Social Identity: Manipulations and Musings

Social Identity Theory (SIT) posits that conformity to a group or organization is a product of psychological processes - that being a member of a group is defined as the subjective perception of the self as a member of a specific category. Through collective identities, individuals becomes connected to others by virtue of their common attachment to the group.

Tajfel (1978) defined social identity as "that part of an individual's self concept which derives from his knowledge of his membership of a group together with the value and emotional significance attached to the membership" (p. 63).

So how does one go about manipulating social identity? How do you get others to define themselves by your group? How do you make people your zealots?

Well, it's surprisingly easy actually.

To increase social identity, you must manipulate people's readiness to define themselves in terms of your social category. This is achieved by increasing people's awareness of their membership to your group. Say, by having people wear group-relevant uniforms (Gaertner et al., 1989; Worchel et al., 1998). In a modern web context, I presume this could materialize in the form of your group's insignia being placed next to your group members' names on their Facebook profiles.

The Airbnb logo next to the profile name serves to strengthen the user's affiliation to the group

To further strengthen ties to your group, you want people to commit to your group with a public and written statement. This is a robust social psychology finding that has strong applications to the modern web (I highly recommend Cialdini's The Psychology of Persuasion, which provides a nice and accessible overview of many social psychology findings). Getting your users to sign a seemingly trivial statement can have profound effects on their future behaviour. Statement's such as, "I,________, am committed to recycling" have been shown to truly affect the amount of recycling activity people engage in when compared to a verbal commitment and no commitment. 

How does this does apply to an internet paradigm?  Well, for one thing, Facebook presents a powerful tool for getting users to make public statements. However, social psychology findings would suggest that companies have been going about it all wrong. Simply publishing a user's affiliation with your group or brand on your user's Facebook page has little effect on their attachment level. Why? Because they didn't write it. You might be thinking that getting a user to write out on their own "Hey! I support Forrst.com!" is a really difficult task, but it doesn't have to be. Consider writing out 90% of the statement for them, and having them fill in their name and clicking a "commit" button that publishes the words to Facebook. The key is to get your users to recognize that they are entering some sort of agreement that incorporates your brand into their self concept, so that Airbnb, for example, becomes part of their identity. This Facebook post doesn't only spread your brand, but it serves to strengthen your user's attachment to your brand.

One of the most famous findings out of social psychology - Festinger's Theory of Cognitive Dissonance - explains what happens next. Your user, having signed up for the relatively trivial commitment of publicly stating their affiliation with your group and/or placing the group's insignia next to their Facebook name, is now more attached to your group than they realize. Cognitive dissonance theory would suggest that any speaking or acting against your brand would place your user in a state disequilibrium or dissonance. Why? Because no one in their right mind would publicly state their affiliation to something, place the group's logo next to their name, and then not partake in the activities of the group!

Applying real world social psychology findings to modern web paradigms is fascinating; it's something I'd like to keep my eye out for, and test out myself. More on this in later posts...