Dobra luksusowe jako znak statusu w Nigerii

Deviation from personal ideals and group standards has maladaptive consequences. Using insights from self-categorization and social identity theories, an ordered-discrepancy model of maladjustment was proposed in which simultaneously deviating from both types of standards is associated with increased maladjustment for members of high status groups, except when such dual discrepancies imply that one is closer to one's ideals than is one's group. In the latter case, decreased maladjustment can be expected. For members of low status groups, discrepancies from ideals, but not from one's group, were expected to predict maladjustment. Patterns of deviations on dimensions of masculinity and femininity predicted maladjustment among men, a high status group, and women, a low status group, as hypothesized. Implications for social identity and self-categorization theories, and for gender–role research, are discussed. © 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Deviation from personal ideals and group standards has maladaptive consequences. Using insights from self-categorization and social identity theories, an ordered-discrepancy model of maladjustment was proposed in which simultaneously deviating from both types of standards is associated with increased maladjustment for members of high status groups, except when such dual discrepancies imply that one is closer to one's ideals than is one's group. In the latter case, decreased maladjustment can be expected. For members of low status groups, discrepancies from ideals, but not from one's group, were expected to predict maladjustment. Patterns of deviations on dimensions of masculinity and femininity predicted maladjustment among men, a high status group, and women, a low status group, as hypothesized. Implications for social identity and self-categorization theories, and for gender–role research, are discussed. © 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The emergence and effects of deviants in low and high status groups

Our attitudes shape our perceptions of the world. Social Identity Theory (SIT) can be used to explain the preference for in-group members who share a political identity and dislike of out-group members who do not. Given the literature using SIT as a framework explaining how political attitudes can bias perceptions, a person’s political identity can impact the evaluation of a candidate. We designed a survey-experiment to test the impact of manipulating the stated party identification of an actual elected official to evaluate the impact on trait evaluations on that candidate. A total of 232 undergraduate students from Georgia State University completed a questionnaire evaluating a political candidate that was either labeled as a Republican, Democratic, or without a label. The results showed a significant difference in the evaluation of the candidate depending on whether or not the participant shared the same party identity. This supports the notion that the party label alone can have an impact on candidate evaluations. The preference for in-group members and distrust of out-group members supports using SIT as a model explaining this phenomenon within a political context. This has broader implications for understanding how citizens form preferences in polarized political contexts.

The Stereotype Content Model proposes that competence (or alternatively, agency) is a fundamental dimension of stereotypes. According to this model, beliefs about agency are partially due to the status relations between groups, such that high status groups are perceived to possess agency, whereas low status groups are perceived to lack agentic characteristics. Despite the considerable support for this model, the psychological processes that produce these stereotypes have not been fully explored. In the current studies, we examined whether the correspondence bias may be partially responsible for the stereotype that members of low status groups lack agentic characteristics, relative to those who belong to high status groups. Across both studies, a measure of the correspondence bias predicted such stereotypical beliefs, even after accounting for variables that are known to be associated with beliefs about high and low status groups. This effect was observed when beliefs about the status of groups were experimentally manipulated, and when we measured stereotypical beliefs about two sets of actual high and low status groups.

No abstract available. (Published: 26 February 2015) Citation: Baggaley R et al. Journal of the International AIDS Society 2015, 18(Suppl 1) :19438 http://www.jiasociety.org/index.php/jias/article/view/19438 | http://dx.doi.org/10.7448/IAS.18.2.19438

Turning social identity threat into challenge: Status stability and cardiovascular reactivity during inter-group competition

