Best Pre-Med Schools for Future Doctors

Social Identity Theory Definition, Examples, Impact

Social identity is the part of the self that is defined by one’s group memberships. Social identity theory, which was formulated by social psychologist Henri Tajfel and John Turner in the 1970s, describes the conditions under which social identity becomes more important than one’s identity as an individual. The theory also specifies the ways in which social identity can influence intergroup behavior. Key Takeaways: Social Identity Theory Social identity theory, introduced by social psychologists Henri Tajfel and John Turner in the 1970s, describes the cognitive processes related to social identity and how social identity impacts intergroup behavior.Social identity theory is built on three key cognitive components: social categorization, social identification, and social comparison.Generally, individuals wish to maintain a positive social identity by maintaining their group’s favorable social standing over that of relevant out-groups.In-group favoritism can result in negative and discriminatory outcomes, but research demonstrates that in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination are distinct phenomena, and one does not necessarily predict the other. Origins: Studies of In-Group Favoritism Social identity theory arose from Henri Tajfel’s early work, which examined the way perceptual processes resulted in social stereotypes and prejudice. This led to a series of studies that Tajfel and his colleagues conducted in the early 1970s that are referred to as minimal-group studies. In these studies, participants were arbitrarily assigned to different groups. Despite the fact that their group membership was meaningless, however, the research showed that participants favored the group they were assigned to — their in-group — over the out-group, even if they received no personal benefits from their group membership and had no history with members of either group. The studies demonstrated that group membership was so powerful that simply classifying people into groups is enough to make people think of themselves in terms of that group membership. Furthermore, this categorization led to in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination, indicating that intergroup conflict could exist in the absence of any direct competition between groups. On the basis of this research, Tajfel first defined the concept of social identity in 1972. The concept of social identity was created as a means to consider the way one conceptualizes the self-based on the social groups to which one belongs. Then, Tajfel and his student John Turner introduced social identity theory in 1979. The theory aimed to illuminate both the cognitive processes that lead people to define their group memberships and the motivational processes that enable people to maintain positive social identity by favorably comparing their social group to other groups. Cognitive Processes of Social Identity Social identity theory specifies three mental processes individuals go through to make in-group/out-group classifications. The first process, social categorization, is the process by which we organize individuals into social groups in order to understand our social world. This process enables us to define people, including ourselves, on the basis of the groups to which we belong. We tend to define people based on their social categories more often than their individual characteristics. Social categorization generally results in an emphasis on the similarities of people in the same group and the differences between people in separate groups. One can belong to a variety of social categories, but different categories will be more or less important depending on social circumstances. For example, a person can define themselves as a business executive, an animal lover, and a devoted aunt, but those identities will only come up if they are relevant to the social situation. The second process, social identification, is the process of identifying as a group member. Socially identifying with a group leads individuals to behave in the way that they believe members of that group should behave. For instance, if an individual defines herself as an environmentalist, she may try to conserve water, recycle whenever possible, and march in rallies for climate change awareness. Through this process, people become emotionally invested in their group memberships. Consequently, their self-esteem is impacted by the status of their groups. The third process, social comparison, is the process by which people compare their group with other groups in terms of prestige and social standing. In order to maintain self-esteem, one must perceive his or her in-group as having a higher social standing than an out-group. For example, a movie star might judge himself favorably in comparison to a reality TV show star. Yet, he may see himself as having a lower social standing in comparison to a famous classically-trained Shakespearean actor. It’s important to remember that an in-group member won’t compare themselves with just any out-group — the comparison must be pertinent to the situation. Maintenance of Positive Social Identity As a general rule, people are motivated to feel positive about themselves and maintain their self-esteem. The emotional investments people make in their group memberships results in their self-esteem being tied to the social standing of their in-groups. Consequently, a positive evaluation of ones in-group in comparison to relevant out-groups results in a positive social identity. If a positive evaluation of ones in-group isn’t possible, however, individuals will generally employ one of three strategies: Individual mobility. When an individual does not view her group favorably, she can attempt to  leave the current group and join one with a higher social standing. Of course, this won’t alter the status of the group, but it can alter the status of the individual.Social creativity. In-group members can enhance the social standing of their existing group by adjusting some element of the between-group comparison. This can be accomplished by choosing a different dimension  on which to compare the two groups, or by adjusting value judgments so that what was once thought to be negative is now considered positive. Another option is to compare the in-group to a different out-group—specifically, an out-group that has a lower social status.Social competition. In-group members can attempt to enhance the groups social status by collectively working to improve their situation. In this case, the in-group competes directly with an out-group with the objective of reversing the group s social positions on one or more dimensions. Discrimination Against Out-Groups In-group favoritism and out-group discrimination are often viewed as two sides of the same coin. However, research has shown that this is not necessarily the case. There is not a systematic relationship between the positive perception of one’s in-group and the negative perception of out-groups. Helping in-group members while withholding such help from out-group members differs significantly from actively working to harm out-group members. In-group favoritism can result in negative outcomes, from prejudice and stereotypes to institutional racism and sexism. However, such favoritism does not always lead to hostility towards out-groups. Research demonstrates that in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination are distinct phenomena, and one does not necessarily predict the other. Sources Brewer, Marilynn B. â€Å"Intergroup Relations.† Advanced Social Psychology: The State of the Science, edited by Roy F. Baumeister and Eli J. Finkel, Oxford University Press, 2010, pp. 535-571.Ellemers, Naomi. â€Å"Social Identity Theory.† Encyclopedia Britannica, 2017.McLeod, Saul. â€Å"Social Identity Theory.† Simply Psychology, 2008.Hogg, Michael A., and Kipling D. Williams. â€Å"From I to We: Social Identity and the Collective Self.† Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, vol. 4, no. 1, 2000, pp. 81-97.Tajfel, Henri, and John Turner. â€Å"An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict.† The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, edited by William G. August and Stephen Worchel, Brooks/Cole, 1979, pp. 33-47.

