Identity frames illustrate the various ways in which people view themselves or the social groups to which they belong, in the context of specific conflict situations. The concept of identity addresses the question, "Who am I?"

The concept of identity frames is an important one, because it allows one to analyze how individuals’ identity and group affiliation influence how they view and respond to conflict. Because we tend to protect the parts of our identity that help create our sense of self (beliefs, values, group affiliations, etc.), we tend to perceive other groups or individuals who promote decisions that negatively impact one of these characteristics of our identity as a potential threat to our sense of self.

When individuals’ identities are threatened or challenged through conflict situations, they tend to respond in ways that reinforce their allegiance to their identities. Identity frames function to “crop” information and perspectives that do not align with – or perhaps contradict – features of an individual’s core identity. In such situations, participants tend to view the conflict in ways that align with and do not threaten their identities, and therefore tend to reject or dismiss those perspectives that do threaten their identities.

Where Identity Frames Come From

Identity frames are created in a number of ways, and are influenced by multiple factors. Individuals’ understanding of their core beliefs, values, and sense of self influences how they will respond in a conflict situation. Often, people see themselves as advocates of a particular set of values (environmentalism, conservation, freedom, equality), and frame the conflict based on how proposed solutions to a particular problem or conflict advance one or more of a particular set of interests.

Group Identification: The different groups with which individuals are affiliated also influence their orientation toward the conflict and toward other parties involved. For example, when deciding whether to support new legislation calling for mandatory prayer in public schools, one’s identity as a fundamentalist Christian would result in a more favorable frame toward the policy. Such a person would likely frame the conflict through the values of their church community, rather than through the values of personal choice or preference. This framing, in turn, influences how the individual will consider the merits of opposing arguments and positions on the conflict. When people view themselves as a part of a larger group, position, institution, or set of values, they will behave in ways that protect these parts of their identity.

Social / Institutional Roles: One’s role in society (such as student, parent, friend, activist, victim, guardian, relative, boss, employee, etc.) can dramatically influence one’s framing of a conflict situation. In turn, each of these societal roles can influence the options we see as being available. For example, when considering options for relocating students in a school attendance zone redistribution plan, how we frame the ensuing dispute depends on our particular social and institutional role. As a parent, a person may view the dispute in terms of how the outcome would affect their children or perhaps their ability to parent. School administrators may be more interested in how the outcome would affect teachers or the overall budget of the school system. As an employee, one may be more interested in how this redistribution would affect their employment status. Based on our different roles, we will see and respond to (frame) the dispute differently, based on the needs and interests of our particular role. Role conflict may occur when two of our roles interfere (perhaps our roles as parent and administrator).

Our institutional affiliation (logger, rancher, federal employee, state house representative, mayor, president of a chemical company, director of an environmental organization, etc.) may also facilitate or inhibit particular ways of looking at a conflict. For example, as a politician, a person may evaluate first and foremost how the outcome of a particular dispute (or even the processes they used to address the conflict) may influence their ability to become re-elected. In this case, the politician would make choices based on a frame that considers only those behaviors that make for "good politics." A sound solution may not be considered because the “politician frame” did not allow this option to come into the politician's view.

Place-Based Identities: in conflict situations where locale or place is an important feature of the conflict, many identity statements answer the question, "Who am I?" in relation to a particular place, neighborhood, region, county, city, or street. This place-based group affiliation can influence how an individual will respond to the conflict as various alternatives impact that particular place. For example, when a new land use zoning initiative was implemented in a rural area due to encroaching growth from the larger surrounding city, the rural residents rallied together to oppose any form of zoning or land use restrictions. Because of their "rural county resident" group identity frame, they viewed most county-initiated zoning plans negatively, because they felt that these initiatives introduced "city values" to this rural area. Because of their rural identity, they viewed city initiatives with suspicion.

Additional Resources:

Lewicki, Roy J., Barbara Gray, and Michael Elliott. Making Sense of Intractable Environmental Conflicts: Concepts and Cases. Island Press, 2003.

Davis, Craig B. and Roy J. Lewicki. "Environmental Conflict Resolution: Framing and Intractability- An Introduction." Environmental Practice. Vol. 5, No. 3. September, 2003.

Wondolldeck, B. Gray and T. Bryan. "Us versus Them: How identities and Characterizations Influence Conflict. Environmental Practice. Vol. 5, No. 3. September, 2003.