Social Identity Processes by Capozza Dora; Brown Rupert; & Rupert Brown

Author:Capozza, Dora; Brown, Rupert; & Rupert Brown
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 537749
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Published: 2000-03-28T05:00:00+00:00

Common identity, common fate and interdependence

Before going further into these arguments, it is important to make some conceptual distinctions between common fate, common identity, and what is meant here by positive interdependence. I define common fate as a coincidence of outcomes among two or more persons that arises because they have been subjected to the same external forces or decision rules. All persons who are recipients of social security benefits share a common fate whenever social policies governing the social security system are altered. Individuals in a coastal community threatened by an oncoming hurricane face a common fate. If the hurricane hits, all those in its path suffer damage; if it dies down before reaching the coast, all are spared.

Shared fate does not necessarily entail any interdependence among those who are affected by the common benefit or threat. If one individual moves from the community before the hurricane arrives, he or she escapes the common fate but does not alter the outcomes of those who stay behind. However, if coordinated actions by residents of the community can affect the severity of the damage that might be caused by a hurricane, then conditions of interdependence have been introduced. In this case, one individual’s outcomes can be affected or determined by what another individual in the interdependent unit chooses to do. In other words, true interdependence requires some form of mutual fate control, or outcome interdependence among participants (Thibaut and Kelley, 1959). The structure of interdependence varies depending on the relationship (if any) that exists between what an individual does to benefit him or herself and what benefits the other. Negative interdependence occurs when goals of self and other are incompatible, so that Person A’s self-interested behaviours have a negative effect on Person B’s outcomes. Conversely, positive interdependence means that goals are compatible such that behaviours that benefit Person A also improve outcomes for Person B.

Outcome interdependence can be further differentiated depending on whether mutual outcomes require coordinated interaction or not. Interdependence may lie in the nature of the reward structure per se, without any behavioural coordination. In a zero-sum resource situation, what one individual or group takes from the resource pool reduces what others get whether or not they interact. The outcome of a golf match is determined by comparing the performance of individuals who play independently of each other. Each player’s outcomes (win or loss) are affected by the others’ performance, but the performance itself is independent. Other competitive sports (e.g., tennis, chess matches) are interdependent in both reward structure and behavioural interaction in that each player’s performance is directly affected by simultaneous or subsequent actions by opponents and team-mates. The same distinction applies to situations of positive interdependence. Joint rewards may be the product of cumulative behaviours of independent actors or the product of coordinated interaction in pursuit of common goals. The ‘superordinate goal’ situations created in Sherif’s famous Robbers Cave summer camp experiment (Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood and Sherif, 1961) involved both common goals and interactive interdependence.

Shared fate and shared identity are also conceptually distinct, although probably highly interrelated.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.