A crucial finding in the literature on inter-group processes is the fact that mere category assignment appeared sufficient to engender inter-group competition, despite the absence of any objective conflict of interest (Haslam, 2004). Social identity theory begins from the premise that the self is intimately bound up with social categorization processes in three principal, but interrelated ways (as also discussed in Chapter 4 under ‘Organizational identity and image’). First, upon identifying with a group, the individual takes on its defining attributes – a process labelled ‘self-stereotyping’ (Turner, 1982). Second, individuals derive a sense of self-worth from their group affiliations; they evaluate themselves in terms of the group. The evaluative significance of the group as a whole is likely to reflect on, and therefore have crucial implications for, self-esteem. Third, group memberships hold affective value for individual – that is, membership of groups gives rise to certain emotions either positive or negative, leading individuals to have particular feelings about their group membership.
Tajfel (1972: 31) defined social identity as ‘the individual’s knowledge that he/she belongs to certain social groups together with some emotional and value significance to him/her of the group membership’. It is via an identification process that the individual is said to become attached to, and invested in the particular social groups to which they belong. It is this process that is also said to make it possible for an individual to become socially oriented to, whilst at the same time contributing to, the creation of collective forms of life.
Social identity theory predicts that individuals will favour their group (the in-group) over and above other groups to which they do not belong (out-groups) and that inter-group differentiation is activated by the search for positive social identity and self-esteem. This can result in out-group prejudice, inter-group conflict and hostility (Brown, 1996).
Much research conducted within the social identity tradition – using minimal group and field-work type methods – has since confirmed the strength of the finding that mere category assignment (a cognitive group) is sufficient to engender competition for superior in-group identity, despite the absence of any true conflict of interest. Mullen and Brown (1992) used the results from 42 minimal group studies reported over the previous 15 years to produce an overall effect picture of the minimal group findings. They concluded ‘people tend to see the in-group in more positive terms than they do the out-group’, and that the ‘effect, on average, is of moderate magnitude‘ (Mullen & Brown, 1992: 117). Even nurses, for whom cooperation is an important part of caring practices, show evidence of in-group bias and inter-group conflict – especially in terms of status differentials (Brown, 1996).
The role of inter-group understanding
Walker’s (1962) work in Australia examined the perceptions of both management and workers. He found that both groups perceived more conflict than actually existed. Stephenson et al. (1983) applied the same framework to the British situation, across a study involving 24 firms in four different industries. Analysis of inter-group attitudes and perceptions revealed significant variation between firms, linked to structural characteristics such as organization size. Examination of the findings showed that both management and workers made the same form of error, they both viewed the other side as consistently more (or less) favourable to their own side. The authors termed this characteristic ‘inter-group understanding’, of which they argued there are three basic types:
· group assimilation – where both parties wrongly attribute opponents’ attitudes closer to their own interests;
· group differentiation – where both parties conventionally stereotype the opposition in negative terms;
· realistic – where both parties have a fairly accurate grasp of the opposition’s views
In any structured conflict it is necessary to be able to predict, roughly, what the other party/parties will do. We could therefore expect that each party would view another party’s attitudes as being consistent with previously exhibited behaviour. But as Stephenson et al. (1984) demonstrated, parties frequently make errors in their assumptions about each others’ attitudes.
Later research has indicated the practical significance of the concept of inter-group understanding and its atmospheres of misperception. Allen and Stephenson (1984) traced inter-group understanding and its effects on subsequent workplace behaviour over the long term. At a point at least three years after attitudes were originally measured, records of behaviour were collected. All activities (initiated by both parties such as disciplinary action as well as strikes) were combined into single index of ‘friction’. This index was found to be significantly correlated with the previously measured atmosphere of inter-group understanding. The higher the friction index, the greater the differentiation exhibited at time one. Similarly, it is found that the higher the level of group assimilation, the lower the level of friction, suggesting a suppressant effect. Allen & Stephenson (1984) argued convincingly that this constitutes evidence for the long-term survival of an industrial relations climate.
Belum ada tanggapan untuk " Social identity theory"
Posting Komentar