Optimal Distinctiveness Theory

This chapter reviews the extensive literature on bias in favor of in-groups at the expense of out-groups. We focus on five issues and identify areas for future research: (a) measurement and conceptual issues (especially in-group favoritism vs. out-group derogation, and explicit vs. implicit measures of bias); (b) modern theories of bias highlighting motivational explanations (social identity, optimal distinctiveness, uncertainty reduction, social dominance, terror management); (c) key moderators of bias, especially those that exacerbate bias (identification, group size, status and power, threat, positive-negative asymmetry, personality and individual differences); (d) reduction of bias (individual vs. intergroup approaches, especially models of social categorization); and (e) the link between intergroup bias and more corrosive forms of social hostility.

This research examined reasons for the frequently obtained finding that members of numerically minority groups exhibit greater intergroup discrimination than members of majority groups and also sought to determine the conditions under which members of both majority and minority groups exhibit intergroup discrimination. Experiment 1 examined the role of group identification and found that discrimination by members of a majority group was equivalent to that of minority group members when identification was experimentally induced. Experiments 2 and 3 examined further the underlying bases for minority and majority discrimination. Consistent with predictions derived from optimal distinctiveness theory (Brewer, 1991), identification with the in-group was found to be a necessary condition underlying intergroup discrimination, but motivations for discrimination varied as a function of satisfaction with in-group size and distinctiveness.

Previous research has substantiated the targeting of various demographic subgroups by the tobacco industry through marketing practices. However, relatively little research has examined targeting of Asians and Pacific Islanders. Based on prior tobacco document research citing the use of identity-based marketing strategies, a content analytic scheme was developed to assess if these strategies were applied to the Asian and AAPI populations. The study was grounded in social identity theory and optimal distinctiveness theory paradigms in order to develop a coherent analytic framework. Keyword searches of documents were conducted and a random sample of the documents of interest was drawn. These data suggest that the tobacco industry targeted Asians and Pacific Islanders in the United States and abroad via interpersonal and commercial communication tactics. These strategies were carefully orchestrated and employed as a result of sophisticated analyses of the social identities and value systems of the source culture populations. Barriers to reaching this culturally and linguistically heterogeneous market were overcome via the construct of collectivism. At the same time, more Westernized Asians were targeted via advertisements that blended a hybrid Western style identity. For both source and immigrant cultures, the industry attempted to facilitate identity construction and maintenance through smoking.

Optimal distinctiveness theory [Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: on being the same and different at the same time. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin,17(5), 475–482] proposes that individuals have two fundamental and competing human needs—the need for inclusion and the need for differentiation—that can be met by membership in moderately inclusive (optimally distinct) groups. In this chapter, the optimal distinctiveness model and its origins are summarized, and theoretical extensions and empirical tests of the model are discussed. In particular, the empirical review summarizes the model’s consequences for social identification, social cognition, and intergroup relations. The evidence strongly supports the notion that the needs for inclusion and differentiation influence self-categorization resulting in a curvilinear relation between group inclusiveness and group identification. The existing evidence also indicates that the two needs influence perceptions and judgments of the self and others and the nature of intragroup and intergroup relations. The chapter concludes by discussing the interplay of the needs for inclusion and differentiation across levels of the self
and how the needs for inclusion and differentiation influence which level of self (individual or collective) is motivationally primary.

Humans are driven by a variety of needs, motives, and goals. Dating back to the early part of the twentieth century, researchers have attempted to understand human behavior by linking behavior to underlying motivations(e.g., . In line with this tradition of examining human behavior within the framework of individual goals and motivations, researchers studying group behavior and intergroup relations from a social identity perspective (e.g., recognized that multiple motives may operate in a group context. Behavior is driven not only by realistic concerns (e.g., conflicts over resources), but also by individuals' desire for positive social identity. In answer to the question of why individuals identify with groups (particularly minimal groups that appear to hold little significance for group members), Thrner (1975) argued that "subjects will identify with a social category to the extent that such identification enables them to achieve value significance, to the extent that it is the category most relevant to the "desire for positive self-evaluation" (pp. 19-20). Thus, the social identity approach to intergroup relations has always incorporated the concept of needs and motives for understanding intergroup behavior. However, what has been missing to some extent from earlier formulations of social identity theory (SIT: and self-categorization theory (SCT: Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) is an integration of the variety of individual needs (beyond positive distinctiveness) that might come into play within group contexts and how these needs might interact with cognitive and structural variables to produce particular patterns of intragroup and intergroup behavior.

Leonardelli, Pickett, Joseph and Hess integrate Brewer’s (1991) optimal distinctiveness theory with the nested categorical context typically descriptive of an organization’s internal structure, where individuals belong to groups (subgroups) nested within more inclusive superordinate groups (such as functional units nested within an organization). It is ideal for employees to simultaneously identify with the subgroup and superordinate group, that is, to engage what is called a “dual identity,” as doing so aligns the loyalty and the interests of subgroup members with the superordinate group as a whole. However, the authors first review evidence that individuals identify more with the subgroup and less with the superordinate group, what the authors call “dueling identities,” because individuals prefer the more distinctive subgroups to superordinate groups. The authors then argue that such dueling identities can be transformed into a dual identity were the subgroup and superordinate group both perceived to be optimally distinctive, a prediction possible if intergroup distinctiveness is determined by what the authors call "horizontal" rather than "vertical" social comparisons. Some evidence is presented that supports this conclusion and the discussion highlights the different strategies that could be implemented to engineer a dual identity by manipulating individuals’ needs for optimal distinctiveness.