自我歸類理論：修订间差异

维基百科，自由的百科全书
交互式浏览历史
下一版本→
删除的内容 添加的内容
可视化wikitext
愚蠢的人類（留言 | 贡献）
2,913次编辑
←建立内容为“{{Draft article}} {{translating|en:Self-categorization theory|time={{subst:#time:c}}}}”的新页面
 
愚蠢的人類（留言 | 贡献）
2,913次编辑
无编辑摘要
第1行： 第1行：
{{Draft article}}
{{Draft article}}
{{translating|[[:en:Self-categorization theory]]|time=2019-10-04T11:10:29+00:00}}
{{translating|[[:en:Self-categorization theory]]|time=2019-10-04T11:10:29+00:00}}

'''自我歸類理論'''（{{lang-en|Self-categorization theory}}） is a theory in [[social psychology]] that describes the circumstances under which a person will perceive collections of people (including themselves) as a group, as well as the consequences of perceiving people in group terms.<ref name="Haslam (1997)">{{cite journal|last=Haslam|first=S. A.|title=Stereotyping and social influence: Foundations of stereotype consensus|journal=The Social Psychology of Stereotyping and Group Life|year=1997|pages=119–143|editor1-first=R.|editor1-last=Spears|editor2-first=P.J.|editor2-last=Oakes|editor3-first=N.|editor3-last=Ellemers|editor4-first=S.A.|display-editors = 3 |editor4-last=Haslam}}</ref> Although the theory is often introduced as an explanation of psychological group formation (which was one of its early goals), it is more accurately thought of as general analysis of the functioning of [[categorization]] processes in [[social perception]] and interaction that speaks to issues of individual identity as much as group phenomena.<ref name="Oakes et al. (1994).">{{cite book | last1 = Oakes | first1 = Penny | last2 = Haslam | first2 = Alex | last3 = Turner | first3 = John | title = Stereotyping and social reality | year = 1994 | publisher = Oxford | location = Blackwell}}</ref> It was developed by [[John C. Turner|John Turner]] and colleagues, and along with [[social identity theory]] it is a constituent part of the [[social identity approach]]. It was in part developed to address questions that arose in response to social identity theory about the mechanistic underpinnings of social identification.<ref name="Turner & Oakes (1986).">{{cite journal|last = Turner|first = John|last2=Oakes|first2=Penny|title = The significance of the social identity concept for social psychology with reference to individualism, interactionism and social influence|journal = British Journal of Social Psychology|volume = 25| issue = 3| pages = 237–252|year = 1986|doi=10.1111/j.2044-8309.1986.tb00732.x}}</ref><ref name="Haslam et al. (1996).">{{cite journal | last1 = Haslam | first1 = Alex | last2 = Oakes | first2 = Penny | last3 = Turner | first3 = John | last4 = McGarty | first4 = Craig | editor-last = Sorrentino | editor-first = Richard | editor2-last = Higgins | editor2-first = Edward | year = 1996 | title = Social identity, self-categorization, and the perceived homogeneity of ingroups and outgroups: The interaction between social motivation and cognition | journal = Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: The Interpersonal Context, Handbook of Motivation and Cognition | volume = 3 | pages = 182–222 }}</ref><ref name="Turner (1999)">{{cite journal|last=Turner|first=J. C.|title=Some current issues in research on social identity and self-categorization theories|journal=Social Identity|year=1999|pages=6–34|editor1-first=N.|editor1-last=Ellemers|editor2-first=R.|editor2-last=Spears|editor3-first=B.|editor3-last=Doosje}}</ref><ref name="Haslam, A. S. (2001).">[[Alex Haslam|Haslam, A. S.]] (2001). Psychology in Organizations. London, SAGE Publications.</ref>

