Samenvatting
Samenvatting van alle artikelen 'Understanding prejudice'
- Instelling
- Universiteit Utrecht (UU)
Dit is een samenvatting van alle artikelen die je gelezen moet hebben voor het tentamen.
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 4 van de 48 pagina's
Voorbeeld 4 van de 48 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
Understanding prejudiceEllemers & Haslam (2012): Social Identity Theory
The core of the social identity theory is that in many social situations people think of
themselves and others as group members, rather than as unique individuals. It underpins
intergroup behaviour and sees this as qualitatively distinct from interpersonal behaviour. The
theory specifies different strategies people employ to cope with a devalued social identity.
Even very minimal conditions proved sufficient to induce ingroup favouritism: the tendency
to systematically allocate more points to a member of one’s own group than to a member of
another group. This became known as the mere categorization effect, suggesting that the
mere act of categorizing individuals into groups made people think of themselves and others
in terms of ‘us’ and ‘them’ and was sufficient to induce them to behave differently towards
ingroup and outgroup members.
These findings were at odds with the realistic conflict theory which suggests that conflicts
between members of different groups arise from competition over scarce resources.
The concept of social identity is defined as: the part of an individual’s self-concept which
derives from his knowledge of his membership of a social group together with the emotional
significance attached to that membership. The main aim is to understand and explain how
people can come to adopt and behave in terms of such social identities. The basic principles
of the theory address three main issues:
1. They describe the psychological processes that explain how peoples social identities
are different from their personal identities
2. They distinguish between different strategies people can use to derive a positive social
identity
3. They specify the key characteristics of the social structure that determine which of
these strategies is most likely to be used in any given case
Social categorization is the process through which separate individuals are clustered into
groups. When individuals are categorized into the same group, they are thought to share
some central group-defining feature, which distinguishes them from others who do not posses
this feature. As a result of such classifications, we tend to focus on similarities between
individuals within the same category. At the same time we accentuate differences between
individuals who are classified into different categories.
Social comparison is the process through which characteristic group features are
interpreted and valued. Because there is no objective standard that enables us to assess the
worth of different groups, we tend to decide whether a group is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ at something,
by comparing the characteristics that are seen to define them to the characteristics ascribed
to other groups.
Where social categorization determines how individuals are classified into groups, social
comparisons define the ways in which each group is distinguished from relevant other groups.
Social identification speaks to one key reason why groups of people are different from
object categories: the fact that the self can also be seen as belonging to a social group. When
specific features are associated with a social group, or when these features are valued in a
certain way, the process of social identification determines how this reflects upon the self.
Social identification not only refers to the cognitive awareness that one can be included in a
particular group, but also incorporates the emotional significance of that group membership
for the self.
A core feature of the social identity theory is that it specifies different strategies that
members of low-status social groups can adopt in order to address their situation and try to
improve the value of their social identity.
Individual mobility is an individual-level strategy whereby people may seek to escape,
avoid or deny belonging to a devalued group and seek instead to be included in a group of
,higher social standing. It involves emphasizing how the individual self is different from other
group members. It does not benefit the standing of the ingroup as a whole.
Social creativity refers to a process whereby group members seek to redefine the intergroup
comparison by representing the ingroup in terms of positive rather than negative
characteristics. This can be achieved in at least three ways:
1. Focusing on other dimensions of intergroup comparison
2. Including other groups in the comparison
3. Changing the meaning of low-status group membership
While this type of strategy is likely to help people cope with their devalued position in society
and may thereby benefit psychological wellbeing, it does not actually address or change the
status quo or improve the ingroups objective outcomes.
Social competition refers to a strategy whereby group members engage in forms of conflict
designed to change the status quo. It involves concerted collective action oriented towards
the achievement of change.
Permeability of group boundaries relates to the subjective belief that it is possible for
individuals to act as independent agents within a given social system. What matters is
whether people feel that by virtue of these defining group characteristics, their access to
other groups is restricted.
