presentation mark mix sem

CATEGORIZATION AS MEANINGCREATION 1: SELF

CATEGORIZATION & OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

Marketing Mix Seminar 2014By Federico Triolo

Marketing Mix Seminar: Federico Triolo

The social categorization tradition

CATEGORIZATION: is a sense-making which allows perceivers to derive meaning by making different classes coherent, separable and clear

1. People form categories by detecting equivalences among stimuli and store those categories for future use

2. The detection of similarities depends upon a pre-existing knowledge


Social identity theory SID (H.Tajfel)

CATEGORIZATION: Individuals spontaneously tend to form categories based on different aspects (age, gender..) INGROUP & OUTGROUP

IDENTIFICATION: the different belongings gives the psychological base in order to build the own social identity

SOCIAL COMPARISON: individuals constantly value their group with out-group (E.g. K-pop)


Implementation of SIDTwo more principles to categorization

Identification Comparison

Social Identification (self-esteem)


Social Identification is based on the idea of identity and identification Identity Identification


Social Identity creates auto-esteem in the group, some authors (as Shaller) misconceived this idea:SOCIAL IDENTITY PREJUDICE STEREOTYPES AND DISCRIMINATION

This view is too simplistic unless it leads to ACHIEVE SUPERIORITY (e.g.Nazism)


The implication of the original idea of social identity in social categorization had led to:

1) Members of overlapping categories showed reduced intergroup discrimination

2) Effect on Intergroup contact (cognitive analysis, E.g. Ku Klux Can)

Decategorization: when people see themselves as unique individuals rather than group members

Recategorization:members who see themselves as part of a group


3) Consequences of the effects of social categorization for the perceptions of social groupsThe level of perceived homogeneity within a

group can have consequences for the treatment of the group. Homogeneous group are more likely to be the targets of Intergroup Bias (Skku vs Snu)


Self-Categorization theory SCT (J.Turner)

Is a theory of self-perception which anticipates that aspects of social behaviour, especially group behaviour can be explained by variants in self perception (the product of a cognitive system). A person acts in social situations depending on the way that they perceive themselves in such situations, and in particular, the way in which people perceive themselves to be similar to or different from other people


Self categorization relevant terms

Salience: is the social category that is currently in use

Perceiver readiness: it reflects a person’s past experiences, present expectations, values, goals and needs. It is the relevant aspects of cognition that the perceiver brings to the environment (S.K.)

Comparative fit: is determined by the meta-contrast principle which is the ratio of the average similarity of the individual to out-group members over the average similarity of the individual to in-group members


Normative fit: is based on the social meaning of behaviour or attributes of an individual or groups which vary with the type of social-categorization made

Stimulus distinctiveness: is the stimulus which allow perceivers to best capture its features in a category (Italian cuisine)


Level of abstraction (inclusiveness): self-categorization theory assumes that the self can be categorized at various levels of abstraction. In other words, humans may categorize the self as a singular “I”(personal identity), or as a more inclusive “we”(social identity).


SCT maintains cognitive activity in the form of pre-existing knowledge and perceived similarities and differences constrain category use.

Perceived equivalence

Category useBackground knowledge

Social meaning


Perceived similarities and difference constrain category in use

At the same time the range of categories that can be used is constrained by the active body of knowledge

The perception of similarity and difference is constrained by the knowledge about the social meaning of categories

Long term knowledge is constrained by category use (we use knowledge which is relevant depending on category used)


Prior knowledge can be considered under the heading of normative fit based on the social meaning (attributes, content) which vary with the type of social categorization made.

Example: being intelligent in different contexts: in a racist milieu or in football supporters


Meta contrast principle (comparative fit)

We categorize through the comparison of stimulus: intraclass less different than interclass

Meta contrast ratio is the ratio of the average similarity of the individual to out-group members over the average similarity of the individual to in-group members

Meta contrast ratio of stimulus is more used and it defines how much the stimulus is representative of this category homogeneity


Does Normative fit match reality in terms of content and not just the comparative fit of dimension????

Ex: art and science students Comparative fit was manipulated: either conflict or consensus Attributes: art students (enjoy social life) science students (hard work) Findings: Normative fit higher during stereotypical feedback of the groups

(consistent position) than inconsistent position Normative fit higher in consistent/conflict than in the

consistent/consensus because of the position espoused e.g. by the science students in the consensus is actually inconsistent with their stereotypical position

Normative fit constrains the dimensions on which groups can be seen as similar and different, which in turn constrains category use (perceiver readiness)


Perceiver readiness: it reflects a person’s past experience, present expectations. The way in which perception is constrained by the perceiver’s vantage point at a particular time.

Four difficult cases:1. Stimuli are mediated by previous past experience and

body of ideas (ignorance)2. Selective categorization is based on personal needs,

goals (coffee mug or precious vase)3. Evaluate reality by personal norms, ideas4. It represents reality from the personal vantage point of

view


Depersonalization: is not a loss of identity, but it refers to a transition in identity from the personal to the social. Goals and values shift from an individual level to the group one e.g (army officer)Einstein quote: “ if my theory of relativity is proven successful, Germany will claim me as German and France will declare that I am a citizen of the world. Should my theory prove untrue France will say I am a German and Germany will declare that I am a Jew”


PERCEIVER WORK CATEGORY

German Success German

German Failure Jew

French Success Citizen of the world

French Failure German

An Illustration of how self-categories can be used flexibly. + least abstract self category− higher abstract self category in order to distinguish the self


Reynold’s point of viewHer work on impression formation showed that

the dimensions are categorized by higher level category E.g. 2 female science students were categorized as woman and then as students

Category use: “Do X and Y belong to

category A?"

Activation of relevant dimensions that

distinguish A from non-A and X from Y

Perceived equivalence (or non-equivalence) of

X and Y on relevant dimensions


In this case normative fit and perceiver readiness are implicit. (you already know category differences)

Differentiated meaning: perceiver is ready to distinguish category A with non A and the elements X and Y

To say something is, we need to know what is not and why is not

This approach leads to out-group homogeneity and in-group heterogeneity because it uses intragroup knowledge differentiation and not intergroup


Illusionary correlation effect

The erroneous perception of a relationship between variables It occurs when judging 2 groups of differing size and

perceivers are asked to distinguish members of 2 groups:More a group dimension clearly reveals one group more the

other one. More in the other group phenomena will increase as follow :

1. Non perceived of equivalence of the 2 groups2. Perceived of equivalence of the group members example of nationalities


Flexibility in cognitive constructSCT suggests that stability in self-perception is

afforded by constancy in relations between social groups

However, the process of category use is fluid

Turner and Onorato do address alternatives to flexible category:• Relevant self categories are stored prior to

activation, but how a person can have unlimited long-term memory and it does not provide how new categories are formed


Future research proposalHow we can investigate the epistemological approach in relation of categorization in a postmodern society, in order to best launch new products?


THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION

!!!!!

presentation mark mix sem

Documents