Self-categorization theory has been influential in the academic field of [[social psychology]] and beyond.<ref name="Postmes, T. & Branscombe, N. (2010)">Postmes, T. & Branscombe, N. (2010). Sources of social identity. In T. Postmes & N. Branscombe (Eds). Rediscovering Social Identity: Core Sources. Psychology Press.</ref> It was first applied to the topics of [[Self-categorization theory#Social influence|social influence]], [[Group cohesiveness|group cohesion]], [[group polarization]], and [[collective action]].<ref name="Turner, J. C. et al. (1987).">Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D. & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell</ref> In subsequent years the theory, often as part of the social identity approach, has been applied to further topics such as [[leadership]],<ref name="Haslam, A. S. (2001)."/><ref name="Haslam, et al. (2011)."/> [[personality]],<ref name="Turner & Onorato (1998)">{{cite journal|last1=Turner|first1=J. C.|last2=Onorato|first2=R. S.|title=Social identity, personality, and the self-concept: A self-categorization perspective|journal=The Psychology of the Social Self|volume=26|issue=4|year=1998|pages=11–46|editor1-first=T. R.|editor1-last=Tyler|editor2-first=R. M.|editor2-last=Kramer|editor3-first=O. P.|editor3-last=John|doi=10.1080/03060497.1998.11085868}}</ref> [[Self-categorization theory#Out-group homogeneity|outgroup homogeneity]], and [[power (social and political)|power]].<ref name="Turner (2005)">{{cite journal|last=Turner|first=J. C.|title=Explaining the nature of power: A three-process theory|journal=European Journal of Social Psychology|year=2005|volume=35|issue=1|pages=1–22|doi=10.1002/ejsp.244}}</ref> One tenet of the theory is that the self should not be considered as a foundational aspect of [[cognition]], but rather the self should be seen as a product of the cognitive system at work.<ref name="Turner & Onorato (1998)"/><ref name="Turner, J. C. et al. (1994).">{{cite journal | last1 = Turner | first1 = J. C. | last2 = Oakes | first2 = P. J. | last3 = Haslam | first3 = S. A. | last4 = McGarty | first4 = C. | year = 1994 | title = Self and collective: Cognition and social context | url = | journal = Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin | volume = 20 | issue = 5| pages = 454–463 | doi=10.1177/0146167294205002}}</ref><ref name="Reynolds & Turner (2006).">{{cite journal |last1= Reynolds |first1= K. J. |last2= Turner |first2= J. C.|year= 2006|title= Individuality and the prejudiced personality |journal= European Review of Social Psychology| volume= 17|issue= 1|pages= 233–270|doi=10.1080/10463280601050880}}</ref><ref name="Onorato & Turner (2004)">{{cite journal|last=Onorato|author2=Turner |title=Fluidity in the self-concept: The shift from personal to social identity|journal=European Journal of Social Psychology|year=2004|volume=34|issue=3 |pages=257–278|doi=10.1002/ejsp.195 }}</ref>

==決定因素==
[[File:UNSW Rugby players.jpg|thumb|alt= Rugby operates using self-categorization theory processes.|The clear intergroup structure of team sports means that such contexts are often used to illustrate self-categorization theory processes.<ref name="McGarty, C (1999).">McGarty, C. (1999). Categorization in social psychology. Sage Publications: London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi.</ref><ref name="Haslam, et al. (2011).">{{cite book |last=Haslam |first=S. Alexander |last2=Reicher |first2=Stephen D. |last3=Platow |first3=Michael J. |title=The new psychology of leadership: Identity, influence and power |year=2011 |publisher=Psychology Press |location=New York, NY |isbn=978-1-84169-610-2}}</ref>]]

In self-categorization theory the formation and use of a social category in a certain context is predicted by an interaction between [[Self-categorization theory#Perceiver readiness|perceiver readiness]] and category-stimulus fit. The latter being broken down into [[Self-categorization theory#Comparative fit|comparative fit]] and [[Self-categorization theory#Normative fit|normative fit]].<ref name="Turner, J. C. et al. (1994)."/><ref>{{cite journal|last=Voci|first=Alberto|title=Relevance of social categories, depersonalization and group processes: two field tests of self-categorization theory|journal=European Journal of Social Psychology|date=1 January 2006|volume=36|issue=1|pages=73–90|doi=10.1002/ejsp.259}}</ref> This predictive interaction was heavily influenced by [[Jerome Bruner|Bruner's]] accessibility and fit formula.<ref name="Turner, J. C. & Reynolds, K. J. (2010)">Turner, J. C. & Reynolds, K. J. (2010). The story of social identity. In T. Postmes & N. Branscombe (Eds). Rediscovering Social Identity: Core Sources. Psychology Press.</ref><ref name="Bruner (1957)">{{cite journal | last1 = Bruner | first1 = J. S. | year = 1957 | title = On perceptual readiness | url = | journal = Psychological Review | volume = 64 | issue = 2| pages = 123–152 | pmid = 13420288 | doi=10.1037/h0043805}}</ref> A social category that is currently in use is called a ''salient'' social category, and in the case of a self category is called a ''salient social identity''.<ref name="Turner & Oakes (1986)."/> The latter should not be confused with ''level of identification'', which is a component of perceiver readiness.<ref name="McGarty, C. (2001)">{{cite journal | last1 = McGarty | first1 = C. | year = 2001 | title = Social Identity Theory does not maintain that identification produces bias, and Self-categorization Theory does not maintain that salience is identification: Two comments on Mummendey, Klink and Brown | url = | journal = British Journal of Social Psychology | volume = 40 | issue = Pt 2| pages = 173–176 | pmid = 11446223 | doi=10.1348/014466601164777}}</ref>

