Social identitycognitive and motivational basis of intergroup differentiation.
Social identity is different from personal identity, which is derived from personal characteristics and individual relationships.
Social Identity Theory was developed by Henri Tajfel and Scott Turner in 1979. The theory was originally developed to understand the psychological basis of intergroup discrimination. Tajfel et al (1971) attempted to identify the minimal conditions that would lead members of one group to discriminate in favor of the ingroup to which they belonged and against another outgroup.
Core Assumptions
In the Social Identity Theory, a person has not one, “personal self”, but rather several selves that correspond to widening circles of group membership.
Different social contexts may trigger an individual to think, feel and act on basis of his personal, family or national “level of self” (Turner et al, 1987).
Apart from the “level of self”, an individual has multiple “social identities”. Social identity is the individual’s self-concept derived from perceived membership of social groups (Hogg & Vaughan, 2002).
In other words, it is an individual-based perception of what defines the “us” associated with any internalized group membership. This can be distinguished from the notion of personal identity which refers to self-knowledge that derives from the individual’s unique attributes.
Tajfel and Turner (1979) identify three variables whose contribution to the emergence of ingroup favoritism is particularly important. A) the extent to which individuals identify with an ingroup to internalize that group membership as an aspect of their self-concept. B) the extent to which the prevailing context provides ground for comparison between groups. C) the perceived relevance of the comparison group, which itself will be shaped by the relative and absolute status of the ingroup. Individuals are likely to display favoritism when an ingroup is central to their self-definition and a given comparison is meaningful or the outcome is contestable.
Social Identity Theory asserts that group membership creates ingroup/ self-categorization and improvement to favor the in-group at the expense of the out-group. Studies by of Turner and Tajfel (1986) showed that the mere act of individuals categorizing themselves as group members was sufficient to lead them to display ingroup favoritism. After being categorized of a group membership, individuals seek to achieve positive self-esteem by positively differentiating their ingroup from a comparison outgroup on some valued dimension.
This quest for positive distinctiveness means that people’s sense of who they are is defined in terms of ‘we’ rather than ‘I’.
When we belong to a group, we are likely to derive our sense of identity, at least in part, from that group. We also enhance the sense of identity by making comparisons with out-groups.
ExampleS
Jane Elliot minimal groups
Sherif and Sherif (Robber’s Cove)
Schoolboys were assigned to groups, which were intended as meaningless as possible. They were assigned randomly, excluding roles of interpersonal discrimination such as history of conflict, personal animosity or interdependence. The schoolboys assigned points to anonymous members of both their own group and the other group. Conclusions were that even the most minimal conditions were sufficient to encourage ingroup-favoring responses. Participants picked a reward pair that awarded more points to people who were identified as ingroup members. In other words, they displayed ingroup favoritism.
Breakwell (1978) studied teenage soccer fans, some of whom went to most games, whilst others did not go to games. Those who did not go to games were the most vehement about their loyalty and showed most in-group bias, presumably as they had a greater need to prove themselves as fans.
When you are in Paris you are never so American
When abroad, especially in countries which have particularly different languages and cultures, we feel our nationality far more keenly than when we are at home. We will tend to band together in national groups, perhaps making comments about the strangeness of the natives.
Discuss
|
|
