Int[ J[ Intercultural Rel[ Vol[ 12\ No[ 1\ pp[ 076Ð086\ 0888Þ 0888 Elsevier Science Ltd[ All rights reserved\ Pergamon Printed in Great Britain

9036Ð0656:88:, ! see front matter

PII] S9036Ð0656"87#99923Ð9

MULTIPLE IDENTITIES AND IDENTITY TRANSITION]IMPLICATIONS FOR HONG KONG

MARILYNN B[ BREWER

The Ohio State University\ U[S[A[

ABSTRACT[ This article examines the concept of dual identity from the perspectiveof Brewer|s "0880# optimal distinctiveness theory of group identi_cation[ It is arguedthat two different forms of dual identi_cation with region "Hong Kong# and ethnicity"Chinese# were forged among Hong Kong Chinese residents during the period priorto the transition to SARPRC status[ The implications of this model for identitychanges during the period of transition and for political stability in the region after0886 are discussed[ Þ 0888 Elsevier Science Ltd[ All rights reserved[

Analyses of survey data from the Hong Kong Transition Project provideevidence of a strong relationship between the social identities claimed byethnic Chinese citizens of Hong Kong and their attitudes\ expectations\and behavioral intentions in the face of the transition to Chinese control"Hong + Chiu\ 0885^ Hong\ Chiu\ Fu\ + Tong\ 0885#[ Such relationshipsmake salient the fact that social identities are not simply individual cog!nitive constructions^ they are based on collective beliefs about sharedattributes\ values\ and experiences which constitute the content of speci_csocial identities[ Changes in social identity imply changes in who is seenas sharing common ingroup membership with the self and what attributesand values are presumed to be self!de_ning[

OPTIMAL DISTINCTIVENESS AND MULTIPLE SOCIALIDENTITIES

Much of the social psychological research and theory on social identityhas treated such identities in primarily cognitive terms[ Self!categorizationtheory "Turner et al[\ 0876# in particular has focused on the cognitive and

Correspondence regarding this paper should be addressed to Dr Marilynn B[ Brewer\ Depart!

ment of Psychology\ Ohio State University\ 0774 Neil Avenue\ Columbus\ OH 32109 U[S[A[

E!mail] brewer[53Ýosu[edu

076

077 M[ B[ Brewer

contextual determinants of social identity to the exclusion of attention tothe motivational and functional bases for choosing group identities[ Usingself!categorization theory as a point of departure\ Brewer|s "0880# theoryof optimal distinctiveness was developed to provide one account of themotivations underlying group identi_cation that would acknowledge thedynamic nature of social identity and at the same time provide for chron!ically high levels of identi_cation with speci_c groups[ The theory pos!tulates that social identity is derived from the opposing forces of twouniversal human motives*the need for inclusion and assimilation\ on theone hand\ and the need for di}erentiation from others on the other[

Optimal distinctiveness theory assumes that group identi_cation hasmotivational and functional origins that are deeply rooted in our evolutionas a social species[ The desire for belonging associated with the need forinclusion motivates immersion in social groups*the larger and moreinclusive the grouping\ the more this motive is satis_ed[ The need fordi}erentiation operates in opposition to the need for immersion as rep!resented in the drive for individuation and personal identity[ As groupmembership becomes more and more inclusive\ the need for inclusionis satis_ed but the need for di}erentiation is activated^ conversely\ asinclusiveness decreases\ the di}erentiation need is reduced but the needfor assimilation is activated[

According to the model\ the two opposing motives produce an emergentcharacteristic*the capacity for social identi_cation with distinctive groupsthat satisfy both needs simultaneously[ The need for inclusion:belongingis met within the ingroup\ and the need for di}erentiation by distinctionsbetween ingroup and outgroups[ To satisfy the needs simultaneously\individuals will select group identities that are inclusive enough that theyhave a sense of being part of a larger collective but exclusive enough thatthey provide some basis for distinctiveness from others[ Equilibrium ismaintained by correcting for deviations from optimality[ When eithermotive is deprived\ speci_c social identities will be engaged in an e}ort torestore good optimal distinctiveness[