===知者準備===
Perceiver readiness, which Turner first described as ''relative accessibility'',<ref name="McGarty, C (1999)."/> "reflects a person's past experiences, present expectations, and current motives, values, goals and needs".<ref name="Turner, J. C. et al. (1994)."/> It is the relevant aspects of cognition that the perceiver brings to the environment. For example, a perceiver who categorizes frequently on the basis of nationality (e.g., "we [[Americans]]") is, due to that past experience, more likely to formulate a similar self category under new conditions. Accordingly, ''social identification'', or the degree to which the group is valued and self-involving, may be thought of as an important factor that affects a person's readiness to use a particular social category.<ref name="Haslam, A. S. (2001)."/><ref name="Haslam, et al. (2011)."/>

===相對性適合===
[[File:SCT comparative context.JPG|thumb|right|300px|alt= Variation in self-categorization as a function of comparative context.| Figure 2. Variation in self-categorization as a function of comparative context. In Context 1 Amy and Beth self-categorize in terms of lower-level personal identities that accentuate their differences from each other. However, in Context 2 the comparative is extended to include more different others (here men), and Amy and Beth are now more likely to define themselves in terms of a higher-level social identity. They hence appear more similar to each other. The main theoretical point here is that as comparative context is extended, people tend to self-categorize at a more inclusive, higher level of abstraction.<ref name="Haslam, et al. (2011)."/>]]Comparative fit is determined by the meta-contrast principle—which states that people are more likely to believe that a collection of stimuli represents an entity to the degree that the differences between those stimuli are less than the differences between that collection of stimuli and other stimuli.<ref name="McGarty, C (1999)."/><ref name="Turner, J. C. et al. (1987)."/><ref name="Turner, J. C. et al. (1994)."/> For predicting whether a group will categorize an individual as an ingroup or outgroup member, the meta-contrast principle may be defined as the ratio of the average similarity of the individual to outgroup members over the average similarity of the individual to ingroup members. The meta-contrast ratio is dependent on the context, or frame of reference, in which the categorization process is occurring.<ref name="Turner, J. C. (1999)">Turner, J. C. (1999). Current issues in research on social identity and self-categorization theories. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds), Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 6-34) Oxford, UK. Blackwell.</ref> That is, the ratio is a comparison based on whichever stimuli are cognitively present. For example, if the frame of reference is reduced such that potential outgroup members are no longer cognitively present, ingroup members regard the individual as less similar to the group and are less likely to categorize that individual as belonging to that group.

===規範性適合===
Normative fit is the extent that the perceived behaviour or attributes of an individual or collection of individuals conforms to the perceiver's knowledge-based expectations.<ref name="Oakes, et al. (1994)">Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A. & Turner, J. C. (1994). Stereotyping as social reality. Oxford, UK and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.</ref> Thus, normative fit is evaluated with reference to the ''perceiver readiness'' component of the categorisation process.<ref name="Brown, P. M. & Turner, J. C. (2002).">Brown, P. M. & Turner, J. C. (2002). The role of theories in the formation of stereotype content. In C. McGarty, V. Y. Yzerbyt & R. Spears (Eds), Stereotypes as explanations: The formation of meaningful beliefs about social groups. Cambridge.</ref> As an example of the role of normative fit in categorization, although a collection of individuals may be categorized as an entity on the basis of ''comparative fit'', they are only labelled using the specific social category of "science students" if perceived as hard working. That is, they fit the normative content of that category.

