Identity theory applies to all creeds and cultures. We all develop understandings about ourselves, the type of person we are and wish to be and indeed do not wish to be. This essay examines the strengths and weaknesses of the social constructionist theory of identity, wherein it is proposed that our identities are constructed though language and social relations. In doing so, we shall also consider the psychosocial perspective, demonstrating that the evidence does indeed support the statement made although not overwhelmingly so.

A core component of social construction identity theory is that our identity is continually evolving throughout our lives (Phoenix, 2007, p. 76). Such identity -movement does not stop per se, it is neither fixed nor rigid but fluctuates continually. Our numerous social interactions directly impacts our identity –thinking to such an extent that our identities are constantly shaped and re-shaped as a direct result of these interactions.
In fact, social identity theory goes a step further and proposes that we actively create our identities though our language and essentially through the many forms of social communications, voice, written, electronic (tweets etc), (Phoenix, 2007, p. 71). We interact with people oftentimes in the manner which we wish to be perceived by others, not just in what we say but in how we say it, what we write and how we wish to portray ourselves to others all of which is evidenced through our social behaviourisms. In other words, we are constantly making and updating our identity during our social intercourses. Bruner (Phoenix, 2007, p. 73) proposes that the manner in which we tell “our stories” demonstrates our identities in the making.

Gergen, in his autobiographical narrative shares his reflections (Phoenix, 2007, p. 71) as he moved from his preferred penmanship to computers allowing us to witness his shifting identity first -hand.

These statements are strong because they can be supported by objective evidence.

Another critical aspect of social identity theory is that it is formed from social interaction, exclusively. The argument runs that our identity is shaped and modified as a direct consequence and outcome of our social interactions and that there is no room for private identity –formation as such. Our identity is formed as a direct consequence from our public interactions only, (Phoenix, 2007, p. 76).

However, this statement is weak as there is no material evidence to support such a claim.

Of further and equal importance, is the double -assertion that the social constructionist identity theory does not focus solely on a core identity nor does it focus on the singular of just one identity either. In fact, quite the opposite, this particular identity theory proposes that people have numerous different identities and that these are all non–core in type, meaning of equal or relatively equal importance to us. The argument runs that if we have multiple identities in play, that this very fact nullifies the existence of a single and central core identity.

However, similar to the above, such assertions are so subjective in nature and in the absence of any compelling data to underpin these points, they can only be regarded as weak.

Another notable facet to social constructionist identity theory is the issue of power. (Phoenix, 2007, p. 79). This view proposes that an individual obtains some feeling of power derived from the social engagement between the participants of the interaction. Yet, social identity theory takes this a step further and asserts that certain identities create a stronger power –impact upon the person than others or in other words, the derivation of social power upon identity is relative to the type and blend of participants involved in the interaction.

In terms of measuring these particular points however, it is noticeably harder to objectively measure these aspects of SIT theory other than obtaining arrays of subjective data. Similar to the previous points that could only be subjectively measured, the marked absence of concrete measurable and objective data only serves to reduce the overall strength and impact of the statements made.

Moving forward, if we change focus and examine the psychosocial perspective of identity we find that whilst the theory in itself appears weaker, the supporting evidence and data is more objective.

Psychosocial theory proposes that we do establish a core –identity, almost in private, developed initially during our adolescent years which we look to preserve and almost defend and protect in our social interactions rather than consciously adjust. Erik Erikson (Phoenix, 2007, p. 53) proposes that our core identity is the most precious to us and further proposes that we believe it important that our social interactions see our identities as being consistent and largely similar over time rather than being in any form of change. This contradicts social identity theory directly and Erikson’s eight –stage table, charting our identity journey from our earliest years to our final stages of life, supports this assertion because it highlights how and when people actually believe they form their identities.

The value of this model, (the Identity Status Model) is that it lends itself to repeated and robust measurement, a task taken on by both Marcia and Kroger by means of a high volume of data gathered via semi structured interviews over many years. Whilst technically subjective, the sheer volume of data and the categorisation of the data collected supports a more objective analysis than relying on subjective data alone.

These points combined very strongly support Erikson’s Psychosocial identity theory.

Marcia went further and developed thinking around identity -moratoria and –achievement, the former a period in adolescence where active identity searching is performed and the latter, the stage reached when the person reaches a point of acceptance, comfort and security with their newly found sense of self.

And so to conclude, on the one hand we have the social constructionist perspective, owned by no one individual or group, yet experienced by many of us, ever –changing and dynamic but without any real substantive measurement technique to qualify it robustly.
On the other hand, we have the psychosocial perspective, coined by Erikson, developed further by a series of interested parties, advocating core and fixed long term identity, offering emotional stability and security obtained from far more robust techniques underpinned by a larger array of measurable –data.

