SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY Flashcards
(26 cards)
Who created social identity theory?’
Tajfel & Turner (1971)
What does social identity theory suggest?
Group membership itself is enough to create prejudice without any need for competition over resources. Simply being part of a group can cause in-group loyalty in out-group hostility.
Background information on Tajfel
- He was a Polish Jew whose family was killed by the Nazis
- He devoted himself to research on prejudice and discrimination
- There was no competition between Polish Jews and the Nazis so RCT did not apply
What is group formation?
SIT suggests that group formation generates in group loyalty and outgroup hostility
-Social categorisation
- Social identification
- Social comparison
What is social categorisation?
Categorising ourselves and others into social groups such as “emos” or “nerds”
What is social identification?
Adopting behaviours and attitude of our group to associate ourselves with them
What is social comparison?
The tendency to compare our in-group favourably against the out-group in order to maintain self-esteem
What does social comparison create?
Negative stereotypes, beliefs and discrimination
What is heterogeneous and homogeneous?
Heterogeneous - individuals in a group who are different and have individual/unique views and opinions
Homogeneous - when members in a group have the same opinion/views
What is the main principle of social identity theory?
Perceived group membership
What study did Tajfel conduct to create the basis of SIT?
- He placed 64 boys from a Bristol comprehensive school into two groups based on a minimal criteria - the boys thought they had similar interests
- Each group was asked to allocate a set ratio of point distribution between their own team and the other team
- despite that being no direct competition, the boys consistently favoured their own group
- Some even chose to disadvantage their own team in order to disadvantage the other team
- Tajfels results created the foundation of SIT as pps always showed in group preference without direct competition
3 supporting studies - SIT
- Tajfel
- Cialdini et al
- Fein & Spencer
What is the Cialdini et al study? How does it support SIT?
- He studied US university football fans
- He found that supporters referred to the team as “us” or “them” depending on whether their team had lost or won
- This demonstrates that their personal identity is affected by their association with the football team (social identity)
What is the Fein & Spencer study? How does it support SIT?
- They gave pps false feedback on an IQ test giving them high or low self- esteem
- Pps with low self-esteem rated a Jewish applicant less favourable for a job than an Italian candidate (in-group preference)
- Whereas pps with high self-esteem showed no bias
- This shows self-esteem affects out-group hostility
3 competing arguments - SIT
- Weatherall
- Dobbs & Crano
- Individual differences
What is Weatheralls argument? How does it go against SIT?
- He observed New Zealand Polynesians
- He found them more likely to favour the out-group then show biased towards the in-group
- This demonstrates how cultures who emphasise collectivism and cooperation are less likely to show group prejudice
- therefore we must not conclude that conflict is the inevitable consequence of group membership and identification
What is Dobbs & Crano’s argument? How does it go against SIT?
- Where individuals perceived that their group was the majority there was much less in group favouritism and outgroup hostility compared to when they were perceived in group as a minority
- This suggests that discrimination and prejudice is more complex than SIT
individual differences? How does it go against SIT?
- The theory cannot explain individual differences in levels of group loyalty in our group hostility
- Not everyone will show the same levels of loyalty and hostility
- Authoritarian personality may explain individual differences better
Aim of Tajfel et al’s (1971) study
To test whether placing people into 2 groups based on minimal group similarities and not in competition with each other would be enough to produce prejudice between groups of very similar people
Method of Tajfel et al’s (1971) study
He showed participants a Klee and Kandinsky painting and placed the participants into two groups according to which painting they preferred. They then asked them to randomly distribute points between their group and the other group where there was no direct competition or material gain involved
Results of Tajfel et al’s (1971) study
The two most common options participants in each group chose were to maximise group difference and maximise in-group profit
Conclusion of Tajfel et al’s (1971) study
Even when categorised into meaningless/minimal groups pps still chose to favour members of their own group over members of the other group even when no material gain was involved. This shows we have a natural tendency and social situations to favour people we identify with and those who are apart of our group and discriminate against those perceived to be members of a different group.
This can be explained through SIT as the group increased their self-esteem by boosting their own group status compared to the out group due to the greater difference in points
Validity of Tajfel et al’s (1971) study
The study liked ecological validity as it is not a real life experience and the task lacked mundane realism
Experimental validity may be questioned because arguably there’s no implied competition created by the force nature of the choice participants had to make
Generalisability of Tajfel et al’s (1971) study
The research was replicated on many different social groups not just schoolboys as in the original study - e.g adult adults in Cardiff females in California and soldiers in Germany.
All variation showed similar minimal group effects therefore this research does have population validity
