The Social Identity Theory and School Bullying - Coursework Example

Running Head: Examining Social Identification Examining Social Identification Theory in the Context of School Bullying Name of Student Subject No. Professor’s Name Name of University Abstract School bullying is examined in relation to social identification theory. The theory suggests that bullying behaviours of students stem from their social identification on the beliefs or norms accepted by their particular group that espouses the performance of such behaviour in order to maintain social status within the school campus. Various studies proved the prevalence of bullying among primary and secondary schools in Europe, Australia and the United States of America. These studies were able to identify the characteristics of bullies and victims. Low self esteem, lack of self worth and depression are common characteristics identified for the two groups. Introduction The social identity theory or SIT is developed by Henri Tajfel during the 1970s which proposes the need to recognise the importance of understanding how individuals characterise themselves in relation to their membership to a particular group and how such group affect their subsequent behaviour in a given community or society (Bellanca, F., n.d.). To be able to reach this understanding, studies related to SIT is done using “minimal groups” (Bellanca, par. 3) formed base on given criterion to establish how group membership influences an individual’s behaviour towards certain issues or situation thereby creating a social identity for themselves. The groups are divided into in-group and out-group wherein the former refers to the group wherein the individual is a member while the latter refers to the group outside of the individual’s membership. SIT has been recognised to have significant influence in social psychology. Haslam (2001), for instance, pointed out that the theory has been investigated in various subjects in psychology such as stereotyping, negotiation, language use, prejudice and behaviour of people in changes in organisations. On the other hand, Morrison (2002) link social identity as a psychological bridge between “the self and the collective” (p. 3) which means that an individual links himself to a group to be able to characterise his social identification. Essay Argument The results of the studies conducted by Schmitt, Branscombe and Kappen (2003) support the arguments of SIT wherein it showed that the attitude of individuals towards a social issue or situation is characterised by membership to a certain group and the group’s status in a community or social structure. In particular, participants in its third study have more affirmative stance on inequality when it worked on their own group’s favour and negative stance on it when it work against their own group (p. 172). Thus, it can be argued for emphasis that behaviours towards inequality between social groups are influenced more by social identification to membership to such group than a feeling of social dominance. In this case, social dominance theory differ from SIT when analysing the stance of a person towards a social issue or condition since the former considered that such stance is influenced by the status of the person within the community or social structure. School Bullying: An Examination of SIT Definition and Prevalence of School Bullying School bullying is used in this essay as an important social issue relevant in current times to further examine SIT in line with the argument above as derived from the discussion in the article of Schmitt et al (2003). Bullying in school is a situation wherein “a student is being… exposed to repeatedly.. negative actions on the part of …other students” (Olweus, 1993a, Duffy, L., 2004, p. 9). Negative actions can take in the form of gossip, group alienation, damage to relationship and physical and verbal aggression which are hurtful and traumatic to a student victim who is evidently weaker in strength compared to the bully student. Such weakness can take the form of physical strength and number of members of group of students directly and indirectly bullying the victim (Duffy, 2004, p. 3). Approximately thirteen studies from seven Western countries were conducted to prove the prevalence of bullying in schools particularly for students in the primary and secondary schools ages 7 to 16 years old (p. 4-5). Morrison (2002) identified the school as the “collective” (p. 2) that is link with “the self” (p.2) when she defined social identity. It forms as a group of reference for the students wherein he forms individual self worth and social cooperation through the network of friends he develop; hence, a student struggle to form a sense of “belongingness and significance” (p. 4) within the school community. Characteristics of School Bullies Other studies have identified the characteristics of school bullies and their victims. Bullies are commonly physically stronger, lower self esteem, have lower levels of self worth, have a history of depression, view violence in a positive way and consider other children for manipulability (p. 14, 16 & 18). It should be noted that a longitudinal study by Sourander et al (2000, Duffer, 2004, p. 17) found out that depression can lead to bullying (p. 17) which was supported by other studies wherein children who were found to be suffering from depression became school bullies 4months, 6 months and 8 years later (p. 17). Data from seven countries implied that bullies do have their own network of friends which means that their negative actions towards their fellow students do not merit them a negative status in their own community (p. 21). In fact, acts of bullying are associated to making friends easily in school (p. 22), for some students. Victims, on the other hand, are typically not physically attractive or physically disabled, have peculiar gestures, physically weak, have lower self esteem, have a history of depression and have inferior relationship with their peers (p. 23-29). Twelve studies conducted over a 7 year period found out that victims of bullying have low self esteem while 9 studies conducted over the same period found out that victims suffer from depression or anxiety (p. 24). SIT in School Bullying The study of Duffy (2004) found out students who are members of in-groups showed equivalent intensity of association in acts of bullying towards members of out-group students (p. 277). In-group members are found to have higher probability of breaking other school regulations and getting