The thread on
Transsexual gender identity and sexuality in different cultural constructions finally tipped me over to print this:
Critical Literature Review
Identity Negotiation
Elisabeth A. Kellogg
AbstractIdentity negotiation defines a bi-directional process by which the individual and society interact to agree on the identity and meaning of the individual. Modest amounts of research have been conducted in this area. But, apparently, not enough of it has been of practical problems for researchers to see great value in it. Still there is the potential in this theory to bring light on several social psychology topics. It has been applied somewhat in multi-cultural areas and in stereotype maintenance. It could be applied more in women's studies and GLBT studies.
Summary of the ResearchIdentity Negotiation is a concept that draws on aspects of Identity Theory, as put forth by Peter Burke and Sheldon Stryker, and Social Identity Theory, defined by Michael Hogg. An individual carries many identities including roles, social categories, group memberships, and personal characteristics. The concept of a "working consensus" over the roles an individual has was first put forth by Irving Goffman in 1959 and 1961. The term "identity negotiation" was first used by William Swann in 1987.
Identity Theory states that the individual takes on the identities society constructs. Social Identity Theory proposes that identities are dynamic as salience changes with group affiliation. Identity Negotiation views the social construction of the self as a bi-directional or dyadic interaction with the individual's social environment. Not only does commitment affect the salience of an identity, but salience affects commitment. When an individual (a "target" of perception) asserts a salient identity to members of an in-group, those members ("perceivers") will reflect back either agreement or disagreement with that identity. Agreement tends to increase the salience of that identity, and disagreement tends to decrease the salience. In response to decreased salience, the individual may change behaviors to be more in conformity with the identity, but if salience is lowered sufficiently, the individual may become discouraged and drop that identity. The process by which the target influences the opinions of perceivers is called "self-verification." The reverse process where perceivers affect the self-identity of the target is "behavioral confirmation" with the corresponding "self-categorization" of the target.
Stryker and Burke (2000) have provided an overview of the topic where they define identity theory as the intersection of external social structure and the structure of self with internal mechanisms that generate self-meanings. As such it can be brought to bear on a number of sociological and social psychological issues, including the "multiple-identity" conceptualization of self, Expectation States Theory, and Status Characteristics Theory. They point out the challenge of researching the connection between commitment and identity salience.
Swann (1987) asserts that the identity negotiation process is bidirectional with both perceivers and the targets of perception interacting to reach a compromise identity. In this, the target sets out to develop a self-confirmatory opportunity structure through selective interaction, displaying identity cues, and interaction strategies. This is often enhanced by the target seeing more self-confirmatory evidence than actually exists (confirmation bias). This is achieved through preferential attention, selective encoding and retrieval, and selective interpretation. The bulk of this self-verification is done routinely, but may also occur in situations of identity crisis. A balance is maintained between self-concept change and stability. This occurs through both cognitive and affective processes.
Relatively little research has supported identity negotiation theory. To try and confirm support for the theory, McMulty and Swann (1994) document two longitudinal studies into self-views and perceivers' appraisals in college roommate selection. In both studies, hierarchical regression analysis indicated the bi-directionality of influence of the target and appraiser on each other. The authors summarize that the self is both an architect and consequence of others' appraisals.
Klein and Mark (2004) look at the phenomenon of behavioral confirmation among soldiers in Iraq as expressed in the perceptions of not only perceivers, but targets and outside observers. The dyadic nature of the confirmation process is shown to occur in natural settings and may contribute to the maintenance and perpetuation of stereotypes and social structures. The authors' conclusion is that the reality of how people behave is not only a reflection of who they are, but also of who others believe them to be.
Lemay and Ashmore (2004) and Chen, Chen, and Shaw (2004) have shown that people work to verify their self-views associated with group memberships. For example women seek evaluations that confirm they possess qualities associated with being a woman.
Swann, Milton, and Polzer (2000) found that self-verification ("creating a nitch") results in greater group effectiveness on creative tasks, while self-categorization and appraisal ("falling into line") results in greater group effectiveness for computational tasks. Further, it was found that self-verification is more common than self-categorization. Either outcome resulted in greater feelings of connectedness to the group.
Polzer, Milton, and Swann (undated) examined the notion of interpersonal congruence, the degree to which group members see other members of the group as others see themselves. They report on a longitudinal study that indicated that diversity in a group reduced group effectiveness where there was low interpersonal congruence. But high congruence resulted in high group effectiveness. This study indicated that recognizing diversity in both the self and the other results in effective group processes. In this context, identity negotiation can be viewed as having the goal of maximizing interpersonal congruence (agreement between target and perceiver).