As originally stated\ the theory of optimal distinctiveness focuses onresolving opposing needs for di}erentiation and inclusion by adopting asingle social identity that meets both needs[ Until recently\ social identitytheory and research has given relatively little attention to the possiblefunctions of multiple group identities that might be held simultaneously[Most individuals are members of many social and cultural groups\ and itis possible that di}erent social identities might be combined in order tosatisfy both di}erentiation and inclusion needs "Roccas\ 0885#[

When more than one social identity is activated\ there are a numberof di}erent ways in which the relationship between identities might besubjectively represented by the individual "Brewer\ Ho\ Lee\ + Miller\0876#[ Figure 0 depicts three possible alternatives for how a particular

078Identity Transition

FIGURE 1.

individual might experience the relationship between one social identity"A# and another "B#[

Figure 0a represents a situation in which the two identities are experi!enced as separate aspects of the self[ The individual may be aware of havingthese separate identities but does not engage them both simultaneously

089 M[ B[ Brewer

"because they are independent or possibly incompatible#[ Thus\ these areidentities that switch with context^ identity A provides the relevant basisfor self!categorization in one situation "or for some aspects of life# andidentity B serves as the primary self!categorization in another situation[Each identity separately ful_ls needs for both inclusion and distinctivenesswithin its context[ When identity A is engaged\ all members of group Aare classi_ed as ingroup members\ and membership in group B is irrelevant[

When two group identities are both salient at the same time\ the indi!vidual must hold some form of dual identi_cation that re~ects how inclus!ively those identities are de_ned for that individual[ Figure 0b and crepresents two forms of such dual identities\ in which two social identitiesare held simultaneously[

One form of dual identity "0b# is a compound group identity\ de_nedby joint membership in both group A and group B[ With this form ofmultiple social identity\ the subjective ingroup is limited to those whoshare membership in both groups^ members of group A who are not alsomembers of group B are not classi_ed as ingroup members[ When both Aand B are large social categories\ such joint or compound identities mayemerge to serve needs for distinctiveness as well as inclusion[

Another form of dual identity is represented by the nested identitiesdepicted in Fig[ 0c\ where one identity "A# is superordinate and the other"B# is a di}erentiated subpart or subgroup identity[ With this arrangement\the two identities may function in a complementary manner to servedi}erent needs[ The superordinate identity satis_es the need for secureinclusion in a large collective\ while the subgroup identity serves the needfor distinctiveness within the larger social category[ With nested identities\the de_nition of the ingroup is asymmetrical across the two levels ofinclusiveness[ At the superordinate level\ all members of group A areingroup members\ regardless of whether they are members of group B ornot[ At the subordinate level\ however\ only members of group B who arealso members of group A constitute the ingroup "if there are other Bs whoare outside of category A\ they are not classi_ed as ingroup members#[

With nested dual identities\ the relative importance of the superordinateand subordinate group identities may shift from one occasion to another[In some contexts\ the inclusive\ superordinate identity will be prominent\and the subgroup identity is secondary[ In other contexts\ the subgroupmay become _gure and the superordinate group is in the background"Gaertner\ 0885#[ Which identity takes precedence may depend in part onwhich social motive "inclusion or di}erentiation# has been activated[

Results of some recent experiments conducted in our laboratory dem!onstrate the role of inclusion and di}erentiation needs in determining therelative importance of superordinate and subordinate group identitieswhen such identities are nested "Pickett\ Silver\ + Brewer\ 0886#[ Par!ticipants in these experiments _rst indicated whether or not they were

080Identity Transition

members of various large superordinate categories "e[g[\ college student\U[S[ citizen# and of more distinctive subcategories "e[g[\ fraternitymembers\ honors student\ left!handers#[ Then they were given an experi!ence designed to arouse or {{prime|| either their need to be more distinctiveor their need to feel more assimilated or included[ Following this experi!ence\ all participants then rated the importance of each of their super!ordinate and subgroup identities to their self de_nition[

