Self-categorization theory: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 01:42, 15 March 2016

Revision as of 18:14, 15 May 2016

Line 20:

According to self-categorization theory, depersonalization describes a process of [[Self-Stereotyping|self-stereotyping]]. This is where, under conditions of social category [[Self-categorization theory#Determinants of categorization|salience]] and consequent accentuation, “people come to see themselves more as the interchangeable exemplars of a social category than as unique personalities defined by their differences from others”.<ref name="Turner (1985)"/> Under these conditions a perceiver directly bases their behaviour and beliefs on the [[norm (social)|norms]], goals and needs of a salient ingroup.<ref name="Haslam, et al. (2011)."/><ref name="Brown, R. J. & Turner, J. C. (1981).">Brown, R. J. & Turner, J. C. (1981). Interpersonal and intergroup behaviour. In J. C. Turner & H. Giles (Eds.), Intergroup Behaviour (pp. 33-65). Oxford: Blackwell..</ref> For example, if a person's salient self-category becomes 'army officer' then that person is more likely to act in terms of the norms associated with that category (e.g. to wear a uniform, follow orders, and distrust an enemy) and less likely to act in terms of other potential self-categories.<ref name="Haslam, A. S. (2001)."/> Here the person can be said to be accentuating the similarities between his or herself and other members of the 'army officers' category.

Turner and colleagues stress that depersonalization is not a loss of self, but rather a <em>''redefinition<em>'' of the self in terms of group membership.<ref name="McGarty, C (1999)."/> A depersonalized self, or a social identity, is every bit as valid and meaningful as a personalized self, or personal identity.<ref name="Haslam, et al. (2011)."/> A loss of self is sometimes referred to using the alternative term [[deindividuation]]. Further, although the term [[depersonalization]] has been used in [[clinical psychology]] to describe a type of disordered experience, this is completely different from depersonalization in the sense intended by self-categorization theory authors.

The concept of depersonalization is critical to a range of group phenomena including social influence, social [[Stereotype|stereotyping]], in-group [[cohesiveness]], [[ethnocentrism]], intragroup [[cooperation]], [[altruism]], emotional [[empathy]], and the emergence of [[Norm (social)|social norms]].<ref name="Turner & Oakes (1986)."/><ref name="Turner (1985)"/>

Line 28:

====Perceiver readiness====

Perceiver readiness, which Turner first described as ''relative accessibility'',<ref name="McGarty, C (1999)."/> “reflects a person’s past experiences, present expectations, and current motives, values, goals and needs”.<ref name="Turner, J. C. et al. (1994)."/> It is the relevant aspects of cognition that the perceiver brings to the environment. For example, a perceiver who categorizes frequently on the basis of nationality (e.g., “we [[Americans]]”) is, due to that past experience, more likely to formulate a similar self category under new conditions. Accordingly, <em>''social identification<em>'', or the degree to which the group is valued and self-involving, may be thought of as an important factor that affects a person’s readiness to use a particular social category.<ref name="Haslam, A. S. (2001)."/><ref name="Haslam, et al. (2011)."/>

====Comparative fit====

Line 34:

====Normative fit====

Normative fit is the extent that the perceived behaviour or attributes of an individual or collection of individuals conforms to the perceiver’s knowledge-based expectations.<ref name="Oakes, et al. (1994)">Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A. & Turner, J. C. (1994). Stereotyping as social reality. Oxford, UK and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.</ref> Thus, normative fit is evaluated with reference to the <em>''perceiver readiness<em>'' component of the categorisation process.<ref name="Brown, P. M. & Turner, J. C. (2002).">Brown, P. M. & Turner, J. C. (2002). The role of theories in the formation of stereotype content. In C. McGarty, V. Y. Yzerbyt & R. Spears (Eds), Stereotypes as explanations: The formation of meaningful beliefs about social groups. Cambridge.</ref> As an example of the role of normative fit in categorization, although a collection of individuals may be categorized as an entity on the basis of ''comparative fit'', they are only labelled using the specific social category of “science students” if perceived as hard working. That is, they fit the normative content of that category.

===Online category formation===