Psychological research on identity has used both an 'insider viewpoint' and an 'outsider viewpoint'.

Psychologist Erik Erikson founded the psychosocial approach and formed his theory mainly through clinical and naturalistic observation of people.  This would have encompassed both an insider viewpoint – hearing about his patient’s inner experiences – and an outsider viewpoint – using information gained by observing others (Phoenix, 2002).  James Marcia also took the psychosocial approach and used the Identity Status Interview – a semi-structured interview – to research identity in many adolescents, expanding on Erikson’s ideas.  The semi-structured interview allows a set of questions to be asked in a flexible manner, allowing participants to answer freely in their own words, whilst still ensuring that the relevant topics are covered (Phoenix, 2002).  Marcia’s aim was to explore to what extent adolescents took active choices from different possibilities before committing to particular roles which then became part of their identity.  He used the semi-structured interview to discuss issues such as religion, politics, careers and relationships.  The interviews were recorded so that the responses could be listened to and analysed later.  This is an example of research from an insider viewpoint – the result was personal accounts of individuals’  thoughts and experiences, told in their own words.  Marcia also used the participant’s responses to categorise them into one of four stages of identity development (Marcia, 1966, 1980, 1994).  This categorisation of responses by Marcia meant that the data was also looked at from his own perspective – an outsider viewpoint.  

Another approach to identity is Social Identity Theory (SIT) which is concerned with group identities.  SIT aims to explain how people identify with certain social groups and separate themselves from others.  The theory proposes that our social identities arise from the ‘labels’ that we give ourselves which are derived from the social groups that we feel a part of.  SIT also proposes that there are ‘power struggles’ between different social groups and this is what leads to prejudice and discrimination (Tajfel, 1978).  The research methods that have been used to investigate the claims of SIT are very different from those used in psychosocial identity research.  Henry Tajfel conducted the classic ‘minimal group’ experiment – this is a clear example of research being done solely from an outsider viewpoint.

The experiment involved teenage boys separated randomly into two groups – firstly thinking that they were being separated according to a preference for one of two artists.  By asking each boy to select one of three sets of points to be allocated to the groups, Tajfel was able to assess which was most important to each boy – total points achieved by the group, or maximising the difference in points between the two groups.  He found that the boys were more concerned with maximising the points difference between their group and the other.  The experiment was repeated and this time the boys were aware of the fact that their group allocations were completely random – but the result was the same.  This indicated to Tajfel that being placed into arbitrary groups is enough to generate favouritism towards the ingroup (ones own group) and discrimination towards the outgroup (the other group).  Tajfel explained these findings in terms of individuals needing to feel part of groups that have high status compared to other groups – hence we try to maximise the differences between our own group and others, to maintain a positive social identity (Tajfel et.al. 1971).  

Using an outsider viewpoint, Tajfel was able to investigate the dynamics of social groups, achieving results which support his theory. Looking at the situation from an insider viewpoint would not have been helpful since individuals may not be aware that they are seeking to improve the status of the social groups to which they belong, or why they would want to do so.

In looking at psychosocial theory and SIT it is clear that both the insider viewpoint and the outsider viewpoint have an important part to play when researching identities.  Studying identities from both the participant’s point of view and that of the researcher allows different facets of the concept of identity to be explored, leading to a better knowledge of how identities are formed both personally and socially.

1051 words

References:

Erikson, (1968, cited in Phoenix 2002)

Marcia, (1966, 1980, 1994, cited in Phoenix 2002)

Phoenix, A. (2002) Identities and Diversities, in Miell, D., Phoenix, A. and Thomas, K. (eds) Mapping Psychology, Milton Keynes, The Open University, pp. 45, 52-68, 99-102.

Phoenix, A and Thomas, K. (2002) Introduction, in Miell, D., Phoenix, A. and Thomas, K. (eds) Mapping Psychology, Milton Keynes, The Open University, pp. 15-17.

Tajfel, (1978, cited in Phoenix 2002)

Tajfel et.al. (1971, cited in Phoenix 2002)

Part II – Methods Exercises

Q1.

(i)

      (a)        The design of the experiment was within-participants.

2. The independent variable was when the number allocation task was completed – before or after the competitive event took place.
3. The IV was manipulated by asking the boys to complete the number allocation task before the competitive event (game of football) and again afterwards. The conditions are therefore before the competitive event, and after the competitive event.

      (d)        The dependant variable was the pair of numbers that the individiual selected.

5. The DV was measured by using pairs of numbers which signified ‘slight ingroup advantage’, ‘no ingroup advantage’ or ‘large ingroup advantage’.  This meant that categorical data was recorded.

(ii)

1. The fact that the boys were asked to perform the number allocation twice makes it more likely that they will realise the purpose of the experiment and this could affect the results – the participants may give the answer they think the experimenter wants.  This is called a demand characteristic.
2. To remove this confounding variable, the experiment could be conducted using two sets of two groups, one set performing the number allocation without taking part in a competitive event,  and the other set performing the allocation after a competitive event.  However, this will not remove all confounding variables as the experimenter will then have to take into account individual differences between the two sets.  

Q2.

(i)

1. This experiment was a between-participants design.
2. The independent variable was which video was watched – video A (skilful) or video B (conflict).
3. The IV was manipulated by showing video A to half the participants and video B to half the participants – the two groups were randomly allocated.  This produced a ‘skilful’ condition and a ‘conflict’ condition.
4. The dependant variable was the participants rating of their enjoyment of the game, given on a 20 point scale.
5. The DV was measured using values given on a 20 point scale to indicate enjoyment of the game.  This produced continuous data.

(ii)

1. A confounding variable that could affect the outcome of this experiment is the individual differences between the participants in the two groups.  Even though the participants were randomly allocated it is possible that the differences between the individuals could have an effect on the results.          
2. To limit the effect of the differences between the members of the two different groups, all the participants could watch both videos and then rate their enjoyment of each game using the 20 point scale.  This would mean that individual differences between the participants would not end up affecting just one condition.

Q3.

(i)

1. Four chimps made correct choices in five of the situations.
2. Three children made correct choices in six of the situations.
3. Two correct choices were obtained by just one chimp.
4. Six correct choices were made by just three children.

(ii)

1. The mode score for the chimps is six correct choices.
2. The mode score for the children is five correct choices.
3. The range of scores recorded for the chimps is six.
4. The range of scores recorded for the children is also six.

(iii)

1. The mean number of correct choices for the chimps is 5.4 and the standard deviation is 1.66.
2. The mean number of correct choices for the children is 4.1 and the standard deviation is 1.55.
3. The results indicate that the chimps performed more accurately than the children did in this experiment.