Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Limitations and strengths of social identity theory
Limitations and strengths of social identity theory
Cultural diversity and self awareness
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Limitations and strengths of social identity theory
As a question, ‘who am I?’ poses many complications. Each of us are aware of being someone “with a past, a present and a future…” however, it is the fact that we are not “only aware of inhabiting a distinct personal world, but also…social and cultural…” which leads to confusion. This essay will therefore explore the Psychological foundations behind the question, in regards to evidence provided by the ‘Twenty Statement Test’. Analysis of this study made it apparent that ‘the self’ could be classified into three main groups; social, relational and personal selves, with each of these being readily related to the various theoretical assumptions. This essay will examine how each of these categories seek to answer the question ‘who am I?’, as well as briefly discussing how cultural variation may influence both social and individualistic approaches to the self. The Social Identity Theory views the self as a social being, assuming that group membership and social relations play a big part in a persons individual identity. Individuals, therefore, have not just one ‘personal self’ but many ‘social selves’. It is suggested that persons behave “in terms of desire to be in groups”, as groups are “valued positively compared to non-groups”. Turner and Tajfel provide further evidence of this through their “minimal group studies” in which participants showed “in group favouritism”, deviating from fair strategies and favouring members of their own group, even in the most minimal conditions. Hence, it appears group membership is regarded very highly in terms of ones own identity and well being. However, whilst Tajfel’s study highlights social categorisation as a “distinct social identity”, it also shows a weakness in the Social Identity Theor... ... middle of paper ... ... rather than the one they suggest. References: Cousins,S.D. (1989). Culture and self-perception in Japan and the United States. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 56 (1),124-131 Haslam, S.A. (2004). Social Identity Approach . In: Psychology in organizations . 2nd ed. London: SAGE publications. 17-30. Parfit, D. (1987). Divided Minds and the Nature of Persons. In: Blakemore, C and Greenfield, S Mindwaves: Thoughts on Intelligence, Identity and Consciousness. Oxford: Basil Blakewell,. 18-26. Rodgers, W,S. (2003). Selves and Identities. In: Social Psychology: Experimental and critical approaches. Maidenhead,GB: Open University Press/McGraw Hill. 229-240. Tajfel, H. and Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-group behavior. In S. Worchel and L. W. Austin (eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Chigago: Nelson-Hall
In his 1971 paper “Personal Identity”, Derek Parfit posits that it is possible and indeed desirable to free important questions from presuppositions about personal identity without losing all that matter. In working out how to do so, Parfit comes to the conclusion that “the question of identity has no importance” (Parfit, 1971, p. 4.2:3). In this essay, I will attempt to show that Parfit’s thesis is a valid one, with positive implications for human behaviour. The first section of the essay will examine the thesis in further detail, and the second will assess how Parfit’s claims fare in the face of criticism. Problems of personal identity generally involve questions about what makes one the person one is and what it takes for the same person to exist at separate times (Olson, 2010).
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
Social identity theory can be applied to many different problems and real life situations. It demonstrates the role of categorization in behaviors, and explores how being part of a group affects social interaction in everyday life.
The intergroup theory incorporates several European social psychology theories that coordinate individual and social aspects of ones personality to the effect it has on the communication. Intergroup theory bases communication ability and quality around the social life of the participants. The theory presents several social identifications that influence an individual’s identity. As a result of the person fulfilling their own identity they eventually fall into their own common social groups. Depending on the situation and the interaction, either the individual identity or the group characteristics and reputation play a vital roll in the interaction. These groups transcend different impressions and feelings depending on who is interpreting it. The life stage, social circumstances and experiences effect how the group is interpreted by outgroup members (Turner 1982).
Stets, J. E. and Burke P. J. (2000), Identity Theory and Social Identity Theory, Social Psychology Quarterly 63(3): 224-237.
