“Evaluate Social Identity Theory making reference to specific studies”
Social Identity Theory (SIT) (1971), introduced by Henri Tajfel, states that individuals attempt to enhance their self-image by improving their self-esteem, either based on their personal identity or diverse social identities. The theory is based on four concepts including social categorization, social identity, social comparison and positive distinctiveness and has been used to explicate social phenomena such as stereotyping, conformity, in-group favoritism and ethnocentrism. This essay will highlight the strengths and the limitations of the social identity theory in reference to Robber’s Cave Experiment (Sherif 1961) and Tajfel’s Minimal Group Paradigm (1970) and additionally,
…show more content…
In this case, the individual may portray in-group favoritism and a pattern of discrimination with the out-group. The next SIT concept is social identification, where we adopt the identity of the group we have categorized ourselves into (our in-group) and adopt some of their values and behaviors. Having a positive social identity enhances our self-esteem and this partially contributes to our personal identity. Furthermore, social comparison is comparing our in-group with an out-group of similar status in order to establish superiority and positive distinctiveness where the in-group is made more socially valued and preferable to the out-group. Discrimination against the out-group enhances self-esteem and a positive social identity is attained through social …show more content…
She carried out focus-group interviews and used her group of friends so personal and upsetting issues could be discussed respectfully and empathetically. She understood that people in Brixton did not believe in the negative representation associated with the town, instead, they found it to be a very nice place to live and praised the people of Brixton. However, the social representation of the people in that town influenced who the girls made friends with, their habits, the relationship with the police as well as job opportunities. The studied explicitly portrayed in-group favoritism since the girls within the town, in-group, thought of it as a good area, while those in the out-group didn’t. Additionally, the study illustrates how positive and negative stereotypes contribute to social identity. Some limitations of the experiment are that the focus-group interviews may not have been absolutely honest since the girls knew each other and were of the same social group. Also, the participants could have depicted the social desirability effect where they could act in a certain way because they knew they were being observed. Similarly, they could have practiced conformity to not seem like an
The social identity theory is a person’s sense of who they are based on their social
Dilemmas with identity is a discussion that will persist in both formal and informal settings. The ability to understand the complexity of identity is crucial for creating an environment in which people will no longer dismiss or overlook others, leading them to question the validity of their identity. An improved social environment is also needed to cease the categorizing, labeling, and generalizing of minority groups, and to understand the different methods of analyzing our own
Tajifel, H. a. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-group behavior. Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/258189
People go through many obstacles when they face their social identity. Some can overcome their differences, but others may not have they change to even face them due to the treatment that they get from society. Social identity is the one of many controversial and complex problems that many individuals deal with. Because, sometimes it used to be misunderstood making reference to racism and/or others complex matters. “On Being a Cripple” and “How It Feels to Be Colored” are two essays in which both characters suffer from some kind of discrimination. Indeed, in “How It Feels to Be Colored Me” by Zora Neale Hurston and “On Being a Cripple” by Nancy Mairs, each author shows different attitude, endures challenges, and change toward social identity.
When we think about our identity we often think about the way we look. Such features as hair color, eye color, skin tone, height and weight come to mind. Whilst these features are part of our identity, there are many more complex factors that make us who we are. Whilst psychological issues are paramount to the formation of our identity, I will be addressing the nature of our identity in relation to socio-cultural factors (Austin, 2002, p.9). During the course of this essay I will be discussing the term of Identity and some of the axes of identity, including Race, Class and Gender. It is important to understand some of the significant issues of identity so that we have more of an understanding of who and what we are, which in turn may help us to begin to better understand others.
Social identities and factors and/or experiences that have shaped your worldview. My Ethnic and cultural traditions and values have molded my social identities, in which both my Ethnic and cultural traditions and values and social identities have formed my worldview. According to my social identity wheel: My race is Asian/Pacific Islander and Filipino American. My ethnicity is Filipino. My sexual orientation is heterosexual. My religion is Roman Catholic. My age is of a young adult. I am a female. My national origin is the United States of America. My sense of who I am is based on my ethnic group that I have identified myself to belong in.
Racial Identity Theory consists of five assumptions: Every member of society belongs to one or more groups of people; Belonging to a group influences a person’s worldview; The United States is a race centered society and operates on a hierarchy of racial groups; A racist social environment influences the process of racial identity development; As one develops socially, one grapples with racial identity (Brown et al., 1996; Helms, 1984, 1990, 1995; Parker, 1998; Ponterotto, 1993; Pope-Davis & ...