Consistent with the tenets of optimal distinctiveness theory\ arousalof either motive state increased the overall importance of social groupmemberships[ However\ the relative importance of subordinate comparedto superordinate social identities varied as a function of whether the needfor di}erentiation or the need for assimilation had been activated[ Whenparticipants had been made to feel excessively distinctive "so that inclusionneeds were aroused#\ the importance of both superordinate and sub!ordinate group identities was enhanced[ On the other hand\ when par!ticipants had been made to feel excessively assimilated to a large collective"thereby arousing their need for di}erentiation#\ the importance that theyattached to their memberships in distinctive subgroups increased morethan the importance of more inclusive\ superordinate group memberships[

IMPLICATIONS FOR HONG KONG 0886

Dual Identities] 0874Ð84

Survey studies conducted in Hong Kong since the signing of the SinoÐBritish Joint Declaration in 0873 suggest the development of a unique{{Hong Kong|| identity adopted by the majority of ethnic Chinese citizensin Hong Kong "Bond\ 0876\ 0882#\ possibly in anticipation of the reversionto Chinese rule in 0886[ With the signing of the accord\ Hong Kongresidents who were Chinese gained an added security of long!term mem!bership and attachment to the region relative to British and other non!Chinese residents[ Thus\ the period of transition provided an opportunityto carve out a distinctive social identity associated with being both HongKong and Chinese[

Longitudinal surveys conducted as part of the Hong Kong TransitionProject beginning in 08820 assessed changes across time in self identi!_cations with di}erent identity labels\ including {{Hong Konger||\ {{HongKong!Chinese||\ or {{primarily Chinese||[ The subjective meanings of the

0 For data on social identities in Hong Kong\ I have relied heavily on prepublication materials

and press release data provided on the Hong Kong Transition Project worldwide web site

"http]::www[hkbu[edu[hk]79:½hktp#[ I am grateful to Dr Ying!yi Hong and her colleagues

for making this information available to me[

081 M[ B[ Brewer

labels was left implicit rather than made explicit\ but I will assume herethat the labels correspond roughly to three di}erent forms of dual identitycomprising regional identi_cation with Hong Kong and ethnic identi!_cation with China[

For most of the transition period\ only a minority of Hong Kongresidents surveyed self!identi_ed as {{primarily Chinese||[ For such respon!dents\ I assume that the ethnic Chinese identity is both primary andsuperordinate to the regional Hong Kong identi_cation[ For the majoritywho identify as {{Hong Kongers|| or {{Hong Kong!Chinese||\ on the otherhand\ I assume that regional identity is more salient and important thanidenti_cation with Chinese as an inclusive ethnic category[

More speci_cally\ I speculate that the implicit meaning of the {{HongKonger|| label is that of a joint Hong Kong!Chinese social category\corresponding to the pattern represented in Fig[ 0b*a compound identityde_ned by both regional and ethnic identity\ di}erentiated from that ofnon!Chinese Hong Kongers on the one side and from mainland Chineseon the other[ For those that identify themselves with the label HongKong!Chinese\ however\ the corresponding social identity is a nested dualidentity of the type represented in Fig[ 0c[ But in this case\ Hong Kongeris the superordinate social category while Chinese ethnic identity is thesubordinate identity within that category which serves the need for dis!tinctiveness from the Westernized Hong Kong culture[

In either case\ it is the combined group identities "Hong Konger andethnic Chinese# that satisfy needs for inclusion and distinctiveness^ and ineither case\ the inclusive Chinese identity "encompassing both mainlandand Hong Kong ethnic Chinese# is not a meaningful ingroup for themajority of Hong Kong citizens[ As Bond "0876# suggests\ the Chineseidentity is cultural rather than political and represents a selective samplingof Chinese cultural traditions that provides a spiritual grounding distinctfrom that represented by Western culture "Bond + King\ 0874#[

