Self and social identity (original) (raw)
Related papers
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.
The cognitive contents of social-group identity: values, emotions, and relationships
European Journal of Social Psychology, 1999
This paper investigates whether persons' cognitive representations of valued group identities dier in content from their representations of their personal identity. The results showed dierences between participants' qualitative descriptions of their group identities and their personal identities. Values, emotions, and personal relationships were more often listed in group identity representations than in personal identity representations. Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Tajfel's (1981) statement that social identity is`that part of an individual's selfconcept which derives from his knowledge of his membership of a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional signi®cance attached to that membership' (p. 255) is central to the premises of social identity theory. In fact, these words are often quoted verbatim in in¯uential theoretical and empirical work (e.g.
The Social Identity Perspective: Intergroup Relations, Self-Conception, and Small Groups
Small Group Research, 2004
The historical development, metatheoretical background, and current state of the social identity perspective in social psychology are described. Although originally an analysis mainly of intergroup relations between large-scale social categories, and more recently an analysis with a strong social cognitive emphasis, this article shows that the social identity perspective is intended to be a general analysis of group membership and group processes. It focuses on the generative relationship between collective self-conception and group phenomena. To demonstrate the relevance of the social identity perspective to small groups, the article describes social identity research in a number of areas: differentiation within groups; leadership; deviance; group decision making; organizations; computer mediated communication; mobilization, collective action, and social loafing; and group culture. These are the areas in which most work has been done and which are therefore best placed for further developments in the near future.
The Social Identity Perspective
Small Group Research, 2004
The historical development, metatheoretical background, and current state of the social identity perspective in social psychology are described. Although originally an analysis mainly of intergroup relations between large-scale social categories, and more recently an analysis with a strong social cognitive emphasis, this article shows that the social identity perspective is intended to be a general analysis of group membership and group processes. It focuses on the generative relationship between collective self-conception and group phenomena. To demonstrate the relevance of the social identity perspective to small groups, the article describes social identity research in a number of areas: differentiation within groups; leadership; deviance; group decision making; organizations; computer mediated communication; mobilization, collective action, and social loafing; and group culture. These are the areas in which most work has been done and which are therefore best placed for further developments in the near future.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 1999
The aim of this study is to show that, when examining social identi®cation, it is both possible and important to distinguish between self-categorisation, commitment to the group, and group self-esteem, as related but separate aspects of group members' social identity. This was demonstrated in an experiment (N 119), in which Ingroup Status (high/low), Ingroup Size (majority/minority), and Group Formation (self-selected/ assigned group membership) were manipulated orthogonally. The results of this study con®rm that these three aspects of social identity can be distinguished as separate factors in a principal components analysis. Furthermore, as predicted, the three aspects are dierentially related to manipulated group features, as well as displays of ingroup favouritism. Group members' self-categorisations were only aected by the relative size of the group, while group self-esteem was only in¯uenced by group status. Aective commitment to the group depended both on group status and on the group assignment criterion. Importantly, only the group commitment aspect of social identity mediated displays of ingroup favouritism.
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.
Social identity is a key social psychological variable to understand intergroup behaviours. Over and above the different dimensions of social identity (e.g., quality or degree of identification), recent research has looked at different forms of social identity, such as the clarity of one's collective identity, the self-determined motivations underlying one's identification, and the contingencies attached to social identification. These forms of social identification reveal how and why group members are attached to their social group. The currentresearch aims to directly test how these three forms of social identification regroup together and predict different individual and intergroup outcomes. Findings from three studies conducted in Québec (Ns = 119, 91) and Australia (N = 136) confirmed that the more comparative and competitive forms of social identification (i.e., non-self-determination to identify, collective self-esteem contingency) tend to predict nationalism and ingroup bias. In contrast, the forms of social identity that capture the inherent satisfaction of being part of the group and the cognitive clarity of this group membership (i.e., selfdetermined motivation to identity, clarity of collective identity) predict outcomes pertaining to patriotism, personal self-esteem, and positive emotions. Results are interpreted in light of social identity theory and social psychological models of the self.
Social Psychology Quarterly, 1997
This study investigates how relative group size and group status affect the use of direct and indirect identity management strategies, which may serve either individual or collective goals. On the basis of social identity theory, we hypothesized that strategy preference would be determined jointly by (1) the relative status of the in-group, (2) the nature of the comparison dimension, and (3) the level of in-group identification. In a laboratory situation, students were assigned randomly to groups of over-and underestimators. The in-group constituted either a majority or a minority group. Group status subsequently was manipulated by false feedback on a group creativity task. The main results showed that high status group members display in-group favoritism on status related dimensions, while low status group members consider the in-group superior on an alternative dimension. Furthermore, group members tend to accentuate the heterogeneity of the in-group on those dimensions on which they consider their group inferior. Finally, claims of in-group superiority on alternative dimensions in response to inferior status (a group-level strategy), were made only by high identifiers, while accentuation of in-group heterogeneity (an individual-level strategy) was observed only among low identifiers.
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