This is the user sandbox of Exeterabc123. A user sandbox is a subpage of the user's user page. It serves as a testing spot and page development space for the user and is not an encyclopedia article. Create or edit your own sandbox here.

Other sandboxes: Main sandbox | Template sandbox

Finished writing a draft article? Are you ready to request review of it by an experienced editor for possible inclusion in Wikipedia? Submit your draft for review!

Five-step social identity model of the development of collective hate

The five-step social identity model of the development of collective hate, by Reicher et al., (2008), details the processes through which inhumane acts against other groups can come to be celebrated as right.

The five steps comprise (Reicher et al., 2008):

Creating a cohesive in-group identification,
Exclusion of certain populations from the in-group,
Perceiving the out-group as a threat to the in-group,
Representing the in-group as uniquely good,
Celebrating out-group annihilation as the defence of the in-group.

The same underlying psychological processes can lead to both good and evil acts - but individuals tend to lack awareness of doing bad in the name of their group, and instead focus on the good that they derive from their group membership and provide back to their group (Reicher et al., 2008).

Social identity and intergroup conflict are important contributing factors to the explanation of this model (Sonpar, 2015).

Social identity

Social identity is the part of one's self-concept that is informed by group memberships, defined by some shared attribute (Kalin & Sambanis, 2018). For example, identification with sexual orientation, sports teams or religion (Lingaas, 2022). A social identity approach by Tajfel and Turner (1986) combined two theoretical explanations: social identity theory and self-categorisation theory. Social identity theory (Tajfel, 1974) suggests people categorise themselves with the groups they belong to by displaying the expected behaviours (Scheepers & Ellemers, 2019). This theory also investigates intergroup relations, exploring the idea of personal belonging to an 'in-group' and categorising others as 'out-groups' (Benwell & Stoke, 2006). Self-categorisation theory highlights the importance of identity salience. The more prominent and important a particular identity is made, the more that social identity and subsequent behaviours are displayed (Trepte & Loy, 2017). Identifying with certain groups can cause individuals to act in certain ways towards others - not because of what others have done, but because of which group they identify with. A key example of this is the Holocaust where Nazi Germany systematically murdered Jews.

Intergroup conflict

Different groups in society represent different behaviours, characteristics and beliefs. Cooperation within in-groups is common, but cooperation with out-groups is often spoiled by prejudice, discrimination and spite (Böhm et al., 2020). Tensions between groups quickly arise and frequently escalate into intergroup conflicts (Böhm et al., 2020). This leads to in-group favouritism and out-group hate.

Five steps

1 - Creating a cohesive in-group identification

The first component is to create an in-group comprising members who strongly identify with the group. This will ultimately form a strong, committed and cohesive group. This enables individuals to construct a consensus with companion group members about the world, what matters in the world, and what they should do about it (Reicher et al., 2008). A shared sense of membership is the psychological basis of group action (Reicher et al., 2008; Tajfel, 1974; Tajfel and Turner, 1986).

In-groups

Humans categorise themselves into groups based on social identities. In-groups are those that individuals belong to and psychologically identify with (Bernstein, 2015). In-groups are generally characterised by members feeling a sense of affiliation and loyalty to their group and group members as a result of their shared membership (APA, 2018). Strong identification with in-groups can lead to in-group favouritism.

Belonging in social groups and sharing social identities has personal benefits (Reicher et al., 2008). It encourages agreement, (Kenny and West, 2010), trust, respect, and cooperation with others (Tyler & Blader, 2000), and acts of solidarity and helping (Levine et al., 2002; Levine et al, 2005). These relations aid shared experiences to become positive and beneficial for personal well-being as a result of feeling supported and accepted by others (Cassidy et al., 2007; Reicher et al., 2008).

Reicher et al., (2008) stated cohesive in-groups are essential for our social presence and social being, hence why people are attached to and passionate about their groups. This explains why individuals actively respond to in-group events.

2- Exclusion of certain populations within the in-group

Out-groups

Excluding certain groups of people from the in-group categorises them as out-groups. Out-groups comprise individuals who do not belong to or identify with a specific social group - they can be seen as rivals that in-group members might ridicule and devalue (APA, 2018).