In applying identity negotiation to cultural and gender roles, Sakamoto (2006) looks at negotiation in the context of culture and family. In this she looks at negotiating family and gender roles and cultural adoption in Japanese families. Likewise, Corby, Hodges, and Perry (2007) look at gender identity in black, Hispanic, and white preadolescents. Kray, Thompson, and Galinsky (2001) examined gender stereotype confirmation and reactance in negotiation. Balsam and Mohr (2007) studied adaptation to sexual orientation stigma, comparing bisexuals with lesbian/gay adults. The affected dimensions include identity confusion, self-disclosure, and degree of community connection.
Evaluation and RecommendationsThe research conducted by Klein, Mark, Milton, McNulty, Polzer, and Swann indicate that value of identity negotiation theory in describing both self-understanding and group processes. But too little work has been done in applying the theory to practical problems.
Correlational studies have had a hard time confirming the theory, but longitudinal studies have shown more positive results. In addition hierarchical regression analysis has been more successful in manipulating the data. In general, sampling strategies have made it difficult to know how much the data can be generalized, although the diversity of the studies reduces this issue somewhat. There are certainly opportunities available to extend this to other populations.
The multicultural studies haven't strictly studied identity negotiation theory, though they have been based on many of the same principals. Still, the existing research into stereotype maintenance suggests that identity negotiation has potential as a tool for studying interracial, cross-cultural attitudes.
The numerous studies cited above also indicate the value of identity negotiation in women's studies, and the Balsam and Mohr study suggest the same would be true for GLBT studies. In this particular area, its value in the management of stigmatization would be significant.
The relationship of negotiation to impression management is clear, but there are several others that should be drawn out and illuminated. The dynamics of labeling theory could be examined using the tools of identity negotiation, especially as relates to self-categorization. So also in dealing with social stigma, the coping strategies of passing and covering could be readily related. There is also a place for understanding the relationship of retrospective interpretation to self-verification and self-categorization.
This last set of issues is especially relevant to GLBT studies where passing (as "straight" or "going stealth") and covering ("staying in the closet") are the primary coping strategies of the community. Those who break out of the pattern of passing and covering to become "out," have a new set of identity negotiation processes to work through with the goal of interpersonal congruence. This could both provide fertile ground for research into identity processes and provide significant benefit to a community that deals with stigma in an ongoing way.
As such identity negotiation is a theoretical construct that needs more attention in the social psychological field.
BibliographyBalsam, K. and Mohr, J. 2007. "Adaptation to Sexual Orientation Stigma: A Comparison of Bisexual and Lesbian/Gay Adults."
Journal of Counseling Psychology 54(3):306-319.
Chen, S., Chen, K.Y., & Shaw, L. (2004). "Self-verification motives at the collective level of self-definition."
Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 86:77-94.
Corby, B., Hodges, E., and Perry, D. 2007. "Gender Identity and Adjustment in Black, Hispanic, and White Preadolescents."
Developmental Psychology 43(1):261-266.
Kray, L, Thompson, L., and Galinsky, A. 2001. "Battle of the Sexes: Gender Stereotype Confirmation and Reactance in Negotiations."
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 80(6):942-958.
Lemay, E.P., & Ashmore, R.D. (2004). "Reactions to perceived categorization by others during the transition to college: Internalizaton of self-verification processes."
Group Processes & Interpersonal Relations, 173-187.
McNulty, S. and Swann, W. 1994. "Identity Negotiation in Roommate Relationships: The Self as Architect and Consequence of Social Reality."
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67(6):1012-1023.
Polzer, J., Milton, L., and Swann, W. "Capitalizing on Diversity: Interpersonal Congruence in Small Work-Groups." Harvard Business School, Boston, MA. Unpublished working paper.
Sakamoto, I. 2006. "When Family Enters the Picture: The Model of Cultural Negotiation and Gendered Experiences of Japanese Academic Sojourners in the United States."
Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 12(3):558-577.
Snyder, M. and Klein, O. 2004. "Construing and Constructing Others: On the Reality and the Generality of the Behavioral Confirmation Scenario." University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. Unpublished manuscript.
Stryker, S. and Burke, P. 2000. "The Past, Present, and Future of an Identity Theory."
Social Psychology Quarterly 63(4):284-297.
Swann, W. 1987. "Identity Negotiation: Where Two Roads Meet."
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53(6):1038-1051.
Swann, W., Milton, L., and Polzer, J. 2000. "Should We Create a Niche or Fall in Line? Identity Negotiation and Small Group Effectiveness."
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79(2):238-250.
