In-Groups

Being in a group effects others individuals causing them to stop thinking rationally, they make decisions to fit in with the rest of the group. In the article “The Monsters

The author of this piece is Dr. Gordon Allport. He is the former head of Harvard’s Department of Psychology as well as the founding father of social psychology. Allport published many books including The Nature of Prejudice (1954). The purpose of the article is to inform the audience that in-groups are everywhere and identity is based on our in-groups. This essay is an excerpt from the book The Nature of Prejudice in 1954 and is a credible source because the principles Allport discussed are still studied by psychologists and researchers today. In the essay, Allport speaks of reference groups and how it relates to in-groups. According to Allport reference groups are the group that an individual wishes to be apart of, but an in-group is

In his often cited essay, “The Formation of In-Groups,” Gordon Allport offers his theory on how the groups with which one identifies directly influence the development of one’s individual identity. An “in-group” is a group where members share common traits such as societal status, religion, values or sexual orientation. All the members are alike in some way and that similarity unites them as a group. Allport suggests that one belongs to many in-groups throughout his or her lifetime. Individuals are born into some in-groups, such as one’s family, race or socio-economic level; this Allport terms as an “ascribed status”. People also obtain “achieved status” in a group such as one’s circle

Being a part of a social group with people who I share a common identity and interact regularly with impacts me because those people who I am in a social group with expect me to match certain ways of thinking and acting within that specific group as highlighted in Chapter 6. For instance, a social group I am a part of is the SNAP Organization for nursing students, and how I think, act, and bring ideas during my conversations with my fellow nursing students are mainly associated with nursing.

When people are part of a group, they often start to deviate from their personalities, and tend to focus on the opinions and actions of the group. Groups can generate a sense of engaging energy, which can lead to behaviors that a person would not typically engage in if they were alone. People seem to believe that certain behaviors are acceptable when they are in groups that would otherwise not be acceptable if they were alone. Many people believe they cannot be held responsible for their actions when they are with a group because they see the

As a middle-class Somali-American, I have an identity that very few individuals in the United States have. As a result, I have never fit into a particular group of people. I had not realized this until college because I had always gone to small schools throughout my academic career. From elementary school to high school, I never belonged to a particular group; instead, I associated marginally with all of them due to the small class size. I had created a superficial sense of belonging with a large amount of acquaintances; however, college’s different environment exposed this superficiality immediately.

It is a primary psychological driver of children and young people to ‘belong’. Young people are compelled to identify with a particular group to satisfying their need for belonging, even if the group is at odds with another group.

The reason I chose the subject In Groups and Out Groups is the significance of how and why we view our place in society as Native American’s. The In Group is a group or member(s) that identifies with and feels loyalty to each other. As in our reference book The Real World (pg158, 159), the In Group sometimes feels hostility towards other groups known as the Out Groups. We tend to think the In Groups are based on prejudice and discrimination. In Groups are based on class, race, gender, sexual orientation, religion or political opinion, social status in the community. The Out Groups on the other hand feel opposition, rivalry, or hostility towards the In Group.

Prompt- The power to of the group is often the cause of losing our individual identity.

It is a well-known fact that belonging to a group can make an individual feel not only accepted, but more powerful that if they were on their own. Whether it is a community, youth group or even religion, belonging is an everyday occurrence of like that many of us do not even realise. Belonging to a group is more influential than belonging to an individual. We can see this in the texts The Crucible by Arthur Miller, 1984 by George Orwell and the listening task. Belonging to a group can give you a feeling of acceptance, but also can help you not to be targeted or marginalised. Also, people who appear to belong to groups, when looked at closer, in truth do not belong. Belonging to a group can also give you more power as a

In conclusion there has been evidence to show that groups have both a negative and also a positive effect on its members. It has been demonstrated that some people will cope with the negative effects in an unproductive way by changing their behaviour in way that was detrimental to the well being of themselves and its other members. However the positives can have a very powerful effect on a person in that it can promote a sense of identity, loyalty and

We as humans tend to relate to those that are similar to us, and tend to alienate those that we deem as different than us. Whether it is by race, gender, culture, or religion, it is something that is almost always present in human interactions, and often times can be completely subconscious. In our textbook Interpersonal Communication by Kory Floyd, an ingroup is defined as “A group of people with whom one identifies.” An outgroup is conversely defined as “A group of people whom one does not identify.” Henri Tajfel first coined this terminology while he was working to devise his social identity theory. These ideas of classifying people into ingroups and outgroups can lead to many

In-groups are often recreated to fit the needs of individual group members, and when the needs are strongly aggressive, the redefinition of the in-group may primarily be in terms of the hated out-groups (Allport 94). The hated out-group in terms of racial relations of whites is people of color.

Since the beginning of time it has been human nature to seek community and inclusion, over isolation and separation. We as a species have a need to belong, and it has been theorized that we are fundamentally pack animals. However our ideology of community can harm the individual, putting them at risk of becoming a drone for “higher ranking” members of the group. Lacking free thinking, and only reviewing choices or decisions as a group, limiting the individual's liberal cognitive functioning. But the group as a whole is also at risk of becoming biased, viewing other groups with different ways of thinking, life, or even as simple as skin color as inferior. This correspondingly will lead to the unfair treatment and bigotry of others, and

People who are in a group or belong to and even assigned to the group, they would naturally think of the member within that group as the in-groups while others outside the group would be the out-groups. This can be explained by social categorization. People would normally categorize other people into different categories, including themselves. And bond between the in-groups would form. This however, would develop a discrimination between the in-group and out-group where people would favor the in-group more. Social categorization can be seen in the study done by Cialdini et .al (1976). The main purpose of the study is to find out whether people would favor their own “in-group” members more than the other people, the “out-groups”. Researcher uses two methods. First, researchers find fans from 7 different large United State prestigious football universities in a field experiment. Researchers then observed the student’s