Who wants to know? The effect of audience on identity expression among minority group members (original) (raw)
Related papers
1994
According to traditional models of deindividuation, lowered personal identifiability leads to a loss of identity and a loss of internalized control over behaviour This account has been challenged by arguing that manipulations of identifiability affect the relative salience of personal or social identity and hence the choice of standards to control behaviour The present study contributes to an extension of this argument according to which identifiability manipulations do not only affect the salience of social identity but also the strategic communication of social identity. Reicher and Lvine (1993) have shown that subjects who are more identifiable to a powerful outgroup will moderate the expression of those aspects of ingroup identity which differ from the outgroup position and which would be punished by the outgroup. Here we seek to show that in addition, subjects who are more identifiable to a powerful outgroup will accentuate the expression of those aspects of ingroup identity which differ from the outgroup position but which would not be punished by the outgroup. This is because, when identifiable, subjects may use such responses as a means of publicly presenting their adherence to group norms and hence as a means of establishing their right to group membership. A study is reported in which 102 physical education students are either identifiable (I) or not identifiable (NI) to their academic tutors. They are asked to respond on a number of dimensions where pilot interviews show the ingroup stereotype to differ from outgroup norms. Expressions of difference from the outgroup position would lead to punishment on some of these dimensions (P items) but would not lead to punishment for others (NP items) The predicted interaction between identifiability and item type is highly significant. As expected, for NP items identifiability accentuates responses which differentiate the ingroup stereotype from outgroup norms. All these results occur independently of shifts in the salience of social identity. The one unexpectedfinding is that, for P items, identifiability does lead to decreased expression of the ingroup stereotype, but the diference does not reach significance. Nonetheless, overall the results do provide further evidence for the complex effects of identifiability on strategic considerations underlying the expression of social identity in intergroup contexts.
Annual Review of Psychology, 2002
In this chapter, we examine the self and identity by considering the different conditions under which these are affected by the groups to which people belong. From a social identity perspective we argue that group commitment, on the one hand, and features of the social context, on the other hand, are crucial determinants of central identity concerns. We develop a taxonomy of situations to reflect the different concerns and motives that come into play as a result of threats to personal and group identity and degree of commitment to the group. We specify for each cell in this taxonomy how these issues of self and social identity impinge upon a broad variety of responses at the perceptual, affective, and behavioral level.
Identity - Social Psychological Aspects
The concept of “identity” is most relevant to the domains of “race”, ethnicity and nation, given that these social categories can gain particular social and psychological traction when they are construed as forms of self-definition. This essay provides a brief overview of social psychological approaches to identity, focusing specifically upon the contribution of Identity Process Theory (IPT) to the social psychology of identity. It is argued that an integrative theory such as IPT is necessary for a holistic understanding of the antecedents and consequences of identity in relation to “race”, ethnicity and nationalism.
New centuries*and new millennia even more so*often prompt re~ections on how far we have come and how far "and where# we have yet to go[ I want to use the opportunity provided by this Agenda 1999 series to engage in such a reappraisal of one of social psychology|s pre!eminent theoretical perspectives\ Social Identity Theory "SIT#[ I use the word {pre!eminent| advisedly because there can be no question that social identity concepts are widely di}used and extensively employed as explanatory tools throughout our discipline[ This can be seen from the frequency of references to SIT and related topics in our major journals which seem to have increased linearly over the past twenty years "Abrams + Hogg\ 0887^Brown + Capozza\ 1999#\ from the popularity of {social identity| as key words in conference proceedings on both sides of the Atlantic "e[g[ meetings of the European Association of Experimental
Social Identity Theory and Self-categorization Theory: A Historical Review
The social identity approach (comprising social identity theory and self-categorization theory) is a highly influential theory of group processes and intergroup relations, having redefined how we think about numerous group-mediated phenomena. Since its emergence in the early 1970s, the social identity approach has been elaborated, re-interpreted, and occasionally misinterpreted. The goal of this paper is to provide a critical, historical review of how thinking and research within the social identity approach has evolved. The core principles of the theories are reviewed and discussed, and their effect on the field assessed. Strengths and limitations of the approach are discussed, with an eye to future developments.
Examining the Social Context in Identity Theory
2010
factors to discover how people behave and feel when they are alone compared to when they are with others in a larger group. I do so to discover if people have more difficulty verifying their identities when among others than when alone, and if emotions emerge from non-verification in the same way regardless of social setting. Theoretically, it is important to address the identity verification process in different contexts so that we are certain that people first and foremost seek to confirm who they are, even when in social settings with multiple others in their presence. The issue at hand regards whether elements of the social context impede or augment identity verification processes (i.e. make it more or less difficult to verify an identity, engage in a behavior, or experience emotions in similar fashion when alone compared to when in a group). Stets and Harrod"s (2004) work provided additional information about contextual factors that affect the identity verification process. They found that one"s relative status among others in the social structure determines their ability to verify their identities. Actors who have higher status in a social setting are more successful at verifying their identities than are lower status actors. When the context in which an actor exists changes and different people are present with differing levels of status, their ability to verify their identity changes. As people move into contexts where they have higher status and power over others, they are more successful at verifying their identities. This occurs because high status actors tend to have more resources at their disposal that assist in the verification process. Likewise, it becomes difficult for low status actors to verify their identities among higher status others because they lack the necessary resources. 9 This work was one of the most recent projects in identity theory that directly addresses factors of social context, and it raises new questions concerning the role one"s environment plays in the identity verification process. For example, is it easier for a low status actor to verify their identity when with both higher and same status individuals are together in the same social setting (such as the difference in attempting to verify a student identity in class compared to verifying it while with a professor during office hours)? Perhaps being part of an in-group of peers (same status others) is a resource that helps to maintain one"s group identity meanings when experiencing non-verification from a higher status other. In this situation, one might mitigate the negative feelings stemming from non-verification from the higher status other by relying on the alternate group-based identity. Also, one might receive support from other group members (such as sympathy), which provides meanings that verify the non-verified identity and serves to reduce the distress. The support or sympathy from others serves as a resource which provides
Social identity: The role of self in group processes and intergroup relations
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 2017
Applications and conceptual developments made in social identity research since the mid-1990s are summarized under eight general headings: types of self and identity, prototype-based differentiation, influence through leadership, social identity motivations, intergroup emotions, intergroup conflict and social harmony, collective behavior and social protest, and resolving social dilemmas. Cautious prognoses for future directions are then suggested—health, e-behavior, population relocation and immigration, culture, language and intergroup communication, societal extremism and populism, social development, and inclusive and diverse social identities.
Identifications in Social Contexts. ‘I Am… Who I Am…’
2018
Individuals do not have fixed identifications. How they identify—how they position themselves—depends on the social context. The interviewees described that they yearned to belong in the various fields. They negotiated this belonging both in coethnic contexts, such as the family, and in interethnic contexts, such as at school and in the workplace. In coethnic fields, participants were often confronted with behavioral expectations that ran counter to their own autonomous preferences. In interethnic fields, despite their social mobility, the interviewees sometimes faced an exclusionary labeling that conflicted with how they want to be seen, namely, as one of ‘us’ in that particular situation. Labeling minority individuals in ethnic terms is an act of exclusion, leading to categorization resistance, for various reasons. Although such labeling can be very coercive, individuals do not lack agency. They have various responses at their disposal. Here, the achieved social mobility functions...