Henri Tajfel’s social identity theory hypothesizes that if someone wishes to boost their self-image, based on either personal or social identities, they try to build up their self-esteem. This implies that to be able to feel important and needed in their society, they can improve their self-esteem through personal or group accomplishments. The cognitive process of social categorization establishes the social identity theory. Many social aspects were formed by this theory, such as: stereotyping, favoritism and ethnocentrism. Social identification underlines these attitudes due to social categorization, which can cause competitive behavior.
In order to raise our self-esteem, the group members will tend to favor their group against other groups. Many things do occur during this process of comparison between an in-group and an out-group; the group members do tend to maximize the differences between their group and other groups. At the same time, they will minimize the differences that might exist between the group members in order to build a bond between them. While doing all these, the group’s members will be more aligned to positive things in the in-group and tend to remember more negative information on the out group (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Various aspects of Social Identity Theory do exist; the interpersonal-intergroup scope.
By means of self-categorization and membership of a group, people cultivate a social identity that functions as a social-cognitive scheme (customs, standards and attitudes) for their group associated action. The tendency is for the perceiver to consider these attributes as vital to his or her own personality and thus use these attributes to label others (Hoffman Harburg, & Maier, 2014). Some vital end results of social identity and self categorization include stereotyping, prejudice and conflict (Tajfe & Turner, 2004). That is, as the identity groups engage in in-group, the out-group members are likely to be discriminated. The formation of sub-groups (“us” versus “them”) within an organization due to demographics diversity may pose
For many years the discipline of social psychology develops different theories and perspectives about the human behaviour, taking into account the ethical issues, but also the challenges of personal safety by making direct observation. Many theories focused their study on behaviour to the individual belonging to a crowd. Researchers have described deindividuation as the process of immersion into a group where an individual loses his personal identity and becomes part of the crowd. Studies on deindividuation showed how aggressiveness and anti-normative behaviour arise within crowds, which are influenced by the situation and the environment creating chaos and disruption (for example rioting and hooliganism). Such researchers tend to focus on
Abrams and Hogg (1988) had exerted to spotlight the minimum conditions that make individuals discriminate in the favour of the in-group they belong to and against an out-group aiming to achieve self-esteem and self-confidence (ibid). In social identity theory and identity theory, the self is reflexive in that it can take itself as an object and can categorize, classify or name itself in particular ways in relation to other social categories or classifications. This process is called self-categorization in social identity theory (Stets & Burke, 2000: 224). Tjfel and Turner claim that social identity theory confirms that the in-group or (self-categorization) is built by the group membership in ways that the in-group is preferred at the expense of the out-group. They proposed the example of (minimal group paradigm) by which they argue that the mere individuals’ categorization is sufficient to lead them to the in-group favouritism.
Psychologists are debating and trying to figure out whether the social identity theory, a theory developed by Tajfel Turner (1979) for the examination of intergroup relations, is a robust way of explaining behaviour. There has been many research studies in the past that proves that it is a robust way of explaining behaviour. Social identity theory explains human behaviours such as in-group favouritism, and ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism is the act of believing that one’s social group is centrally important, and that all other groups are below them on the social pyramid. In this case, one will judge other groups on their ethnic group, language, religion and behaviour.
Festinger, Pepitone and Newcomb in 1952 came up with an alternative to Le Bon’s theory, which developed further Le Bon’s theory on contagion. This helped in understanding the individual – group relationship that was the concept of deindividuation (Dixon and Mahendran, 2007). In this study Festinger et al explained deindividuation as a process were the individual has a big influence from the group that they belong that he/she does not view themselves as separate but a part of this group and therefore are not judged personally which leads to disinhibited and impulsive behavior to respond to the immediate demands of the situation (Dixon and Mahendran, 2007). Deindividuation is based on the idea that an individual is associated with a group through a common idea; this idea defines the group but not the
Conformity and group mentality are major aspects of social influence that have governed some of the most notorious events and experiments in history. The Holocaust is a shocking example of group mentality, or groupthink, which states that all members of the group must support the group’s decisions strongly, and all evidence leading to the contrary must be ignored. Social norms are an example of conformity on a smaller scale, such as tipping your waiter or waitress, saying please and thank you, and getting a job and becoming a productive member of society. Our society hinges on an individual’s inherent need to belong and focuses on manipulating that need in order to create compliant members of society by using the ‘majority rules’ concept. This
2-when justifying activities of one 's ingroup to another group (outgroup) by stereotypes. 3-when differentiating the ingroup as positively distinguished from outgroups by stereotypes. -Explanation purposes: The social events can be explained by Stereotypes. According to Henri Tajfel, Jews are stereotyped as being evil who want to control the world. -Justification purposes: The stereotypes of an outgroup are created by people to justify the actions and behavior that their ingroup plans to perpetrate towards that outgroup.
Preteenagers’ concepts about social class and their moral judgments towards social class-based ingroup favoritism and outgroup aggression Research purposes 1. Explore preteenager’s perception of in-group favoritism and out-group aggression 2. Explore preteenager’s stereotypes of people from upper and lower social class 3. Explore preteenager’s awareness about social inequality based on social class 4. Explore preteenager’s moral judgements towards social class-based group identity.