Social Identity Theory - Essay Example

Social Identity Theory The implications of social identity theory have been assessed and examined comprehensively in scholarly works and literature with respect to its application on Western society. As noted by Toaddy (2013) the research on the theoretical framework has been critically explored in addition with the self-categorization theory in order to establish the tenets that are associated with group behavior, motivations and related cognitive procedures. While, it can be suggested that much of this widespread research has been rooted in uncovering the outcomes and practices within an organizational setting, the primary principle of the framework is essentially the same with respect to the situation or scenario in which it is applied. With regard to the applied fundamentals of the social identity theory and the self-categorization theory, Toaddy (2013, p. 250) asserts that: “…the basic tenet of these theories is that group behaviors derive from cognitive representations of the self in terms of its membership in a shared social category in which there is effectively no psychological separation between the self and the group as a whole”. While, the preceding statement judges the essence of the theory within the context of member motivations and the realm of group affiliations, recent progress in the formation of social identity theory has transcended conventional beliefs regarding the premise for it specifically focuses on highlighting the notion of group member differences rather than similarities and factors that boost self-identification with regard to the stipulations of the theoretical model. Consequently, assessments that specifically maintain the focus of their analysis as group member differences have been able to identify the aspect of prototypicality as a key component of the discussion. Accordingly, the objectives and aims of this research and paper are rooted in examining the social identity theory, with regard to the element of prototypicality, so as to allow the determination of whether the recommendations of the theory are capable of explaining behaviors, activities and related patterns that are associated with presidential elections. Even though, it is not possible to replicate the principles of organizational leadership in the arena of political leadership, it is important to recognize that certain fundamentals of leadership are bound to remain the same in varying scenarios such that the outcomes of assessing those implications maybe observed in both organizational and political leadership. Hogg and Terry (2000) postulate that regardless of dissimilar situational variables, one of the principle innovations that remain constant with regard to the theory of social identity is that of the inner construction of groups whereby, “groups are internally structured in terms of perceived or actual group prototypicality of members”. Subsequently, another critical aspect of prototypicality is that amongst group relations there exists a possibility that some members will be recognized as more prototypical than other individuals that comprise of the group regardless of whether they are actually prototypical or not (Hogg and Terry, 2000). The crux of this statement identifies how the true impact of perceptions and personal opinions can transcend the notion of objectivity and the availability of factual information with regard to leadership. For instance, in an organizational setting this observation takes the shape of leader-follower relationships where employees are motivated to follow a transformational leader over a charismatic leader or a charismatic leader over a transformational one based on the creation of significant perceptions and beliefs. On the other hand, in a political setting the formation of perceptions is not based upon personal interactions with a presidential candidate but what is portrayed in the media or the manner in which a candidate is able to portray himself through the launch of a comprehensive election campaign. Hogg and Terry (2000) note that in the structural sphere of ingroups being identified as a prototypical member becomes at least as essential as actually having the necessary leadership qualities, traits and characteristics that are supposedly linked with a specific type of leadership. This observation suggests that when the prototypical component of the social identity theory is exercised in an organizational or political setting, the implications of the framework highlight the idea that the most prototypical member of a group – the leader only capitalizes from the fact that he/she possesses a coveted position in the group whereby, he/she is deemed as the most prototypical member in the given context (Hogg and Terry, 2000). Hogg and Terry (2000) postulate that for the prototypical position of the member to remain constant it is important that the elements within the social context remain stable for only their stability ensures the continued existence of the prototype. The development of this outcome has a critical implication for the assessment of social identity theory with regard to the phenomenon of political leadership in particular, as noted by Hogg and Terry (2000): “the “leader” merely embodies the aspirations, attitudes and behaviors of the group but does not actively exercise leadership”. As it has been established that the prototypical member of a group draws much of his influence by embodying critical elements within a group rather than practically exercising group expectations the question arises as to how it is possible for fellow ingroup members to identify the group’s prototypical reality, if group size is too large or if conditions are vaguely determined or ambiguous in nature? Hogg et al. (2005) understand that in this case ingroup members essentially depersonalize elements in relation with the context of the salient group prototype, this eventually leads to the acceptance of a positive regard and acceptance of the prototypical member that is largely membership-based. Consequently, when ingroup members deem an individual to possess or embody