Uncertainty–Identity Theory

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)39002-8Get rights and content

While I write this chapter, millions of people in the Darfur province of Sudan have been terrorized off their land; the entire population of Iraq has little idea what the future of their country will be; survivors of hurricane Katrina are dispersed across the United States; people in Britain are anxious about immigration and are toying with the idea of supporting the British National Party; people in a small town in Tasmania wait to hear if members of their community have been found alive in a mine collapse; air travelers the world over have no idea what new security arrangements await them when they get to the airport; and we all wonder about the consequences of further escalation in the price of oil and of the standoff over Iran's uranium enrichment program. The world is an uncertain place, it always has been, and these uncertainties can make it very difficult to predict or plan our lives and to feel sure about the type of people we are.

In this chapter, I describe how feelings of uncertainty, particularly about or related to self, motivate people to identify with social groups and to choose new groups with, or configure existing groups to have, certain properties that best reduce, control, or protect from feelings of uncertainty. I consider this uncertainty–identity theory to be a development of the motivational component of social identity theory. It addresses why, when, and how strongly people identify with groups, and why groups may have particular generic properties in certain contexts. Of particular relevance to contemporary postmodern society, uncertainty reduction theory provides an account of zealotry and the cult of the “true believer” in the thrall of ideology and powerful leadership—an account of conditions that may spawn extremism, a silo mentality, and a loss of moral or ethical perspective.

In this chapter, I describe uncertainty–identity theory and some conceptual elaborations and applications, review direct and indirect empirical tests, and locate the theory in the context of related ideas and theories in social psychology. I start with a historical sketch of why, when, and how uncertainty–identity theory was developed, then go on to discuss uncertainty reduction as a motivation for human behavior. I then detail the process by which group identification reduces uncertainty and describe a program of studies showing that people who feel uncertain are more likely to identify and identify more strongly with groups. High‐entitativity groups are best equipped to reduce uncertainty through identification—entitativity moderates the uncertainty–identification relation. I discuss this idea and describe research that supports it, and then extend the analysis to deal with extremism and totalistic groups—describing how extreme uncertainty may encourage strong identification (zealotry, fanaticism, being a true believer) with groups that are structured in a totalistic fashion. Again I describe some research supporting this idea.

The next section deals with extensions, applications, and implications of uncertainty–identity theory. I discuss the relation between depersonalization and self‐projection processes in uncertainty‐motivated group identification, and then, in a subsection entitled central members, marginal members, leaders, and deviants, I focus on the role of group prototypicality in uncertainty reduction processes. The role of trust, the relation between uncertainty, identity, and ideology, and the role of uncertainty in social mobilization are also discussed. The final section, before concluding comments, discusses other theories, approaches, and topics that deal with constructs related to those discussed by uncertainty–identity theory. Specifically, I discuss uncertainty as a state versus a trait, with a focus on the constructs of need for cognitive closure and uncertainty orientation; the role played by culture in uncertainty; and the relevance of terror management, compensatory conviction, self‐verification, and system justification.

Section snippets

Historical Background

Social identity theory has its origins in Tajfel's early research on social categorization and his desire to provide a cognitive explanation of prejudice and discrimination (Tajfel, 1969)—an explanation that intentionally avoided attributing such behaviors to aberrant personality or interpersonal processes. Rather, Tajfel felt that prejudice and discrimination was a reflection of intergroup behavior in a particular social context on the part of people who identified with one of the groups. He

Uncertainty

Uncertainty–identity theory rests on the motivational tenet that feeling uncertain about ones perceptions, attitudes, values, or feelings is uncomfortable. At best it is an exhilarating challenge to be confronted and resolved—uncertainty is exciting and makes us feel edgy and alive, and delivers us a sense of satisfaction and mastery when we resolve such uncertainties. Meeting new people, going to parties, backpacking in exotic lands all raise uncertainty, but in a “good” way. At worst,

Social Identity

Feelings of uncertainty have different causes and different foci. Uncertainty–identity theory focuses on context‐induced feelings of uncertainty that are about self or things that relate to, reflect on, or matter to self. To the extent that a particular context that induces uncertainty endures, for example a long‐lasting economic crisis, uncertainty and attempts to reduce or fend off uncertainty may endure. There may be individual differences in how much uncertainty people feel in a given

Entitativity

Two studies were described above (Hogg & Svensson, 2006, Experiment 1; Reid & Hogg, 2005, Experiment 2) showing that uncertainty is more likely to lead to identification, or leads to stronger identification, if the group is relevant to self‐definition. This begs the broader question of what kinds of groups, or what properties of groups, are best equipped to reduce uncertainty through identification. The answer proposed by uncertainty–identity theory is high‐entitativity groups (Hogg 2004, Hogg

Social Extremism and Totalistic Groups

The story so far is that subjectively important feelings of uncertainty about self or about matters that relate to or reflect on self motivate people to identify with groups, particularly groups that are relevant to self and are high in entitativity. This process may go one step further (Hogg 2004, Hogg 2005a). When self‐uncertainty is acute or enduring, people may identify very strongly with groups that are not merely entitative but extreme—totalistic groups (Baron, Crawley, & Paulina, 2003).

