Social identity theory evaluation Flashcards Preview

Psychology - Social > Social identity theory evaluation > Flashcards

Flashcards in Social identity theory evaluation Deck (12)
Loading flashcards...
1
Q

Supporting study:

Tajfel

A

> minimal group studies
a series of lab based studies
school boys were placed in arbitrary groups when asked to conduct a task during which they had to allocate points to a boy
consistently awarded more point to the boy they saw as being on their team

> > we have a tendency for in-group favouritism

2
Q

Supporting study:

Jane Elliott

A

‘Blue eyes / Brown eyes’

> field experiment
children placed in 2 groups based on eye colour
children quickly developed prejudiced attitudes and discriminatory behaviour
not observed when they identified as one group

> > the mere perception of another group can cause prejudice

3
Q

Criticisms:

minimal group experiments

A

SIT was based on minimal group experiments
There’s a circularity involved
It is necessary to test SIT’s predictions in other ways

4
Q

Supporting study:

Verkooijen et al. (2007)

A

> studied drug use in Danish teens
6000 16-20 year olds sent a survey asking about their sub cultural affiliations and use of alcohol/tobacco/cannabis
those who identified as skater/hip-hop/techno/hippie were most likely to use drugs
those who identified as nerdy/sporty/religious were least likely

> > individuals adopted the drug-related norms of their sub-culture

5
Q

Supporting study:

Poppe and Linssen (1999)

A

> conducted a survey
Eastern European teens, when asked about stereotypes of East and Western European countries, favoured their own country followed by other Eastern European countries

> > SIT provides a partial explanation for discrimination in favour of people from our own countries

6
Q

Criticism:

reductionism

A

SIT is reductionist

it reduces a complex behaviour down to one factor: social categorisation

too simplistic

SIT ignores other factors

7
Q

Opposing study:

Platow et al. (1990)

A

> found that personality characteristics are also involved in determining how we are affected by the in/out-group phenomenon
e.g. competitiveness and cooperation
people rated as having a very competitive nature tend to shore more in-group favouritism

> > SIT doesn’t take into account individual differences

> > SIT alone is not sufficient to explain prejudice

8
Q

Wetherall (1997)

A

> investigated in-group favouritism in different cultures
Polynesian children were more generous towards the out-group than white children in New Zealand

> > There are cultural diffs in in/out-group formation

9
Q

Applications:

It can explain a wide range of social phenomenon, such as…

A
>racism and class conflict
>the sense of togetherness we feel from being in a team/club
10
Q

Applications:

If we can understand the factors that lead to prejudice…

A

we can devise ways to reduce its formation –>

the ‘redrawing of group boundaries’ to create one large group can reduce tensions - e.g. school uniform

11
Q

Different theories:

Realistic conflict theory

A

> suggests that the mere presence of another group is not enough to generate prejudice and discrimination

> RCT states that there must be competition / a conflict of interests

12
Q

Criticisms:

Prejudice is natural?

A

Tajfel saw the process of categorisation as a basic characteristic of human thought

Milner (1991): SIT is easily misinterpreted as an explanation and justification of racism