There are various findings showing that low social status (disadvantaged/minority) groups display a positive attitude towards high-status groups in certain situations where power and status differences are involved. System Justification Theorists claim that these findings reflect the phenomenon of out-group favoritism, and criticize Social Identity Theory (SIT) for failing to satisfactorily explain this phenomenon. The main purpose of this literature review is to compile the theoretical explanations and research findings produced in the context of SIT regarding the positive attitude of the low-status groups towards the high-status groups and to discuss them based on the motivation to maintain a positive social identity. In the literature review, four theoretical explanations and various findings supporting these explanations were reached. Two of these explanations are that those who positively evaluate the high-status group may either be those who follow the individual mobility strategy and define themselves based on the high-status group, or those who follow the superordinate re-categorization strategy, which includes uniting the high-status group with their group under a common in-group identity. Another explanation is that the members who accept the power/competence of the out-group in the dimension determining the status are those who put forward the alternative dimensions in which their group is more successful and who give more value to these dimensions in order to create a more positive identity perception compared to the out-group. The fourth explanation points out that this tendency reflects a passive acceptance of social reality regarding the status system. There are findings in the literature supporting all four explanations. The explanations and findings point out that this tendency of low-status groups -even though it ensures the continuity of the existing system- does not conflict with the motivation of defending, protecting, and supporting ingroup identity.

According to social identity theory, striving of group members for enhancement of their social identity may be resolved through individual mobility (i.e. by dissociation from one's own group in order to gain membership of a higher status group), or by social change (i.e. by upgrading the status position of the in-group as a whole). Individual mobility may only be achieved when group boundaries are permeable; social change is only feasible when group status is unstable. This study investigates how these structural characteristics of the intergroup situation affect group members' preference for the individual mobility or social change strategy. In a laboratory setting subjects were given bogus feedback to induce differential levels of individual ability and group status. Additionally, the permeability of group boundaries and the stability of group status were manipulated. The main results are that, generally, members of high status groups show more satisfaction and in-group identification than members of low status groups. Permeable group boundaries apparently induce a tendency to strive for individual mobility, regardless of the in-group's status position. In relation to members of impermeable groups, members of groups with permeable boundaries show decreased in-group identification; there is evidence of (anticipatory) identification with the higher status group instead. A collective attempt at social change seems to be evoked when group status is unstable. In all groups with unstable status, members indicate their readiness to try to improve their group's status position. Moreover, members of low status groups with unstable status positions show relatively strong in-group identification, despite the lack of positive distinctiveness available to the in-group at the time.

Educational problems have for many years been identified as an important component for young people brought before youth courts. One important effect of delinquent behaviour is the impact of social influences and educational settings are key places for adolescent peer relationships to develop. A large body of research has focused on identifying reasons for this association (Elliot and Menard, 1996 , Lotz and Lee, 1999, Megens and Weerman, 2010), however there has been a need for rich information to be obtained in this area in order to ascertain reasons and provide further information with regard to the relationship; what comes first, association with delinquent peers or delinquent behaviour? This research fulfils the need to explore youth offenders‟ perceptions of their educational experience and in particular, to explore whether they refer to social factors when describing the influences upon their behaviour. Social Identity Theory (SIT), Tajfel and Turner, 1979 was drawn upon when discussing the results. Seven youth offenders (aged 14 – 18) participated in the research and all of the participants were subject to court orders. The youth offenders were interviewed individually using semi-structured interviews. Data was analysed by using inductive Thematic Analysis and the main research question was explored by using a model of generative causation. A distinction was found in terms of how far social factors impacted upon perceptions of education, as opposed to how far social factors impacted upon delinquent behaviour. All of the youth offenders perceived social factors as important when determining reasons for delinquent behaviour at school, males more so than females. However negative perceptions of education (in terms of academic success and relationships with teachers) already existed prior to joining delinquent peer groups and so these groups served to influence behaviour only. Support for Social Identity Theory (SIT), (Tajfel and Turner, 1979) was found as the youth offenders seemed to choose friendship groups based on peers who held similar views of education in terms of its importance, and in this sense, the peer group served to strengthen pre-existing perceptions, rather than create them. Friendship groups were also chosen in order to avoid engaging in challenging educational tasks. Situational factors for these observations were identified and some of these factors provided support for SIT, others, such as perception of unmet educational needs, did not. Implications of these findings were discussed in terms of practice within schools and for Educational Psychologists.

