Proceso de detoxificación de la planta industrial

Social identity theorists have used the term salience to indicate the activation of an identity in a situation. A salient social identity was defined as “one which is

functioning psychologically to increase the influence of one’s membership in that group on perception and behavior” (Oakes, 1987, p. 118). In identity theory, salience has been understood as the probability that an identity will be activated in a situation (Stryker, 1980). In social identity theory, salience pertains to the situational activation of an identity at a particular level. A particular identity becomes activated or salient as a

32 function of the interaction between the characteristics of the perceiver (accessibility) and of the situation (fit) (Stets & Burke, 2000, p. 231). Abrams (1992, 1994) argues that when a social identity is salient (activated) and attended to, responses are deliberate and self-regulated. Group members act to match their behavior to the standards relevant to the social identity, so as to confirm and enhance their social identification with the group. A reference group is one that is psychologically significant for one’s attitudes and

behavior (Turner, 1991, p. 5). Positive reference groups, a group that one privately accepts or identifies with, exert influence over their members, which usually leads to private acceptance (p. 6).

Social identity and the injunctive norm – intention relationship

According to social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner, 1982), an important component of the self-concept is derived from memberships in social groups and social categories. In social identity theory, a social identity is a person’s knowledge that he or she belongs to a social category or group (Hogg & Abrams, 1988). A social group is a set of individuals who hold a common social identification or view themselves as members of the same social category (Stets & Burke, 2000, p. 225). In identity theory, the core of an identity is the categorization of the self as an occupant of a role, and the incorporation, into the self, of the meanings and expectations associated with that role and its performance (Burke & Tully, 1977; Thoits, 1983). These expectations and meanings form a set of standards that guide behavior (Burke, 1991; Burke & Reitzes,

33 1981). Role identity theorists have focused on the match between the individual

meanings of occupying a particular role and the behaviors that a person enacts in that role while interacting with others (Burke, 1980; Burke & Reitzes, 1981). In the context of this study, the social identity of parents of young children should reflect their (actual and perceived) role as parent, and the expectations associated with that role, within the social category of parents of young children. These expectations, when made salient through exposure to a message telling parents that they should perform health behaviors for their child because parents like themselves expect them to do so (i.e. a normative message type), should guide perceptions of behavior associated with the role of parent, specifically the role of caretaker and person responsible for the health of their child.

When people define and evaluate themselves in terms of a self-inclusive social category, the joint processes of categorization and self-enhancement come into play. Tajfel (1981) suggested that the desire to develop and maintain a favorable self-image motivates people. The self-image includes both a personal self, which reflects

idiosyncratic aspects of the self, and a social self, which reflects information about the groups to which people belong (Tyler, Kramer, & John, 1999). Social-categorization theory is an extension of social identity theory that develops the discussion of the nature of the self-concept contained in social identity theory (Turner, 1982, 1984, 1985; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987). However, while the two theories are similar, they have different bases of identity: categories or groups for social identity theory, and

34 Self-categorization is seen as a dynamic, context-dependent process, determined by comparative relations in a given context (Turner & Onorato, 1999). The central hypothesis is that group behavior can be understood as individuals acting in terms of a shared identity than as different individual persons (i.e. more in terms of their personal identities). It seeks to explain variations in how people define and categorize themselves and the effects of such variations (Turner, 1991, p. 157). Which self-category is salient at any particular time is situation-specific; it is a function of people being ready to use a specific category (its accessibility relative to other categories) and its fit with the stimulus data (Oakes, 1987). Any particular self-concept (of those belonging to a given

individual) tends to become salient as a function of an interaction between the characteristics of the perceiver and the situation (Bruner, 1957; Oakes, 1983).

One important factor affecting people’s readiness to use a social category for self- definition in specific situations is the extent of their identification with the group, the degree to which it is central, valued, and ego involving (e.g. Doosje & Ellemers, 1997). That is to say that, on the basis of a social identity/self-categorization approach, it can be proposed explicitly that behavioral outcomes are influenced by reference group norms, but only for those people for whom the group membership is a salient basis for self- definition (Terry, Hogg, & Duck, 1999). Terry, Hogg and Duck (1999) found that, in line with predictions derived from social identity/self-categorization theories, the perceived norms of a specific and behaviorally relevant reference group were related to students’ intentions to engage in health behaviors (regular exercise and sun-protective

35 behavior), but only for students who identified strongly with the group (Terry & Hogg, 1996).

The studies described here employ a measure of group identification with other parents of young children (i.e. perceived group identification) which is based on a scale used by Terry, Hogg & Duck (1999), Hogg, Cooper-Shaw, & Holzworth (1993), and by Brown, Condor, Mathews, Wade, & Williams (1986). The original scale was designed to assess strength of identification with the reference group (e.g. the extent to which being a psychology student or a university student was a relatively more enduring component of subjects’ self concepts). For its use in this study the items are adjusted to assess strength of identification with other parents of young children (see measures).

On the basis of this research it is hypothesized that parents who identify more strongly with other parents of young children should be more responsive to a message which focuses on normative influence by a relevant reference group – other parents of young children like themselves. For parents who identify less strongly with this

reference group, exposure to a normative message (i.e. normative focus) compared with an attitudinal message (i.e. health outcome focus) should not cause them to grant greater weight to injunctive-norms in forming intention to perform health behaviors for their child then to attitudes. However, among parents who identify strongly with other parents of young children, exposure to a normative message should lead them to grant greater weight to injunctive norms in forming intention than to attitudes.

36

H4: Parents of young children who identity more strongly with other parents should report higher intention to perform health behaviors when exposed to a normative message type compared with an attitudinal message (i.e. focuses on health benefits for the child) than parents who identify less strongly with other parents.