==含義==

===社會影響力===
{{main|{{tsl|en|social influence|社會影響力}}}}

Self-categorization theory provides an account of social influence.<ref name="Haslam, A. S. (2001)."/><ref name="Haslam, et al. (2011)."/><ref name="Turner, J. C. et al. (1987)."/><ref name="Turner (1985)">{{cite journal| last1=Turner| first1=J.C.| editor-last =Lawler| editor-first =E. J.| year=1985| title=Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behavior| journal=Advances in Group Processes: Theory and Research|volume=2|pages=77–122}}</ref><ref name="Turner (1982)"/><ref name="Turner, J. C. (1991)">Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.</ref> This account is sometimes referred to as the theory of ''referent informational influence''.<ref name="Turner, J. C. et al. (1987)."/><ref name="Turner (1985)"/><ref name="Turner (1982)">{{cite journal| last1=Turner| first1=J.C.| editor-last =Tajfel| editor-first =H.| year=1982| title=Toward a cognitive redefinition of the social group| journal=Social Identity and Intergroup Relations| pages=15–40}}</ref> According to self-categorization theory, as social identities become salient, and depersonalization and self-stereotyping occurs, people adopt the norms, beliefs, and behaviors of fellow ingroup members. They also distance themselves from the norms, beliefs, and behaviors of comparison outgroup members. When someone observes a difference between themselves and a fellow ingroup member that person will experience subjective uncertainty. That uncertainty can be resolved by either a) recategorizing people or the situation to reflect those perceived differences, or b) engaging in a social influence process whereby one person makes changes to become more similar to the other. Which person adopts the views or behaviors of the other (i.e. who influences who) is predicted to be that person who is most prototypical of the ingroup. In other words, the person who exemplifies the norms, values, and behaviors of the ingroup the most. The self-categorization theory account of social influence has received a large amount of empirical support.<ref name="McGarty & Turner (1992).">{{cite journal|last1 = McGarty|first1 = C.|last2=Turner|first2=J. C. |title = The effects of categorization on social judgement|journal = British Journal of Social Psychology|volume = 31|issue = 4| pages = 253–268|year = 1992|doi=10.1111/j.2044-8309.1992.tb00971.x}}</ref><ref name="Makie & Wright (2001)">{{cite book | last1 = Mackie | first1 =D. M. | last2 = Wright | first2 = C. L. | editor1-last = Brown | editor1-first = Rupert | editor2-last = Gaertner |editor2-first = Sam L. | year = 2001 | chapter = Social Influence in an Intergroup context |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=LNZHf3K4xzMC&pg=PA281| title = Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Intergroup Processes |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=LNZHf3K4xzMC| volume = 3 | issue = 1 |isbn=978-0-470-69270-7 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Livingstone|first1=A. G.|last2=Haslam|first2=S. A.|last3=Postmes|first3=T.|last4=Jetten|first4=J.|title="We Are, Therefore We Should": Evidence That In-Group Identification Mediates the Acquisition of In-Group Norms|journal=Journal of Applied Social Psychology|year=2011|volume=41|issue=8|pages=1857–1876|doi=10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00794.x}}</ref>

Self-categorization theory's account of social influence differs from other social psychological approaches to social influence. It rejects the traditional distinction between [[informational influence]] and [[normative influence]],<ref name="Turner & Oakes (1986)."/><ref name="Turner, J. C. et al. (1987)."/><ref name="Turner (1985)"/><ref name="Turner, J. C. (1991)"/><ref name="Turner & Oakes, (1997)">{{cite journal | last1 = Turner | first1 = J. C. | last2 = Oakes | first2 = P. J. | editor1-last = McGarty | editor1-first = C. | editor2-last = Haslam | editor2-first = S. A. | year = 1997 | title = The socially structured mind | journal = The Message of Social Psychology | pages = 355–373 }}</ref> where informational influence involves the assessment of social information based on its merit and normative influence involves public compliance to the expectations of group members. For self-categorization theory social information does not have merit independent of self-categorization. Instead, information is perceived as valid to the extent that it is perceived to be a normative belief of the ingroup. Normative influence, on the other hand, is not normative at all. Rather, it is counter-normative influence based compliance to expectations of psychological outgroup members. In a similar vein self-categorization theory also challenges the distinction between objective reality testing and social reality testing (e.g. the [[elaboration likelihood model]]).<ref name="Oakes et al. (1994)."/><ref name="Turner & Oakes (1986)."/><ref name="Turner, J. C. et al. (1987)."/><ref name="Turner (1985)"/><ref name="Turner (1982)"/><ref name="Turner, J. C. (1991)"/><ref name="Turner & Oakes, (1997)"/><ref name="Oakes & Reynolds (1997)">{{cite journal|last1=Oakes|first1=P. J.|last2=Reynolds|first2=R. J.|title=Asking the accuracy question: is measurement the answer?|journal=The Social Psychology of Stereotyping and Group Life|year=1997|pages=119–143|editor1-first=R.|editor1-last=Spears|editor2-first=P.J.|editor2-last=Oakes|editor3-first=N.|editor3-last=Ellemers|editor4-first=S.A.|display-editors = 3 |editor4-last=Haslam}}</ref> It argues that there is no such thing as objective reality testing isolated from social reality testing. Sensory data is always interpreted with respect of the beliefs and ideas of the perceiver, which in turn are bound up in the psychological group memberships of that perceiver.

