User:Cokelley710/Identity management theory

'''Note to reviewers: Text in Italics is my additions. Text in normal font is original from page. Text with strike through is original from page, but I propose to delete.'''

= Identity Management Theory = Identity management theory ( also frequently referred to as IMT) is an intercultural communication ''theory first published in the 1990s as a heuristic framework to aid in understanding how cultural identities are negotiated throughout an interpersonal relationship. IMT was conceptualized based on the idea that intercultural competence allows for the negotiation of cultural identities in order for relational partners to develop their own ways of behaving competently within the relationship.  For the purposes of IMT, competency in communication is defined as requiring effective and appropriate behavior which mutually satisfies both members of the partnership. This competency is achieved as individuals negotiate mutually acceptable identities within the relationship.'' To understand IMT, it is important to be familiar with Cupach and Imahori's view of identities. Among the multiple identities which an individual possesses, cultural and relational identities are regarded as essential to IMT. ''For the purposes of IMT, the most important identities that need to be negotiated are the cultural identities that each individual identifies with, and the relational identity that the partners create throughout the development of their relationship from initial stages of acquaintance through commitment. The relationship that is developed between the partners reflects the individual partners’ distinct cultural expectations for competence.''

Identity Management Theory was developed to apply to pairs and is not meant to address group relations. Although developed as an intercultural communication theory, ''IMT is not only applicable to intercultural relationships across nationalities. Instead, cultural identity (such as nationality, ethnicity, regional background, social class, sexual orientation, race, etcetera) is a factor in communication across many types of relationships and thus can be applicable for IMT.''

Background
''Identity Management Theory was developed in the early 1990s by Tadasu Todd Imahori and William R. Cupach. Their theory was heavily influenced by several preceding theories: Identity Negotiation Theory, which is the process through which people define themselves within their relationships; Cultural Identity Theory, which refers to a person’s acceptance and belonging in a particular culture or group; and symbolic interactionism which is a frame of reference to understand how individuals use symbols to create meaning within their relationships.''

Additionally, IMT uses the work of It was developed by William R. Cupach and Tadasu Todd Imahori on the basis of Erving Goffman's Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior (1967). Erving Goffman is an author off of which the originators of IMT based their theory. Goffman was a well-known sociologist and writer and the most cited sociologist from his writings because of what he studied in communication. Among the six essays that make up Goffman's book, the first essay shows an individual's self-image while engaging in communicating with another individual. The author explained that the self-image that is obtained during interacting is not permanent and has a large social influence. The image someone gets in a social setting is than then expected for the future. The risk of changing self-image in a social context will alter how the individual feels about oneself. The author was implying that oftentimes the defense mechanism is to retract from showing your self to much in a social setting so others do not see them in a displeasing way. The idea of the

Cupach and Imahori distinguish between intercultural communication (speakers from different cultures) and intracultural communication (speakers sharing the same culture). Intercultural verses intracultural communication varies significantly. Intercultural communication is based on a much greater scheme of things. This type of communication refers to a group of people that differ in backgrounds, whether that is religion, ethnic, education, or social backgrounds. Intercultural communication looks at how the world is viewed, how messages are interpreted, and how differing cultures react to situations [Communication]. On the contrary, intracultural communication discusses how people of the same background interact with one another.

identity management theory uses the ideas of Goffman to help establish what the idea behind the theory is trying to get at.

Face and Facework
Imahori and Cupach use Goffman’s ideas of Face as an expression of identity and Facework as the actions we carryout to preserve our Face. Cupach and Imahori claim that presenting one's face shows facets of an individual's identity. Whether an interlocuter is able to maintain face or not, reveals his or her interpersonal communication competence. ''Face is the reflection of people’s relational and cultural identities. Each person’s socially situated identity is referred to as his/ her face. Positive Face refers to the desire of acceptance and approval from others. To have regard for a person’s positive face is to show that they are considered likable and worthy of friendship. Negative face refers to a person’s desire for autonomy and freedom from imposition. To have regard for one’s negative face is shown through avoiding intrusive and constraining actions. Face-threatening act is when a person engages in behavior that is contradictory to his own, or to another’s face needs.''

''Effective Identity Management is achieved through Facework. Facework is the variety of devices that a communicator uses to try to manage threats to their own or someone else’s negative or positive face. Effective facework supports smooth and enjoyable interactions rather than disruptive and distressing interactions.''

Face Problematics
Imahori and Cupach identify four face problematics, or face-threatening categories of behaviors:

Identity Freezing ''happens when cultural identities are constrained because of stereotype or being seen only as a person with a specific cultural identity. An example of Identity Freezing can be seen in'' the use of stereotypes in intercultural conversations often results from the ignorance of each other's culture; the application of stereotypes, however, is face threatening. Being able to manage the resulting tensions, is part of intercultural communication competence.

