EVALUATING RELATIONSHIP AMONG RELIGIOSITY, SELFESTEEM, AND IDENTIFICATION WITH TURKISH IDENTITY THROUGH STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODEL

Year 2013, Volume: 5 Issue: 2, 73 - 85, 01.12.2013

Fatih Özdemir Ezher Gözün

Abstract

Social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) is commonly used in social psychology field since the late 1970s for explaining the person’s sense of who I am. It provides a theoretical approach to identification with Turkish identity as national identity. Conservatism and religiosity are main values/norms of Turkish culture (Cagaptay, 2006; Imamoglu, 2002; Hofstede, 2001), and they influence social behaviors of Turkish population. Also, according to social identity theory, identification with a positive social group, and internalizing its norms or values have a positive effect on the person’s self-concepts (Tajfel, 1978). Therefore it can be said, this identification will increase the self-esteem level of group member. Moreover, the effects of demographic variables on individual’s social behaviors cannot be ignored as political affiliation, ethnic identity, education, age, sex and income. In this study, authors have analyzed relationship among these variables in different way, and have tested predictive power of religiosity, and self-esteem on identification with Turkish identity. Study has been performed with Middle East Technical University students (N=341) and Religious Attitude Scale (Ok, 2011), Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) and Social Identity Scale (Cinnirella, 1998) are main materials. In order to figure out the effects of religiosity, and self-esteem on identification with Turkish identity, authors have created a structural equation model. Firstly, they have tested their measurement model. Confirmatory factor analysis has yielded good fit of the confirmatory model in the data [χ2 (24, N = 341) = 30.23, p=.17, RMSEA = .03, GFI = .98, AGFI = .96, CFI =1, NNFI = .99]. In addition, the structural model has yielded good fit of the structural model in the data [χ2 (17, N = 341) = 19.19, p=.32, RMSEA = .02, GFI = .99, AGFI = .97, CFI =1, NNFI = 1]. Religiosity, and selfesteem have significantly predicted identification with Turkish identity

Keywords

Turkish Identity, Self-Esteem, Religiosity, Structural Equation Model

References

• Baumeister, R. F. (1991). Meanings of life. New York: The Guilford Press.
• Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2002). The pursuit of meaningfulness in life. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (p. 608-618). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Cagaptay, S. (2006). Islam, secularism and nationalism in modern Turkey: Who is a Turk? London: Routledge.
• Cingöz-Ulu, B. (2008). Structure of Turkish national identity and attitudes towards ethno-cultural groups in Turkey. Doctoral Dissertation, York University, York.
• Guibernau, M. (2007). The identity of nations. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Haslam, S. A., Jetten, J., Postmes, T., & Haslam, C. (2009). Social identity, health and well-being: An emerging agenda for applied psychology. Applied Psychology: An International review, 58 (1), 1-23
• Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. London: Sage.
• Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online http://dx.doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014 in Psychology and Culture, 2 (1),
• Jöreskog, K. ve Sörbom, D. (2001). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software International Inc, USA.
• Karakitapoğlu-Aygün, Z., & İmamoğlu, E. O. (2002). Value domains of Turkish adults, and university students. The Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 333-351.
• Kernis, M. H. (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychological Inquiry 14 (1), 1-26.
• Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.
• Ok, Ü. (2011). Religious attitude scale: Scale development and validation. International Journal of Human Sciences, 8 (2), 528-549.
• Roccas, S. (2005). Religion and value systems. Journal of Social Issues, 61 (4), 747-759.
• Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism-collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.). Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method and applications (p. 85-119). London: Sage.
• Sherif, M. (1966). Group conflict and co-operation: Their social psychology. Michigan: Routledge & K. Paul.
• Tajfel, H. (1972). Social categorization. In S. Moscovici (Ed.). Introduction to Social Psychology. Paris: Larousse.
• Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. London: Academic Press.
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An intergrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.). The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel and W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed.; pp. 7-24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall Publishers.
• Tajfel, H., & Wilkes, A. L. (1963). Classification and quantitative judgment. British Journal of Psychology, 54, 101-114.
• Turner, J. C., Brown, R. J., & Tajfel, H. (1979). Social comparison and group interest in ingroup favouritism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 9, 187-204.