Outlined_to_Different_Psychological_Approaches_to_Identity._What_Are_the_Strengths_and_Weaknesses_of_Each

Outline two different psychological approaches to Identity. What are the strengths and weaknesses of each' If asked most people would have an opinion about identity and what it means to them. In this essay two different approaches are outlined which are Psychosocial theory by Eric Erickson and James Marcia and the Social Constructionist theory which as ‘diverse origins in a number disciplines and as many perspectives’ (p69 book 1). In Psychosocial theory Erickson believed that identity was constantly evolving along a path of ‘lifelong developmental process’ (Pheonix, 2004, p53) and would come into conflict with polar opposite characteristics e.g. trust vs mistrust. He called these conflicts ‘normative crisis’ and thought most people suffered at some stage in their life. In conjunction with this he developed ‘eight developmental stages of identity’ with each stage being a building block of development on the last one; refer to (appendix 1 eight development stages of identity). Erickson viewed the adolescent stage to be crucial in forming ego identity: the opposite outcome is role diffusion. Role diffusion is ‘Failure to achieve a secure ego identity’ (phoenix, 2004, p56). The Adolescent stage gave a period of psychosocial moratorium, which introduces young people into an experimental phase while postponing major life decisions, this process continues through adolescence then identity crisis may occur. James Marcia contributed to psychosocial by conducting Semi-structured interviews, which allows the researcher to be fluid and flexible (Phoenix 2007 p58) ‘not constraining the range of answers the respondent can give’. In addition, there are the four identity statues (refer to Appendix 2 for table) which breaks down adolescence into four chunks were young people can experience and evolve: the goal being ‘identity achievement’. The social construction of identity has no profound origin, but a collaboration of different influences from society. To understand social constructionism a break down of the words is required. First, ‘social’ is defined by the Collins dictionary as ‘relating, or characteristic of experience, behaviour and interaction of persons forming groups’. This means the experience of language used, social groups and media all influence individuals within sub-groups, in addition to this (Phoenix, 2007, p69) contributes ‘histories and histories of cultures’ which appeared ingrained in peoples lives. Secondly the ‘constructionist’ part is stating that all interactions between people are purposefully constructed which creates an understanding of the world. For example, a director of a company may wear a suit and have a brief case that allows them to form the identity in high-level management. That same person’s identity can be viewed as either ‘successful’ or ‘stuck in the rat race’ by different social groups. Notice how the language can effect how the person’s identity can appear, this can be described as a Power relation because it allows people to be categorized. (Phoenix, 2007) mentions ‘how we treat each other and are treated, and power relations are all constructed through language’. In addition, the process people construct through meaning is ‘discourse’. Identity is viewed as shifting from social settings and over time (Phoenix, 2007, p79) ‘everybody has multiple, decentred and changeable identities’. The social constructionist research are conducted through people’s personal accounts (Gergan, 1999, p.1) ‘I grew up with my fountain pen’ or the twenty-statement test and are studied in natural social settings; such as Gergan’s account of having to use a computer and give up the fountain pen. Both psychological approaches towards identity have their own strengths and weaknesses. Psychosocial theory states that a person has a core identity that is on a continuum from past to future. However, due to the psychosocial theory been founded by (Eric Erickson) it appears he has dealt with issues that have effected him in his own life. As (Pheonix, 2007) states in Erik Erickson biography ‘Erickson’s adolescence was turbulent’ and previously says ‘his feeling of puzzlement at being raised by two dark haired Jewish parents when he was blond and blue eyed’. Erikson was possibly focused on one identity that he was trying to achieve and the area he found important was adolescence due to his own turbulent time at that period of life. To assume everyone has conflict in adolescence is misleading e.g. David Beckham seemed to use this period of life to practice and perfect football that could mean he created a successful and powerful identity. Marcia’s added the four identity statues, which are from different history and culture which allows the theory to become a rounded strength through a different persons perspective. The model can categorise young people into four sections for example, Beckham may fall into the identity foreclosure by being committed without masses of exploration in other areas of life e.g. drugs and partying. On the other hand social constructionist theory’s strength is that a person's identity can be multiple and constantly shift depending on the social setting. In an informal discussion (Woodfine, 2008) said that ‘depending on social setting e.g. work, friends or family he viewed himself to have a different identity to fit in with the group’. Therefore, if identity is constantly shifting is there a point when the change can contradict the last identity' Yes, therefore there is a weakness in the strength of social construction theory. For example, a British Muslim may identify with the values and ethics of being British rather than a Muslim; therefore, conflict may arise. The psychosocial theory identifies internal conflict as normative crisis. Erikison viewed normative crisis common to everyone and a conflict between individual and social demands. In this brief outline of psychosocial theory and social constructionist theory regarding psychological approaches to identity, Erickson’s view of identity being a life long developmental process and is on a continuum from past towards future which allows multiple identity development. This idea seems static in there is no changing depending on the social setting. As (Woodfine, 2008) said he had ‘different identities to fit in with different groups’. This fits with the social constructionist theory with the idea of a constant change and adapting identities depending on the social situation. The other argument is that identities could contradict the last, which in psychosocial terms is a normative crisis. Erikison’s theory appears to be a reflection of his own life where he had a turbulent adolescence and a normative crisis. The weakness here is the psychosocial model has been developed by an