Investigated prestige and intergroup relations in the context of Portuguese police forces. Social Identity Theory would predict a pattern of ingroup favouritism in the case of the high status group and an outgroup favoritism pattern in the case of the low status group. Interestingly, the data is not supportive of S.I.T. but rather consistent with Strategic Responses framework developed by Van Knippenberg e Van Oers (1984). The superior group denies advantages over the inferior one as a means of keeping the superiority. The inferior group points out the advantages of the superior group, the unfairness of the situation as a means of restoring equity in the social matrix.

Introduction The term ‘resilience’ is on everyone’s lips - from politicians to community service providers to the seemingly endless supply of self-help gurus. The concept is undergoing a renaissance of sorts in contemporary Western society; but why resilience now? One possible explanation is that individuals and their communities are experiencing increased and intensified levels of adversity and hardship, necessitating the accumulation and deployment of ‘more resilience’. Whilst a strong argument could made that this is in fact the case, it would seem that the capacity to survive and thrive has been a feature of human survival and growth long before we had a name for it. Rather than an inherent characteristic, trait or set of behaviours of particularly ‘resilient’ individuals or groups, resilience has come to be viewed more as a common and everyday capacity, expressed and expressible by all people. Having researched the concept for some time now, we believe that we are only marginally closer to understanding this captivating but ultimately elusive concept. What we are fairly certain of is that resilience is more than basic survival but less than an invulnerability to adversity, resting somewhere in the middle of these two extremes. Given the increasing prevalence of populations affected by war and other disasters, we are certain however that efforts to better understand the accumulative dynamics of resilience, are now, more than ever, a vital area of public and academic concern. In our contemporary world, the concept of resilience is coming to represent a vital conceptual tool for responding to the complex challenges emerging from broad scale movements in climate change, rural and urban migration patterns, pollution, economic integration and other consequences of globalisation. In this article, the phenomenon of human resilience is defined as the cumulative build-up of both particular kinds of knowledge, skills and capabilities as well as positive affects such as hope, which sediment over time as transpersonal capacities for self-preservation and ongoing growth (Wilson). Although the accumulation of positive affect is crucial to the formation of resilience, the ability to re-imagine and utilise negative affects, events and environmental limitations, as productive cultural resources, is a reciprocal and under-researched aspect of the phenomenon. In short, we argue that resilience is the protective shield, which capacitates individuals and communities to at least deal with, and at best, overcome potential challenges, while also facilitating the realisation of hoped-for objects and outcomes. Closely tied to the formation of resilience is the lived experience of hope and hoping practices, with an important feature of resilience related to the future-oriented dimensions of hope (Parse). Yet it is important to note that the accumulation of hope, as with resilience, is not headed towards some state of invulnerability to adversity; as presumed to exist in the foundational period of psychological research on the construct (Garmezy; Werner and Smith; Werner). In contrast, we argue that the positive affective experience of hopefulness provides individuals and communities with a means of enduring the present, while the future-oriented dimensions of hope offer them an instrument for imagining a better future to come (Wilson). Given the complex, elusive and non-uniform nature of resilience, it is important to consider the continued relevance of the resilience concept. For example, is resilience too narrow a term to describe and explain the multiple capacities, strategies and resources required to survive and thrive in today’s world? Furthermore, why do some individuals and communities mobilise and respond to a crisis; and why do some collapse? In a related discussion, Ungar (Constructionist) posed the question, “Why keep the term resilience?” Terms like resilience, even strengths, empowerment and health, are a counterpoint to notions of disease and disorder that have made us look at people as glasses half empty rather than half full. Resilience reminds us that children survive and thrive in a myriad of ways, and that understanding the etiology of health is as, or more, important than studying the etiology of disease. (Ungar, Constructionist 91) This productive orientation towards health, creativity and meaning-making demonstrates the continued conceptual and existential relevance of resilience, and why it will remain a critical subject of inquiry now and into the future. Early Psychological Studies of Resilience Definitions of resilience vary considerably across disciplines and time, and according to the theoretical context or group under investigation (Harvey and Delfabro). During the 1970s and early 1980s, the developmental literature on resilience focused primarily on the “personal qualities” of “resilient children” exposed to adverse life circumstances (Garmezy Vulnerability; Masten; Rutter; Werner). From this narrow and largely individualistic viewpoint, resilience was defined as