the perceived essence of the group, members establish an idea that the ingroup prototype would be able to lead them in an effective and successful manner (Hogg et al. 2005). Applying the aforementioned analysis in the case of presidential elections and leadership endorsements Platow and van Knippenberg (2001) suggest that the impact of leader ingroup prototypicality in relation with leadership endorsement is such that leaders which demonstrate a high level of leader prototypicality are likely to receive endorsements from high identifiers in spite of the ingroup favoring and outgroup favoring that is directed towards the leader. Evidently, the implications of leader prototypicality can change within the context of variations in ingroup-favoring distributions because in this scenario leaders which demonstrate a low level of group prototypicality can still be subjected to strong endorsements from those who are recognized as high-identifiers (Platow and van Knippenberg 2001). As stated previously, prototypicality within a group and also that which is shared in terms of ingroup member’s perceptions can only survive and continue to thrive in a social context that supports the presence of such perceptions which support the phenomenon. Thus, if the social context is subjected to a change before presidential elections because of specific reasons or primarily through strong media influences that it is likely that the prototypicality which has emerged during the time would not be able to survive. For instance, in their article titled Media representations of race, prototypicality, and policy reasoning, Mastro and Kopacz (2006) that TV portrayals and assertions regarding candidates based on their race that are largely associated with real-world stereotypic reactions have the ability to impact important decisions regarding policy making and the most effective indicator of explaining this phenomenon is that of prototypicality for it can describe member responses that are generated during the course of the research. In the first part of the discussion Mastro and Kopacz (2006) apply the case of prototypicality based on the approval of White and African American consumers for celebrities who can be classified under the respective races. The outcome of the research suggested that social attraction and social identification which is based on race and racial perceptions can be modified through the use of media outlets or channels. Therefore, if Whites are classified under the label of ingroup members while, African Americans are deemed as members of the outgroup then in this scenario when media portrayals demonstrate a high degree of association with the ingroup then the extent of social attraction would necessarily be maximized (Mastro and Kopacz, 2006). This outcome implies that in case of the 2012 United States Presidential Elections, media outlets were able to successfully diminish or restrict the surfacing of negative and stereotypical characteristics regarding a candidate that belonged to a minority group as compared to a white individual. Thus, the presence of the prototypicality component ensured that assertions of race and associated stereotypical conjectures were minimized through media debate in order to allow the public to judge the candidate in accordance with the essence of which he demonstrated. In this case essence encompasses all corresponding factors that are related with group feelings, behaviors, motivations and the extent to which the candidate is able to appeal to the wider audience. As noted by Mastro and Kopacz (2006), analysis of the consequences of social identity theory and the framework of self-categorization framework defines the basis of social attraction by claiming that members of a group are only expected to demonstrate social attraction towards a candidate when he/she indicates a great degree of perceived (ingroup) prototypicality. An integral element of this aspect is that in this scenario the candidate’s affiliation is no longer deemed to be an important part of the model for the person is assessed in a positive manner if he/she demonstrates traits or characteristics that are closest to the ingroup even if the person’s membership does not belong to that specific group but to the outgroup itself (Mastro and Kopacz 2006). Subsequently, another important application of the component of prototypicality with regards to presidential elections and political leadership is associated with a gender-based view of the scenario. According to Lammers, Gordjin and Otten (2009), the aim of several researches has been directed towards exploring the reasons why women’s representation in the political sphere around the globe is underrepresented in comparison with men. The conclusions of such researches have revealed that women are subjected to prejudice and bias with regard to the availability of chances of succeeding in elections and more specifically presidential elections (Lammers, Gordjin and Otten, 2009). For the purposes of further explicating upon this phenomenon with regard to the adoption of a gender-based view of presidential elections, Lammers, Gordjin and Otten (2009) have studied the impact of gender prototypicality on the development of voters’ perceptions regarding the appropriateness and suitability of voting for a particular candidate during the elections. The results of Lammers, Gordjin and Otten’s (2009) research that are based on an initial experiment indicate that when voters are linking the selection of a suitable candidate with a specific issue, problem or topic that demands the presence of traits which are inherently deemed as male characteristics such as competitiveness then voter preference for male candidates takes a preference over female candidates. Similarly, voter selection is steered toward the choice of female candidates when a particular issue is marked by the requirement of characteristics that are stereotypically associated with females, these features may include traits such as sociability (Lammers, Gordjin and Otters, 2006). According to Pillai et al. (2003), preceding trends and voting patterns in