In the Social Identity Theory(SIT), TT, looked at inter groups relations from an identity perspective. They claimed, layered on top, beside and underneath inter group conflict is identity issues. Therefore, group identity becomes a psychological engine that allows us to understand how group conflict emerges. In this essay I will focus on 3 concepts SIT suggests. The first social comparison and distinctiveness are concepts which give insights about person’s psychology in his group’s affect on it. For gay people, it is obvious that they are not in a helathy place with these 2 concepts. After I talk about instability which is a cognitive alternative that shows gays that their relative position in the society can be changed. Later, I talk about 5 stage model which incorporates macro and micro to explain intergroup relations. I
The Social Identity theory (SIT) was proposed by Henry Tajfel. It was then later developed by Tajfel and Turner in 1971 to help them understand inter group relations. The Social Identity theory assumes that individuals strive to improve their self-image by trying to enhance their self-esteem, through social (in and out groups) and personal identities. There are 4 main concepts within the social identity theory all of which will be discussed in the essay.
Some suggest that the self-categorization theory that is imbedded within the Social Identity Theory is invalid. In the 1970s, empirical research was conducted to prove self-categorization theory, however, most fell up short. Apparently, many researchers couldn’t provide a consistent correlation between ingroup identification and ingroup bias; this also meant the self-categorization theory was inconsistent with the Social Identity Theory (Hornsey, 2008). However, others argue that the self-categorization theory is too broad and powerful to be proven false (Hogg & Williams
Wright Mills suggests the social identity of a person must be considered as a compilation of their individual and collective identities. Leaning on theories by Erving Goffman and Anthony Giddens, Jenkins (2004) suggests that the human world can be understood as three distinct ‘orders’: the individual order which is concerned with the self; the interaction order which is concerned with relationships; and the institutional order which denotes the human world of pattern and organisation. Thus identity can be explained as a person’s conception and expression of themselves as an individual as well as their perception of wider identities such as ethnicity, religion, nationality, social class, sexuality etc. In this way, identity is both characteristic of the individual but also to the culturally identical group that has its members sharing the same cultural identity. By assigning ourselves to various social identities, it is theorised that this is the very basis of prejudice and hate crime. This identification leads people to view their social group as superior to other social groups, and since all groups form and develop in the same way conflict can emerge out of the resulting clash of social perceptions (Tajfel cited in Hall, 2013). In this way we can begin to understand how some identities become targets of hate
In all aspects of their lives we associate with various groups, for example demographic, cultural or peer groups. Social Identity theory developed by Henri Tajfel in 1979 explains how people develop a sense of belonging and membership in particular groups. This theory explains behaviors in terms of social groups, we form social groups and create perceptions of others and ourselves that are influenced by the various groups to which we belong. A social group is a set of individuals who hold a common social identification or view themselves as members of the same social category (Chen & Li, 2009). Individuals can have multiple, co-occurring identities which could vary. This paper aims to explain how the Social Identity theory is used to explain violence and prejudice behavior and it also looks at the advantages and disadvantages of this theory compared to other theories in explaining the same behavior.
The question ‘who am I?’ raises speculations about who we are as human beings and why we behave the way we do. This is of great interest to social psychologists. One particular theory about this social identity is that it is not fixed or innate but that it is something that changes over time and is constructed through our social interactions with other people. This essay will explicate the idea of socially constructed identities and consider the evidence for and against this view with examples of research studies from both social constructionism (Phoenix, 2007) and Social Identity Theory (SIT) (Turner and Brown, 1978).
In conclusion, social identity theory suggests that intergroup members will discriminate the out-group to increase their own self-image. There are four main concepts in the theory and they are supported by studies such as Cialdini et al. and Tajfel. The theory has both strengths such as it is supported by large amount of research and it demonstrates the roles of social categorization in intergroup behaviours but also limitations such as aim of the theory to favour situational factors rather than dispositional factors is not supported by evidence and that self-esteem hypothesis is not longer central to social identity theory. Therefore, social identity theory can be used to explain how we from our individual and group identities in terms of “in” and “out” groups. It can also be used to explain why prejudice exists in all human societies.
Burke, P.J. & Stets, J.E. (2000). Identity Theory and Social Identity Theory. Social Psychology Quarterly 63(3), 224-237