an innate “self-righting mechanism” (Werner and Smith 202). Writing from within the psychological tradition, Masten argued that the early research on resilience (Garmezy Vulnerability; Werner and Smith) regularly implied that resilient children were special or remarkable by virtue of their invulnerability to adversity. As research into resilience progressed, researchers began to acknowledge the ordinariness or everydayness of resilience-related phenomena. Furthermore, that “resilience may often derive from factors external to the child” (Luthar; Cicchetti and Becker 544). Besides the personal attributes of children, researchers within the psychological sciences also began to explore the effects of family dynamics and impacts of the broader social environment in the development of resilience. Rather than identifying which child, family or environmental factors were resilient or resilience producing, they turned their attention to how these underlying protective mechanisms facilitated positive resilience outcomes. As research evolved, resilience as an absolute or unchanging attribute made way for more relational and dynamic conceptualisations. As Luthar et al noted, “it became clear that positive adaptation despite exposure to adversity involves a developmental progression, such that new vulnerabilities and/or strengths often emerge with changing life circumstances” (543-44). Accordingly, resilience came to be viewed as a dynamic process, involving positive adaptations within contexts of adversity (Luthar et al. 543). Although closer to the operational definition of resilience argued for here, there remain a number of definitional concerns and theoretical limitations of the psychological approach; in particular, the limitation of positive adaptation to the context of significant adversity. In doing so, this definition fails to account for the subjective experience and culturally located understandings of ‘health’, ‘adversity’ and ‘adaptation’ so crucial to the formation of resilience. Our major criticism of the psychodynamic approach to resilience relates to the construction of a false dichotomy between “resilient” and “non-resilient” individuals. This dichotomy is perpetuated by psychological approaches that view resilience as a distinct construct, specific to “resilient” individuals. In combating this assumption, Ungar maintained that this bifurcation could be replaced by an understanding of mental health “as residing in all individuals even when significant impairment is present” (Thicker 352). We tend to agree. In terms of economic resilience, we must also be alert to similar false binaries that place the first and low-income world into simple, apposite positions of coping or not-coping, ‘having’ or ‘not-having’ resilience. There is evidence to indicate, for example, that emerging economies fared somewhat better than high-income nations during the global financial crisis (GFC). According to Frankel and Saravelos, several low-income nations attained better rates of gross domestic product GDP, though the impacts on the respective populations were found to be equally hard (Lane and Milesi-Ferretti). While the reasons for this are broad and complex, a study by Kose and Prasad found that a broad set of policy tools had been developed that allowed for greater flexibility in responding to the crisis. Positive Affect Despite Adversity An emphasis on deficit, suffering and pathology among marginalised populations such as refugees and young people has detracted from culturally located strengths. As Te Riele explained, marginalised young people residing in conditions of adversity are often identified within “at-risk” discourses. These social support frameworks have tended to highlight pathologies and antisocial behaviours rather than cultural competencies. This attitude towards marginalised “at risk” young people has been perpetuated by psychotherapeutic discourse that has tended to focus on the relief of suffering and treatment of individual pathologies (Davidson and Shahar). By focusing on pain avoidance and temporary relief, we may be missing opportunities to better understand the productive role of ‘negative’ affects and bodily sensations in alerting us to underlying conditions, in need of attention or change. A similar deficit approach is undertaken through education – particularly civics – where young people are treated as ‘citizens in waiting’ (Collin). From this perspective, citizenship is something that young people are expected to ‘grow into’, and until that point, are seen as lacking any political agency or ability to respond to adversity (Holdsworth). Although a certain amount of internal discomfort is required to promote change, Davidson and Shahar noted that clinical psychotherapists still “for the most part, envision an eventual state of happiness – both for our patients and for ourselves, described as f

It was hypothesized that relative group status and endorsement of ideologies that legitimize group status differences moderate attributions to discrimination in intergroup encounters. According to the status-legitimacy hypothesis, the more members of low-status groups endorse the ideology of individual mobility, the less likely they are to attribute negative outcomes from higher status group members to discrimination. In contrast, the more members of high-status groups endorse individual mobility, the more likely they are to attribute negative outcomes from lower status group members to discrimination. Results from 3 studies using 2 different methodologies provide support for this hypothesis among members of different high-status (European Americans and men) and low-status (African Americans, Latino Americans, and women) groups.