individual with the assumption that everyone’s identity will follow a similar path. In addition, the social constructionist theory has been developed by a diverse mix of people through different histories and cultures. If the two theories were combined would it make a more rounded theory for use with identity research' Bibliography Gergan, K. (1999) An invitation to social construction, London, Sage. Miell, D. Pheonix, A. Thomas, K. (2007) Mapping Psychology Book 1, Malta, Gutenberg Woodfine, A. (2008) A conversation about identity, Ulverston. Appendix 1 Erickson’s Eight development stages. |Age/Stage |Normative crisis |Possible outcomes | |Age birth – 1 year |Trust vs mistrust |Trust or mistrust people | |Age 1 – 3 years |Autonomy vs doubt |Self-control self doubt | |Age 3 – 6 years |Initiative vs guilt |Sense of purpose or low self-esteem | |Age 6 – 11 years |Industry vs inferiority |Competence or helplessness | |Adolescence |Identity achievement vs role diffusion |Identity achieved or uncertainty | |Early adulthood |Intimacy vs isolation |Personal relationships or loneliness | |Middle adulthood |Generativity vs stagnation |Care for others or self absorption | |Late adulthood |Integrity vs despair |Fulfilment or disappointment | Appendix 2 Marica’s four identity statuses |Identity diffusion (low commitment and low exploration) | |Identity foreclosure (high commitment and low exploration) | |Moratorium (low commitment and high exploration) | |Identity achievement (high commitment and high exploration) | Scenario 1 Question 1 A) Yes, any person working with people under the age of 18 years old is required to have a Criminal Record Bureaus (CRB) check. In the case of observing the playgroup in the school, a CRB form would be required. The open playground is a public space and does not require a CRB check to observe the pre-school children. B) In both cases the researcher as to up hold the ethical principles of the British Psychology Society (BPS). For the playgroup the researcher must explain as best they can the purpose and objective of the study and answer any questions due to it been a private group. It would be acceptable in the playground to observe without explaining the purpose of the study due to it been a public area. However, out of respect for the participants and parents and stop any suspicious behaviour. C) In observational studies, the consent of the parents is required from the playgroup; this is due to the expectation that their children are in a privacy area free from observation. On the other hand, the playground does not require the consent of the parents, due to the area been in public. The ethical principles regard respect of participants highly; therefore, seeking consent from the parents would demonstrate this. By seeking permission from both areas, e.g. playground and playgroup it keeps them the equal. D) In the case of the participants and parents who have given consent then a debrief is necessary to help gain a fuller understanding of the nature of the research. In addition, discussion with participants about their experience is required to see if there as been any ill effect. If consent of the participants in the playground as not been requested then a debrief is not required. Question 2 In the Ethical Principles for Conducting Research with Human Participants, there is a difference between public observations and observing a group in a private setting. The major difference is seeking consent, giving information about what the experiment consists of and debriefing. In theory, the researcher can sit observing pre-school children making notes without giving any of the above to either parent or child. However, it also states that participates should be held with up most regard and highly respected. By deceiving, the researcher would be showing little or no respect and giving people the opportunity to actively participate in an experiment and receive possible valuable feedback. Scenario 2 Question 1 Point (i) says ‘eliminate all potential risk to psychological well-being, physical health, personal values, or dignity’. If the experiment as not being explained in full then there is a big eliminate of risk to all of the above points. Point (iv) the participants were never told about the full details which resulted in them being deceived about the nature of the experiment. Therefore, they were not in a position to give an informed consent about participating in the experiment. Point (vii) states the right to with draw at anytime from the experiment. When the person pretends to go into an epileptic seizure, the participant is temporally frozen in a state of shock like an rabbit between a car head lights. At this point the participant is believing a person is having a seizure and is unable to withdraw from the experiment because the experience is taking over. Question 2 A few ways to make the experiment more ethically acceptable would be to reduce deception, the level of stress and the opportunity to leave the study at anytime. The following are examples of how this could be done: • The researches could have explained the nature of the experiment to the participants therefore eliminating the deception aspect. • Instead of using a disability such as epilepsy, they could have used a less threatening and discriminating scenario that may have reduced stress levels in the participants. • The researches could have issued the participants with ‘get out cards’ which the participant could use to be extracted from the study at anytime. Parts of the study that are incompatible with the codes of ethics are the areas of consent, deception and protection of participants. Even with the revised aspect above the codes of ethics would be still compromised. Question 3 In consideration whether a modern ethics committee would approve both Darley and Latane, Zimbardo or Milgram is unlikely. The reasons are all the studies use deception, therefore cannot seek full consent, respect for participates seems minimal and opportunity to withdraw during stressful occasions appears difficult. A major part is the authoritative researches part in influencing the participant’s behaviour. The researches role should be impartial without any influence on the participants that could cloud their judgement when signing the consent form. The Milgram study demonstrated the effect of pressure on participant’s judgement; therefore, the ethics committee role is to protect both participants and researches alike. With these boundaries comes limitations in the depth of research into human behaviour. Although, the post questionnaire forms that the participants fill in for all three studies seemed to favour the experiments post-debriefing and explanation. To what point did the experimenters influence the participants' I think a modern committee would not authorise these studies in future.