Social Identity Theory (prejudice)

Question 1

Who developed social identity theory and what did they state?

Answer 1

-Tajfel and Turner: said that prejudice can be explained by us identifying ourselves as part of a group. Merely being in a group is enough for prejudice to occur, don’t need to have conflict.
-Used minimal group studies

Question 2

What occurred in the minimal group studies?

Answer 2

-Gave slips with scored on, had to circle the one with most score for their team, would circle ones like 1,0 not 10,7 as they just wanted the other group to have the least, even when offered money.
-Minimal as reason why they would see themselves as part of one group or another was minimal eg coin toss or painting preference, no real reason for feeling part of the group

Question 3

Define in groups and out groups

Answer 3

-In group: the group we identify with and belong to
-outgroup: the others who we tend to be prejudiced against as they are not part of our group

Question 4

What are the 3 stages in the formation of prejudice according to SIT?

Answer 4

-Social categorisation
-Social identification
-Social comparison

Question 5

Social categorisation

Answer 5

-Categorise ourselves and others as members of a particular group. Our group is the in-group, others are out-group.
-Some social groups more important than others such as gender rather than being a cat owner
-Assign ppl to groups, tell us things abt those people
-belong to many different groups

Question 6

What are 3 categories you use to categorise people?

Answer 6

-Gender
-Age
-Football team

Question 7

Social identification

Answer 7

-Adopt the identity of the group we have categorised ourselves as
-Behave appropriately to that group’s identity
-emotional significance to identification w group
-self-esteem will be bound with membership of group
-conform to groups social norms
-believe values

Question 8

If you had categorised self as football supporter, how would you adopt the identity?

Answer 8

-Buy shirt, wear scarf, go to matches, watch games on TV, talk about the manager and formation, know chants

Question 9

Social comparison

Answer 9

-Final stage
-once categorised and identified with group then compare to others
-in group favouritism and out-group negative bias.
-our group needs to be better than the other
-maintain self-esteem
-rivals

Question 10

How can being a football support link to in-group favouritism and out-group negative bias?

Answer 10

-In-group favouritism: big up everything about villa, how good the players are carry on even if they aren’t successful (which most the time they aren’t) maintains self esteem
-Out-group negative bias: Wolves not going to… bad players, won’t get into premier league

Question 11

What is the main study which supports SIT?

Answer 11

-Lalonde 1992: poorly performing hockey team, see if SIT applies to RL. Regularly had to credit the other teams for being better than then but would still show ingroup favouritism by saying that the other teams would play dirty. Other teams no evidence of playing dirty.

Question 12

What are the 8 key A01 concepts to mention when describing this theory?

Answer 12

-Ingroup
-Outgroup
-Social categorisation
-Social identification
-Social comparison
-In rout favouritism
-Outgroup negative bias
-Self esteem

Question 13

Evidence to support social identity theory (4)

Answer 13

-Lalonde: supports as although the hockey team were performing poorly and others better than them, they still showed in groups and outgroups and in group-favouritism and out group bias. Maintains the self-esteem of the hockey players and allows them to feel part of a group.
-Minimal group studies: Tajfel conducted lab studies, when they were placed into groups and had to allocate points to their own team or another team, awarded more points for those on their team, show in group favouritism
-Jane Elliot: brown and blue eyes experiment. Two groups, discriminated based on eye colour, perception of others creates prejudice
-Deutsch and Collins; compared housing projects one integrates (black and white living as neighbours) other segregated. Residents interviewed, contact inc in integrated, decrease in prejudice

Question 14

Evidence that criticises SIT

Answer 14

-Platow: personality characteristics involved in ingroup and outgroup. Like competitiveness, those who have competitive nature show in group favouritism. Doesn’t account for individual diffs. SIT alone not enough to explain
-Wetherall: ingroup favouritism, diff cultures. Min group studies with white and Polynesian kids in NZ, Polynesian more generous to outgroup, cultural differences.
-Poppe and Linssen: survey Eastern European , when asked abt stereotypes of eastern and western countries favoured own country, but didn’t blindly favourite their own and other easer European countries, national stereotypes upheld, shows SIT simplistic.

Question 15

Applications/implications

Answer 15

-Jane Elliot: education. Can be applied to educating children in schools about prejudice, may reduce as allows then to experience it themselves.

Question 16

Comparisons

Answer 16

-Authoritarian personality: alt explanation. Social identity theory only explains group behaviour, not all prejudice comes from groups, doesn’t explain individual prej which AP does. AP comes from conditional love from parents. Treat ppl diff based on their status so explains individual prej
-Reductionist: reduces cause of prej due to social categorisation. Only one factor, too simple. Cause more complex, eg competition. RCT- social categorisation alone not cause prej. More likely when comp. Sports but also housing. Poppe and Linssen, Eastern European.
-Mere presence of group not enough for prejudice. RCT states need comp
-Grounded theory: SIT based on min group studies. Relies too heavily on empirical evidence, theory based on data collected before, theory may go against other theories before the experiments, lowers validity. But grounded theory less likely to be affected by researcher bias as the theory comes after

Question 17

How good is the research

Answer 17

-Minimal group studies: lab experiment so not realistic of task or setting in real life, can’t explain prejudice in real life as not normal to be put in groups based on the photo they like or tossing a coin, may be due to other factors. Reduces cred of SIT