Sosyal Kimlik Karmaşıklığı Kuramı: Sosyal Kimliklerimiz Ne Denli Karmaşık?

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 1 Sayı: 1, 62 - 79, 06.07.2018

Deniz Eniç Özge Yanbolluoğlu

Öz

Roccas ve Brewer’in (2002) öne sürdüğü ‘Sosyal Kimlik Karmaşıklığı’
kuramı, bireylerin sahip olduğu sosyal kimliklerin ne denli karmaşık olduğunu
ve aidiyet hissedilen bu kimliklerin zihinde ne şekilde temsil edildiğini
açıklama amacıyla oluşturulmuştur. Sosyal Kimlik Karmaşıklığı “örtüşüm” ve
“benzerlik” karmaşıklığı olmak üzere birbiri ile ilişkili iki alt bileşenden
oluşur (Roccas ve Brewer, 2002). Üyesi olunan gruplar arasındaki ilişkinin
niceliksel olarak yorumlanmasına dayanan örtüşüm
karmaşıklığı (overlap complexity), bireyin aidiyet hissettiği farklı
gruplar arasında algıladığı örtüşme oranı şeklinde tanımlanırken; benzerlik karmaşıklığı (similarity
complexity) kişilerin bu grupların ne kadar benzer olduklarına yönelik
değerlendirmesidir. Literatürde, bireylerin sosyal kimlik karmaşıklığı arttıkça
dış gruplara yönelik tolerans düzeylerinin de arttığını gösteren araştırma
bulguları yer almasına rağmen Sosyal Kimlik Karmaşıklığı’yla ilgili henüz
Türkiye’de yapılmış bir çalışmaya rastlanmamıştır. Bu makalede, Türkiye
literatürüne bir ilk adım olarak Sosyal Kimlik Karmaşıklığı Kuramı tanıtılarak
Türkçeleştirilmiş, kavramın öncülleri, ölçüm yöntemi ve alanda yapılan
çalışmaların bulguları değerlendirilmiştir.

 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Sosyal Kimlik Karmaşıklığı Kuramı, Gruplar arası ilişkiler, Önyargı, Tolerans

Social Identity Complexity Theory: How Complex are Our Social Identities?

Öz

The theory of “Social Identity Complexity” put forward by Roccas and
Brewer (2002), was created with a notion that social identities owned by
individuals are highly complex and with an attempt to explain how they
represent these identities that they feel attached to. Social Identity
Complexity consists of two interrelated sub-components called “overlap” and
“similarity” complexity (Roccas and Brewer, 2002). Overlap complexity is based on the quantitative interpretation of
relationships between member groups and identified as the overlap rate of
individuals experienced in different groups they feel attached to, while
similarity complexity is an evaluation made by individuals as to how these
groups are similar to each other. There are research findings that present an
increase in tolerance towards out-groups as social identity complexity of
individuals increases, yet no such study related to Social Identity Complexity
has been found in Turkey. A theory of Social Identity Complexity has been
localized into Turkish and introduced for the first time to the literature of
Turkey; and premises of the concept, methods of measurement and the findings of
the studies conducted in the field have been
evaluated.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Social Identity Complexity Theory, Intergroup Relations, Prejudice, Tolerance