Nonsupport problematic ''happens when people’s cultural identities are ignored and experience threats to their positive face. An example of the non-support problematic is seen in racial color blindness.''

Self-other face dialectic ''occurs when there is a dialectical tension between supporting one’s own face versus the partner’s face related to their cultural identities. An example of the self-other face dialectic may occur when a couple plans for a marriage. Each partner must decide what traditions from their own cultural background they would like to include in the ceremony, even if it is at the expense of the traditions of their partner’s culture. ''

Positive-negative face dialectic ''occurs when there is a dialectic tension between supporting the partner’s positive or negative face. An example of this dialectic may occur when a friend of one culture invites a friend of another culture to dinner. The host must decide if s/he will prepare a dish from the other friend’s culture. This act may be seen as supporting the positive face, as it is meant to show acceptance of the other’s background. However, this act could also be perceived as negative face threatening if it is seen as stereotyping about what the friend must always eat. ''

''There are many different facework strategies that people use to negotiate these problematics within relationships. Strategies include laughing off an issue, shifting the focus of the conversation from something problematic to something useful, apologizing, or avoiding certain topics all together.In a 1993 study, Imahori and Cupach showed that strategies used for overcoming face-threatening can be bound within a culture. Imahori looked at remediation strategies for “saving face” among US Americans and Japanese. They found that US Americans were more likely to use humor in embarrassing face-threatening situations, while Japanese were more likely to use apology as remediation.''

Stages of Intercultural Relationships based on IMT
Imahori and Cupach identified three stages of intercultural relationships based on unique features of identity management in each phase:

''Trial Stage- Trial stage is defined within the initial stages of the relationship. In this stage cultural identities seen as different and salient. These differences seen as a barrier to the communication and relationship development. The partners may either decide that the differences are insurmountable and end the relationship, or they may continue the relationship by basing their interactions around commonalities. Partners find commonalities through a trial and error approach. Trial and error approach is also used to find boundaries for each other’s face supports and face threats.''

''Enmeshment Stage- Once partners have found commonalities upon which to base their interactions, the increased result in a convergence of symbols and rules for their relationship. Partners will begin to build special meaning around symbolic systems that hold value to the relationship (nicknames, special meeting places, songs). During this stage, individual’s cultural identities are de-emphasized while focusing on developing a relational identity.''

''Renegotiation Stage- This stage is characterized by an increased ability of partners to work out face problematics and dialectics based on a shared relational identity. Relational identity becomes a newly shared interpretive framework where cultural identities are an asset to the relationship, rather than a relational barrier. The relationship will have its own set of rules and symbols which hold meaning specifically to the partners. In this phase, partners can now deal directly with cultural differences that were avoided during enmeshment stage.''

''Stages are sequential, but pace is unique to each relationship. Also, stages can be repeated as partners discover new areas of cultural identity differences.''

For becoming competent in developing intercultural relationships, the following three phases have to be passed:

1.  "trial and error": act of looking for similar aspects in certain identities.

2.  "mixing up" the communicators' identities to achieve a relational identity acceptable for both participants

3.  renegotiating the distinctive cultural identities with the help of the relational identity that was created in phase 2

Cupach and Imahori call these phases "cyclical" as they are gone through by intercultural communicators for each aspect of their identities.

. I thought it was interesting that there was not a Wikipedia page discussing this concept. It is very important to compare and contrast intercultural communication to understand the similarities and differences. With little research conducted on intracultural communication, I am unable to correlate the two types of communication.

The last concept to expand on is identity. Identity is directly connected with the identity management theory since it helps define what this theory is trying to explain. Even though identity is a very broad topic, I will discuss personal identity through the lens of the individual, which will than effect its social identity. Identity is said to be the "distinct personality of an individual" identity. Identity can be the view that people hold about themselves. Also, identity is the perception that people hold about themselves in a social setting. Identity has many subtopics that distinguish why this theory is specific and different from other identity theories. Specific characteristics explain how people feel about themselves as an individual and in a social setting.

Application
''Imhori and Cupach themselves conducted experiments to test their theory. They focused their research on how facework strategies were associated with relational identity, relationship types and symbolic and rule convergence. They found that the higher the significance of the relational identity the more dyads would employ mutual positive face supports, and the less developed the relationship, the more likely the couples were to use mutual negative face support (via avoidance). This supports the stages that they laid out as part of the theory.''

Additional studies have applied Identity Management Theory to various relational contexts.