Stability of group status refers to the notion that some differences between groups are seen
as fluid and as subject to change, while other differences tend to be regarded as more
enduring and stable over time.
Legitimacy of current status relations refers to moral convictions that determine the
motivation to change. It can refer to a number of different aspects of a given social situation.
Individuals in groups can be seen to be illegitimate in being based on incorrect assumptions
about group-defining characteristics.
A number of core predictions were subsequently systematized:
- To the extent that individuals internalize a group membership as a meaningful aspect of
their self-concept, they will strive to make favourable comparisons between this group
and relevant outgroups, in order to achieve or maintain a positive social identity.
- As a result, social categorization can be sufficient to engender intergroup discrimination
and intergroup conflict.
- The search for positive social identity may take different forms (individual mobility,
social creativity, social competition), depending on consensual definitions of social
reality that pertain to socially shared justifications (legitimacy of group and individual
outcomes) and perceived cognitive alternatives to current status relations (permeability
of group boundaries and stability of status relations).
An important conclusion of all the effort was that the effects obtained in the minimal group
studies could be reliably reproduced when methods specifically excluded the possibility that
they arose from: material gains and instrumental benefit, a conflictual history, or personality
or a priori individual differences.
The minimal group studies should be seen as an empirical demonstration of the importance of
social identities for behaviour that served as a catalyst for subsequent theorizing about nature
and consequences of those identities.
The self-esteem hypothesis (fails to acknowledge that alternative strategies may be used
to (re)establish a positive social identity) proposed two core predictions:
1. Successful intergroup discrimination should elevate self-esteem
2. Depressed or threatened self-esteem should promote intergroup discrimination
It was noted that individual- and group-level processes may even interact in that those who
hold high levels of personal self-esteem should be most inclined to defend and uphold the
status of their group when it is devalued by others.
,When Turner and his colleagues set out to elaborate on the cognitive processes that underpin
group- rather than individual-level conceptions of self and others it led to the self-
categorization theory. This theory further specifies and extends the original proposition
that social categorization serves as a basis for understanding and responding meaningfully to
complex social situation. It focuses more explicitly on the fact that social categorizations can
be made different levels of inclusiveness or abstraction and that the same individual can be
included in multiple categories on the basis of different criteria. There are a number of core
assumptions:
- The self is represented cognitively in terms of self-categories that can be defined at
different levels of abstraction. These range from exclusive self-categorization in terms
of personal identity (“I, Christine”) to inclusive self-categorization in terms of broad
social identities (“us Dutch”).
- The formation of self-categories is partly a function of the metacontrast between
interclass and intraclass differences. This means that people will tend to define
themselves in terms of a particular self-category (as Dutch) to the extent that the
differences between members of that category on a given dimension of judgment are
perceived to be smaller than the differences between members of that category and
others that are salient in a particular context (Belgians, Germans).
- Metacontrast also partly determines the internal structure of self-categories and the
prototypicality of particular category exemplars. This means that a person’s capacity to
represent and embody a given social category increases to the extent that the
differences between them and other members of that category are smaller than the
differences between them and members of other categories that are salient in a
particular context.
- The salience of a particular self-category leads to the accentuation of perceived
intraclass similarities and interclass differences. In this way, patterns of assimilation
and contrast reflect the relative interchangeability of category exemplars in relation to
a currently salient self-categorization.
The self-categorization theory introduces the concept of depersonalization, to describe the
psychological process through which people come to perceive the self as an interchangeable
exemplar of a social category, rather than as a separate individual with unique traits. It is this
process that makes group behaviour possible. It is the basis for group cohesion, interpersonal
attraction and social cooperation.
Social identification was originally defined as a dynamic construct and always needs to be
understood in these terms.
The broad nature of the social identity theory can be seen as a strength and as a weakness.
On one hand, the number of references in empirical studies clearly attests to its explanatory
power and shows that it can be applied to a range of issues. On the other hand, the fact that
the theory cannot be distilled into a simple mantra or summarized in a limited number of
simple hypotheses that always work, implies that the broader constellation of ideas is not
easy to test or refute.