===外群體同質性===
{{main|{{tsl|en|Outgroup homogeneity|外群體同質性}}}}

Outgroup homogeneity can be defined as seeing the outgroup members as more homogeneous than ingroup members.<ref name="Quattrone & Jones (1980)">{{cite journal|last1=Quattrone|first1=George A.|last2=Jones|first2=Edward E.|title=The perception of variability within in-groups and out-groups: Implications for the law of small numbers.|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|volume=38|issue=1|year=1980|pages=141–152|issn=0022-3514|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.38.1.141}}</ref> Self-categorization accounts for the outgroup homogeneity effect as a function of perceiver motivation and the resultant [[Self-categorization theory#Comparative fit|comparative context]],<ref name="Haslam et al. (1996)."/><ref name="McGarty, C (1999)."/> which is a description of the psychologically available stimuli at any one time. The theory argues that when perceiving an outgroup the psychologically available stimuli include both ingroup and outgroup members. Under these conditions the perceiver is more likely to categorize in accordance with ingroup and outgroup memberships and is consequently naturally motivated to [[Self-categorization theory#Accentuation|accentuate]] intergroup differences as well as intragroup similarities. Conversely, when perceiving an ingroup the outgroup members may not be psychologically available. In such circumstances there is no ingroup-outgroup categorization and thus no accentuation. Indeed, accentuation of intragroup differences may occur under these circumstances for the same sense making reasons.

In line with this explanation it has been shown that in an intergroup context both the ingroup and outgroup is perceived as more homogeneous, while when judged in isolation the ingroup is perceived as comparatively [[Homogeneity and heterogeneity|heterogeneous]].<ref name="Haslam et al. (1995)">{{cite journal | last1 = Haslam | first1 = S. A. | last2 = Oakes | first2 = P. J. | last3 = Turner | first3 = J. C. | last4 = McGarty | first4 = C. | year = 1995 | title = Social categorization and group homogeneity: Changes in the perceived applicability of stereotype content as a function of comparative context and trait favourableness | url = | journal = British Journal of Social Psychology | volume = 34 | issue = 2| pages = 139–160 | doi=10.1111/j.2044-8309.1995.tb01054.x}}</ref><ref name=" Haslam, et al. (1996).">Halsam, S. A., Oakes, P. J., Turner, J. C., & McGarty, C. (1995). Social identity, self-categorization and the perceived homogeneity of ingroups and outgroups: the interaction between social motivation and cognition. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of Motivation and Cognition (Vol. 3, pp. 182-222). New York: Guilford</ref> This is also congruent with depersonalization, where under certain circumstances perceivers may see themselves as interchangeable members of the ingroup.<ref name="De Cremer 138–146">{{cite journal| last=De Cremer| first=David| title= Perceptions of group homogeneity as a function of social comparison: The mediating role of group identity| journal=Current Psychology| date=1 August 2001| volume=20| issue=2| pages=138–146| doi=10.1007/s12144-001-1021-4}}</ref> The self-categorization theory eliminates the need to posit differing processing mechanisms for ingroups and outroups, as well as accounting for findings of outgroup homogeneity in the [[minimal group paradigm]].<ref name="McGarty, C (1999)."/>

==參考文獻==
{{Reflist|30em}}

<nowiki>
[[Category:Conceptions of self]]
[[Category:Majority–minority relations]]
[[Category:Self]]
</nowiki>

2019年10月4日 (五) 11:29的版本

自我歸類理論（英語：Self-categorization theory） is a theory in social psychology that describes the circumstances under which a person will perceive collections of people (including themselves) as a group, as well as the consequences of perceiving people in group terms.[1] Although the theory is often introduced as an explanation of psychological group formation (which was one of its early goals), it is more accurately thought of as general analysis of the functioning of categorization processes in social perception and interaction that speaks to issues of individual identity as much as group phenomena.[2] It was developed by John Turner and colleagues, and along with social identity theory it is a constituent part of the social identity approach. It was in part developed to address questions that arose in response to social identity theory about the mechanistic underpinnings of social identification.[3][4][5][6]

Self-categorization theory has been influential in the academic field of social psychology and beyond.[7] It was first applied to the topics of social influence, group cohesion, group polarization, and collective action.[8] In subsequent years the theory, often as part of the social identity approach, has been applied to further topics such as leadership,[6][9] personality,[10] outgroup homogeneity, and power.[11] One tenet of the theory is that the self should not be considered as a foundational aspect of cognition, but rather the self should be seen as a product of the cognitive system at work.[10][12][13][14]