In Intercultural Friendships

''P.-W. Lee used Identity Management Theory to look at the stages and transitions of relational identity formation in intercultural friendship, where the intercultural difference looked at was nationality. Lee interviewed friendship partners where the partners were from different countries and asked them questions about how they met and became friends. Lee found that there are seven distinct activity groups that influence relational identity within intercultural friendships. These include helping behaviors (i.e., giving help, doing favors, and providing support, advice); engaging in joint activities where rules and roles emerge (i.e. sports, games); self-disclosure; networking; exploring cultures and languages; emphasizing similarities and exploring differences; and conflict/conflict management. From these Lee demonstrated that conflict management was the most influential factor for relationship identity development.''

In Interfaith Marriages

''Similar to Lee, Laura V. Martinez, Stella Ting-Toomey and Tenzin Dorjee looked at intercultural relationship development in relation to Identity Management Theory, however, in this study, Martinez, Ting-Toomey and Dorjee interviewed married couples who reside in the USA, where the partners hold different religious beliefs. Their findings support the assumptions of IMT. They found that in the trial stage,intercultural relational partners tend to overlook their differences and focus instead on their relational identity. Most interviewees suggested that an effective way for relational partners to overlook their differences was focus on the commonalities between both religions instead of the differences. Furthermore, the study revealed that interfaith marital couples would attempt to co-create (renegotiate) a value system that included both partners’ core moral and spiritual values, thereby creating a shared relational identity. Additionally, the researchers found that there were two distinct times in their relationship that challenged their relational identity the most. The first was the wedding ceremony, and the second was in child rearing. In both of these life events, the cultural religious identity that each individual member held needed to be managed within the relational identity.''

In non-mononormative relationships

''In Transitions in Polyamorous Identity and Intercultural Communication, interactions of individuals who are polyamorous within a mononormative society are treated as a type of intercultural communication due to the differing cultural identities and communication rules. Through this study, the researchers found evidence of Identity Freezing as described by Imatori and Cupach when participants communicated their polyamorous identity. The study confirmed the stages of trial, enmeshment and renegotiation in the intercultural context of sexuality. Furthermore this study highlighted the conflicts that have to be overcome when one culture holds dominance over the other in society.''

Critique
''While there is substantial research found on identity management strategies within communication literature, this should not be confused with Identity Management Theory (IMT). Identity Management strategies focus on a how a person negotiates his own personal identity within individual or group contexts. Identity Management Theory (IMT) focuses specifically on the negotiation of cultural identity within a relational context. ''

''The lack of research using IMT is the most pervasive critique in the literature about the theory. Imahori and Cupach admit themselves that there is little research done using this theory. Additionally, in his 2008 article, P.-W. Lee agrees that there is not enough research on the topic, and also argues that there is little evidence supporting the stages of IMT as laid out by Imahori and Cupach. Table, B., Sandoval, J. and Weger, H’s article published in 2017 is the only additional article since 2008 published specifically referring to IMT but does not list any critiques of the theory. All references to IMT in this article are from 2008 or prior. This demonstrates the dearth of research on IMT within the past decade.''

Lee also posits that additional research is needed to assess how a relationship transitions from one stage to the next (i.e. from Trial to Enmeshment and from Enmeshment to Renegotiation) as the theory only lays out the stages, but does not talk about the influential acts that move a relationship from one stage to the next. '' As IMT is based on an interactional approach to relational identity development, it is important to think about the interactions that move a relationship from one phase to the next. Also, as IMT is said to be sequential, but may be experienced repeatedly and cyclically, it is important to also identify the interactions that spur relational transition back to a previous stage of IMT.''

Lee also argues that IMT ignores third parties such as friendship groups or social networks. ''Relationships do not form in a vacuum; outside influences from family, peer groups and other networks affect the relationship development. Particularly in a relationship where partners come from different cultures, there could be outside influence to uphold cultural expectations outside of the relationship that, in turn, affect the dynamics of the relationship as well. Better understanding of the network affect on relationships would inform IMT as it seeks to understand cultural identity negotiation within relationships. ''

Identity management strategies[edit]

Social identity theory suggests that individuals and groups use different identity management strategies to cope with threatened identities. In a study conducted in Northern Ireland five identity management strategies were tested to see the effects of the person's identity in light of other people. The five strategies included

1.  Individualization

2.  Social competition

3.  Change of comparison dimensions

4.  Temporal comparisons

5.  Subordinate re-categorization

The five strategies previously listed can further be separated into two subgroups depending on the style of how they are manifested. These two subgroups are:

 Individual strategies 

·        Individualization

·        Subordinate re-categorization

 Collective strategies 

·        Social competition

·        Change of comparison dimensions

·        Temporal comparisons

See also [edit]

·        cf. Identity management