Reports an error in "Is Martin Luther King or Malcolm X the more acceptable face of protest? High-status groups' reactions to low-status groups' collective action" by Cátia P. Teixeira, Russell Spears and Vincent Y. Yzerbyt (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Advanced Online Publication, Jun 06, 2019, np). In the article, Malcolm X was misspelled in the article title, in the second epigraph below the abstract, and in the second paragraph of the first paragraph and the first sentence of the fifth paragraph of the Implications for the Effectiveness of Low-Status Collective Action section. All versions of this article have been corrected. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2019-30725-001.) Work on collective action focuses mainly on the perspective of disadvantaged groups. However, the dynamics of social change cannot be fully understood without taking into account the reactions of the members of advantaged groups to collective action by low-status groups. In 10 experiments conducted in 4 different intergroup contexts (N = 1349), we examine advantaged groups support for normative versus non-normative collective action by disadvantaged groups. Experiments 1a to 1e show that normative collective action is perceived as more likely to improve the disadvantaged group's position and that non-normative collective action is perceived as more damaging to the advantaged group's social image. Also, these differences are due to differences in perceptions of actions violating norms of protest and perceptions of protesters as blaming the advantaged group for the inequality. Experiments 2a to 3 show that high compared with low identified members of advantaged groups distinguish more between types of collective action, showing a greater preference for the normative type. Both a mediational design and an experimental-causal-chain design (Experiments 3 and 4) show that support among high identifiers depends more on whether collective action damages the high-status group's social image than on whether it actually reduces inequality. Findings suggest that high-status groups' support for collective action is not only shaped by the perceived likelihood of change but also by its potential damage to the image of the high-status ingroup. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

In the 1970s, scholars in social psychology began exploring the process by which individuals attach their own identity to the groups in which they associate. This gave rise to social identity theory, which rests on the notion that, through largely unconscious cognitive processes, individuals who value and closely identify with a particular social group (e.g., familial, ethnic, religious, gender, partisan, national, etc.) will tend to take on characteristics and exhibit behaviors that are consistent with positive attributes associated with that group. Social identity theory also suggests that individuals do more than merely identify with the social groups to which they belong; they also derive comfort, security, and self-esteem from these groups. As a result, group members often engage in favoritism toward their own social group and, at times, denigration of other social groups as a way to protect or enhance their own group identity. Because individuals identify with multiple groups, the concept of salience is also crucial to our understanding of social identity theory. Specifically, individuals will seek to protect or enhance a particular group identity (through words or actions) when they perceive it to be threatened or they sense an opportunity to promote or enhance it. Given the obvious import and relevance of these dynamics to various aspects of society, research on social identity theory has grown exponentially over the past several decades, especially within the social sciences. Scholars in the fields of psychology, sociology, political science, and communication, for example, have increasingly paid attention to and incorporated social identity theory into their study of everything from how politicians communicate to how people vote to how people interact with other cultures. Notably, within the field of communication, the value of social identity theory rests with its ability to explain or predict messaging and response behaviors when a particular group identity is made salient. Thus, social identity theory is a robust theoretical framework that, in recent years, has had broad appeal and application across a number of academic disciplines. With a focus on the intersection of social identity theory and communication research, this article seeks to identify the foundational works within this area of research, recognize the primary journals in which this research can be found, discuss the key concepts and terms associated with this research, and explore how social identity theory has evolved both theoretically and empirically since its inception in the 1970s.