Category boundaries

Out-group categorisation occurs when individuals are viewed to be different from the in-group. This discussion of who belongs to certain social categories is subjective and debated (Reicher and Hopkins, 2001). An example is how ethnicity can categorise inclusion and exclusion from national groups. Excluded foreigners from national in-groups are viewed as inferior, and consequently experience discrimination, aggression and deprivation of the positives in-group members have (Stupar-Rutenfrans et al., 2021). Religion is another example of a major categorical boundary of in-groups (Lingaas, 2021). Inclusive boundaries of in-groups can be broad, but exclusive boundaries appear narrow (Reicher et al., 2008). Clearly treatment varies based on inclusion or exclusion from the in-group (Reicher et al., 2008), with people acting more favourably to in-group members (Ben-Ner et al., 2007).

The Holocaust

The Holocaust provides a real life example of category boundaries. Nazi Germany were the in-group - meaning Jewish people and gypsies were excluded, so all support and services were reserved exclusively for the in-group. Where national category boundaries are used to exclude specific populations from in-groups, exclusions from society and denied rights are simultaneous (Reicher et al., 2008).

It is clear that category exclusion from the in-group is an essential step towards hatred and extreme acts, but is not sufficient alone as the model includes further steps.

3 - Perceiving the out-group as a threat

Reicher et al., (2008) reported that the third stage intertwines with prior exclusion, but has added hostility towards out-groups that construes them as a threat to the in-group.

Out-group threat

Out-group threat proposes that out-groups, by their actions or presence alone, put in-group members at risk (Reicher et al., 2008). Negative characteristics, like unintelligence, generally decrease the ability and likelihood of the out-group to present a practical threat to the in-group - positive characteristics of the out-group increase this ability to be perceived as threatening (Reicher, 2007). Reicher et al., (2008) reported no fixed definition of what constitutes out-group threat because it is dependent on each specific in-group. Clearly out-group threat is socially constructed.

Out-group threat is highly predictive of enhanced in-group cohesion as it encourages affiliation with others to form solid units that will act on behalf of their in-group (Lang et al., 2021). Perceived out-group threat contributes to in-group favouritism (Zhai, 2022). Lang et al., (2021) observed greater behavioural mirroring and proximity of in-group members who perceived an out-group threat. Perceived out-group threat is therefore a significant contributor to the development of collective hate (Sonpar, 2015).

Once out-group threat has been incorporated into category exclusion (step two), destruction of the out-group is likely to be considered an act of self-defence rather than a targeted annihilation (Reicher et al., 2008; Sonpar, 2015). Although lawfully, self-defence may be a legitimate act of protection, it is insufficient in making unprovoked attacks on out-groups righteous and celebrated - so Reicher et al., (2008) proposed a step that focuses on virtue of the in-group.

4 - Representing the in-group as uniquely good

In-group favouritism

In-group favouritism is the tendency to favour members of one’s group over those in other out-groups (Everett et al., 2015). Individuals have a greater desire and social preference to help in-group members, at the expense of out-groups, due to mutual beliefs and opinions (Everett et al., 2015). In-groups become egotistical and lack empathy for any negativity caused to out-groups so long as they have personally benefited. This generates a communal belief that in-group actions are purely noble and virtuous - harm they are causing others is unconsidered (Reicher et al., 2008).

One could assume that presenting the in-group as uniquely good would construct pro-social norms that lead to pro-social behaviours...but when the out-group is portrayed as evil, the opposite effect is demonstrated (Reicher et al., 2008). When the belief that the in-group is uniquely good is approved, out-group threat seems to becomes even greater (Reicher et al., 2008). This means acts of 'self-defence' become an even more acceptable method of eliminating out-group threat.

The Holocaust

The Holocaust again evidences how in-groups perceive themselves as uniquely good. The German in-group must have presented and interpreted Nazism as a moral purging of the world. Reicher et al., (2008) reported that Hitler defended that the Nazis were moral, selfless, loyal, and devout to enabling their country to flourish - devoting effort to the moral project of the Nazis, and subsequently rarely mentioned Jewish people. This approach would have ensured Jews were alienated and seen as threatening of this moral project, which consequently emphasised and facilitated in-group virtue of the Nazis.

