The Formation of In-groups free essay sample

The author of this piece is Dr. Gordon Allport. He is the former head of Harvard’s Department of Psychology as well as the founding father of social psychology. Allport published many books including The Nature of Prejudice (1954). The purpose of the article is to inform the audience that in-groups are everywhere and identity is based on our in-groups. This essay is an excerpt from the book The Nature of Prejudice in 1954 and is a credible source because the principles Allport discussed are still studied by psychologists and researchers today. In the essay, Allport speaks of reference groups and how it relates to in-groups. According to Allport reference groups are the group that an individual wishes to be apart of, but an in-group is one that a person is in. He describes the differences as relating to each other, but different in the fact that in-groups and reference groups differ by the individuals desire to be in his in-group or not. We will write a custom essay sample on The Formation of In-groups or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Allport also discusses in-groups based on sex. The author uses Lord Chesterfield as a source to act as a counterargument and to make a point of the elements of prejudice, and how it shows favoritism with one’s own group. The author uses an example from the passage to prove to the audience that not all in-group loyalties are static and loyalties depend on the individual and can change. To sum up Allport’s discussion of in-groups, he talks about the presence of out-groups and how they affect in-groups. He argues that although competition with an out-group makes an in-group more solidified, a hostile interaction and competition with the out-group is not necessary. The thesis of the article seeks to provide reasoning for in-groups; Allport comments, â€Å"while we sometimes do become bored with our daily routine of living and with some of our customary companions, yet the very values that sustain our lives depend for their force upon their familiarity† (170). Allport’s statement directly speaks to every individual in the audience to make this essay relatable and to grab their attention. Allport is an extremely credible source because not only is he one of the founding fathers of social psychology, but the book that this essay comes from is about the complexities of human existence and prejudice. This is a scholarly source because the essay comes from a journal, and Allport shares his own research and discoveries regarding in-groups. Allport also uses additional sources to prove his main points and the essay concludes with a bibliography, therefore making this source scholarly. Allport was not even-handed in the discussion  becau se he respectfully took the views of other sources, and would use these examples as a counterargument to his argument of favoritism towards one in-group, and was very passionate that in-groups do not require an out-group for cohesiveness. This is different to my other sources because this essay only focuses on in-groups in general and how they begin; my other sources focus directly on the psychological effects and personality traits of only children. This source has defined my in-group as an only child as an ascribed group and has provided me on some background of an ascribed group in general. Allport’s essay has led me to wonder about the traits and the psychological effects of an ascribed group in general. This source was helpful to me because Allport laid out the general foundation and dynamics of an in-group. I am going to use this source as a basis of my ascribed in-group and a starting point to the origin of in-groups. I am curious to study how being an only child has affected me as psychologically and how it defines my personality. Allport’s article will be cited in my autoethnography when I talk about reference groups. Allport defines reference groups as â€Å"†¦an in-group that is warmly a ccepted or a group in which the individual wants to be apart of† (178). I have always wanted to have siblings, and my desire to be apart of a different in-group makes families with more than one child my reference group. The author of this work is Lauren Sandler who has written cultural and women’s articles for publications such as Time, The Atlantic, and the New York Times. This article â€Å"One and Done† is an excerpt from her book â€Å"One and Only† and the reviews of this book come from extremely credible sources such as the New York Times, therefore establishing her credibility. The author’s purpose for writing this piece is to argue that having one child is not â€Å"detrimental† to the child psychologically, and only-children are not different than kids with siblings. This piece was written July 7, 2010 so the research and studies are very up to date. The main points of this article started out with the argument of why Sandler herself decided to have one child, and this is based on how â€Å"the economy is sluggish†¦ and raising kids cost a bundle. She describes the effects of the recession on the number of children women bear, and points out that women are having less and less children because of their high costs. Sandler then goes on to discuss why  people urge families to have more than one child, and she uses personal experience of a cashier in a store to exemplify the pressure of having more kids. Sandler investigates why there is such an aversion to have only one child, â€Å"single children are perceived as spoiled, selfish, solitary misfits,† because this is such a believable stereotype, parents are pressured to have multiple children because they â€Å"don’t want to do that to their child.† Sandler uses the study by Granville Stanley Hall to act as a counterargument of the obvious loneliness stereotypes of only children. Hall argued that children who do not have siblings are lonely, spoiled, and as permanent misfits. Sandler counter argues Hall’s study with Toni Falbo, who is a â€Å"prof essor of education psychology and sociology at the University of Texas at Austin. Falbo studies came to the conclusion that only children were not different personality wise than children with siblings. Falbo also found that only children were very similar to firstborn children because they generally score higher in intelligence and achievement. The reason only children seem to be perceived as spoiled is because parents can put all their time, energy, and resources into this one child. Sandler uses psychologist Carl Pickhardt to discuss this stereotype, theres no question that only children are highly indulged and highly protected, he tells me. But that doesnt mean the stereotype is true.† Sandler changes the topic to study the parents’ reasoning for having more than one child and with the source Professor Samuel Demson parents have more children so the child will not be alone, and do not necessarily have multiple children because they themselves will be happier. But times are changing, according to social psychologist Susan Newman, as parents realize that children consume their lives and parents want a life too, therefore parents have realized that its easier to have one. However only children is beginning to take on the role as the new norm because of economic uncertaintly and the recession. Kohler says that â€Å"as the acceptability of one-child families increases over time, theres an absence of these pressures to have more childrenand so people dont. Sandler briefly mentions the burden of having to take care of elderly parents on her own, and suggest that parents have more kids simply for this reason. However from her own experience, Sandler has set up a support group like her husband to deal with these situations so it is not as bad. The article comes to a close with a predicted shift in the demographic  transition model as population decreases due to the economic recession and as families start having only one child. Sandler ends the article with a final excerpt of her own life, commenting â€Å"for now, my kid is happy enough to dance down supermarket aisles by herself or with her friends and cousins. And with her, sometimes, I do too.† The hypothesis that is clear in the article is that only children are not different and not psychologically damaged from not having siblings. Sandler relates everything she talks about as an argument that supports only children. Sandler has written many excerpts for publications such as Time and the New York Times, which establishes her credibility. This article â€Å"One and Done† is an excerpt from her book â€Å"One and Only† and the reviews of this book come from extremely credible sources such as the New York Times, therefore establishing her credibility.