Bradman’s Last Innings Context Free Essays

BRADMAN’S LAST INNINGS CONTEXT Sir Donald Bradman, born in 1908, is the most renowned and respected of Australian cricketers who, although of retiring demeanour, attained heroic stature in the interwar period and captained Australia in test matches against England from 1936 to 1948. He represents an era, long gone, when sportsmen were gentlemen and the love of a game, not dubious ‘star’ status and huge financial rewards, was the inducement to play. In this way, too, he represents an Australia that has now receded into the romantic past, when the kind of man he was and the principles he espoused embodied a unified nation’s beliefs about itself an understated confidence, even in hard times, a sense of fair play and a simplicity (sophisticates, today, would say ‘a simplemindedness) about life and its purposes. We will write a custom essay sample on Bradman’s Last Innings Context or any similar topic only for you Order Now The affection of that society for Bradman was enunciated in the opening phrase of the popular song that was written about him: ‘Our Don Bradman’. Foulcher recalls the cricketer’s reputation, in this poem, and subjects it to his keen poet’s scrutiny. ‘Bradman’s last innings’ is framed by the event commemorated in the title – Bradman’s last appearance at the crease, and the irony of his unceremonious dismissal, on that occasion, without a single run to his credit: Bowled for a duck, you could have asked for better†¦. At the end of the poem, the experience of his last match is more bitterly registered four runs short of that century / average, at the last, betrayed by your own game – as the cruel summation of a brilliant career. Between, Foulcher sketches the great batsman’s life in the context of its significance in Australian history and the momentous national and world events of the earlier part of this century. In making these connections, the poet indicates the national and international renown of Bradman in these tumultuous years. During the grim time of the Great Depression, in the 1930s, ‘so many came to see you’, and were momentarily lifted out of their gloom by his skill forgetting the dole queues, the homes dull with a long democracy. Foulcher’s political comment here is apt in the historical setting of the vigorous challenges to democracy, by Communism and Fascism, especially in Europe, in those days. Australia, though suffering from the worldwide economic slump, was all but immune from such ideological ferment. The adjective ‘dull’ indicates, critically, the sleepiness of the Australian backwater and sets the excitement of Bradman’s appearances both against that dullness and, in praise of old Australia’s isolation and detachment, against the grim excitements of Hitler and Stalin, occurring on the other side of the world. It is an ambiguous compliment, however: while the rest of humanity was being stirred politically, Australians were being distracted by sport. It is a criticism that remains relevant. During the Second World War, Bradman remained an inspiration, though Foulcher, in speaking of women waiting for their Saturday oval husbands does remind us – again, with a touch of criticism – of the sexual inequalities of that society. There is something ambiguous, too, about these ‘husbands’. It is not their wives, precisely, who wait for them – but ‘women’. Are these the men, not at war for a variety of reasons, some valid, some not so, who were reviled (as non-fighting men always are, in wartime) and who often replaced, in women’s affections, the absent husbands? If so, the world in which Bradman continued to be a hero, for such people as these, was by no means as innocent as the game he played. CFAIRJONES KGS 2010 After the war, once again he ‘padded up’ – an icon of constancy in a changing society. But now, the disjunction between what Bradman represented and the world that came to see him is vast. In Foulcher’s analysis (as, indeed, in those of many historical commentators), the moral principles of western civilisation seemed to have been finally destroyed by that conflict, which climaxed in the atomic bomb. Yet Bradman perpetuated the old ideals: you gave people / something the world lacked: rules to / play by, winners, clear white flannels // sharp against the green turf. However, even this image of perfection (beautifully visualised in that crisp whiteness and brilliant green) is imperfect – and, even more disturbingly, Foulcher argues that all ideal conceptions are fallible, in an insistent repetition: But it never works out, never – as he recalls that even Bradman fell short, at the last, of the achievement expected of him. Addressed directly to Sir Donald – in the use of the second person singular – Foulcher’s poem is unique in combining at once a tribute and a lament. He is not bent on diminishing the generations’ celebration of Bradman’s greatness, but his honesty is such that he must set that achievement in the larger context of his interpretation of the human condition – of fate. In other words, with rare poise, Foulcher both communicates the almost mythological stature of Bradman and the fact of the even greater forces in human life – here articulated through the betrayal which cricket, personified, inflicts on its champion – from which even heroes are not immune. CFAIRJONES KGS 2010 How to cite Bradman’s Last Innings Context, Essay examples