Individual and Collective Identity 487from the self as a separate individual with personal motives,
goals, and achievements to the self as the embodiment of a so-
cial collective or group. At the individual level, one’s personal
welfare and goals are most salient and important. At the group
level, the goals and achievements of the group are merged
with one’s own (see Brown & Turner, 1981), and the group’s
welfare is paramount. At each extreme, self-interest fully is
represented by the pronouns “I” and “We,” respectively. Inter-
group relations begin when people think about themselves as
group members rather than solely as distinct individuals.
Illustrating the dynamics of this distinction, Verkuyten and
Hagendoorn (1998) found that when individual identity was
primed, individual differences in authoritarianism were the
major predictor of the prejudice of Dutch students toward
Turkish migrants. In contrast, when social identity (i.e.,
national identity) was made salient, in-group stereotypes
and standards primarily predicted prejudiced attitudes. Thus,
whether personal or collective identity is more salient criti-
cally shapes how a person perceives, interprets, evaluates, and
responds to situations and to others (Kawakami & Dion, 1993,
1995).
Although the categorization process may place the person
at either extreme of the continuum from personal identity to
social identity, people often seek an intermediate point to
balance their need to be different from others and their need
to belong and share a sense of similarity to others (Brewer,
1991). This balance enhances one’s feelings of connection
to the group and increases group cohesiveness and social
harmony (Hogg, 1996). However, social categorization into
in-groups and out-groups also lays the foundation for the
development of intergroup bias or ethnocentrism. In addition,
intergroup relations tend to be less positive than interpersonal
relations. Insko, Schopler, and their colleagues have demon-
strated a fundamentalindividual-group discontinuity effect
in which groups are greedier and less trustworthy than indi-
viduals (Insko et al., 2001; Schopler & Insko, 1992). As a
consequence, relations between groups tend to be more com-
petitive and less cooperative than those between individuals.
In general, then, the social categorization of others and oneself
plays a significant role in prejudice and discrimination.
Although social categorization generally leads to inter-
group bias, the nature of that bias—whether it is based on in-
group favoritism or extends to derogation and negative
treatment of the out-group—depends on a number of factors,
such as whether the structural relations between groups and
associated social norms foster and justify hostility or contempt
(Mummendey & Otten, 2001; Otten & Mummendey, 2000).
However, different treatment of in-group versus out-group
members, whether rooted in favoritism for one group or
derogation of another, can lead to different expectations,
perceptions, and behavior toward in-group versus out-group
members that can ultimately create a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Initial in-group favoritism can also provide a foundation for
embracing more negative intergroup feelings and beliefs that
result from intrapersonal, cultural, economic, and political
factors. In the next section we describe alternative, and ulti-
mately complementary, theoretical approaches to intergroup
conflict and integration.Perspectives on Intergroup Relations and ConflictIn general, research on social conflict, harmony, and inte-
gration has adopted one of two perspectives, one with an
emphasis on the functional relations between groups and the
other on the role of collective identities.Functional Relations Between GroupsTheories based on functional relations often point to competi-
tion and consequent perceived threat as a fundamental cause
of intergroup prejudice and conflict.Realistic group conflict
theory(Campbell, 1965; Sherif, 1966), for example, posits
that perceived group competition for resources produces ef-
forts to reduce the access of other groups to the resources. This
process was illustrated in classic work by Muzafer Sherif and
his colleagues (Sherif et al., 1961). In 1954 Sherif and his col-
leagues conducted a field study on intergroup conflict in an
area adjacent to Robbers Cave State Park in Oklahoma. In this
study 22 12-year-old boys attending summer camp were ran-
domly assigned to two groups (who subsequently named
themselves Eagles and Rattlers). Over a period of weeks they
became aware of the other group’s existence, engaged in a
series of competitive activities that generated overt intergroup
conflict, and ultimately participated in a series of cooperative
activities designed to ameliorate conflict and bias.
To permit time for group formation (e.g., norms and a
leadership structure), the two groups were kept completely
apart for one week. During the second week the investigators
introduced competitive relations between the groups in the
form of repeated competitive athletic activities centering
around tug-of-war, baseball, and touch football, with the win-
ning group receiving prizes. As expected, the introduction of
competitive activities generated derogatory stereotypes and
conflict among these groups. These boys, however, did not
simply show in-group favoritism as we frequently see in lab-
oratory studies. Rather, there was genuine hostility between
these groups. Each group conducted raids on the other’s cab-
ins that resulted in the destruction and theft of property.
The boys carried sticks, baseball bats, and socks filled with
rocks as potential weapons. Fistfights broke out between