Self-categorization theory

A further development of the theory of social identity, the Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher and Wetherell (1987 ) presented self- categorization theory; they were published in 1987 under the title " Rediscovering the social group. A Self- Categorization Theory ." Turner et al. understand this theory not as a substitute for the theory of social identity, rather than a more general theory, which includes the theory of social identity. The goal of self - categorization theory is not to explain certain behavior between groups, but to describe the cognitive constraints and mechanisms that allow people in the first place, to show special behavior as group members.

• 2.1 Relationship between individualer and social level
• 2.2 depersonalization 2.2.1 Basic conditions for depersonalization 2.2.1.1 example

• 3.1 Subjective validity
• 3.2 toward uniformity

The basic requirements of self - categorization theory

Self-concept

An important concept of self - categorization theory is the self- concept that can be defined as " a set accessible by a person cognitive representations of the self" ( Turner et al., 1987, 44). The self-concept consists of several components that are salient depending on the situation. It is conceivable, for example, that someone has the two self-concepts of himself that he is a good chess player, but a bad football player. In a chess tournament, the self- concept that has to play that person in respect of their soccer skills, understandably so come to the fore as the concept of the ability to play chess.

Hierarchical organization of categorizations

A further requirement of the Turner et al. (1987 ) assume, is that the above-mentioned cognitive representations in the form of categorizations are organized, which are derived from similarities within a class and differences between classes. This self - categorizations are as a hierarchical system constructed as has Rosch ( 1978). This system resembles a pyramid in that a category that is on top of the hierarchy, including several subordinate categories, but can never be completely described by a single child category. A certain dog could for example be part of the category Pekingese, while another dog could be part of the category shepherd. On the next level could be Pekinese part of the category " small dog " while shepherds could belong to the " big dogs ". Both, however, belong to the category "dog" to. This category can be assigned to features they both have ( they may bark both, they both come from the wolf, etc.) and differences, for example, a cat that is not clearly belong to the category "dog". Neither the German Shepherd still the Pekinese example, type noises that could be described with "meow "; neither nor Pekinese Shepherd have the habit to bring dead animals home with them, etc.

Regarding the self- concept is Turner three levels of self - categorizations advance. The top level is the concept of a self as a human being as opposed to animals or plants. The mean, the "social" is the level of in- group -out -group categorizations. At this level, one arranges itself as a member of certain groups, by looking for similarities to certain groups or makes distinctions to members of other groups. The bottom layer, which describes Turner, the " individual level." This level is based on similarities and differences between oneself and other in -group members.

Example

An example will make this system: Mr. Meier sees, for example, as a human being and therefore clearly different from a horse. Mr. Meier lives in a small German town, is a member of rabbit club and employee of a bank. The rabbit breeders club usually meets in company, it is usually much drinking and laughing - Mr. Meier sees himself thus as a sociable people, and thus differs ( in his eyes ) significantly by a member of the local reading circle. In the workplace, Mr. Meier is very neat and conscientious, making him, in his eyes, is different from someone who is a member of the professional group of artists. A colleague of Mr. Meier, who is also a bank employee, has a family and is happily married. Mr. Meier has, however, despite great efforts not found a suitable wife, which makes him sometimes be very melancholic. Herein Mr. Meier differs individually from his colleagues.

The metacontrast value

A further requirement of the theory is that a categorization on the basis of comparisons takes place between stimuli that are both part of the next higher level of the above-mentioned hierarchical system. This means that categorizations and comparisons are interdependent. One can not exist without the other. The formation of a category follows the principle of the so-called Metakontrastes. This means that a collection of stimuli is categorized into one unit that the differences on a relevant comparison dimension between them is minimal and the differences to other stimuli are maximal. This defines the Turner follows directly follows the metacontrast value: The MCR (meta contrast ratio ) is equal to the perceived difference between the members of a category and other stimuli, divided by the perceived difference among the members of a category.

This metacontrast value can now be calculated for each member of a category. The member of the category whose MCR is the highest, is, according to Turner et al. also the prototypischste member of the category. It follows logically that the prototypicality a member of a category is a dynamic value which depends on the comparison search. For example, someone who compares a group of German with French come to a different conclusion regarding the prototypischsten Germans, as someone who compares a group of German with a group of Englishmen. Therefore, it is also spoken by the relative prototypicality of a group member. This is Roschs (1978 ) contrary to the opinion that a category is defined by their prototypischstes member because, according to Turner is the prototypicality of a category member in a reciprocal relationship with the category itself. A more logical conclusion would be that a reclassification occurs when the MCR is less than 1. However, Turner et al comment. (1987, 47ff. ) Not for this case.

