Social Identity in Pakistani Society – A System Dynamic Approach
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21015/vtess.v11i1.1212Abstract
The primary objective of this review is to understand and reveal the underlying the theoretically distinctive facts about the social identity of the individuals in Pakistan’s context. The human behavior scholars are finding new theoretical concepts that are useful in understanding the group behavior. There are three critical aspects that underpin the concept of social identification cognitive, evaluative and affective. These constructs are further explained in diagrams using groups, in group dynamics, related performance and commitment. The CLD shows that how individual’ social identification is related to commitment. This paper helps to understand the factors that are more associated with the social identification and social grouping of employees within the organizations in Pakistan’s context. The methodology is based on system dynamics. System dynamics causal loop approach stage wise is applied to identify the unique dimensions that are associated with the distinctive underlying structure of human behavior that forms the social identity of employees within the organization. System dynamic methodology consists of three steps, the first step is CLD diagram, followed by Stock and flow maps and finally software-based simulations. This paper reveals that naturally made groups are more cohesive and individuals in natural or achieved groups are more committed emotionally towards each other. The significance of this paper lies in understanding the causal structure that influences the formation of social groups in Pakistan organization. Theoretical construct that underpin the notion of social identification of an individual includes the cognitive, evaluative, and affective components that help us to understand, how an individual adapts to the social identity.
References
Barnabè, F. (2011). A “system dynamics-based Balanced Scorecard” to support strategic decision making: Insights from a case study. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 60(5), 446-473. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/17410401111140383
Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological bulletin, 86(2), 307. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.307
Brown, B. B., & Lohr, M. J. (1987). Peer-group affiliation and adolescent self-esteem: an integration of ego-identity and symbolic-interaction theories. Journal of personality and social psychology, 52(1), 47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.47
Cioffi, D., & Garner, R. (1996). On doing the decision: Effects of active versus passive choice on commitment and self-perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(2), 133-147. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167296222003
Egan, T., & Tusi, A. (1992). Communication and conflict: the impact of ethic and gender diversity in management teams. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management Conference, Las Vegas, NV.
Ellemers, N., & Van Rijswijk, W. (1997). Identity needs versus social opportunities: The use of group-level and individual-level identity management strategies. Social psychology quarterly, 52-65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2787011
Ellemers, N., Knippenberg, A., & Wilke, H. (1990). The influence of permeability of group boundaries and stability of group status on strategies of individual mobility and social change. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29(3), 233-246. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1990.tb00902.x
Ellemers, N., Kortekaas, P., & Ouwerkerk, J. W. (1999). Self‐categorisation, commitment to the group and group self‐esteem as related but distinct aspects of social identity. European journal of social psychology, 29(23), 371-389. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199903/05)29:2/3<371::AID-EJSP932>3.0.CO;2-U
Ellemers, N., Van Knippenberg, A., De Vries, N., & Wilke, H. (1988). Social identification and permeability of group boundaries. European journal of social psychology, 18(6), 497-513. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420180604
Ellemers, N., Wilke, H., & Van Knippenberg, A. (1993). Effects of the legitimacy of low group or individual status on individual and collective status-enhancement strategies. Journal of personality and social psychology, 64(5), 766. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.5.766
Ellison, G., & Fudenberg, D. (1993). Rules of thumb for social learning. Journal of political Economy, 612-643. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/261890
Forrester, J.W. (1961), Industrial Dynamics, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Forrester, J.W. (1968), Principle of Systems, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Gerard, H. B., & Hoyt, M. F. (1974). Distinctiveness of social categorization and attitude toward ingroup members. Journal of personality and social psychology, 29(6), 836. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036204
Goffman, E. (1959). The moral career of the mental patient. Psychiatry, 22(2), 123-142. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1959.11023166
Hawkins, D. (1992). I., Best, Roger. J. & Coney, Kenneth. A. Consumer Behavior: Building Marketing Strategy.
Hinkle, S., & Brown, R. (1990). Intergroup comparisons and social identity: Some links and lacunae. Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances, 48, 70.
Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Introduction: The rules of the social game. Cultures and organisations: Software of the mind, 1-36.
Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1990). Social motivation, self-esteem and social identity. Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances, 28, 47.
Hogg, M. A., Terry, D. J., & White, K. M. (1995). A tale of two theories: A critical comparison of identity theory with social identity theory. Social psychology quarterly, 255-269. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2787127
Jetten, J., Spears, R., & Manstead, A. S. (1996). Intergroup norms and intergroup discrimination: distinctive self-categorization and social identity effects. Journal of personality and social psychology, 71(6), 1222. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.6.1222
Kleine III, R. E., Kleine, S. S., & Kernan, J. B. (1992). Mundane everyday consumption and the self: A conceptual orientation and prospects for consumer research. Advances in consumer research, 19(1), 411-415.
Long, K., & Spears, R. (1997). The self-esteem hypothesis revisited: Differentiation and the disaffected.
Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1991). Self-esteem and intergroup comparisons: Toward a theory of collective self-esteem. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/t16793-000
McCann, C. D., Ostrom, T. M., Tyner, L. K., & Mitchell, M. L. (1985). Person perception in heterogeneous groups. Journal of personality and social psychology, 49(6), 1449. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.6.1449
Mlicki, P. P., & Ellemers, N. (1996). Being different or being better? National stereotypes and identifications of Polish and Dutch students. European journal of social psychology, 26(1), 97-114. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199601)26:1<97::AID-EJSP739>3.0.CO;2-F
Mullen, B., Brown, R., & Smith, C. (1992). Ingroup bias as a function of salience, relevance, and status: An integration. European journal of social psychology, 22(2), 103-122. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420220202
Richardson, G. P., & Pugh III, A. I. (1981). Introduction to system dynamics modeling with DYNAMO: Productivity Press Inc.
Rodrigues, A., & Bowers, J. (1996). The role of system dynamics in project management. International Journal of Project Management, 14(4), 213-220. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-7863(95)00075-5
Sachdev, I., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1984). Minimal majorities and minorities. European journal of social psychology, 14(1), 35-52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420140104
Sen, A. (2001). Development as freedom: Oxford Paperbacks.
Senge, P.M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline. The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Doubleday-Currency, New York, NY.
Simon, B., & Brown, R. (1987). Perceived intragroup homogeneity in minority-majority contexts. Journal of personality and social psychology, 53(4), 703. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.4.703
Spears, R., Doosje, B., & Ellemers, N. (1997). Self-stereotyping in the face of threats to group status and distinctiveness: The role of group identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(5), 538-553. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167297235009
Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business dynamics: systems thinking and modeling for a complex world (Vol. 19): Irwin/McGraw-Hill Boston.
Tajfel, H. E. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations: Academic Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The social psychology of intergroup relations, 33(47), 74.
Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European journal of social psychology, 1(2), 149-178. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420010202
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory: Basil Blackwell.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Turner, P. J., & Smith, P. (1984). Failure and defeat as determinants of group cohesiveness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23(2), 97-111 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1984.tb00619.x
Wolstenholme, E. (2004). Using generic system archetypes to support thinking and modelling. System Dynamics Review, 20(4), 341-356. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.302
Young, A. (1991). Learning by doing and the dynamic effects of international trade: National Bureau of Economic Research. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3386/w3577
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-By) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY
