Social Identity Theory And Self Categorisation Theory Sociology Essay

accessible individualism possibleness And Self Categorisation opening Sociology Essay well-disposed individuality surmise was established by Tajfel and Turner with the aim of trying to interpret the psychological home of inter free radical discrimination. Tajfel and Turner (1979) tried to notice conditions which would lead members of a specific friendly conference to be carry in a coloured matter towards an out- free radical, in favour of the in-group which they were a member of. It is seen as a discursive approach. The main principle of cordial personal identity surmisal is that the great unwashed often categorise and define themselves and other(a)s into a subjugate of different neighborly groups and strive to insure their group valued much highly than other groups (Tajfel Turner, 1985). Consistent with Tajfel and Turners (1985) claim, it is believed, by other psychologists, that favorable identities atomic number 18 formed to bring up self-esteem and en courage a sense of certainty (McGregor, Reeshama and So-Jin, 2008). To explain the phenomenon of how individuals value themselves and others as ruin of an in-group or an out-group, well-disposed indistinguishability possible action identifies tierce mental concepts kind categorisation, tender denomination and cordial comparison (Tademir, 2011). Social categorisation relates to individuals assigning batch to favorable categories in order to sympathise and identify them (Tajfel Turner, 1979). This results in the world being divided into them and us, or an in-group and an out-group. In the second concept, affectionate denomination, sight adopt the identity of the societal group they have categorised themselves into. This also involves developing an emotional attachment to one and only(a)s identification with the group and self-esteem will be closely linked to group membership (Tajfel Turner, 1979). The final concept, fond comparison, relates to an individual comparin g the group they identify with with other groups. To retain ones self-esteem, their group must be viewed in a to a greater extent positive light than other groups (Tajfel Turner, 1979). Several psychological studies have computer backuped the feature that individuals create social categories in order to boost self-esteem. An example of this being when individuals learn that their social group is unacceptable to society, they tilt to perceive the out-group as unacceptable as well (Ford Tonander, 1998). Haslam (2001) has identified two types of strategies individuals use to boost their groups status social conflict and social creativity. Social conflict refers to the in-group undermining the social status of the out-group. This can be done in a violent manner or by way of protests. Social creativity relates to the in-group emphasising group features which they flourish on, by way of advertising these metiers. Haslam (2001) argues that when the in-group does not feel at risk an d feel their status is largely untroubled they will engage in social creativity rather than social conflict. However, when members of the in-group feel threatened they will readily engage in social conflict. A core principle of Social identicalness Theory is that ones social identity is not fixed and cannot predict ones behaviour. Instead, the context and the in-groups salience in the context decides which aspect of an individuals identity is influential in a situation. fit in to Social identity operator Theory, individuals are more than inc notationd to identify with a certain social group if they feel uncertain. Support for this claim comes from McGregor, Reeshma and So-Jin (2008). In their matter, participants were required to describe personal conflicts which were caused by unresolved personal problems (uncertainty task). In an attempt to assess out-group wear and tear, Canadian participants read statements which were critical of Canada, written by a foreign person. The extent to which the Canadian participants dis alike(p)d and disagreed with the foreigners statement was measured, providing an list of out-group derogation. Additionally, each participant completed a measure of structure requirement. McGregor, Reeshma and So-Jin (2008) effect that individuals who sought structure and clarity were more likely to show out-group derogation after completing the uncertainty task. However, this look used participants from a western sandwich country the same results may not have been generated if eastern participants took part in the study. The assumptions from these results cannot be generalised to people from different cultures. It can be argued that Social individuation Theory is effective in its claim that people have a inclineed perception of their own social group compared to other groups, that is, explaining in-group bias. Evidence of this can be seen in the results of Mullen, Brown and metalworkers (1992) study into the in-group bias hypothe sis. advance support of the claim that identity processes underlie the in-group bias is a report illustrating that members of a social group have higher(prenominal) self-esteem after engaging in discriminatory behaviour (Rubin Hewstone, 1998). Rubin and Hewstone (1998) read that people show an intergroup distinction to feel good about themselves and the social group which they identify with (Brown, 2000). Brown, Maras, Masser, Vivian and Hewstone (2001) observed that incline passengers on a ferryboat had been refused travel by the actions of French fishermen the out-group and so displayed generally less well-disposed attitudes towards French people. This supports Social individuation Theorys social comparison concept, in that the English passengers identified so strongly with their national group that they viewed the French in a negative light which in turn, resulted in them retaining their self-esteem.However, Social Identity Theory does have a number of issues which have p roved questionable when trying to method of accounting for group exercise. The theory appropriates that a positive social identity is based on positive intergroup comparisons (Brown, 2000). It does seduce sense to assume that there should be a positive correlation betwixt the strength of group identification and the level of in-group bias. This hypothesis has been tested all over the years and still remains of interest to psychologists worldwide (Brown, 2000). Subsequent psychological studies probe this correlation have shown little support for Social Identity Theory. fit to Brown (2000), 14 studies were analysed and the overall correlation surrounded by group identification and in-group bias was +0.08, and while 64% of correlations were positive, the mean correlation was not very(prenominal) strong (+0.24). It can be argued, however, that this correlation hypothesis was not in reality stated by Tajfel and Turner (1979) when they were developing the Social Identity Theo ry. It is take a crap from Social Identity Theory that people are motivated to have an in-group bias by the need to see themselves, and the group they identify, within a positive light. Thus, it can be assumed there is a causative link amidst intergroup distinction and self-esteem. Abrams and squealer (1988) summarised this concept positive in-group specialty leads to increased self-esteem and people with low self-esteem show more note in order to boost levels of self-esteem. Social Identity Theory is essentially a theory relating to group eminence, that is, how members of a specific in-group make this group distinctive from, and better than, an out-group. Therefore, groups which see themselves as equal should be keen to show intergroup differentiation (Brown, 1984). This hypothesis has been tested vigorously over the years with different results. Some studies have generated results which contradict Social Identity Theorys hypothesis Jetten, Spears and Manstead (1996) ope n up that groups that viewed themselves to hold similar attitudes and equivalent status showed more intergroup attraction and less bias then dissimilar groups (Brown, 2000). However, some studies support Social Identity Theory as they have instal that intergroup comparison does lead to intergroup differentiation especially if both groups are extremely similar (White Langer, 1999). The concept of social identity as described by Social Identity Theory could be altered by way of having a greater greater acknowledgement of the diversity of social groups that can institute ones social identity.Self-Categorisation Theory also focuses on the concept of intergroup differentiation as a function of identity (Tademir, 2011). Self-Categorisation Theory is seen as a cognitive theory of behaviour within intergroup contexts and offers explanations about the cognitive processes underlying an individuals self-categorisation and intergroup differentiation processes (Turner, 1999). The theory is s een to be a more elaborate, extended version of the pilot film Social Identity Theory (Tademir, 2011). Turner et al. (1987) argue that Self-Categorisation Theory deals with the social-cognitive basis of intergroup behaviour. Self-Categorisation Theory explains how people form a self-identity in terms of the social categories which they belong to. This also leads to people discriminating between their own course members and people in other categories. The meta-contrast principle explains this process. The meta-contrast principle explains that any number of individuals in a certain situation are likely to categorise themselves as a social group when they view differences amongst each other less than the differences between themselves and others in the same situation (Turner, 1985). For that reason, when inter-group differences are more stark than intra-group differences (high meta-contrast ratio), it is believed that people define themselves based on their membership of social group s and they differentiate between the in-group and out-group (Turner, Oakes, Haslam McGarty, 1994). Self-Categorisation Theory states that when individuals identify with a social group, they experience depersonalisation. That is, they perceive every member of their group as interchangeable on a certain level (Turner et al., 1957). Self-categorisation cognitively assimilates the individual to the in-group prototype and so depersonalises