決定因素

Rugby operates using self-categorization theory processes.
The clear intergroup structure of team sports means that such contexts are often used to illustrate self-categorization theory processes.[15][9]

In self-categorization theory the formation and use of a social category in a certain context is predicted by an interaction between perceiver readiness and category-stimulus fit. The latter being broken down into comparative fit and normative fit.[12][16] This predictive interaction was heavily influenced by Bruner's accessibility and fit formula.[17][18] A social category that is currently in use is called a salient social category, and in the case of a self category is called a salient social identity.[3] The latter should not be confused with level of identification, which is a component of perceiver readiness.[19]

知者準備

Perceiver readiness, which Turner first described as relative accessibility,[15] "reflects a person's past experiences, present expectations, and current motives, values, goals and needs".[12] It is the relevant aspects of cognition that the perceiver brings to the environment. For example, a perceiver who categorizes frequently on the basis of nationality (e.g., "we Americans") is, due to that past experience, more likely to formulate a similar self category under new conditions. Accordingly, social identification, or the degree to which the group is valued and self-involving, may be thought of as an important factor that affects a person's readiness to use a particular social category.[6][9]

相對性適合

Variation in self-categorization as a function of comparative context.
Figure 2. Variation in self-categorization as a function of comparative context. In Context 1 Amy and Beth self-categorize in terms of lower-level personal identities that accentuate their differences from each other. However, in Context 2 the comparative is extended to include more different others (here men), and Amy and Beth are now more likely to define themselves in terms of a higher-level social identity. They hence appear more similar to each other. The main theoretical point here is that as comparative context is extended, people tend to self-categorize at a more inclusive, higher level of abstraction.[9]

Comparative fit is determined by the meta-contrast principle—which states that people are more likely to believe that a collection of stimuli represents an entity to the degree that the differences between those stimuli are less than the differences between that collection of stimuli and other stimuli.[15][8][12] For predicting whether a group will categorize an individual as an ingroup or outgroup member, the meta-contrast principle may be defined as the ratio of the average similarity of the individual to outgroup members over the average similarity of the individual to ingroup members. The meta-contrast ratio is dependent on the context, or frame of reference, in which the categorization process is occurring.[20] That is, the ratio is a comparison based on whichever stimuli are cognitively present. For example, if the frame of reference is reduced such that potential outgroup members are no longer cognitively present, ingroup members regard the individual as less similar to the group and are less likely to categorize that individual as belonging to that group.

規範性適合

Normative fit is the extent that the perceived behaviour or attributes of an individual or collection of individuals conforms to the perceiver's knowledge-based expectations.[21] Thus, normative fit is evaluated with reference to the perceiver readiness component of the categorisation process.[22] As an example of the role of normative fit in categorization, although a collection of individuals may be categorized as an entity on the basis of comparative fit, they are only labelled using the specific social category of "science students" if perceived as hard working. That is, they fit the normative content of that category.

含義

社會影響力

主条目：社會影響力（英语：social influence）

Self-categorization theory provides an account of social influence.[6][9][8][23][24][25] This account is sometimes referred to as the theory of referent informational influence.[8][23][24] According to self-categorization theory, as social identities become salient, and depersonalization and self-stereotyping occurs, people adopt the norms, beliefs, and behaviors of fellow ingroup members. They also distance themselves from the norms, beliefs, and behaviors of comparison outgroup members. When someone observes a difference between themselves and a fellow ingroup member that person will experience subjective uncertainty. That uncertainty can be resolved by either a) recategorizing people or the situation to reflect those perceived differences, or b) engaging in a social influence process whereby one person makes changes to become more similar to the other. Which person adopts the views or behaviors of the other (i.e. who influences who) is predicted to be that person who is most prototypical of the ingroup. In other words, the person who exemplifies the norms, values, and behaviors of the ingroup the most. The self-categorization theory account of social influence has received a large amount of empirical support.[26][27][28]

Self-categorization theory's account of social influence differs from other social psychological approaches to social influence. It rejects the traditional distinction between informational influence and normative influence,[3][8][23][25][29] where informational influence involves the assessment of social information based on its merit and normative influence involves public compliance to the expectations of group members. For self-categorization theory social information does not have merit independent of self-categorization. Instead, information is perceived as valid to the extent that it is perceived to be a normative belief of the ingroup. Normative influence, on the other hand, is not normative at all. Rather, it is counter-normative influence based compliance to expectations of psychological outgroup members. In a similar vein self-categorization theory also challenges the distinction between objective reality testing and social reality testing (e.g. the elaboration likelihood model).[2][3][8][23][24][25][29][30] It argues that there is no such thing as objective reality testing isolated from social reality testing. Sensory data is always interpreted with respect of the beliefs and ideas of the perceiver, which in turn are bound up in the psychological group memberships of that perceiver.

外群體同質性

主条目：外群體同質性（英语：Outgroup homogeneity）

Outgroup homogeneity can be defined as seeing the outgroup members as more homogeneous than ingroup members.[31] Self-categorization accounts for the outgroup homogeneity effect as a function of perceiver motivation and the resultant comparative context,[4][15] which is a description of the psychologically available stimuli at any one time. The theory argues that when perceiving an outgroup the psychologically available stimuli include both ingroup and outgroup members. Under these conditions the perceiver is more likely to categorize in accordance with ingroup and outgroup memberships and is consequently naturally motivated to accentuate intergroup differences as well as intragroup similarities. Conversely, when perceiving an ingroup the outgroup members may not be psychologically available. In such circumstances there is no ingroup-outgroup categorization and thus no accentuation. Indeed, accentuation of intragroup differences may occur under these circumstances for the same sense making reasons.

In line with this explanation it has been shown that in an intergroup context both the ingroup and outgroup is perceived as more homogeneous, while when judged in isolation the ingroup is perceived as comparatively heterogeneous.[32][33] This is also congruent with depersonalization, where under certain circumstances perceivers may see themselves as interchangeable members of the ingroup.[34] The self-categorization theory eliminates the need to posit differing processing mechanisms for ingroups and outroups, as well as accounting for findings of outgroup homogeneity in the minimal group paradigm.[15]