Theories are a map of a unfamiliar city, they help us understand behaviours and attitudes (Lecture Recording). The social identity theory was developed by Tafel and Turner, 1979 and refers to the intergroup relations (Text). Social identity theory is of group membership and intergroup associations based on self-categorisation, self-comparison and the ideas of shared self-definition in terms of in-group defining aspects (Text). Self-categorisation is the ordering of people as members of different social groups or nations, it provides supporters with a social identity, the in-group (Text). People identify with groups to ease uncertainty and also strive to favour themselves above relevant out-groups (Text). We construct and modify our normative
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C., (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In S. Worchel, & W. G. Austin (Ed.). Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers.
We evaluate ourselves on how we think we should feel and act according to our position within society. Principally, identity theory is a micro sociological theory that sets out to explain an individual’s role-related behaviours (Hogg, et al., 1995, p. 255). Equally, self-identity and social identity focus on the social nature of self as constituted by society, and side-step points of view that treat the nature of self as independent of the interests of our society. Social identity theory was developed and formulated in the mid to late 1970s and is a ‘social psychological theory that sets out to explain group processes and intergroup relations’
In their article “Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion, and Motivation”, Markus and Kitayama (1991) question the universality of notion of self as a “complete, whole, autonomous” (p.246) entity that is separate from others and the social contexts surrounding it' and propose that like many other concepts in psychology, it has a more complex and variable reality. They contend that anecdotes such as, in America, “the squeaky wheel gets the grease” and in Japan, “the nail that sticks up gets pounded down” are indicative of striking cross-cultural differences in construction of the self, others, and the interdependence of the two. In particular, they draw a distinction between two views of self — an independent view of self and an interdependent view of self — and argue that each of these divergent construals of self have a set of clearly defined consequences for cognition, motivation, and emotion.
According to Tajfel and Turner (1979), social identity emphasizes on intergroup social comparisons which seek to establish intergroup favouring evaluation between in-group and out-group which were motivated by an underlying need for self-esteem.
Despite the amount of studies that agree with the social identity theory, it suffers some weaknesses such as methodological considerations like having unrepresentative samples as well as the fact that this theory only favors situational factors. Also, stereotyping is a big factor that plays in the social identity theory as it is a big form of social categorization. This can also be known as schema
Tajfel H., & Turner J.C. (1986) the social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchell & W. Austin (Ed.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson Hall.
Social identity is referred to as “the ways in which individuals and collectivities are distinguished in their social relations with other individuals and collectivities” (Allen 11). These labels are established through experience as well as first impressions. A person’s social identity can tell a great deal about them. Whether these assumptions hold truth is the hesitant factor. In her article, Howard conveys, “Identities are thus strategic social constructions created through interaction with social and material consequences” (371). Social identity can lead to how one is perceived to others, which aids in grouping. When one judges, it reflects more about the person judging than the person that is being judged. In other words, “[…] individuals’ prejudices may shape not only their own identifications but also their categorization of others” (Howard 369). For example, if a person in a higher class of society judges someone for being homeless, it does not reflect on the homeless person’s characteristics as strongly as it does the person in the higher
Stryker (1980) describes identity theory as a micro- sociological theory that links self attitudes or identities to the role- related behavior of individuals. It takes into account individual role relationships and identity variability, motivation and differentiation. This implies that my behavior in any of the two groups was dependant on shared responses and behavioral expectations emerging from social interactions. Exchange theory further supports my interaction with two sets of students as it views commitment as being influenced by repeated exchange agreement, which generate emotional connection among group members in the form of satisfaction (Lawler & Yoon
To begin with, it is at first necessary to understand the meaning of social identity in the context of this paper. Social identity of a person is his identity or his essence in the society. It depends on how his personality is perceived by the society and what he thinks about his own self. External factors affect the identity of a person to a very great extent. It may cause changes that may be positive or negative. It is immensely important to note that social identity of a group or a person is not created in isolation. In this paper we are concerned with the social identity of people as a community.