self-conception (Hogg and Terry, 2001). Therefore, it is assumed that each group member, including the individual themselves, destiny the same set and morals and so they tend to adhere to group norms (Hogg and Reid, 2006). According to Hogg and Terry (2001), this transformation of self-identity is the process which underlies group phenomena as it brings self-identification in line with the relevant in-group prototype in a certain context. Many psychologists, such(prenominal) as Simon (2004) and Deaux (1993) have challenged this assumption of deperso nalisation. A study was conducted by Swann, Gomez, Seyle, Morales and Huici (200) who found a contradiction to the assumption of depersonalisation. In their study, individuals who felt their personal and social identities were linked did not adhere to the norms of the in-group. Instead, they engaged in rebellious behaviour to protect their group even when their identity was threatened. Self-Categorisation Theory promotes the idea that when people self-categorise themselves, they tend to think of themselves more as a member of a social group, rather than as individuals. This includes them believing that they share the same characteristics associated with their group and they behave in ways that they feel members of their group should act. This process is called self-stereotyping (Mackie, Smith and Ray, 2008). As result of this, self-categorisation increases similarity in the in-group. This is because every member of the social group takes on attributes which are seen as characteristi c of the group and so every member develops identical qualities. One could argue, therefore, that Self-Categorisation Theory provides an insight into the fact that the group has become part of ones self. Support of this comes from a study by Smith and Henry (1996) who found that group members perceive themselves as like their social group.Although both theories, Self Identity Theory and Self-Categorisation Theory, are different, one could ague that they are similar to an extent. This is because both theories explore how identities are internalised and are used by individuals to define themselves. However, there are several differences between Social Identity Theory and Self-Categorisation Theory and the way in which they account for group influence. Self-Categorisation Theory focuses more on the cognitive processes of categorisation in a social context whereas Social Identity Theory offers a more discursive approach. Discursive psychologists have been critical of Social Identity The ory over the years. They criticise the theorys assumption that group conflict and differentiation is caused by a worldwide psychological process. Additionally, they feel that the theory is check as it does not have ecological validity since much of the research into the theory is conducted in Western cultures. There has been an intercultural study conducted by Wetherell (1996) who found that children who come from other cultural backgrounds do not discriminate between groups, unlike North American children. Self-Categorisation Theory does not place as much emphasis on the role of self-esteem, unlike Social Identity Theory. Social Identity Theory emphasises the process of self-categorisation into a group and Self-Categorisation Theory emphasises the process of self-stereotyping and identifying oneself based on a social group. According to Taylor and Moghaddam (1994), Self-Categorisation Theory ignores socio-structural factors and is devoid of the passion involved in real-life confl icts. The theory describes humans in the image of thinking machines. Therefore, one contrast between Social Identity Theory and Self-Categorisation Theory is that the latter can be criticised for not pay enough prudence to motivational and affective issues. One flaw of Self-Categorisation Theory is that it concentrates on identity formation in adults but no attention has been given to the development of identity in infants. There has however been research into this, using the main principles of Self-Categorisation Theory and applying it to children (Barrett, Wilson and Lyons, 1999). One could therefore argue that Self-Categorisation Theory is not efficient when it comes to explaining group influence on children. A supremacy of Social Identity Theory is that other psychologists have used its principles in an attempt to explain extremist social movements. Reicher, Haslam and Rath (2008) explained how the ideas promoted by Social Identity Theory were able to explain Nazism.In conclu sion, it is clear that both theories share similarities, but there are also a number of differences between the two. Self-Categorisation Theory has a more cognitive approach to group influence whereas Social Identity Theory has a more discursive approach. Further research into Social Identity Theory could involve people from Eastern countries to give the theory more ecological validity as currently, the bulk of studies have used Western participants. Self-categorisation theory focuses too much on the formation of identity and group influence in adults and so more research could be done on children to see if the same assumptions apply.