During the development of collective hate, in-groups dehumanise the targeted out-group - this can be discrete (Vaes, 2012).

Evidently, by in-groups representing themselves as uniquely good, purposefully evil acts towards out-groups are able to be transformed into celebrated moral duties.

5 - Celebrating out-group annihilation

This final step reflects the outcome and destination of this model of the development of collective hate. By the final stage it is unambiguous of how acts of terrorism or genocide can come to be celebrated by the in-group. When threatening out-groups are portrayed as immoral and representative of evil, the group that achieve their defeat somehow represent good and come to be celebrated (Reicher et al., 2008).

Conclusions and future directions

Upon explaining and understanding the five-step social identity model of the development of collective hate, it is apparent that personal identities and beliefs are more important and relevant to hatred and evil acts than our definition of others. But as Reicher et al., (2008) importantly highlighted, racism, discrimination, hatred (etc) firmly maintain attention on the out-group - hence why defences are designed to guard these negative out-group perceptions. As a result, how in-groups define themselves and in-group righteousness are necessary for the destruction of out-groups.

Groups with collective hatred who consequently destruct out-groups usually believe their acts are a virtue of evil. Virtues of evil are when groups choose to commit great wrongs because they believe their acts are right and moral (Reicher et al., 2008).

Consequently, it has been emphasised that as individuals, teachers, role models and psychologists within society, we should redirect our outlook from others, and instead focus on understanding the importance of the self on treatment of others (Reicher, 2007; Reicher et al., 2008). This should help to facilitate a reduction of evils in the world.

Criticisms

A criticism of this model is the insinuation that out-groups are always perceived negatively - this may not always be true.Immigrants exemplify an out-group that can be viewed positively as they help to enrich populations and economies (Muysken and Ziesemer, 2012). Reicher et al., (2008) suggested that exclusion from in-groups in combination with out-group hate arises when certain characteristics of groups are suggested to present problems for others. As a result, 'the pernicious power of essentialist ideologies' like racism, arise because of what the nature of other groups means for in-groups (Reicher et al., 2008; King and Wheelock, 2007). Out-group hate is not always pre-existing, rather it develops from how in-groups choose to perceive and treat others (Sonpar, 2015). This reinforces that collective hate stems from personal identities and views.

Importantly, research into this model is sparse. This article is mainly informed by Reicher et al., (2008) - the publishing paper that proposed this model. Follow-up research and reviews are required to further our understanding of whether this model is a reliable depiction of how collective hate develops, and the consequential implications for society. Currently, follow up research is minimal and needs to be conducted to further our knowledge, understanding and awareness of this development of collective hate.

References

American Psychological Association (2018, April 19). "outgroup", APA Dictionary of Psychology. https://dictionary.apa.org/outgroup

American Psychological Association (2018, April 19). "ingroup", APA Dictionary of Psychology. https://dictionary.apa.org/ingroup

Ben-Ner, A., McCall, B. P., Stephane, M., & Wang, H. (2007). Identity and in-group/out-group differentiation in work and giving behaviours: Experimental evidence. Journal of economic behaviour & organisation, 72(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2009.05.007

Benwell, B., & Stokoe, E. (2006). Discourse and Identity. Edinburgh University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctt1r2356

Bernstein, M. J. (2015). Ingroups and Outgroups. The Wiley Blackwell encyclopaedia of race, ethnicity, and nationalism, 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118663202.wberen482

Böhm, R., Rusch, H., & Baron, J. (2020). The psychology of intergroup conflict: A review of theories and measures. Journal of Economic Behaviour & Organisation, 178, 947-962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2018.01.020

Cassidy, C., Hopkins, N., Levine, M., Pandey, J., Reicher, S., & Singh, P. (2007). Social identity and Collective behaviour: Some lessons from Indian research at the Magh Mela at Prayag. Psychological Studies, 52, 286–292. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2008-00615-003

