. Skevington,S., & Baker,D. (Eds.) (1989). Thesocial identityof women.London:Sage. A Stryker,S. (1980). Symbolic interactionism: social structuralversion. Menlo Park,CA: Benjamin Cummings. Stryker,S. (1987). Identitytheory:Developments and extensions. In K. Yardley & T. Honess (Eds.), Self and identity(pp. 89-104). New York:Wiley.

Faces of Social Identity

125

Stryker, S. (2000). Identity competition: Key to differential social movement participation?In S. Stryker, T. Owens, & R. White (Eds.), Self, identity, and social movements (pp. 21-40). Minneapolis:Universityof MinnesotaPress. Stryker,S., & Serpe,R. T. (1982). Commitment,identitysalience, and role behavior.In W. Ickes & E. Knowles (Eds.), Personality, roles, and social behavior (pp. 199-218). New York: Springer-Verlag. Stryker, S., & Serpe, R. T. (1994). Identity salience and psychological centrality: Equivalent, overlapping,or complementary concepts?Social Psychology Quarterly,57, 16-35. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress. Tajfel, H., & Turner,J. C. (1979). An integrativetheory of intergroupconflict. In W. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Taylor, V., & Whittier,N. E. (1992). Collective identity in social movement communities:Lesbian feminist mobilization. In A. Morris & C. Mueller (Eds.), Frontiers of social movementtheory (pp. 104-130). New Haven, CT: Yale UniversityPress. Thoits, P. A., & Virshup,L. V. (1997). Me's and we's: Forms and functionsof social identities.In R. Ashmore & L. Jussim (Eds.), Self and identity:Fundamentalissues (vol. 1, pp. 106-133). New York:OxfordUniversityPress. Turner,J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell,M. S. (1987). Rediscoveringthe social group:A self-categorizationtheory.Oxford:Blackwell. Turner,J. C., Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & McGarty,C. (1994). Self and collective: Cognition and social context. Personalityand Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 454-463.