The added value of the social identity theory is that it represents a particular metatheoretical
approach, that provides a unique perspective on social cognition and social behaviour. it
opens up the possibility of considering whether a group-level approach can help understand a
particular phenomenon and provides conceptual tools that can usefully inform and structure
this type of analysis.
An awareness of intra-group heterogeneity and individuality does not necessarily exclude the
formation of a common group identity and that a positive social identity depends as much on
evaluations of the self by others in the group as on evaluations of the group by other groups.
People do not always engage with the intergroup comparisons that others invite them to
make, but actively define and carve out their social identity form multiple dimensions, sources
of group value and group identities available to them in real life.
Conclusion: In this chapter we have outlined the core ideas and basic premises of SIT. This
theory argues for the importance of distinguishing between social psychological processes at
individual, interpersonal, group, and intergroup levels. We have noted that over the years,
different accounts or selected ideas have been seen as representing the essence of the
, theory, resulting in a number of controversies, updates, refinements, and expansions. For
some, this may create an impression that theory is overly complex and controversial, and
hence not particularly useful as an analytical framework. Against this conclusion, however, it
is apparent that SIT has inspired, and been supported by, a large body of important empirical
studies and has informed a range of important theoretical developments in social psychology
and cognate disciplines. This work makes it clear that the theory provides an analysis of
complex social phenomena that can help researchers understand and address a number of
important social issues and problems. Importantly too, because SIT is addressed to the
process of social change, it also points to the fact that social psychological processes do not
simply contribute to the reproduction of the status quo, but also help to bring about change in
the world. In this sense too, the theory is progressive and optimistic, rather than conservative
and pessimistic. Instead of being reductionist and deterministic, it offers scope for
interventions that can help improve individual wellbeing, group interactions, and social
relations. Thus, SIT is more than a metaphor: it provides a different way of thinking about
individuals and groups, with an explicit emphasis on the impact of social contextual factors.
Even though this makes the theory “grand” and complex, a careful consideration of its core
ideas makes it clear that a relatively limited set of ideas and variables can help understand a
range of phenomena across different situations and settings. In order to appreciate this point,
there is much to be gained by going back to Tajfel and Turner’s original writings (recently
reprinted in Postmes and Branscombe, 2010) and enjoying their ideas and lucid explanations
firsthand.
Maykel Verkuyten (2018): Social Identity
The identity concept
Used in an explanatory way, the concept is often granted an omni-explanatory status;
whenever no clear explanation is available or the impression exists that is has got something
to do with self-understanding or psychological well-being, or with societal changes and
circumstances, the identity concept appears.
Used in a normative way, ‘having an identity’ is considered good and desirable, whereas the
situation of ‘no identity’ is evaluated negatively.
The discussions on the politics of identity give the concept a normative and moral value,
identities are seen as historical and political constructions in which power differences play a
decisive role. Ethnic minority groups claim the right to be different and to define who and
what they are, or want to be, themselves.
The term does refer to real phenomena that need to be investigated somehow. If we fail to do
so, a particular range of both societal and psychological processes simply cannot be grasped.
Identity is about the intricacies, paradoxes, dilemmas, contradictions, imperatives,
superficialities and profundities of the way in which individuals relate to and are related to the
world in which they live. Ethnic identity is a kind of social or collective identity and ethnicity is
typically analysed in these terms.
Who, what and how I am
Names, references of appearance, personality traits and desires all tell us something about
someone, but not in the same way. Over the years, a variety of classification systems have
been developed to try to bring order into the multitude of answers. Your identity is who you
are. It is as simple as that. But behind that simplicity hide more complex questions.
Who am I?
It is quite common to first state your name and sometimes date of birth. By giving your name,
you are identifiable and no longer anonymous. It is then possible to find out everything that
you have written down and how your answers differ from those given by others.
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper eviedonk. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €8,16. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 71498 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen