How Successful is Social Identity Theory in Explaining Stigma and Prejudice - Literature review Example

How successful is social identity theory in explaining stigma and prejudice? For over a hundred years social psychologists have endeavoured to understand the cause of stigma and prejudice. Although advancements have been made in understanding these phenomenons, there have still only been limited achievements in the subsequent attempts to reduce prejudice and stigma (Pennington, 2000). Social identity theory (Tajfel, 1982) declares that the consequence of belonging to a social group ends in the individual acquiring their sense of identity as a result of being a member of that social group. The theory also suggests that a person will make an assessment and appraisal principally by constructing judgments between the social group that individual is a member of and different other social groups. Prejudice has been defined as an unfounded negative, or positive thoughts and feelings towards a person founded exclusively on that person’s membership to a social group (Worchel et al, 1988). Consequently, if a person is prejudiced towards that social group, or a member of that social group, it is because the individual is perceived as being a member of a social group which has been defined by that culture to be of lower value than their own group membership, such as a racial sexual or political group to name just a few (Pennington, 2000). Stigma has been defined as a feature that can be negative and destroy confidence in the person (Goffman, 1963). In addition, Goffman (1963) puts forward that if another individual’s responses manipulate their actions and form their identities, then the individual tries to be in command of how others see them by manipulating what they disclose about themselves. Johnstone (2001) suggests that stigma within society considerably restricts prospects that should be accessible for every individual in that society. Traditionally, the meaning of stigma has been derived from the Greek word stigma, which refers to a ‘mark of shame or discredit; a stain or an identify mark or characteristic’ (Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 1990, p. 506). Social identity theory proposes that that social group membership, also known as collective identity, can produce a big impact on an individual’s self-esteem. Therefore, the individual will try to preserve their self-esteem through having a positive view of the social group to which they belong. In addition, it has been shown that if the individual increases their understanding and awareness of their collective identity then their self-esteem may rise, however, this can be hard to do if the social group the individual belongs to is a marginalized group that encounters prejudice from other social groups (Aviram & Rosenfeld, 2002), such as a racial minority or a mental disability. Moreover, as Aviram & Rosenfeld (2002) have stated if the individual can view the other members of that social group in a positive manner, then this also helps to raise their self-esteem. Social identity is unlike personal identity, as social identity originates from personal characteristics and interpersonal relationships with other people (Turner, 1982). Therefore, social identity ‘consists of these aspects of an individual’s self-image that derive from social categories to which he perceives himself belonging’ (Tajfel & Turner, 1986, p. 16). Overton & Medina (2008) state that social identity theory believes that an individual will apply social constructs to evaluate or stereotype somebody who is the member of a different or in a culturally perceived lower social group to themselves. Thereby assessing social group within there society, to see if they comply with social norms, and stereotypes (Overton & Medina, 2008). Crawford & Brown (2002) also advocate that stigma and prejudice may take place when a perceived social identity does not meet the standards defined in that culture as ‘normal’, therefore creating problems of stigma an prejudice towards that societal group. Stigma and prejudice is related to a person’s social identity (Crocker et al., 1998). Therefore, stigma and prejudice may amplify the possibility for stress in their lives, as unreasonable behaviour or judgments occur merely by membership to a particular social group, and hence have repercussion for group as well as personal identity (Miller & Major, 2000). As a result of this prejudice members of that social group will experience negative and unfair circumstances because of this stigma applied against them. This produces a situation in which the individual is no longer benefitting from the positivity of being a member of that social group, and therefore it is not beneficial for their self-esteem (Branscombe & Ellemers, 1998; Miller & Kaiser, 2001). An additional concern which is necessary to ensure how appropriate social identity theory is to explain stigma and prejudice is that people need to preserve a high level of self-esteem or self-interest (Pennington, 2000). This is not just in regards to an individual recognising or perceiving themselves to be a member of a social group, as to sustain a high level of self-esteem the social group to which they are a member has to be acknowledged as positive and self-improving, and the culture or environment in which the individual lives must place importance in the social group to which they are a member in order for it to have a positive consequence on the person’s life (Pennington, 2000). However, social identity theory can only be applied when there is an increase in the level of an individual’s self-esteem, but if are in a social group whose membership they have no choice in, such as a racial or sexual group, they cannot change this membership and therefore, will continue to face prejudice and encounter stigma against them, which social identity theory can not explain as it infers that group membership is a choice that the individual makes. However, Pennington (2000) states that one way to solve this problem and to therefore still be able to apply social identity theory principles successfully to groups of people who are stigmatised or prejudiced against, is either for the individual to place distance between themselves and the social group, or to put emphasis on the positive and constructive features of the social group to which they belong. Nevertheless, despite these techniques neither approach can alter the low position that the social group is thought of within that particular culture. A further and more far-reaching approach would be for the social group members to promote or campaign for collective, social and financial changes in an effort to change the position or status that the social group has in their society, such as outlawing racial discrimination, or legalising gay marriages (Pennington, 2000). Ellemers et al (1993) have researched these issues and have produced empirical evidence which proposes two main features that have to be present for the legalised standing of a social group to raise its status in society. The two features that need to be present in order for status to be raised are that status of the social group in question is unstable when compared to a higher social group, and that the social group are experiencing unfair prejudice or stigma in society. Historical evidence is testament to many illustrations of low status social groups who have experience prejudices and social stigma from their position, who have faced up to a disparaging authority and challenged their status in society, consequentially re-evaluation of their place within social has changed, and slowly so has the negative stereotypical images of the group, reducing prejudice against them and therefore, raising their self-esteem as members of that social group (Pennington, 2000). Social identity theory proposes a good rationalization of why social group members of a high status social group, or in-group think of themselves as better and higher than an lower social status group, or out-group. Within this in-group a bias may form, creating the foundation towards prejudice, stigma and intolerance towards an out-group, thus generating conflict and distress between the groups. Actual conflict need not necessarily happen, nonetheless, if individuals recognize or perceive competition between themselves and another social group, even if it is not actual present then they will feel stigmatised and prejudiced against by the other group, leading to loss in their self-esteem (Pennington, 2000). As Pennington (2000) states social identity theory be applied effectively if an individual classes themselves as being a member of, and belonging to, a certain social group, however if the individual does not believe themselves to be part of any particular social group then they obviously cannot feel or show in-group bias towards that social group. Turner (1985) acknowledged this crucial characteristic in social identity theory and therefore developed self-categorisation theory through which to give explanation for social identity. For an individual to be able to classify themselves as belonging a member of a particular social group or not, Turner et al. (1987) suggests that the individual must have cognitive representations of the characteristic or principle features of that particular social group. In view of the fact that social identity is founded on self-categorisation it is imperative to comprehend the effortlessness with which social grouping characteristics are accessible to the individual, through stereotypical formations created by the society in which they have been brought up in. Dovidio & Gaertner (1993) suggest that the use of simple words such as referring to their group as ‘we’ or ‘us’, and another group as ‘them’ re-enforces the ties and the stereotypes of belonging to a certain group. The use of the word ‘we’ has positive conations in distinction to the use of the word ‘they’ in reference to a social group seen as having a lower social status than themselves (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1993). Tajfel (1982) claimed that individuals adjust their self-image to conform to the different social groups they belong to, therefore the individual concentrates on different features within of their personality dependent on which social group they belong to and how that group advocate themselves. In addition, Tajfel (1982) advocated the notion that it is not just an individual’s self-image which is influenced, he also maintained that through social identity theory an individual attributes the positive features their personality to the other members of the social groups to which they belong, therefore asserting a positive image of that particular social group. This results in the individual having a positive image of themselves because they belong to this group, the individual’s self-esteem is further enhanced by creating negatives characteristics to members of social groups to which they are not a member, therefore, creating a situation of prejudice and stigma to those who do not belong to that group. Nevertheless, criticisms of social identity theory and its ability to explain circumstances such as prejudice and stigma have been made. It has been claimed that the theory does not represent an appropriate theory, as it does not make an attempt to explain what an individual contributes to a social group. This concerns and therefore implies that an individual has a choice in which group they belong to, however this is of course not true, if you are gay, you have no choice but to belong to that group, the same as your racial or ethnic heritage, giving you no choice in the matter. However, belonging to a sports team is a choice that the individual makes themselves. Nevertheless, social identity theory has been highly prominent and is considered to be a particularly important approach for explanation and understanding towards prejudice and stigma in society (Pennington, 2000). REFERENCES Aviram, R. B. & Rosenfeld S. (2002). Application of Social Identity Theory in Group Therapy with Stigmatized Adults. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 51(1), p. 121-130. Branscombe, B., & Ellemers, N. (1998). Use of individualistic and group strategies in response to perceived group-based discrimination. In: J. Swim & C. Stangor (Eds.), Prejudice: The target’s perspective (p.243-266). New York: Academic Press. Crawford, P., & Brown, B. (2002). Like a friend going round: Reducing the stigma attached to mental health in rural communities. Health and Social Care in the Community, 10, p. 229-238. Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. (1998). Social stigma. In D. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 504-553). Boston: McGraw Hill. Dovidio, J. F. & Gaertner, S. L. (1993). Stereotypes and evaluative intergroup bias. In Mackie , D. M. & Hamilton, D. L. (Eds.). Affect, cognition and stereotyping: Interactive processes in intergroup perception (p. 167-193). Orlando, Fl: Academic Press. Ellemers, N., Wilke, H., and van Knippenberg, A. (1993). Effects of the legitimacy of low group or individual status on individual and collective status-enhancement strategies. Journal of Pers. Social Psychology, 64, p. 766–778. Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Johnstone, M. J. (2001). Stigma, social justice and the rights of the mentally ill: Challenging the status quo. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 10, p. 200-209. Kaiser, C. R., & Miller, C. T. (2001). Stop complaining: The social costs of making attributions to discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, p. 254-263. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary (1990). Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster Inc. Miller, C. T., & Major, B. (2000). Coping with stigma and prejudice. In T. F. Heatherton, R. E. Kleck, M. R. Hebl, & J. G. Hull (Eds.). The social psychology of stigma (pp. 243-272). New York: Guilford. Miller, C. T. & Kaiser, C. R. (2001).A Theoretical Perspective on Coping with Stigma. Journal of Social Issues, Spring issue. Overton, S. L. & Medina, S. L. (2008). The stigma of mental illness. Journal of Counseling and Development, 3. Pennington, C. D. (2000). Social cognition. London: Routledge. Tajfel, H. (1982) Social identity and intergroup relations, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-group behavior. In S. Worchel and L. W. Austin (Eds.). Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social Identity and Intergroup Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behaviour. Advances in Group Processes, 2, p. 77-122. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D. & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell. Worchel, F. F., Nolan, B.F, Willson, V. L. Purser, J. S. Copeland, D. R. & Pfefferbaum, B. (1988). Assessment of depression in children with cancer. Journal of Pediatric Psychology 13(1) p. 101-112. About Google Book Search - Book Search Blog - Information for Publishers - Provide Feedback - Google Home ©2009 Google Read More