Category labels alone provide a very minimal basis for speculationabout the mental representations underlying di}erent social identities[ Butthere are two sources of additional data that provide some support forany conjectures about subjective meanings of alternative social identitiesin Hong Kong[ First are the _ndings from a couple of studies that usedcluster analysis techniques to assess the pattern of perceived similaritiesamong concepts representing the self\ various ethnic groups\ values\ andcharacter traits "Bond\ 0882^ Lam et al[\ 0885#[ From both of these studies\it is apparent that the {{Hong Konger|| identity represents a distinct clusterof traits and values that is similar to those associated with Americans andBritols\ whereas the {{Hong Kong!Chinese|| identity is more di}erentiatedfrom American:Britol and somewhat closer to Singaporean and Japaneseethnic clusters\ but still very distant from the mainlander Chinese cluster[In either case\ Chinese ethnic identity appears to serve as a basis for

082Identity Transition

di}erentiation from Western identity but not as a basis for assimilation totraditional Chinese culture as a whole[

Further evidence of dissociation from inclusive Chinese ingroup identityis obtained from studies of ingroup bias among Hong Kong residents"Hong et al[\ 0885#[ Participants who identi_ed themselves as Hong Kon!gers or Hong Kong!Chinese both showed preferential biases in favor of aHong Konger over a Mainlander in a study of attribution of responsibilityand morality[ For these participants\ ingroup favoritism apparentlyextended only to those who shared Hong Kong identity and not to allChinese inclusively[

Identity Transition] 0884Ð86

The importance of establishing the contextualized meaning of socialidentities in Hong Kong lies in its implications for identity transitions inthe face of changing political and social context[ Unlike separate multipleidentities\ compound and nested dual identities are not ~exibly adaptableto di}erent situations[ The two group identities involved are inter!dependent in that they serve di}erent\ complementary roles in meetingneeds for assimilation:inclusion on the one hand and di}erentiation:distinctiveness on the other[ Thus\ the importance and meaning attachedto each aspect of the dual identity is a function of which motive it isserving[

I have been arguing that within the political context of the transitionperiod since 0873\ the Hong Kong group identi_cation is the one that hasmet most Hong Kongers| needs for secure inclusion\ and that Chineseidenti_cation has been associated with the distinctiveness motive[ Withinthis context the meaning associated with Chinese ethnic identi_cation isnot similarity to traditional China but dissimilarity from Western culture[However\ as the actual transfer from British to Chinese control becamemore immediate\ the political context for the formation and maintenanceof social identities gradually changed[

Across the transition period\ research on intergroup relations in HongKong showed a marked shift from a focus on Chinese!British relationships"e[g[\ Bond + Hewstone\ 0877# to a focus on Hong KongÐMainlandChinese relationships "e[g[\ Hong et al[\ 0885#[ The change in context isone in which the maintenance of a unique Hong Kong identity is no longerde_ned in terms of its distinctiveness from Western culture and values butin terms of its distinctiveness from the rest of China[ For those with acompound "Hong Konger# identity\ this shift of context does not create apressure for change since optimal distinctiveness is achieved by both groupidentities jointly[ However\ with respect to the nested Hong Kong!Chineseidentity\ the changing context implies a reversal of the position and func!tions represented by the two levels of identi_cation\ with Hong Kong

083 M[ B[ Brewer

TABLE 1

Self-Categorization of Hong Kong Chinese: 1995–97

Primary Social IdentityHong Kong (%) Hong Kong-Chinese (%) Chinese (%)

August 1995 36 33 20February 1996 35 32 22July 1996 45 20 30February 1997 35 29 31

Data derived from Hong Kong Transition Project press release, April 1997.

identity now serving needs for distinctiveness rather than assimilation[Thus\ those who had adopted this form of dual identity should be theones most likely to change their self!identi_cation under the new politicalcontext[

Again\ data from successive waves of the Hong Kong Transition Projectsurveys provide at least indirect support for these conjectures about ident!ity shifts[ Table 0 summarizes data on self!categorization of random sam!ples of Hong Kong residents at four points in time from mid!0884 to early0886[ The data for August 0884 and February 0885 re~ect a fairly stablepattern "since 0882:83# in which the majority of respondents identi_edthemselves as Hong Kongers "24)# or as Hong Kong!Chinese "21)#[The July 0885 results produced the _rst marked change from this pattern[At this time point there appears to be a shift to greater polarization ofidentities\ with a marked reduction in the nested dual identity categoryand an increase in both Hong Konger and primarily Chinese self!cat!egorizations[ By February 08861\ some of the polarized Hong Kong ident!ity had reverted to dual "nested# identity\ but the degree of shift fromprimarily Hong Kong to primarily Chinese held constant[ This change inpattern of social identi_cation was associated with a sharp increase "inFebruary 0886# in the percentage of respondents choosing a preferencefor Hong Kong joining China "51)# rather than becoming independentor remaining under British control[