A condition for comparison is that both stimuli at a more abstract level are similar. Ideally, this comparison to the least abstract level, which still includes just the two stimuli. Paradoxically, it follows that a difference between two stimuli can be detected only if they are similar at an abstract level. An example will make this clear: dog and cat can be compared at the level of "pets" with each other, so they are similar at this level. A comparison on the level of " living beings ", although would also be possible, but not very useful, since this level is too abstract. A comparison on the level of " canine ", however, would not be possible because the cat is not included in this Category.

When applied to self - categorizations, this means that a comparison of two individuals at the next higher level of the hierarchical system described above takes place and therefore a comparison within groups. A comparison between groups is therefore a comparison within the plane " human being ", etc.

The salience of a self - category varies with the frame of reference, that is, the individual self - categories are salient when comparisons take place only within their own group. The social self - categories are salient when comparisons take place only within the plane " human being " and the self - categories with respect to the images of oneself as a human being again salient when comparisons take place between life forms.

Some hypotheses of self - categorization theory

From the above conditions and further derive Turner et al. (1987 ) a plurality of hypotheses regarding the formation and function of groups and from phenomena. Here should be displayed only some selected.

Relationship between individualer and social level

The first of Turner et al. (1987 ) hypothesis is shown in principle equivalent to the first continuum of social identity theory. Tajfel and Turner ( 1986) distinguish between intergruppalem and individual behavior, Turner et al. predict an inverse relationship between the individual ( the bottom ) layer and the social ( the average ) level of the self - classification with the difference that, Turner et al. already refer to the perception and not only on behavior. This means that people categorize, depending on the situation either primarily as a member of a particular group or as an individual. Situations where the membership of a group is salient, reducing the perception of individual differences within the group and vice versa.

Depersonalization

Another hypothesis is that factors that increase the salience of the comparative dimension to the in -group -out -group- level, lead to the perception of similarity is increased with the in -group members. Thus, the individual's self - perception is depersonalized, ie it will fall back on stereotypes which describe the character of the in-group membership. This depersonalization is, according to the third hypothesis, the cause of all known group phenomena. Turner points out that under depersonalization in this context, the loss is not to be understood of individual identity, but that it is a change from the individual level of self - categorization on the social level of self - categorizations. Around this central concept of depersonalization rotate the next one of the hypotheses presented.

Basic conditions for depersonalization

Prerequisite for the Depersonalisationseffekt described above is a membership in one or more groups. Psychological groups in the self - categorization theory come about when two or more people perceive and define via in -group -out -group categories. This idea is thus similar to the definition of social groups by Tajfel and Turner ( see social identity theory ).

Equivalent to the assumption that they themselves categorized on the basis of similarities and it is likely that a category one associates themselves with which one has a high similarity as a category, with the perceived similarities are low, is the self - categorization theory assume that it is more likely that a collection of individuals forming a group, the higher the perceived similarity between them. However, a greater similarity is seen with other people, decreases the likelihood that the collection of individuals forming a group.

Example

An example will illustrate: Mr Schröder, Fischer, Clement, cooking, Stoiber and Merz be snowed in a mountain hut. Mr. Schroeder, Mr. Fischer and Mr. Stoiber like to play chess, while the other three gentlemen prefer the game of Skat. The perceived similarity to the comparison dimension " preferred pastime " So, for example, greater than between Mr Schröder and Mr Clement between Mr Schröder and Mr Fischer. According to the theory, it is therefore likely that both the chess players and the Skat players will each form a group.

But why are the men referred to in the example just make categories on the dimension " preferred leisure activity "? Obviously, the corresponding categories must be very salient. The question of which category is currently salient, say Turner et al., That the salience of a product from the cognitive accessibility of a category and the fit to the situation. In the above example, the men have a longer time in front of him, in which there is nothing to do. Therefore, both words as well as the accessibility of the fit to the situation is relatively high. But suppose all six men were politicians, and Messrs Schröder, Fischer and Clement are a member of a party, while the other three men are members of another party. After they leave the refuge again, the preferred leisure activity plays a relatively minor role. In political life, there is much to do at leisure is therefore not to think once, both cognitive accessibility and fit the situation would plummet and it is relatively unlikely that the group constellation described above persists, are because now other comparison dimensions accessible and more likely to fit the new situation.

