Within social psychology, the social identity tradition (Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, & Flament, 1971) argues that individuals possess more than their characteristic personal identities, which are activated during interpersonal contact with others; in addition, people can engage in intergroup behavior as informed by their social identities (Gudykunst & Bond, 1980). Such social identities comprise memberships in any psychologically relevant grouping with which an individual identifies, including kin, peers, profession, nation, and cultural identity (Galang, Quiñones, Adriano, Portillo, & Carvajal, 2015). The ingroup identification afforded by social identities then allows individuals to distinguish between people belonging to and excluded from the ingroup (Brewer & Yuki, 2007), and to bolster one’s self-concept through affiliation with high-status groups and individuals (Gudykunst & Bond, 1980). In addition, these social identities are created and manifested in different ways across cultures as a function of the values endorsed by society, the ways in which society’s members construe themselves, and the manners in which their interpersonal relationships are structured (Feitosa, Salas, & Salazar, 2012).
Moreover, social identity theory (SIT) has been invoked as an explanation for a social psychological phenomenon introduced in Robert Cialdini and his colleagues’ (1976) research: basking in reflected glory (BIRG). As reflected in the opening quote, individuals are able to emphasize
This essay will be looking to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the social identity theory with studies to support.
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
No matter how much a person desires to live according to their personal autonomy, he or she will never escape the influence of societal forces. Explicitly or subtlety, these forces shape our individuality. One intriguing manner that these societal forces manifests itself in is our name. As Ruth Graham writes, “It’s becoming increasingly clear today that names carry a wealth of information about the world around us, the family we arrived in, the moment we were born—and that they mark us as part of cultural currents bigger than we realize.” Names alone provide evidence that individuals are made by interactions with social institutions and groups. Ultimately, the inescapable nature of society’s influence demands individuals to ponder how much personal autonomy is actually autonomous and to what extent does the pursuit of personal autonomy lead to a life of emptiness and vanity.
The world has become modern and global. Identification of the self is a complicated, though, an important problem of every individual. Self- identity is based on inner values and reflections on culture, politics and social interactions. The main point is that people label themselves to any particular group in the society (Worchel etc., 1998). According to Ferguson: “Identity commonly refers to which it makes, or is thought to make
Social identity theory proposed by Tajfel & Turner (2004) is a theory of group membership and behaviour which has made significant contributions in explaining in-group favouritism, out-group denigration, competition and other interactions of an individual among social groups (Korte, 2007; Brown, 2000; Tajfel & Turner, 2004). Social identity theory can be defined as an individual’s sense of who they are based on the group that they belong to through a process of self-categorisation and depersonalisation (Tajfel & Turner, 2004). In this essay, I will define social identity theory through its three mental processes involved in group evaluation which are: social identification which is a process whereby we are placed into certain
An individual’s identity has an impact on our behavior (Bibble, Bank, Anderson, et al., 1985). According to Thorits and Virshup (1997) they assert that there are categories that individual’ s employ to explain themselves, which comprise sociodemographic characteristics such as social roles, social types, or personality traits. These categories guide identity-relevant behaviors based on identity ideals associated with meanings and expectations (Eifert, Adams, Dudley,
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
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,
We each have a unique personality that no one else can match perfectly but our social identity is a way to connect to other through our similar characteristics. King (2012) states “Social identity is the way individuals define themselves in terms of their group membership” (pg. 428). We all have titles we carry with us like being a mother or father, a daughter or son, and even a sister or brother the list can go on and on. Within these individualities we have a
One could argue that this then inflates our sense of belonging in the world if we feel that there are others who share similar values to us. This then strengthens our resolve by essentially confirming that we are engaging in the right behaviours and holding the right ideals as we associate ourselves with others who feel the same as we do. This then leads them to strengthen our tenacity of in-group favouritism by rewarding our prejudiced behaviours. A positive outcome of this is that it can have a flow on effect to our altruistic nature as human beings and we would be more likely to help those with whom we feel a certain affiliation. It is in this regard that the Social Identity Theory can yield positive results through a framework of philanthropic behaviour and support for in-group members. The converse of this behaviour is that we see an increase in negative behaviours towards those with whom we feel have conflicting goals and essentially belong to an “out group”.
Social identity theory, it is a person’s sense that is based around the group they are in, either by their personal identity or with different kinds of social identities. That is, people will try to improve their own image of themselves. The theory was proposed by Henri Tajfel. People can increase their self-esteem by both their own achievement and interaction with a successful group of people. This shows the importance of social belonging. This theory is based around three mental processes, social categorization, social identification and social comparison.
This particular theory views identity as conditional and self motivated as well as being related to one’s culture. Although other theories on identity consider the personal and social identity to be separate, SCT considers the personal and social identity to be
“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
Moreover, in-group identification through BIRGing can be extended to national and cultural identities, with identification based on country-level or sociocultural in-groups (Galang, Quiñones, Adriano, Portillo, & Carvajal, 2015). Indeed, to study BIRGing through a cross-cultural approach, it is
An individual’s identity is shaped and created by many factors such as family, culture, and friendship groups (Trepte, S. 2206). The individual’s personal identity of “self” may alter when interacting with any of these groups due to the influence and the characteristics these groups possess (Burke, PJ. Sets, JE. 2000). The human desire to feel a sense of belonging is the driving force for individuals to create themselves around particular groups (Trepte, S. 2206). When people find out that their experiences, thoughts and feelings are mirrored by other people, an immediately connection is formed due to the understanding that they are not isolated in their experiences (Rogers, W.S. 2011). The common ground individuals find in others, allows for the formation of groups (Trepte, S. 2206). The “commonality” amongst certain groups of people allow for Social Categorization (Burke, PJ. Sets, JE. 2000). Social