I interpret these changes as indicative of an identity con~ict for HongKong!Chinese respondents between maintenance of a unique\ super!ordinate Hong Kong identity and a shift to primary allegiance to Chinaas a superordinate group identity "with Hong Kong as the distinctivesubgroup identi_cation#[ These two alternative identities seem to cor!respond to opposing expectations for the consequences of reversion to

1 Note this survey was conducted just at the time of Deng Xiaping|s death[

084Identity Transition

Chinese control and SAR status[ Those who chose to self!identify "as of0885# as primarily Chinese are more likely to expect a pattern of bilateralacceptance and assimilation on the part of Hong Kongers and mainlandChinese\ whereas those who self!identi_ed as primarily Hong Kongersdi}erentially expect mutual rejection between the two groups "Lau et al[\0885#[ Further\ in support of the idea that Hong Kong identity is increas!ingly being de_ned in terms of di}erentiation from Chinese identity\respondents claiming primary Hong Konger "or Hong Kong!Chinese#identity expressed signi_cantly less desire to reduce the dissimilaritybetween Hong Kong and mainland China after 0886 "Hong + Chiu\ 0885^Lau et al[\ 0885#[

Beyond 0886

I have attempted to present a case for the idea that a unique HongKong!Chinese identity was forged during the early transition period inwhich Chinese ethnic identi_cation within Hong Kong provided a basisfor status\ pride and distinctiveness vis!a�!vis the in~uences of Britain\Western Europe\ and the United States[ As the context changes to one inwhich Hong Kong identity is de_ned vis!a�!vis traditional Chinese identityinstead\ signs of identity con~ict have become evident[ I argue that this isbecause something more than a simple shift between independent identitiesis involved\ in that the transition requires\ for many Hong Kong residents\a reversal in the role played by regional and cultural identity in servingneeds for assimilation and di}erentiation[ A successful reversal requiresthat a superordinate Chinese identity will provide a basis for secure statusand acceptance "Hong + Chiu\ 0885# while Hong Kong identity servesneeds for distinctiveness[

This analysis suggests that as events unfold following the reversion ofcontrol to China\ a critical factor will be whether administrative actionson the part of Beijing authorities are seen as encouraging both assimilationand accommodation of di}erences or as demanding assimilation withoutrespect for distinctiveness[ Results from surveys conducted closest to thetime of o.cial takeover suggest that Hong Kong Chinese had becomemore polarized than ever before on their expectations about which out!come is more likely[ Those who have shifted their social identity in thedirection of Chinese identi_cation may be seen as placing the highestpriority on the potential for successful assimilation and acceptance intothe superordinate Chinese group membership[ Those who have shiftedtheir primary social identity in the direction of Hong Kong regionalidenti_cation seem to have placed their highest priority on the maintenanceof distinctiveness and the potential accommodation to di}erence[ Withthe right balance of assimilation and accommodation\ both identity groupscould potentially be satis_ed[ But disappointments vis!a�!vis the expec!

085 M[ B[ Brewer

tations of either or both groups would have important implications forthe future stability of Hong Kong[

Based on the present analysis\ those Hong Kongers who are moreidenti_ed with the distinctive Hong Kong regional identity will be mostsensitive to Beijing|s acknowledgement of Hong Kong|s unique positionand special contribution to China|s economy and culture[ Perceived threatsto Hong Kong|s distinctiveness may motivate withdrawal\ but the depthof regional identity with Hong Kong itself suggests that the more likelyresponse would be political resistance and con~ict "_ght rather than ~ight#[

