Social Identity Rules of Culture Language Written and

Social Identity

Rules of Culture • Language – Written and body movement/gestures • Italians & Jews embellish speech with hand movements – Larger radius Italians • Smile is universal – When do they differ? • When is a smile appropriate? – US smiles more: often seen as a mask – Japanese smile to hide other emotions that are considered incorrect in public (anger, embarrassment)

Hall & Hall, 1990 • Method: Survey • Participants: German and American business men • Conclusion – American views of German business men • Germans smile less Seen as cold and aloof – German views of American business men • American smile a lot Hide their real feeling under a mask of a smile

High & Low Context Cultures • Differ in how much attention is given to the context of a conversation • High-context cultures (Japan & Middle East) – Close attention to nonverbal communication – Assume a shared context (common history and attitudes) – Example: • Too direct “No, I can’t do that’ vs. “That is difficult”

• Low-Context Cultures (Germany & Most of US) – Do not take shared context for granted – Emphasize direct verbal communication • Triandis, 1994 – Verbal language “If you do not move out of Kuwait we will attack you” – Body language moderate and polite – Result • Aziz from Iraq reported to Saddam Hussein that he was ”not at all angry. The Americans are just talking, and they will not attack”

Person vs. Social Identity • Personal Identity – Sense of who one is • • Individual traits & unique history Social Identity Theory – Nationality, ethnicity, religion, gender & social roles • Why is Social Identity Important? – Self-Esteem 1. Need to be included in a larger, collective group 2. Need to feel differentiated from others

4 Elements of Social Identity • Categorization: We often put others (and ourselves) into categories. – Labeling someone a Muslim, a Turk, a Gimp or a soccer player are ways of saying other things about these people. • Identification: We also associate with certain groups (our in-groups) – which serves to bolster our self-esteem. • Comparison: We compare our groups with other groups – seeing a favorable bias toward the group to which we belong. • Psychological/Positive Distinctiveness: We desire our identity to be both distinct from and positively compared with other groups.

Breakwell (1978) • Method: Survey • AIM/Hypothesis: study social identity of soccer fans • Two groups – went to most games – did not go to games. • Results – Those who did not go to games were the most vehement about their loyalty • showed most in-group bias • Why? – presumably as they had a greater need to prove themselves as fans.

More than one social identity? • YES • Some face the dilemma of balancing ethnic identity and acculturation – Ethnic identity • Close identification with own racial, religious or ethnic group – Acculturation • Identifying with and being a part of the dominate culture

Results of Dilemma 1. Bicultural • Strong ties to ethnicity and large culture • “I am proud of both my ethnicity, but I identify just as much with my country” 2. Assimilation • Weak feelings of ethnicity, but a strong sense of acculturation • “I’m an American, period. ” 3. Ethnic separatist • Strong ethnicity but weak feelings of acculturation • “My ethnicity comes first; if I join the mainstream, I’m betraying my origins” 4. Marginal • Connected to neither their ethnicity nor their dominant culture • ‘I’m an individual and don’t identify with any group” or “I don’t belong anywhere’

ETHNIC IDENTITY ACCULTURATION STRONG WEAK STRONG Bicultural Assimilated WEAK Separatist Marginal

What’s In A Name? • Definitely an issue in the US – Many different cultures – Names imposed on them by the majority • Can’t agree on a group label – Negro, Black, Colored People, African. American or Afro-American – Native American, American Indian – Asian Americans (All Asians? ) – White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, European American

Here’s a page from the 1906 schoolbook New Complete Geography showing a number of various “races” and what they look like. Social Science view today One Race, the human race

Social Identity Theory • Value and emotional significance attached to a group 1. Strive to maintain a positive self-concept AND social identity 2. Social comparison • Make comparisons between groups to establish, maintain and defend positive in-group distinctiveness 3. Intergroup discrimination • Uphold positive social identity

Tajfel, 1970 • Aim – Investigate whether boys placed in random groups would display in-group favoritism and intergroup discrimination • Participants: 64 British boys (14 -15) – Knew each other before experiment • Procedure (2) – estimate the # of dots – Artistic preference • Only aware if they belonged to the same/different group • DV: allocate Money

• Results – Allocated more money to own group (in-group) • Implications – In-group favoritism (SIT) is easily created and maintained • Evaluation – Strengths • Shows minimal group dynamics (random allocation of groups) – Limitations • Artificial • Did the boys view it as a game? If so, they are more competitive • Follow-up research – Howarth, 2002

Howarth, 2002 • AIM: show positive social identity • Procedure: How do girls from Brixton define themselves • Results – Positive view – Out-group view of Brixton negative view of being from Brixton

Evaluation of SIT • Strengths • Assumes that intergroup conflict is not required for discrimination to occur – Supported by research – Explains “positive distinctiveness” – Maximize out-group differences • Applicable to – Ethnocentrism, in-group favoritism, conformity to ingroup norms, stereotyping • Limitations • Criticized for being artificial – Experiments are not real life • In-group favoritism cannot explain violent behavior towards out-group • SIT does not explain how social constraints (poverty - plays a bigger role in behavior than social identity