Kaynakça

• Akdoğan, N. (2015). Basit kategorizasyona karşı çapraz kategorizasyonun gruplar arası ilişkiler üzerindeki etkisi: Ertuşi ve Pinyanişi aşiret grupları (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Uludağ Üniversitesi/Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Bursa.
• Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
• Altemeyer, B. (1988). The Jossey-Bass social and behavioral science series and The Jossey-Bass public administration series. Enemies of freedom: Understanding right-wing authoritarianism. San Francisco, CA, US: Jossey-Bass.
• Arkonaç, S.A.(1995). Çapraz grup üyeliği ve gruplar arası ayırt edicilik. İstanbul Üniversitesi Psikoloji Çalışmaları Dergisi, 10,125-136.
• Branković, M. Pavlović, M. Žeželj, I. Vladisavljević, M. Jovanović, O. ve Petrović, N. (2016). Social Identity Complexity and Inclusiveness As Predictors of Intergroup Emotions. Primenjena Psihologija, 8(4), 363. https://doi.org/10.19090/pp.2015.4.363-378.
• Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality & Social Psychology, 17(5), 475-482.
• Brewer, M. B. (2008). Deprovincialization, social identity complexity and outgroup acceptance. In U. Wagner, C. Tredoux, G. Finchilescu & L. Tropp (Eds.), Improving intergroup relations. Building on the legacy of Thomas F. Pettigrew (pp. 160–176). Oxford, UK & Malden, MA: Blackwell.
• Brewer, M. (2010). Social identity complexity and acceptance of diversity. In R. J. Crisp (Ed.). The psychology of social and cultural diversity (pp. 11–33). Hoboken:Wiley-Blackwell.
• Brewer, M. B. ve Pierce, K. P. (2005). Social identity complexity and outgroup tolerance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(3), 428–437. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271710.
• Corneille, O. Yzerbyt, V.Y. Rogier, A. ve Buidin, G. (2001). Threat and the Group Attribution Error: When Threat Elicits Judgments of Extremity and Homogeneity. Society for Personality and Social Psychology. 27(4), 437-446. Costabile, K. A. ve Austin, A. B. (2017). A riot on campus: The effects of social identity complexity on emotions and reparative attitudes after ingroup‐perpetrated violence. Aggressive Behavior, 44(1), 50-59.
• Crisp, R. J. ve Hewstone, M. (1999). Differential evaluation of crossed category groups: Patterns, processes, and reducing intergroup bias. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 2(4), 307-333.
• Crisp, R. J. ve Hewstone, M. (2007). Multiple social categorization. In M. Zanna (Ed.). Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 39, pp. 163–254). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
• Crisp, R. J. Hewstone, M. ve Rubin, M. (2001). Does Multiple Categorization Reduce Intergroup Bias?. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(1), 76-89.
• Curun, F. ve Tekdemir-Yurtdaş, G. (2015). Basit ve Çaprazlanmış Grup Üyeliklerinin Algılanışı: Cinsiyet ve Yaş Değişkenleri. İstanbul Üniversitesi Psikoloji Çalışmaları Dergisi, 34(2), 35-52.
• Doosje, B. Ellemers, N. ve Spears, R. (1995). Perceived intragroup variability as a function of group status and identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31(5), 410- 436.
• Hewstone, M. Islam, M. R. ve Judd, C. M. (1993). Models of crossed categorization and intergroup relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(5), 779.
• Hogg, M. A. ve Vaughan, G. M. (1995). Social Psychology: An Introduction. Prentice Hall/Harvester Wheatsheaf: London.
• Knifsend, C. A. ve Juvonen, J. (2013). The role of social identity complexity in inter-group attitudes among young adolescents. Social Development, 22(3), 623–640. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2012.00672.x.
• Knifsend, C. A. ve Juvonen, J. (2014). Social Identity Complexity, Cross-Ethnic Friendships, and Intergroup Attitudes in Urban Middle Schools. Child Development, 85(2), 709–721. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12157.
• Meyer, D. (2014). Social identity complexity and sport fans (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Pretoria, Pretoria. Miller, K. P. Brewer, M. B. ve Arbuckle, N. L. (2009). Social identity complexity: Its correlates and antecedents. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 12(1), 79–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430208098778.
• Pettigrew, T.F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65–85.
• Roccas, S. ve Brewer, M. B. (2002). Social identity complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 88–106.
• Schmid, K. Hewstone, M. ve Ramiah, A. Al. (2012). Neighborhood Diversity and Social Identity Complexity: Implications for Intergroup Relations. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(2), 135–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550612446972.
• Schmid, K. Hewstone, M. ve Tausch, N. (2014). Secondary transfer effects of intergroup contact via social identity complexity. British Journal of Social Psychology, 53(3), 443–462. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12045.
• Schmid, K. Hewstone, M. Tausch, N. Cairns, E. ve Hughes, J. (2009). Antecedents and consequences of Social identity complexity: Intergroup contact, distinctiveness threat, and outgroup attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(8), 1085–1098. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209337037.
• Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1-69). San Diego, CA: Academic press.
• Sidanius, J.ve Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press.
• Sherif, M. Harvey, O. J. White, B. J. Hood, W. R. & Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment (Vol. 10). Norman, OK: University Book Exchange.
• Sønderlund, A. L. Morton, T. A. ve Ryan, M. K. (2017). Multiple group membership and well- being: Is there always strength in numbers?. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1038.
• Stephan, W. G. ve Stephan, C. W. (1996). Predicting prejudice. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20, 409-426. Stephan, W.G. ve Stephan, C.W. (2000). An integrated theory of prejudice. In: Oskamp, S. (ed.) Reducing prejudice and discrimination. 23–45. Erlbaum, Mahwah.
• Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1- 39.
• Tajfel, H. ve Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin ve S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: BrooksJCole.