Everett, J. A. A., Faber, N. S., & Crockett, M. (2015). Preferences and beliefs in ingroup favouritism. Frontiers in behavioural neuroscience, 9, 15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00015

Kalin, M., & Sambanis, N. (2018). How to think about social identity. Annual Review of Political Science, 21, 239-257. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-042016-024408

Kenny, D. A., & West, T. V. (2010). Similarity and agreement in self- and other perception: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309353414

King, R. D., & Wheelock, D. (2007). group threat and social control: race, perceptions of minorities and the desire to punish. Social Forces, 85(3), 1255-1280. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2007.0045

Lingass, C. (2022). Religious Group Identities in Genocide: Social Identity Theory as a Tool for Disentangling Law and Religion. Nordic Journal of Human Rights, 39(4). https://doi.org/10.1080/18918131.2021.2015148

Lang, M., Xygalatas, D., Kavanagh, C. M., Craciun Boccardi, N. A., Halberstadt, J., Jackson, C., Martínez, M., Reddish, P., Tong, E. M. W., Vázquez, A., Whitehouse, H., Yamamoto, M. E., Yuki, M., & Gomez, A. (2022). Outgroup threat and the emergence of cohesive groups: A cross-cultural examination. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 25(7), 1739-1759. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302211016961

Levine, M., Cassidy, C., Brazier, G., & Reicher, S. D. (2002). Self-categorisation and bystander non-intervention: Two experimental studies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(7), 1452–1463. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb01446.x

Levine, M., Prosser, A., Evans, D., & Reicher, S. D. (2005). Identity and emergency intervention: How social group membership and inclusiveness of group boundaries shapes helping behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(4), 443–453. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271651

Muysken, J., & Ziesemer, T. H. W. (2012). A permanent effect of temporary immigration on economic growth. Applied Economics, 45(28), 4050–4059. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2012.748178

Reicher, S., Haslam, S. A., & Rath, R. (2008). Making a Virtue of Evil: A Five-Step Social Identity Model of the Development of Collective Hate. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(3), 1313-1344. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00113.x

Reicher, S., & Hopkins, N. (2001). Self and Nation. London, UK: Sage.

Reicher, S. (2007). Rethinking the Paradigm of Prejudice. South African Journal of Psychology, 37(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/008124630703700410

Scheepers, D., & Ellemers, N. (2019). Social Identity Theory. In Sassenberg, K., & Vliek, M. L. W. (eds.). Social Psychology in Action (pp 129-143). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13788-5_9

Sonpar, S. (2015). Including, Excluding…Annihilating. Psychology and Developing Societies, 27(2), 174-188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971333615592996

Stupar-Rutenfrans, S., Verdouw, P. C. D., van Boven, J., Ryzhika, O. A., Batkhina, A., Aksoz-Efe, I., Hamzallari, O., Papageorgopoulou, P., Uka, F., Petrović, N., Statovci, A., Rutenfrans-Stupar, M., Praničević, D. G., Zahaj, S., & Mijts, E. (2021). Ethnic outgroup aggression: A pilot study on the importance of emotion regulation, nationalism and susceptibility to persuasion. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 84, 79-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2021.07.004

Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Social Science Information, 13(2), 65–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901847401300204

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In Worchel, S., & Austin, W. G. (eds.). Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp 7-24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.

Trepte, S., & Loy, L. S. (2017). Social identity theory and self‐categorization theory. The international encyclopedia of media effects, 1-13. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sabine-Trepte/publication/314531246_Social_Identity_Theory_and_Self-Categorization_Theory/links/5a12b8eb458515cc5aa9ee51/Social-Identity-Theory-and-Self-Categorization-Theory.pdf

Tyler, T., & Blader, S. (2013). Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity, and behavioral engagement. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203782842

Vaes, J., Leyens, J. P., Paladino, M. P., & Miranda, M. P. (2012). We are human, they are not: Driving forces behind outgroup dehumanisation and the humanisation of the ingroup. European Review of Social Psychology, 23(1), 64-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2012.665250

Zhai, Y. Outgroup threat, ideology, and favorable evaluations of the government’s responses to COVID-19. Current Psychology, 43, 13110–13119 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03394-3