We can therefore, safely conclude that whilst there are strengths and weaknesses across both perspectives and despite the social identity theory possibly being more reflective of people true feelings, there is a marked absence of effective and supporting data hence the statement should not be upheld.

References

Phoenix, A., (2007) “Identities can Be changed and so are Provisional and Dynamic” in Miell, D., Phoenix, A., and Thomas K., Mapping Psychology, Milton Keynes, The Open University.

Phoenix, A., (2007) “Every Day activities are constructed through Language and Social Relations” in Miell, D., Phoenix, A., and Thomas K., Mapping Psychology, Milton Keynes, The Open University.

Phoenix, A., (2007) “We reflect on our own identities and choose particular ways to tell our stories” in Miell, D., Phoenix, A., and Thomas K., Mapping Psychology, Milton Keynes, The Open University.

Phoenix, A., (2007) “Identifies involve power relations” in Miell, D., Phoenix, A., and Thomas K., Mapping Psychology, Milton Keynes, The Open University.

Phoenix, A., (2007) “Erikson’s psychosocial theory of identity ” in Miell, D., Phoenix, A., and Thomas K., Mapping Psychology, Milton Keynes, The Open University.

PART II - Question 01

The most critical issue the team should consider is the fact that the activity involves children. Psychological experiments involving children require particular vigilance.
The team must ensure, that the individuals involved and those hired are CRB checked before any engagement takes place. Ensuring the safety –absolute of all of the children must be sacrosanct.

Secondly, is the “power relationship” that will be naturally present between the children and the researchers. Even though the researchers are likely to be young –adults, there is every likelihood that the adult –child relationships will be present so the researches need to be fully briefed and prepared to treat the children in an adult –type manner, affording them the same level of respect as they would to any adult participant.

The team is obliged to pursue the same level of rigour around issues such as obtaining the children’s consent, preserving their anonymity, keeping the data obtained confidential, respecting their privacy, ensuring any deceptive messaging and certainly ensuring that the child clearly understands that if they wish to withdraw at any time, how this can be done. Extra attention must be paid during execution so that each child is monitored and observed carefully so as they do not become distressed or upset and perhaps feeling unable to withdraw due to the parent –child dilemma.

Protecting the children from any and all harm and further, ensuring that the integrity of the activity is honourable and maintained continually should be uppermost in the minds of the experiment controllers and the researchers.

All of these issues can be overcome successfully.

Involving the parent/carer and/or guardian of the children, seeking their support and indeed their permission to proceed is a definite requirement.
Total transparency with the children, clearly explaining what the nature of the experiment is, why it is necessary and what will happen with their information volunteered should overcome many of the issues. Indeed, involving them in the post execution de –brief, will help to ensure that their experience is as positive as it can be.

PART II - Question 2-A

The first paragraph of the makes a very broad statement about a huge mass of people across a huge geographic spread. It is so general so as to be baseless.
It offers no material insights to the amount of crime being addressed and it offers only one possible “popular” explanation as justification.

Placed against the BPS ethical guidelines, of respect, competence, responsibility and integrity, this content and implications of the first paragraph violate significantly BPS’s ethics.

The first paragraph could be seen as being disrespectful to 50% of the American population. With such a broad unsubstantiated generalisation, the implication is that more people subscribe to a notion of “culture of honour” which generates more violence than elsewhere in America. Without substantive data, psychologists are guided to be mindful and careful to avoid practices that are unfair and prejudiced. The first paragraph is sufficiently general so as to be prejudicial hence violates this particular ethic.

Following on from the above, competence must be compromised to some degree if the first paragraph got it so wrong with the ethic of respect. Psychologists have a duty of competence to their work so as to ensure that the best ethical practices are followed all of the time.

Responsibility and integrity are compromised also. Psychologists are obliged to perform responsibly at all times and executing such an experiment using such deceptive tactics calls these ethics into question as well.

In summary, all key BPS ethics are significantly compromised hence violated here.

PART II - Question 2-B

There are other ways that this experiment could have been delivered.

The mechanics of the experiment, meaning the manner of the form –filling, and then the physical interruption could have been simulated in different ways, perhaps through the use of sound, or some other form of obstruction used, like a person carrying a pile of books, swerves to avoid the participant resulting in a disruptive type –scenario. The manner in which the bad language is used coupled with the physical impact of the confederate upon the participant is unnecessary.

Alternatively, the entire experiment could have been done by more traditional means, not by simulation but by simple questionnaire format. A number of scenarios could be drawn up, describing various options that could be taken to deal with specific situations arising in everyday life which could be designed to glean a more informed and considered response from the participants.

Having made the points above, it is however possible to justify the deception designed into this experiment.

If the experiment was looking to assess/measure/observe the participants “reflex action/reaction” to a fast –moving hostile situation, simulating perhaps a late night street –situation between strangers then this type of deception, ethically poor as it is, could be justified.