Social Identity Theory And Social Interaction Theory Essay

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.

Society has a way of making assumptions based on one’s physical characteristics. Often at times we categorize individuals to a particular social group. In regard to society’ perception of an individual this however, contributes to the development of social construction of racism. Most people want to be identified as individuals rather than a member of specific social group. As a result, our social identity contains different categories or components that were influenced or imposed. For example, I identify as a, Jamaican, Puerto Rican and a person of color. I identify racially as a person of color and ethically as Jamaican and Puerto Rican. According to Miller and Garren it’s a natural human response for people to make assumptions solely

It is quite uncomfortable and difficult for me to have a discussion about my social identity because I do not identify myself with a specific group of people. I consider myself an open member of our global society. Even though I was born into a Polish household and raised amongst first generation Americans, I do not necessarily identify as a Pole, American, or Polish-American. Technically, I am a Polish American since I was born in America and raised by Polish parents, but that does not necessarily mean that I identify as a "Polish American." If I were to identify myself as one, I would feel as though my identity would be limited to Polish and American cultural and social values. I am not a book that can be neatly and properly stored on

For example, a female individual who believes in feminism will most likely identify higher with a group of feminists than a group of females that are ant-feminist. This strength in social identification leads to in-group favouritism whereby members see the members of their group in a positive manner and see members of other groups in a negative or denigrative manner (Swann Jr et al., 2009). Through the process of depersonalisation. self-categorisation and group membership, an individual develops a social identity that serves as a social cognitive schema for behaviours that are related to the group (Korte, 2007; Swann Jr et al., 2009).

While we are often unaware of it, Forsyth argues, that our performance and motivation can be directly linked to the groups we have chosen to associate with, which can have a significant impact on the development of our identity and future decisions. The author discusses different social theories that can relate to our understanding of group

Language is the potent tool by which a community constructs and defines its sociopolitical agenda; it is the lens through which a people’s history and culture is viewed; a devise that is used both as a controlling as well as a rewarding tool. Largely, it aligns the beliefs of its subjects even as it defines their worldview. While many studies have been done to understand obsequiousness,

Social identity is a theory which explains how people develop a sense of belong and membership to a group. Individual’s social identity is part of their self-concept which derives from their knowledge of their membership of a social group together with the emotional significance attached to that membership (Forsyth, 13). People are influenced on the group they belong to. Belonging to the in-group makes a person feel good because they belong somewhere in this group and allows them to feel important. The out-group is where people feel to be, they do not belong to a group and have feeling of exclusion and are often times treated more harshly than someone who belongs to the ingroup. This bias of favoring the ingroup relative to the outgroup leads to false impressions being made and stereotypes forming. Stereotypes help us navigate the world around us by providing a quick representation of what we think a person is like. This does not mean our perceptions are always correct and occasionally, this quick mental shortcut can get us into trouble. For example, the film 12 Angry Men stereotyping was rampant among the jury. When a stereotype is used it can cause a disruption of procedures. Instead, of inspecting all the evidence with an objective eye a bias can allow for systematic

Further, identity is constructed by drawing boundaries: One boundary that is the same as others and one that is different from everyone else. Self-categorization is the first classification in which one identifies with the characteristics shared by those with whom one psychologically belongs. This is referred to “identifying as”, connoting a perceived self-location in a group. This self-identification can be based on a number of things, such as biology, culture, religion, and ethnicity, and can be both optional and imposed. The second classification is “identification with”, which underscores the potential significance of shared values, often outside of those that are sociologically similar. This also entails learning a group’s defining customs, expectations, and values, and making them one’s own. These core values and ideas make up the third component of identity, which is content. The unique content of a group identity is socially constructed because it is these consensual decisions that shape and reinforce the accepted criteria for membership in the group. While social identities are not automatically political, they can be politicized when

The social identity theory is a theory developed by Henry Tajfel, in which Tajfel believes that who we are socially determines how many positive feelings we have towards ourselves. Basically, if we like where we stand socially, then we will like who we are and display happiness. In this theory, Tajfel labels the “in group” and the “out group” and says that we will always compare our “in group” to another’s “out group.” By comparing these groups, we develop a better personal view on ourselves (King, 2009). A big factor of the social identity theory is that the groups will tend to critique the differences of the groups, and overlook the similarities. A modern day example of the social identity theory would be your everyday high school cheerleaders versus band members. The cheerleaders think of themselves as the queen bees of the school,

The Social Identity Theory was created by Dr. Henri Tajfel, British Social psychologist, and Dr. John Turner, a graduate student of Dr. Tajfel, in 1979. Social identity is defined as an individual’s sense of self in relation to a group (McLeod, 2008). This psychological theory is based on the idea of discrimination between different groups; Dr. Tajfel and Dr. John Turner wanted to understand why and how this intergroup discrimination occurs. The life experiences of the theorists, components of the theory, and possible consequences of the theory contribute to how relatable this theory is to college students.

Social identity theories reveal the tendency of social identity groups to perceive their group to be superior to others, and this perception is reinforced the constant comparison with other groups. The perception of superiority by one group over another commonly referred by sociologists as the in-group, while the other group is the out-group. It is the perception of the in-group and out-group phenomenon that leads to the further development of stereotypes and biases, while

My family shaped my personal and social identity at a micro level by being the first set of influencers the moment I was born. My personal identity is significantly influenced by my family through the approach that my parents have taken to raise and nurture me. The results of my parents raising me is shown through the behaviour and beliefs that I embody. For example, because of my family I have always been aware that there is a God. In consequence, my compliant behaviour towards religion has already been constructed at a young age. Moreover, my social identity’s structure was shaped by my family through they way they have socially interacted with me. My micro level interactions with my family throughout time has created a deeply rooted influence within me. The influence that my family has had on my social identity is demonstrated in the way that I respond in certain social situations. For example, through behavioural observation as a child I have learned not to speak back to my parents when they are lecturing me.

Who are you? Who am I? These are questions that we all ponder at some point or another in our lives. As human beings we are seemingly inundated with the desire to classify and categorise. We are constantly defining and analysing the differences that we observe in the world, it seems only natural that we would apply this method of classification to our position within our society. More specifically, we want to understand our social identities and this can be achieved by acknowledging which groups we identify most with.

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

“Some…memberships are more salient than others; and some may vary in salience in time and as a function of a variety of social situations” (Tajfel, 2-3) Salience of identity, in the way that we need to understand it in the case of perception and decision making, can be operationalized as the likelihood that a particular identity will be invoked within a certain situation that the individual is being faced with (Hogg, Terry, & White, 257). As mentioned previously, everyone holds various identities but salience is the process through which we subconsciously decide which we be used to base our decision making or preferences on. “The salience of a particular social identity for an individual may vary from situation to situation and indeed from