Self-categorization theory: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 17:16, 7 April 2018

Revision as of 19:19, 25 April 2018

Line 6:

[[File:UNSW Rugby players.jpg|thumb|alt= Rugby operates using self-categorization theory processes.|The clear intergroup structure of team sports means that such contexts are often used to illustrate self-categorization theory processes.<ref name="McGarty, C (1999)."/><ref name="Haslam, et al. (2011).">{{cite book |last=Haslam |first=S. Alexander |last2=Reicher |first2=Stephen D. |last3=Platow |first3=Michael J. |title=The new psychology of leadership: Identity, influence and power |year=2011 |publisher=Psychology Press |___location=New York, NY |isbn=978-1-84169-610-2}}</ref>]]

===Levels of abstraction===

[[File:SCT Levels of abstraction.JPG|thumb|450px|alt= A hypothetical self-categorical hierarchy for a person in an organization.| Figure 1. A hypothetical self-categorical hierarchy for a person in an organization. The darkly shaded regions indicate those others who are included in Sam’s definition of self at different levels of abstraction. The lightly shaded regions indicate others who are compared with self at different levels of abstraction.<ref name="Haslam, A. S. (2001)."/>]]Drawing inspiration from cognitive psychology,<ref name="Turner (1985)">{{cite journal| last1=Turner| first1=J.C.| editor-last =Lawler| editor-first =E. J.| year=1985| title=Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behavoirbehavior| journal=Advances in group processes: Theory and research|volume=2|pages=77–122|___location=Greenwich, CT| publisher=JAI press}}</ref><ref name="Oakes & Turner (1990)">{{cite journal|last1=Oakes|first1=P. J.|last2=Turner|first2=J. C.|title=Is limited information processing capacity the cause of social stereotyping|journal=European review of social psychology|year=1990|volume=1|issue=1|pages=111–135|doi=10.1080/14792779108401859}}</ref><ref name="Turner, J. C. & Reynolds, K. J. (2010)">Turner, J. C. & Reynolds, K. J. (2010). The story of social identity. In T. Postmes & N. Branscombe (Eds). Rediscovering Social Identity: Core Sources. Psychology Press.</ref> self-categorization theory assumes that the self can be categorized at various levels of abstraction. In other words, humans may categorize the self as a singular “I”(personal identity), or as a more inclusive “we”(social identity). In the latter case the self is cognitively grouped as identical and interchangeable to other stimuli within that category.<ref name="Turner & Oakes (1986)."/> It is argued that it is this variation in self categorization that underpins many intergroup phenomenon,<ref name="Turner, J. C. et al. (1987)."/> including those described in social identity theory.<ref name="Haslam, A. S. (2001)."/>

To demonstrate the notion of varying [[Principle of abstraction|levels of abstraction]] and inclusiveness, three types of self category are often given as examples.<ref name="Turner & Oakes (1986)."/><ref name="Haslam et al. (1996)."/><ref name="Haslam, A. S. (2001)."/><ref name="Turner, J. C. et al. (1987)."/> The lowest level of abstraction is given as a personal self, where the perceiver self categorizes as “I”. A higher level of abstraction corresponds to a social self, where the perceiver self categorizes as “we” in comparison to a salient outgroup (them). A highest level of abstraction is represented by ''we humans'', where the salient outgroup is animals or other non-humans. A common misconception is that these three example categories represent ''the'' self categories that humans use. Instead, the theory posits that there are innumerable self categories that a perceiver may use (see, [[Self-categorization theory#Online category formation|online category formation]]), and in particular that there are a myriad of different personal and social identities that a perceiver may invoke in his or her day-to-day life.<ref name="Turner & Onorato (1998)"/><ref name="Reynolds & Turner (2006)."/> The misconception may also be attributable to the early writing of Turner where a singular social identity was contrasted against a singular personal identity.<ref name="Turner (1982)">{{cite journal| last1=Turner| first1=J.C.| editor-last =Tajfel| editor-first =H.| year=1982| title=Toward a cognitive redefinition of the social group| journal=Social identity and intergroup relations| pages=15–40| ___location=Cambridge, UK| publisher=Cambridge university press}}</ref> This however predates the formal statement of self-categorization theory.