Social influence

The statements of self - categorization theory concerning social influence go back mainly to Festinger's theory of social comparison (1954). There, it is argued that people have the need to assess their own opinions and abilities. This is done either on the audit clearly objective, real criteria or social criteria, that is about the comparison with other people whose opinions, attitudes and skills appear to be the most accurate reflection of reality. The ability to reduce the uncertainty about one's own opinion, setting or ability on social criteria, then obviously preferred if an attractive comparison group is present (see, eg, Miller, 1977). Turner et al. provide with respect to the social influence (ie, the formation of opinion within groups ) some hypotheses.

Subjective validity

A central role is played by one's own safety or uncertainty about the " correctness " of their own opinions, attitudes, etc. This security is called subjective validity and is directly related to the perceived difference of their own opinion to the opinion of other similar people. The smaller this difference is, the higher is the subjective validity and vice versa. A slight subjective validity can be reduced:

Toward uniformity

The amount of toward uniformity, that is to be the mutual need of one mind, the product is made

This product can actually be understood as a product in the mathematical sense. If one of these factors for a person equal to zero, so this is not toward uniformity will feel. The difference between points two and three is probably to be understood as meaning that a person's situation on the one hand must perceive as similar in that they but on the other hand also must believe that the other person's situation in the same way rated as the person in question. If a given toward uniformity, it gives the direction of influence within a group (who influenced whom?) From the persuasive power of the individual group members. The persuasive power of each group member arises from the perceived prototypicality of the group member, because a group member has the more persuasive power, the greater the perceived support of the Group for its opinion, setting, etc. and each group member is trying as much as possible in the group to " fit ".

Group polarization

Sub-group polarization refers to the effect that opinions and attitudes of members of a group following a discussion within the group stronger deflect in the direction which has been looming before the discussion. If one were to ask, for example, a group of students for their opinion on tuition fees, it could be determined that the students are rather against it. Would a second survey, which is carried out after the discussion of the topic within the group, revealed that the group is very against tuition fees, one would speak of a group polarization.

This effect is relatively easy to explain about the hypotheses and conditions outlined above. A prerequisite to the effect that individuals have a need to evaluate their own opinions and attitudes or to validate. One way to do this is, as mentioned above, to make social comparisons. To identify individuals with a group, so is the prototypischste opinion of the group, the most valid opinion dar. It is therefore to assume that individuals try to adapt their opinion of prototypischsten opinion of the group, and the more so the greater the toward uniformity within the group is. By means of some numerical examples can be shown that extreme opinions more gain more prototypicality, the more extreme is the prototypischste opinion. All the following numerical examples are Turner et al. (1987, 82ff. ) Removed.

The following values ​​for A, B and C should reflect the perceived opinion of the individual group members, the values ​​for O, the perceived opinion of the out -group members.

With the method described above metacontrast value (meta contrast ratio ) can now be the prototypischste member of the group calculated (in terms of the requested opinion ):

In this example, B is the prototypischste opinion and also reflects the average of the psychological scale resist. The distance from A to B and C is in each case the same. A group polarization would therefore not be expected in this example. But we choose an example in which the breakdown of the opinions are not symmetrical about the mean of the psychological scale, then change the number ratios:

Again, the prototypischste opinion of the group are to determine:

In this example, B is the prototypischste member of the group, however, the opinion of C is prototypical than those of A, which is why Ace motivation to change his mind in the direction of the prototypical opinion of the group out should be greater than Cs motivation, this will do.

It seems as if one could predict the polarization effect of group exactly if we had data on the opinions within the group before and after a discussion, as well as the data on the perceived by the members of the group opinion of the out-group. This presupposes, however, that there is a high toward uniformity within the group. The toward uniformity, however, as was pointed out above, depending on the perceived similarity between the group members, the perceived similarity of the situation within the group, the expected or perceived different mutual perception of the assessment of the situation and the importance of subjective validity for the group. Is not optimally only one of these factors, the declining rapidly toward uniformity in the group and a prediction of group polarization would make far more difficult than in the numerical examples above.