Evaluate social identity theory, making reference to relevant studies.
Social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979)
Social Categorization
divides the social environment into ingroup and outgroup
ingroup: the individual belongs (us)
outgroup: the individual does not belong (them)
- aka SIT
- the analysis of intergroup relations
- social identity: one's self-concept based on the knowledge of membership in social groups in combination with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership
- based on four interrelated concepts:
- social categorization
- social identity
- social comparison
- positive distinctiveness
Social Categorization
divides the social environment into ingroup and outgroup
ingroup: the individual belongs (us)
outgroup: the individual does not belong (them)
- reduces perceived variability within the ingroup (we are similar to one another)
- reduces perceived variability in the outgroup (they are all the same)
- increases perceived variability between the ingroup and the outgroup (we are different from them)
- category accentuation effect: exaggeration of group differences and intragroup similarities
Social identity
- the part of our self-concept that is based on knowledge of our membership of one or more social groups
- related to intergroup behaviors (when we relate towards one another as members of separate groups, our social identities determine our behaviors)
- people can have several social identities
Social comparison and positive distinctiveness
- positive social identities may result from the process of social comparison (comparing our ingroups with relevant outgroups)
- fulled by our need for positive distinctiveness (the motivation to show that our ingroup is preferable to an outrgroup)
Intergroup behaviors exhibit general characteristics of the following:
- ethnocentrism: ingroup serving bias (equivalent of SSB)
- ingroup favoritism: behavior that favors one's ingroup over outgroup
- intergroup favoritism: beahvior that emphasizes differences between our ingroup and outgroups
- confomrity to ingroup norms: acting accordance to standards of behavior defined by the ingroup
Tajfel (1970)
Aim: To investigate if boys placed in random groups based on an arbitrary task (minimal group) would display ingroup favoritism and intergroup discrimination
Procedure:
the participants adopted a strategy of ingroup favoritism, supports predictions of SIT
Evaluation:
Aim: To investigate if boys placed in random groups based on an arbitrary task (minimal group) would display ingroup favoritism and intergroup discrimination
Procedure:
- participants: 64 schoolboys (age 14-15) from a UK school
- divide participants into two groups based on preferences on painting
- working individually, the participant had to distribute points to ingroup and outroup members (they were not allowed to give points to themselves)
- the participants are told that the points given will be given to them as money later
- if the participant give their ingroup member less scores, the outgroup members would get even less
- the participants showed a strong tendency to gavor members of their ingroup over the members of the outgroup
- on many occasions, the participants would sacrifice gain for their ingroup in order to maximize the difference between their ingroup and outgroup
the participants adopted a strategy of ingroup favoritism, supports predictions of SIT
Evaluation:
- demonstrated that "minimal group" is all that necessary for individuals to exhibit dscrimination against outgroups
- lack ecological validity
- demand characteristic may have occurred
- the participants may heave interpreted the task as a competitive game and therefore reacted the way they did
Strengths of SIT
|
Limitations of SIT
|