參考文獻

  1. ^ Haslam, S. A. Spears, R.; Oakes, P.J.; Ellemers, N.; et al , 编. Stereotyping and social influence: Foundations of stereotype consensus. The Social Psychology of Stereotyping and Group Life. 1997: 119–143. 
  2. ^ 2.0 2.1 Oakes, Penny; Haslam, Alex; Turner, John. Stereotyping and social reality. Blackwell: Oxford. 1994. 
  3. ^ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 Turner, John; Oakes, Penny. The significance of the social identity concept for social psychology with reference to individualism, interactionism and social influence. British Journal of Social Psychology. 1986, 25 (3): 237–252. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1986.tb00732.x. 
  4. ^ 4.0 4.1 Haslam, Alex; Oakes, Penny; Turner, John; McGarty, Craig. Sorrentino, Richard; Higgins, Edward , 编. Social identity, self-categorization, and the perceived homogeneity of ingroups and outgroups: The interaction between social motivation and cognition. Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: The Interpersonal Context, Handbook of Motivation and Cognition. 1996, 3: 182–222. 
  5. ^ Turner, J. C. Ellemers, N.; Spears, R.; Doosje, B. , 编. Some current issues in research on social identity and self-categorization theories. Social Identity. 1999: 6–34. 
  6. ^ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 Haslam, A. S. (2001). Psychology in Organizations. London, SAGE Publications.
  7. ^ Postmes, T. & Branscombe, N. (2010). Sources of social identity. In T. Postmes & N. Branscombe (Eds). Rediscovering Social Identity: Core Sources. Psychology Press.
  8. ^ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D. & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell
  9. ^ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 Haslam, S. Alexander; Reicher, Stephen D.; Platow, Michael J. The new psychology of leadership: Identity, influence and power. New York, NY: Psychology Press. 2011. ISBN 978-1-84169-610-2. 
  10. ^ 10.0 10.1 Turner, J. C.; Onorato, R. S. Tyler, T. R.; Kramer, R. M.; John, O. P. , 编. Social identity, personality, and the self-concept: A self-categorization perspective. The Psychology of the Social Self. 1998, 26 (4): 11–46. doi:10.1080/03060497.1998.11085868. 
  11. ^ Turner, J. C. Explaining the nature of power: A three-process theory. European Journal of Social Psychology. 2005, 35 (1): 1–22. doi:10.1002/ejsp.244. 
  12. ^ 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 Turner, J. C.; Oakes, P. J.; Haslam, S. A.; McGarty, C. Self and collective: Cognition and social context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1994, 20 (5): 454–463. doi:10.1177/0146167294205002. 
  13. ^ Reynolds, K. J.; Turner, J. C. Individuality and the prejudiced personality. European Review of Social Psychology. 2006, 17 (1): 233–270. doi:10.1080/10463280601050880. 
  14. ^ Onorato; Turner. Fluidity in the self-concept: The shift from personal to social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology. 2004, 34 (3): 257–278. doi:10.1002/ejsp.195. 
  15. ^ 15.0 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 McGarty, C. (1999). Categorization in social psychology. Sage Publications: London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi.
  16. ^ Voci, Alberto. Relevance of social categories, depersonalization and group processes: two field tests of self-categorization theory. European Journal of Social Psychology. 1 January 2006, 36 (1): 73–90. doi:10.1002/ejsp.259. 
  17. ^ Turner, J. C. & Reynolds, K. J. (2010). The story of social identity. In T. Postmes & N. Branscombe (Eds). Rediscovering Social Identity: Core Sources. Psychology Press.
  18. ^ Bruner, J. S. On perceptual readiness. Psychological Review. 1957, 64 (2): 123–152. PMID 13420288. doi:10.1037/h0043805. 
  19. ^ McGarty, C. Social Identity Theory does not maintain that identification produces bias, and Self-categorization Theory does not maintain that salience is identification: Two comments on Mummendey, Klink and Brown. British Journal of Social Psychology. 2001, 40 (Pt 2): 173–176. PMID 11446223. doi:10.1348/014466601164777. 
  20. ^ Turner, J. C. (1999). Current issues in research on social identity and self-categorization theories. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds), Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 6-34) Oxford, UK. Blackwell.
  21. ^ Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A. & Turner, J. C. (1994). Stereotyping as social reality. Oxford, UK and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
  22. ^ Brown, P. M. & Turner, J. C. (2002). The role of theories in the formation of stereotype content. In C. McGarty, V. Y. Yzerbyt & R. Spears (Eds), Stereotypes as explanations: The formation of meaningful beliefs about social groups. Cambridge.
  23. ^ 23.0 23.1 23.2 23.3 Turner, J.C. Lawler, E. J. , 编. Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behavior. Advances in Group Processes: Theory and Research. 1985, 2: 77–122. 
  24. ^ 24.0 24.1 24.2 Turner, J.C. Tajfel, H. , 编. Toward a cognitive redefinition of the social group. Social Identity and Intergroup Relations. 1982: 15–40. 
  25. ^ 25.0 25.1 25.2 Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
  26. ^ McGarty, C.; Turner, J. C. The effects of categorization on social judgement. British Journal of Social Psychology. 1992, 31 (4): 253–268. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1992.tb00971.x. 
  27. ^ Mackie, D. M.; Wright, C. L. Social Influence in an Intergroup context. Brown, Rupert; Gaertner, Sam L. (编). Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Intergroup Processes 3. 2001. ISBN 978-0-470-69270-7.  |issue=被忽略 (帮助)
  28. ^ Livingstone, A. G.; Haslam, S. A.; Postmes, T.; Jetten, J. "We Are, Therefore We Should": Evidence That In-Group Identification Mediates the Acquisition of In-Group Norms. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2011, 41 (8): 1857–1876. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00794.x. 
  29. ^ 29.0 29.1 Turner, J. C.; Oakes, P. J. McGarty, C.; Haslam, S. A. , 编. The socially structured mind. The Message of Social Psychology. 1997: 355–373. 
  30. ^ Oakes, P. J.; Reynolds, R. J. Spears, R.; Oakes, P.J.; Ellemers, N.; et al , 编. Asking the accuracy question: is measurement the answer?. The Social Psychology of Stereotyping and Group Life. 1997: 119–143. 
  31. ^ Quattrone, George A.; Jones, Edward E. The perception of variability within in-groups and out-groups: Implications for the law of small numbers.. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1980, 38 (1): 141–152. ISSN 0022-3514. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.38.1.141. 
  32. ^ Haslam, S. A.; Oakes, P. J.; Turner, J. C.; McGarty, C. Social categorization and group homogeneity: Changes in the perceived applicability of stereotype content as a function of comparative context and trait favourableness. British Journal of Social Psychology. 1995, 34 (2): 139–160. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1995.tb01054.x. 
  33. ^ Halsam, S. A., Oakes, P. J., Turner, J. C., & McGarty, C. (1995). Social identity, self-categorization and the perceived homogeneity of ingroups and outgroups: the interaction between social motivation and cognition. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of Motivation and Cognition (Vol. 3, pp. 182-222). New York: Guilford
  34. ^ De Cremer, David. Perceptions of group homogeneity as a function of social comparison: The mediating role of group identity. Current Psychology. 1 August 2001, 20 (2): 138–146. doi:10.1007/s12144-001-1021-4. 

[[Category:Conceptions of self]] [[Category:Majority–minority relations]] [[Category:Self]]

取自“https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=自我歸類理論&oldid=56351090”