the United States presidential elections have solidified the stance that voters’ perceptions of political leaders, their traits and characteristics play a critical role in defining their selection and preference for one candidate and not the other. For example, research indicates that in the 1988 United States presidential elections the greater the prototypicality of a specific characteristic with respect to the creation of a successful presidential prototype, the stronger the association between the opinion regarding the candidate and whether the voter would select the particular candidate as their leader. The next phase of Pillai et al.’s (2003) discussion sheds light on the component of prototypicality and how this aspect aids the construction of charismatic and transformational leaders. The implication of this assessment is that it allows the establishment of an idea whether it is possible for presidential candidates to acquire prototypical traits and characteristics in order to appeal to the members of an ingroup. Pillai et al. (2003) claim that with regard to the grueling race of presidential election, the intensity and extensive demands of the entire process help the candidates develop and depict an image that is suggestive of their high achievement orientation. The consequence of this perception is that when voters view the presidential candidates as they pass through the highly competitive campaign trail, this allows for the formation of an idea that the candidate has the ability to meet tough challenges and cope with pressure. Subsequently, this phenomenon drives leadership ratings and increases voter expectations regarding the candidates and their abilities, by suggesting that since the candidate demonstrate a high degree of achievement orientation, he/she must have the capabilities which are required for evolving into a transformational or charismatic leader to guide the nation (Pillai et al. 2003). In conclusion, the phenomenon of prototypicality as a component of the social identity theory can be defined as a critical factor that drives the creation of ingroup member perceptions and their opinions of present and potential leaders. The social identity theory proclaims that the social context and the presence of distinguishable variables in a given scenario essentially defines whether a prototype can remain stable for longer periods because any changes in social context can render the prototype as inapplicable in the given situation. Consequently, the prototypical component of the social identity theory has several important implications for further research on the subject as well because the progress of this variable as a constituent of the premise of social identity comprises of the impact of gender, race and associated notions on the development of prototypicality. Regardless of the current applications of prototypicality in a largely organizational setting, it is rather certain that the wider components of the social identity theory can be applied and used by political psychologists to explore the realm of voting behavior, trends, and patterns in a comprehensive manner. Thu, the strengths of social identity theory can assist researchers in understanding social attraction and voters’ motivations for selecting presidential candidates. Furthermore, it can also be established whether it is possible for presidential candidates to use the recommendations of political psychology to their advantage by using the phenomenon of prototypicality to incorporate traits and characteristics that are deemed as favorable by members of an ingroup. This recommendation is based upon the finding that members of an ingroup only seek to find and vote for a candidate that strongly appeals to their preferences and closely demonstrates the presence of traits and characteristics that they appreciate and wish to seek in the ideal and most effective leader. Therefore, within the context of presidential elections the person or target’s affiliation with the ingroup or outgroup is irrelevant as long as he/she embodies the essence of the ingroup. The conclusions of this research identify this element as a critical component of future studies on the topic because it has the ability to shape the manner in which presidential campaigns are developed and executed in the future. References Abramowitz, A. I., & Saunders, K. L. (2006). Exploring the bases of partisanship in the American electorate: Social identity vs. ideology. Political Research Quarterly, 59(2), 175-187. Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. I. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of management review, 25(1), 121-140. Hogg, M. A., Martin, R., Epitropaki, O., Mankad, A., Svensson, A., & Weeden, K. (2005). Effective leadership in salient groups: Revisiting leader-member exchange theory from the perspective of the social identity theory of leadership.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(7), 991-1004. Lammers, J., Gordijn, E. H., & Otten, S. (2009). Iron ladies, men of steel: The effects of gender stereotyping on the perception of male and female candidates are moderated by prototypicality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(2), 186-195. Mastro, D. E., & Kopacz, M. A. (2006). Media representations of race, prototypicality, and policy reasoning: An application of self-categorization theory. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50(2), 305-322. Pillai, R., Williams, E. A., Lowe, K. B., & Jung, D. I. (2003). Personality, transformational leadership, trust, and the 2000 US presidential vote. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(2), 161-192. Platow, M. J., & van Knippenberg, D. (2001). A social identity analysis of leadership endorsement: The effects of leader ingroup prototypicality and distributive intergroup fairness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,27(11), 1508-1519. Toaddy, S. (2013). Social Cognition, Social Identity, and Intergroup Relations: A Festschrift in Honor of Marilynn B. Brewer edited by Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, and Robert W. Livingston. Read More