PSY2003:Social Psych Exam:SCT& Political Extremism

Question 1

What is self catergorisation theory (SCT)?(1)

Answer 1

A more cognitive approach to what social identity says, combines with this and one other thing to make the social identity approach.

Question 2

What does SCT propose?(5)

Answer 2

1) Catergorisation need for schema in the world to make sense of it
2) (A model) People cognitively represent categories as prototypes (which are a fuzzzy set of attributes that define an ideal (exemplar) or ideal perfect example (meta-contrast principle)
3) To make sense of the world we maximise differences between diff groups and minimise intragroup differences (accentuation process)
4) We strive for entitativity
5) We are not separate from this, categorise as me or them, depersonalise (side effect of thinking of people as a group label rather than individuals) or self-stereotype

Question 3

Factors that influence how we categorise ourselves and others?(3)

Answer 3

Comparative fit-how do they fit the prototype eg for a footballer, do they behave like a footballer, are they athletic-fit image in your mind-frame of reference in the picture
Normative fit-similar to ^^ but more do they display expected characteristics-more about internal characteristics
Readiness-past experience and existing schemata-eg asked what a sports car is but don’t know much about cars then you may just refer to it as a car more generally, whereas if you asked an F1 driver they’d know more hence say oh thats a sports car
also include motivations etc what am i trying to do atm, therefore how best is it for me to categorise myself? eg drive for positive distinctiveness and reduce uncertainty to make sense of the world.

Question 4

Describe Stoner 1961 experiment and findings.(3)

Answer 4

• Participants asked whether engineer should move to a less secure bette paying job,found groups made riskier decisions than individuals (referred to as risky shift)
• But when asked should a father invest his sons inheritance money in high risk high reward stock the opposite was observed
• Group polarisation effect- group decisions are more extreme BUT only in the direction the group was already leaning (ie most members)-context is vital!

Question 5

What is GroupThink?(1)

Answer 5

• Things like personality, reputation, diplomacy can effect peoples views they add to the group
• People assume groups make better decisions but seen that it can lead to groups having a fixed, non-diverse, way of thinking (echo chamber)
• Can spark lack of creativity and even really bad decisions e.g. Vietnam, Pearl Harbour.

Question 6

What did Janis (1972) say?(3)

Answer 6

-Most classic research for this-
-Groupthink (political instances particularly)-encouraged when groups are highly cohesive, insulated, have high directive leadership and situation is high risk/high stress.
-Can lead to negative consequences: self-censorship (you don’t speak up), collective rationalisations, illusion of unanimity, illusion of invulnerability, increased belief that group morality is right
Often you wont get back benchers going against the grain, think you cant lose and all right as think well the whole group thinks it, when in reality unlikely that everyone does just people dont wanna go against the group so will go along with it-depersonalisation bc self-categorise as part of this group

Question 7

Critical thinking: Can Groupthink and accentuation go beyond the board room and lead to political extremism within society? i think the exam q will be v similar to this as he doesnt divulge the answer.

Answer 7

Potential exam q, could do practise paragraphs around this.

Han & Suhay studies would be in same paragraph, show findings show group memberships effect partisan decision making.