Social Identity Theory.

In the early 1970s, Henri Tajfel proposed a theory that described a phenomenon that Black scholars like W.E.B. Du Bois and others had written about long before: Individual identities are inextricably bound up in their collective identities shared with others. According to social identity theory (SIT), the groups one belongs to are every bit as important for her/his/their identity as is their unique personal traits.

In 2020, based on Tajfel’s social identity theory, Sheldon Stryker’s structural symbolic interactionist identity theory, and the narrative identity theory of Dan McAdams and Kate McLean, Kwan proposed “spheres of identity” as a holistic way to conceptualize individual identities: Identity processes operate at the individual, intragroup, and intergroup levels.

Identity is of central importance in the subjective experience of justice and assessments of legitimacy. In this study, the researcher explores whether perceptions of legitimacy are constructed differently across social group identity, particularly where social groups differ in relation to government (e.g., outgroup or ingroup). The analyses are conducted using data from a procedural justice study conducted in two U. S. cities. The findings suggest evidence of a generally similar construction of legitimacy though with important dissimilarities based on social group. Additionally, certain respondents’ narratives follow common narrative scripts in describing interactions with police, suggestive of a shared master narrative that guides interpretations among members of a marginalized social group. I used three theories of identity to explore:

• Do different social groups assess the legitimacy of criminal justice system (CJS) officials similarly or differently?

• Do social groups that view government as an ingroup resource consider an authority figure’s intragroup role in assessing CJS legitimacy?

• Is the link between procedural justice and legitimacy mediated by individuals’ ingroup or outgroup status in relation to the government?

• Do marginalized outgroups interpret their perceptions of government through collective frames like cultural master narratives or through individual experiences?

In 2020, integrating Kate McLean’s work on master cultural narratives with Tajfel’s social identity theory and Monica Bell’s legal estrangement theory, Kwan proposed that master narrative is an important way to understand how social identity-based normative beliefs – including about justice and justice officials – are transferred intragroup and used to interpret individual experiences.

Narrative identity theorists have long held that individuals construct identities as a coherent tale of their past, present, and future selves. These life stories are structured along predictable scripts borrowed from cultural master narratives. Heretofore, legitimacy theorists have relied on social identity theory to explain legitimation processes. I propose integrating elements of narrative identity theory with social identity for a more complete legitimation theory. I analyze 92 in-depth interviews with individuals who encountered the police departments of Newark, New Jersey, and Cleveland, Ohio. Respondents’ narratives followed common narrative scripts, suggesting a shared master narrative guiding interpretations of police encounters. A significant proportion of the sample interpreted their views of the police from a group-based lens, while an equally significant proportion used alternative narratives. An integration of social identity, narrative identity, and current legitimacy theory holds promise for a more comprehensive model of legitimation and a more complete theory of self.

In 2019, applying Jim Sidanius’s work on social dominance theory, Kwan began asserting that those same social psychological processes that support group action for dominance in relation to other human groups will likely also operate to encourage subordination of ecological interests seen as adverse to one’s social group dominance.

Traditional conservation scientists approach conservation conflict from a resource-management perspective, in which both wildlife and non-living natural resources are managed to balance the interests of competing human stakeholders. We instead explore conflict between the powerful and less powerful humans and wildlife alike. Applying tenets of social dominance theory to ecological networks, we propose that socio-political power structures that marginalize human populations-denying voice and inclusion-may contribute to similar neglect of wildlife species. Considering nonhuman species as collections of agentic beings seeking to satisfy their own survival interests and that of their respective "social" group, we connect the subjects of social justice and ecological justice through common challenges rooted in the social psychology of power.

In 2020, Kwan began examining and expounding on Chuma Owuamalam’s social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA), in which he posits that social identity processes provide adequate explanation for the tendency toward system justification (i.e., rationalizing the acceptability of status quo social systems). This explanation contrasts with the autonomous mechanisms identified in John Jost’s system justification theory and Jim Sidanius’s social dominance theory.

Blount-Hill, K. Advancing a social identity model of system attitudes. (2020). International Annals of Criminology, 57(1-2), 114-137. doi: 10.1017/cri.2020.8.

The connection between social identity and attitudes toward the criminal justice system (CJS) is an area of interest among criminologists and legitimacy scholars. Previous work has proposed a social identity theory of legitimation, positing that individuals categorize CJS officials as either in-group (i.e. legitimate authority) or out-group (i.e. illegitimate enforcer). Subsequently, how individuals perceive their CJS – including the sincerity of its commitment to the rule of law – is tied to this relationship. Those viewing the government as an out-group oppressor are less likely to accept its legitimacy. This article explores this thesis. From the perspective of system justification theory, how the CJS is categorized should depend on how strongly an individual identifies as belonging to a group disadvantaged by the CJS. System justification theorists hypothesize that system justification (including acceptance of system legitimacy) is more likely when members of disadvantaged groups believe that group interests are less important. Alternative models that explain attitudes toward the system by using social identity theory suggest the opposite: Those who identify more strongly with disadvantaged groups and hold their interests to be more important nonetheless justify oppositional systems and view them legitimately. The present study uses a sample of Black Americans (a disadvantaged group in the American CJS) to determine whether group identification predicts system justification.