On the other hand\ Chinese!identi_ed Hong Kongers will be most sen!sitive to policies and practices that symbolize acceptance and inclusionvis!a�!vis mainland China[ If they _nd that their expectations of assimi!lation and acceptance as full members of the Chinese ingroup are not met\one possible response is withdrawal[ Counterintuitively perhaps\ it is thisgroup that I predict would be most likely to leave China and take oppor!tunities for immigration to other countries where substantial Chinesecommunities already exist[2

The important point here is that changes in political structure createchanges in the context in which social identities are forged and take theirmeaning[ A sensitivity and respect for the fundamental social motives"inclusion and di}erentiation# that underlie social identities may be par!ticularly crucial to the success of any political transition[

REFERENCES

Bond\ M[ H[ "0876#[ Intergroup relations in Hong Kong] The Tao of stability[ In

J[ Boucher\ D[ Landis\ + K[ Arnold "Eds#\ Ethnic con~ict] International per!

spectives "pp[ 44Ð67#[ Newbury Park\ CA] Sage[

Bond\ M[ H[ "0882#[ Between the yin and the yan`] The identity of the Hon` Kon`

Chinese[ Address to the Chinese University of Hong Kong[

Bond\ M[ H[\ + Hewstone\ M[ "0877#[ Social identity theory and the perception

of intergroup relations in Hong Kong[ International Journal of Intercultural

Relations\ 01\ 042Ð069[

Bond\ M[ H[\ + King\ A[ Y[ C[ "0874#[ Coping with the threat of westernization

in Hong Kong[ International Journal of Intercultural Relations\ 8\ 240Ð253[

Brewer\ M[ B[ "0880#[ The social self] On being the same and di}erent at the same

time[ Personality and Social Psycholo`y Bulletin\ 06\ 364Ð371[

Brewer\ M[ B[\ Ho\ H[\ Lee\ J[\ + Miller\ N[ "0876#[ Social identity and social

distance among Hong Kong schoolchildren[ Personality and Social Psycholo`y

Bulletin\ 02\ 045Ð054[

2 In this connection it is particularly interesting to note that the February 0886 HKTP survey

produced the _rst evidence of emergence of a new {{overseas Chinese|| social identity among

a signi_cant portion of the Hong Kong respondents[

086Identity Transition

Gaertner\ S[ L[ "0885#[ Reducin` prejudice by inducin` a common in`roup identity[

Presentation at the European Association of Social Psychology Small Group

Meeting on Social Identity and Prejudice[ Catania\ Sicily[

Hong\ Y[\ + Chiu\ C[ "0885#[ Social identi_cation processes in the face of political

transition in Hon` Kon`] The case of 0886[ Unpublished manuscript[ The Hong

Kong University of Science and Technology[

Hong\ Y[\ Chiu\ C[\ Fu\ H[\ + Tong\ Y[ "0885#[ Effects of self!cate`orization on

inter`roup perceptions] The case of Hon` Kon` facin` 0886[ Presentation at the

Annual Convention of the American Psychological Society[ San Francisco\ CA[

Lam\ S[\ Chiu\ C[\ Lau\ I[\ + Hong\ Y[ "0885#[ Social identity of Hon` Kon`

adolescents before 0886[ Unpublished manuscript[ The University of Hong

Kong[

Lau\ I[\ Chiu\ C[\ Chau\ A[\ Ho\ D[\ Hong\ Y[\ Lam\ S[\ + Lee\ H[ "0885#[ Social

identity\ inter`roup orientation\ and inter`roup relations in transitional Hon`

Kon`[ Unpublished manuscript[ The University of Hong Kong[

Pickett\ C[\ Silver\ M[\ + Brewer\ M[ B[ "0886#[ Group identi_cation as a function

of assimilation and differentiation needs[ Unpublished manuscript[ The Ohio

State University[

Roccas\ S[ "0885#[ The effects of `roup and individual characteristics and their

interaction on identi_cation with `roups[ Unpublished dissertation[ The Hebrew

University of Jerusalem[

Turner\ J[ C[\ Hogg\ M[\ Oakes\ P[\ Reicher\ S[\ + Wetherell\ M[ "0876#[ Redis!

coverin` the social `roup] A self!cate`orization theory[ Oxford\ U[K[] Basil

Blackwell[