involved in other behavioural problems (p. 278). Further, it found out that group norm of approving bullying as an accepted norm within the group form a key function for its student members to commit acts of bullying compared to those groups who do not approve such acts. In the view of SIT, in-group members actually align their actions or behaviours of bullying to the norm accepted in their in-group. Failing to do so would make them an outsider to their own group. Thus, they are either involved in direct or indirect bullying to show their powerful presence over their victims (p. 238) as well as show that they are behaving inline with what is expected from them by their group members. Such group expectation is very important in the social identity of students within the school campus; hence became a motivating factor for students’ behaviour. Gini (2005) conducted a study on the role of membership in groups in students’ perception of bullying. It has a sample population of 455 preadolescent students with a mean age of 12 years old attending middle school in selected schools in two middle size towns in Northern Italy It results showed that members of in-groups are biased in liking their co-members more compared to out-group members particularly when actions of bullying are committed (p. 14). It also showed that the perception of exercising the right in using a school facility such as a basketball court is higher for members of the in-group (bully) when they compare their rights from the members of the out-group (victim) (p. 15). Consequently, in any collision between the two groups the blame is usually attributed by the in-group to the out-group (p. 15). Such findings were consisted with the assumptions of SIT wherein children develop friendship and join certain peer groups mainly for social identity (p. 18). Interaction between or among groups with different social identification creates group conflict that leads to display of negative behaviours such as bullying. Separate study conducted by Gini (2006) with a sample population of 314 Italian preadolescent public school students with an average age of 13 years old supported the findings reported above. Specifically, it found out that victims of bullying strengthen their identification with their group since failing to do so would mean risking their social identity and self esteem (p.11). In this instance, the victims of bullying are considered the in-group with the bullies are the out-group. Such findings correlated with the assumptions of SIT that a person who is the subject of aggression identifies more with his group, favour them over other groups and avoid getting in conflict with the out-group. The out-group in this case is the bullies. Significantly, it showed that conflicts among groups of students stem from social identity they associate with their groups; hence they must act according to what the group expects. Victims behave cohesively with co-victims and share the belief that they should not invite more aggression from the bullies. The bullies, on the other hand, identify with the power their group holds within school campus and act according to what their powerful position mandates which is to be aggressive to those outside of their group. Conclusion The discussion on bullying in relation to SIT is an affirmation of the argument stated at the beginning of the essay. The attitudes of individuals toward a situation or an issue are defined by his membership to a certain group as well as the status of such group in a given community. Thus, inequality is accepted if it favours one’s in-group. This thesis was verified by data from several studies previously conducted in relation to bullying and SIT. In particular, the three studies conducted by Duffer (2004) and Gini (2005 & 2006) discussed in the essay clearly illustrate the correlation to the essay’s thesis. Students accept bullying as a norm of action when their group or network of friends set it as the group’s norm; hence they align their behaviours to bully to be socially acceptable to their groups. In not doing so, they are degrading their social status within their own community. Thus, the issue of inequality between the bully and the victim is acceptable for both parties particularly for the former since it works to their advantage such as getting priority use in school facilities like a basketball court or a playground, for example. Even the victims would accept such inequality as long as it avoids them from getting hurt by the bullies which is actually a favour for them. Thus, the sense of acceptance of inequality stems from the social identification of students to their own set of groups. Consequently, it bridge towards the continuing conflict between in-groups and out-groups. Bullying, however, in relation to SIT should be studied deeper in terms of the source of the characteristics of bullies and victims. There is a need to understand deeper why students become either of these groups. In doing so, school authorities can develop programmes or action plans that can effectively avert aggressive behaviours among students in school setting. It will be helpful to avert any psychological trauma or emotional imbalance that bullying could cause to a person. In the long run, it will help create safer and growth responsive school environment. References Bellanca, F (n.d.). The Social Identity Theory, The Teambuilding Company. Retrieved 4 January 2008 from http://www.teambuilding.co.uk/social_identity_theory.html Duffy, A.L (2004). Bullying in schools: A social identity perspective. PhD Thesis. Griffith Business School, Griffith University. Gini, G. (2005). Bullying as a social process: The roles of group membership in students’ perception of inter-group aggression at school. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 51-65. Retrieved on 12 January 2008 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00224405. Gini, G. (2006). Who is blameworthy? Social identity and inter-group bullying. School Psychology International. Sage Publication. Haslam, A.S. (2001). Psychology in organisations: The social identity approach. Sage Publications Ltd, London, pp. 26-57. Morrison, B. (2002). Restorative justice and school violence: Building theory and practice. Australian National University. Retrieved 6 January 2008 from www.restorativepractices.org. Schmitt, T., Branscombe, N., & Kappen, D. (2003). Attitudes towards group-based inequality: Social dominance or social identity?. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 161-186. Read More