Extensions, Applications, and Implications of Uncertainty–Identity Theory

In this section, I describe some extensions and implications of uncertainty–identity theory—to some extent consolidating ideas mentioned earlier.

Uncertainty–Identity Theory in Relation to Other Ideas

The previous section discussed some extensions and implications of uncertainty–identity theory. In this section, I briefly touch on, sometimes revisit, the relation between uncertainty–identity theory and some related ideas.

Concluding Comments

This chapter describes uncertainty–identity theory—its origins, its concepts, its implications and extensions, and its relation to related ideas and theories. The emphasis has been conceptual but empirical support was also described and assessed. Uncertainty–identity theory is an extension of social identity theory that postulates uncertainty reduction as a key motivation for social identity processes and group and intergroup behaviors. It is a theory that attributes particular forms of group

Acknowledgments

The research program reported in this chapter has been generously supported by the award of an Australian Research Council Professorial Fellowship, three research grants from the Australian Research Council, a research grant from The Leverhulme Trust, and travel grants from the British Academy and the British Psychological Society.

References (255)

  • D. Abrams et al.

    The social identity perspective on small groups

  • D. Abrams et al.

    Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: Self‐categorization and the nature of norm formation, conformity and group polarization

    British Journal of Social Psychology

    (1990)
  • T.W. Adorno et al.

    The authoritarian personality

    (1950)
  • I. Ajzen

    Attitude structure and behavior

  • I. Ajzen et al.

    Attitude‐behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research

    Psychological Bulletin

    (1977)
  • B. Altemeyer

    Why do religious fundamentalists tend to be prejudiced

    International Journal for the Psychology of Religion

    (2003)
  • H. Arrow et al.

    Small groups as complex systems: Formation, coordination, development, and adaptation

    (2000)
  • B.R. Barber

    Jihad vs. McWorld

    (1995)
  • R.S. Baron et al.

    Aberrations of power: Leadership in totalist groups

  • F.C. Bartlett

    Remembering

    (1932)
  • S.B. Bashevkin

    True patriot love: The politics of Canadian nationalism

    (1991)
  • C.D. Batson et al.

    Religion and the individual: A social‐psychological perspective

    (1993)
  • R.F. Baumeister

    How the self became a problem: A psychological review of historical research

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1987)
  • R.F. Baumeister

    The self

  • R.F. Baumeister et al.

    Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: The dark side of high self‐esteem

    Psychological Review

    (1996)
  • A. Bavelas

    Communications patterns in task‐oriented groups

  • C.E. Berger et al.

    Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication

    Human Communication Research

    (1975)
  • C.R. Berger

    Communicating under uncertainty

  • M. Billig

    Fascists: A social psychological view of the National Front

    (1978)
  • M. Billig

    Ideology and social psychology: Extremism, moderation and contradiction

    (1982)
  • M. Billig

    Prejudice, categorization and particularization: From a perceptual to a rhetorical approach

    European Journal of Social Psychology

    (1985)
  • R.Y. Bourhis et al.

    Intergroup research with the Tajfel matrices: Methodological notes

  • J.J. Bradac

    Theory comparison: Uncertainty reduction, problematic integration, uncertainty management, and other curious constructs

    Journal of Communication

    (2001)
  • M.B. Brewer

    The social self: On being the same and different at the same time

    Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

    (1991)
  • M.B. Brewer

    The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate?

    Journal of Social Issues

    (1999)
  • M.B. Brewer et al.

    Ethnocentrism and intergroup attitudes: East African evidence

    (1976)
  • M.B. Brewer et al.

    Who is this ‘We’? Levels of collective identity and self representation

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1996)
  • J.T. Cacioppo et al.

    The need for cognition

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1982)
  • M.R. Cadinu et al.

    Self‐anchoring and differentiation processes in the minimal group setting

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1996)
  • D.T. Campbell

    Common fate, similarity, and other indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities

    Behavioral Science

    (1958)
  • J.D. Campbell

    Self‐esteem and the clarity of the self‐concept

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1990)
  • J.D. Campbell et al.

    Self‐concept clarity: Measurement, personality correlates, and cultural boundaries

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1996)
  • E. Castano

    On the advantages of reifying the ingroup

  • E. Castano et al.

    We are one and I like it: The impact of ingroup entitativity on ingroup identification

    European Journal of Social Psychology

    (2003)
  • R.W. Clement et al.

    The primacy of self‐referent information in perceptions of social consensus

    British Journal of Social Psychology

    (2000)
  • R.J. Crisp et al.

    Self‐stereotyping and self‐projection: Definitional processes in novel and established groups

    (2006)
  • R.J. Crisp et al.

    Depersonalization and projection in groups: Two paths to uncertainty reduction and self‐construal

    (2006)
  • J. Crocker et al.

    Collective self‐esteem and ingroup bias

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1990)
  • J. Crocker et al.

    Reactions to stigma: The moderating role of justifications

  • W.H. Crockett

    Cognitive complexity and impression formation

  • Cited by (0)

    View full text