Sunday, October 2, 2011

Blog #10 Double-Entry Matilda Jarvis

Sorry about the formatting--no symmetry here... also, I underlined most important/relevant information for which I commented on. 

“The Air’s Got to be Far Cleaner Here” Journal Entry           

October 2, 2011

Hugh-Jones, Siobhan, and Anna Madill. "'The air's got to be far cleaner here': A discursive analysis of place-identity threat." British Journal of Social Psychology 48.4 (2009): 601-624. Sociological Collection. EBSCO. Web. 2 Oct. 2011.

Article for the British Journal of Social Psychology.

-“Identity is a complex concept encapsulating what is perceived to be unique about a person, (usually thought of as personal or self identity)…Over the last 25 years, there has been a movement away from theorizing identity purely in terms of essential characteristics of the individual and towards more contextualized understandings. In social and environmental psychology, this development has generated numerous constructs that allow exploration of the role of place in the formation and maintenance of identity, for example place-attachment…place identity…and place dependence” (Hugh-Jones and Madill 601-602).

-->I didn't know that place wasn't considered a part of identity until 25 years ago--but I think that place has a very strong impact on identity.

-“[Proshansky et al.] argue that the key characteristics of self-identity will be reflected in place-identity, namely distinctiveness (from others outside that place), continuity (of place in which self is preserved as a specific type of person), self-esteem (where place permits enhancement), and self-efficacy (where the environment facilitates a chosen life-style” (Hugh-Jones and Madill 602).

-->I didn't even think about how efficacy (productiveness, success) could be determined by the identity of an individual in a place, but it makes sense: I am more productive in certain places than I am when I am surrounded by all kinds of distractions. 
-“However, more recent evidence suggest that individuals interact with their environment at a conscious level at certain times… that people actively seek out places that support or reaffirm their sense of self (Manzo, 2003). Similarly, Hormuth (1990) argues that people actively choose environments that are congruent with their self-concept, for example when relocating to mark a new phase in one's life (Twigger-Ross & Uzzell, 1996). Thus, the current perspective on place-identity is that settings permit the conscious, as well as unconscious, maintenance, development, expression, and affirming of identities (Kyle et al,, 2004; Twigger-Ross & Uzzell, 1996). Moreover, as who we are is intimately related to where we are (Barnes, 2000), and hence subject to change, place-identity is viewed increasingly as a dynamic construction (Lefebvre, 1991).” (Hugh-Jones and Madill 602-603).

-->I completely agree with the statement: "who we are is intimately related to where we are." But, is it because of the location or because of certain things we associate with that place, or does it even matter?

Conclusion: This article has to do with how people identify themselves in regards to their environmental location, how they relate to their environment. The experiment had to do with individual's opinion of their area's environmental conditions. The experiment was conducted to show results on a broad level (such as how the people's opinion of their environment related to how they identified with the local area), but the findings can be applied to the more specific question I raised.

Diversity in the person, diversity in the group: Challenges of identity complexity for social perception and social interaction

October 2, 2011

Bodenhausen, GV. "Diversity in the person, diversity in the group: Challenges of identity complexity for social perception and social interaction." European Journal of Social Psychology 40.1 (2010): 1-16. CINAHL Plus with Full Text. EBSCO. Web. 2 Oct. 2011.

Journal article, review for European Journal of Social Psychology.

-"In the Roccas and Brewer (2002) model of social identity complexity, compartmentalization represents a more complex form of identification in which different identities come to the fore in different circumstances (see also Amiot et al., 2007). This idea clearly resonates with the main themes of self-categorization theory (Turner et al., 1987). Another research tradition that fits well with the notion of compartmentalization is work on cultural frame-switching in bicultural persons (Hong, Morris, Chiu, & Benet- Martínez, 2000). Here the idea is that bicultural individuals often possess two distinct cultural identities that take turns controlling processes of self-regulation in different contexts, depending on situational cues to the relevance of a given identity. One such cue may be language, and some research suggests that when using different languages, people appear to be expressing different personalities, presumably due to the invocation of different, culturally defined norms for behavior within each group of language users (Ramírez-Esparza, Gosling, Benet-Martínez, Potter, & Pennebaker, 2004)” (Bodenhausen 8).

-->With my bilingual background, I have noticed what is described here: that when I am speaking with my mother in Finnish, I tend to act differently than when I am at school, or around friends speaking in English (it is not intensely noticeable, but because I have picked up on it, I now recognize it better).

“They argued that momentary social identity salience is influenced by a number of variables, including motivational states (such as a desire for distinctiveness or assimilation; see Brewer, 1991), the situational relevance (normative fit) of an identity, the visibility and contextual distinctiveness of a given identity (see Nelson & Miller, 1995), others’ reactions and expectations, etc. Once salient, these categories can then determine which goals and norms are salient as well as guide perceptions of other team members (Early & Mosakowski, 2000; Randel, 2002)” (Bodenhausen 9).

-->Okay, so our social identity is influenced by "others' reactions and expectations." Is that specific to an environment?

“Until identity integration occurs, the distinct identities may be perceived as oppositional, and individuals may feel that their social identities are not valued. Swann, Polzer, Seyle, and Ko (2004) argued that people in groups seek verification of both their personal and their social identities. They report evidence indicating that verification of personal self-views results in better interpersonal dynamics within a group, while verification of social self-views results in greater commitment to the group as a whole.” (Bodenhauser 11).

-->People look for verification of their identities while in a group, an identity personal and unique to themselves, and an identity that makes them a part of the group. So, does this combination of the personal and social identities cause the difference in behavior, or representation of identities, when in different locations, because of the people that define the group that act as an influence?

Conclusion: This article focused on the individual's identity within a group. It has several ideas centered around actors, "using their different self-aspects as a framework for guiding their interactions with the social world" (Bodenhauser 1).

No comments:

Post a Comment