Transcript Sociopolitical identity


Sociopolitical Identity of
Turkish Emerging Adults:
The Role of Gender, Religious Sect,
and Political Party Affiliation
Vanessa Victoria Volpe
Acknowledgements
 Faculty Mentor: Dr. Selcuk R. Sirin
 Dalal Katsiaficas
 Dr. Gigliana Melzi
 The Spencer Foundation
Sociopolitical Identity
Political Context
Social Interaction
Individual
Sociopolitical Identity
 Sociopolitical identity: the evaluation of one's political
group identity as it is experienced through social
interaction (Tajfel & Turner, 1979).
 Maintaining a defined sociopolitical identity is an
important developmental task for emerging adults
(e.g., Arnett, 2000; Flanagan & Sherrod, 1998; Schildkraut,
2005).
Components of Sociopolitical Identity
 A defined sociopolitical
identity involves four
components.
 Sociopolitical identity has
been linked with
 civic and political
engagement
(Schildkraut, 2005)
 the maintenance of
Membership
Public
Regard
Importance
to Identity
Private
Regard
interpersonal relationships
(Neumann, 1993).
(Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992)
The Risk of Social Identity Stress
 Social identity stress: the social experience of being
criticized for holding viewpoints of a distinct political
group (Hayes, Scheufele, & Huge, 2006).
 Often results in damaged personal relationships,
feelings of displacement, and feeling that one's
identity is not valuable (Neumann, 1993).
 Might result in a lack of exploration for emerging
adults, which may then lead to limiting social
engagement with members of other political
groups.
The Potential of Own-Group Preference
 Own-group preference: limiting social and cultural
engagement with members of political out-groups
 Limiting engagement to in-group significantly
enhances positive feeling about in-group
(e.g., Brewer, 1979).
 Own-group preference might buffer the impact of
social identity stress on sociopolitical identity.
Current Study Rationale
 Social identity stress and own-group preference have
never been examined in a political context.
 There is a paucity of research on how emerging adults
experience and define their sociopolitical identity in
political contexts.
 Research on sociopolitical identity may inform future
research on intergroup relations and political
engagement practices.
The Case of Turkey
 Turkish emerging adults represent
the majority of the 75 million
Turkish nationals.
 Conflicting viewpoints on the nature
of the political context: polarized vs.
harmonious.
 Three important contextual
considerations:

Gender

Religious Sect

Political Party Affiliation
Research Questions
1.
How do emerging adults in Turkey report their social
identity stress, own-group preference, and
sociopolitical identity?
2.
Are there gender, religious sect, and/or political party
affiliation differences on social identity stress, owngroup preference, and sociopolitical identity?
Research Questions
3. Does own-group preference moderate the predictive
relation between social identity stress and
sociopolitical identity?
Own-Group
Preference
Social Identity
Stress
Sociopolitical
Identity
Participants
 Diverse nationally representative sample of Turkish




emerging adults (N=1242)
Between the ages of 18 and 28 (M=21.50, SD=2.29)
Gender: 50.6% female
Religious Sect: 65% Sunni, 11% Shafi, 9% Alevi
Political Group:
 44% CHP (Secularist)
 33% AKP (Moderate)
 15% MHP (Islamist)
 8% Other
Measures
Construct
Measure Name
Modification
Reliability
Social Identity Societal, Attitudinal,
Stress due to political
Stress
Familial, & Environmental identity
Scale (SAFE; Hovey & King,
1996)
15 items;
α = .84
Own-Group
Preference
Acculturation, Habits and
Interests Multicultural
Scale for Adolescents
(AHIMSA; Unger et al.,
2002)
Social and cultural
preference across political
groups
15 items;
α = .84
Sociopolitical
Identity
Collective Self-Esteem
Scale (CSE; Luhtanen &
Crocker, 1992)
Emerging adults’ report on
how well defined their
political group identity is in
social interactions
16 items;
α = .76
Procedure
 Data were taken from a larger national study of
Turkish emerging adults (Political Identity in Conflict
Study, PI: Selcuk R. Sirin)
 Self-report surveys collected in over 50 locations
were adapted by a multidisciplinary team of
Turkish researchers to be culturally and
linguistically appropriate.
Results: Sample Characteristics
N
M (SD)
Scale Range
Social Identity Stress
1242
1.80 (.57)
1-4
Some Own-Group Preference
1111
6.59 (3.66)
1-15
Sociopolitical Identity
1242
2.87 (.47)
1-5
Note: 131 participants reported no own-group preference
Social Identity Stress by Gender
t(1240) = 4.45, p < .01
1.6
1.55
Mean Score
1.5
1.45
1.4
1.35
1.36
1.3
1.31
1.25
1.2
1.15
Males
Females
Own-Group Preference by Gender
t(1109) = -4.05, p < .01
2.8
2.7
Mean Score
2.6
2.5
2.54
2.4
2.3
2.37
2.2
2.1
Males
Females
Sociopolitical Identity by Gender
t(1240) = -2.21, p < .05
3.15
3.1
Mean Score
3.05
3
2.95
2.9
2.92
2.85
2.8
2.86
2.75
2.7
Males
Females
Social Identity Stress by Religious Sect
F(2,1240) = 31.91, p < .01
1.8
1.6
Mean Score
1.4
1.2
1.47**
1.38**
1.32**
Alevi
Sunni
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Shafi
Own-Group Preference by Religious Sect
F(2,1109) = 3.12, p < .01
4
3.5
Mean Score
3
2.5
2.65**
2
2.44
2.34
Sunni
Shafi
1.5
1
0.5
0
Alevi
Sociopolitical Identity by Religious Sect
F(2,1240) = 5.79, p < .01
5
4.5
Mean Score
4
3.5
3
2.5
3.02**
2.88
2.87
Sunni
Shafi
2
1.5
1
Alevi
Social Identity Stress by Political Party
F(2,1240) = 17.39, p < .01
1.8
1.6
Mean Score
1.4
1.2
1.28
1.37*
1.30
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
CHP
AKP
MHP
Own-Group Preference by Political Party
F(2,1109) = 7.03, p < .01
3.5
3
Mean Score
2.5
2.56
2.52
2
2.29*
1.5
1
0.5
0
CHP
AKP
MHP
Results: Moderation Model
 Contrary to the first hypothesis, own-group
preference did not predict sociopolitical identity
when controlling for gender, religious sect, and
political party affiliation, F(4, 1240) = 2.64, p = .71.
 Therefore, the role of own-group preference was not
assessed, ΔR2 = 0, F(6, 1240) = 14.61, p = .51.
Discussion
 The Rejection-Identification Model (Branscombe, Schmitt, & Harvey,
1999) may not be uniform for all national contexts or social
identity domains.
 The structure of identity as flexible and multi-dimensional
(Katsiaficas, Futch, Fine, & Sirin, in press; Seider & Gardner, 2009; Sirin
& Fine, 2007).
 Researchers should consider the intersections of gender,
religious sect, and political party affiliation in order to more
fully map the sociopolitical identities of Turkish emerging
adults.
 Results may shed light on the co-existence of western and
secular ideologies within the political landscape in Turkey and
highlight a generational difference.
Thank you
Questions?