Self-categorization theory
[8] In subsequent years the theory, often as part of the social identity approach, has been applied to further topics such as leadership,[6][9] personality,[10] outgroup homogeneity, and power.
[10][12][13][14] Drawing inspiration from cognitive psychology,[16][17][18] self-categorization theory assumes that the self can be categorized at various levels of abstraction.
[3] It is argued that it is this variation in self categorization that underpins many intergroup phenomena,[8] including those described in social identity theory.
A higher level of abstraction corresponds to a social self, where the perceiver self categorizes as "we" in comparison to a salient outgroup (them).
In self-categorization theory, categorizing people does not simply involve the redescription of characteristics and categories present in social stimuli.
[12][20] The resulting augmentation of social content allows the perceiver to interact with others with greater confidence and ease.
For example, Haslam and Turner found that a perceiver would describe another person as more or less similar to themselves as a function of the likely categorization scheme.
[3][16] In self-categorization theory the formation and use of a social category in a certain context is predicted by an interaction between perceiver readiness and category-stimulus fit.
[27] Perceiver readiness, which Turner first described as relative accessibility,[15] "reflects a person's past experiences, present expectations, and current motives, values, goals and needs".
For example, a perceiver who categorizes frequently on the basis of nationality (e.g., "we Americans") is, due to that past experience, more likely to formulate a similar self category under new conditions.
[6] In self-categorization theory contextual changes to the salient social category are sometimes referred to as shifting prototypicality.
Although the theory accepts that prior categorization behaviour impacts present perception (i.e., as part of perceiver readiness), self-categorization theory has key advantages over descriptions of social categorization where categories are rigid and invariant cognitive structures that are stored in comparative isolation prior to application.
An individual's degree of prototypicality also varies in relation to changes in the comparative context, and self-categorization theory expects this to have direct implications for interpersonal phenomenon.
Specifically, prototypicality plays an important role in the social identity approach to leadership,[35] influence, and interpersonal attraction.
For example, on interpersonal attraction, self-categorization theory states that "self and others are evaluated positively to the degree that they are perceived as prototypical (representative, exemplary, etc.)
[8][16][19] According to self-categorization theory, as social identities become salient, and depersonalization and self-stereotyping occurs, people adopt the norms, beliefs, and behaviors of fellow ingroup members.
That uncertainty can be resolved by either a) recategorizing people or the situation to reflect those perceived differences, or b) engaging in a social influence process whereby one person makes changes to become more similar to the other.
The self-categorization theory account of social influence has received a large amount of empirical support.
[43] Self-categorization accounts for the outgroup homogeneity effect as a function of perceiver motivation and the resultant comparative context,[4][15] which is a description of the psychologically available stimuli at any one time.
Under these conditions the perceiver is more likely to categorize in accordance with ingroup and outgroup memberships and is consequently naturally motivated to accentuate intergroup differences as well as intragroup similarities.
[45] The self-categorization theory eliminates the need to posit differing processing mechanisms for ingroups and outroups, as well as accounting for findings of outgroup homogeneity in the minimal group paradigm.
Moreover, it is argued that in many intergroup contexts to take an individualistic view would be decidedly maladaptive and demonstrate ignorance of important social realities.
However, at a higher level of abstraction, both social groups may be subsumed into the singular category of football fans.
[15][31][48] The awareness of crossed cutting social categories has allowed for the development of further intergroup conflict reduction strategies.
[51] Turner and Reynolds also argue that such commentary unreasonably discounts the motivational concerns that are articulated in self-categorization theory.
