Social Identity Theory posits that we derive part of our self-conception—our internal sense of who we are as individuals—from the groups to which we belong, those we would like to be associated with, and those from which we feel excluded or choose to exclude ourselves.
So according to this psychological framing, our self-identity is partially shaped by the people we surround ourselves with, those we feel are bad or evil (or just not as good as members of our group), and the collection of ideas, symbols, and relationships associated with these groups (those to which we belong, and those we oppose or which we feel oppose us).
Within this framework, an “Identity Threat” is something that challenges or threatens the group we belong to, elevates a group we don’t like, miscategorizes us, flattens our group(s), or something which implicitly or explicitly places us in a hated group or excludes us from a group to which we feel we belong.
Some of these threats are relatively straightforward: if we belong to a political party and there’s a commercial that says our party’s platform is bad or wrong, we might feel a pang of irritation, disdain, or even hatred because of this challenge to a group we use to help shape our self-identity.
Similarly, if someone brings up a talking point about guns or immigration or some other hot-button issue that opposes our own (often group-derived) talking points on the matter, we may feel a surge of adrenaline and internally prepare for a fight, because that conversation might seem, on an emotional level, like an inter-community conflict—Us versus Them—rather than just a neutral exchange of words.
There’s another type of identity threat that’s less obvious, but also potentially quite impactful.
If we’re in a discussion about a controversial topic and someone we disagree with treats us as if we’re on their side, this can feel hurtful or aggressive because of the implication that we don’t belong to the groups we feel we belong to.
We might feel the same if it seems like we’re being portrayed as two-dimensional, caricaturized people in the eyes of others because of our group affiliations.
So someone assuming we’re of a different faith or political alignment or economic class, or even someone assuming we listen to a different genre of music than we prefer could put us on the defensive, not because it matters that they assume we listen to hip hop but we actually almost exclusively listen to country, but because it can feel like a challenge to our sense of belonging, and consequently shake the foundations of our identity (possibly, in turn, causing us to go on the defensive against an implication the other person may not have realized they were making).
There’s evidence that some arguments and interpersonal conflicts that stand in the way of collaboration may be tied to identity threats, as one of the involved parties may feel their masculinity has been challenged or that they’ve been somehow mis-categorized against their will (a “Categorization Threat”), which can make working with people with whom we have shared interests but different perceptual groups difficult or impossible.
This is just one of many possible ways of thinking about groups and identity and belonging, but this framing can be helpful when assessing how we define ourselves, internally, and when looking at the sorts of things that make us feel uncomfortable and even angry in otherwise calm and conflict-less interactions.