PSY2003:£xam:Social Identity Approach

Question 1

Realistic Group Conflict Theory (RGCT) (Campbell 1970s, Sheriff 1950s and 1966). (2)

Answer 1

Evolutionary and economic groups for group conflict
Conflict over resources
This conflict leads to ethnocentrism-outgroup vilified and ingroup glorified, national pride (eg your things are better)
IMPORTANT:In this theory once competition is removed then hostility/conflict should cease as nothing to gain

Question 2

Robber’s cave experiment. (4)

Answer 2

• Sherif et al. (1954)
• 22 boys mean age 12 from similar middle class protestant backgrounds, TD, same schooling year, two groups arbitrarily (eagles and rattlers), separate boys picked up and taken to 200acre Boy Scouts of America summer camp to do games (was completely surrounded by Robber’s cave park in Oklahoma which had a line division), did team bonding with own group
• Had prizes eg can keep money if you win the games you compete in, simulating conflict activities-ended up with bad conflict
• Integration (Stage 3)-didn’t work was still conflict, what they had to do was get rid of the groups, made them all one group with super-ordinate goals-this worked!

Question 3

Critical thinking on Robber’s cave.(3)

Answer 3

-View it explains intergroup conflict and hostility and support RGCT, not convinced (stage 3 failure)
-Can it really explain major conflicts like WW2
have to think, US(culture/economic standing)-young (age)-boys (gender) this weird perspective can it be generalised?
HAD to change group identity
-More robust theories? SIT, SCT?

Question 4

Use to define-Social Identity Theory (SIT).(1)

Answer 4

Completely meaningless groups with no benefit, no shared history or identity, would they still show preference for their group?

Question 5

Use to define SIT-Tajfel’s (1971) experiment.(2)

Answer 5

Minimal group paradigm (key to SIT tests), key requirements:
no face-to-face contact
group allocation fairly meaningless
responses don’t have strategic/ulterior explanation , no reciprocity effects
decision has value to show the results are valuable and meaningful

Had to assign money to others but participants were numbers, only knew their group and their own group, shows NO conflict, NO links to others in group, found people tended to give money to those of their own group (ie favouritism).
Basic condition of group identity was categorisation.

Question 6

Understanding SIT.(3)

Answer 6

• Bias can occur in absence of conflict,only need group categorisatoin
• Bias need not be negative (or even occur in a given context) but when it is it tends to favour the ingroup-because of positive distinctiveness / self-esteem hypothesis - our self identity is made up of our groups-not just individual differences
• Identity is fluid and on a continuum, we draw in these salient identities at any given time
• Uncertainty reduction, make groups for more certainty in the world (Hogg).

Question 7

What happens if you don’t like your group?(3)

Answer 7

3 strategies dependant how possible is it to change groups and how fixed are these groups in society

1) Individual mobility-change group-group boundaries perceived permeable (even if technically possible may not change due to how it may look) and hierarchies not seen as fixed
2) Social creativity-group boundaries impermeable and hierarchies perceived as fixed-emphasise different aspects that are good of your group (contingencies of worth)
3) Social competition-group boundaries impermeable for social hierarchy not fixed-argue your the best/ingroup favouritism-most directly linked to positive distinctiveness.

Question 8

Define positive distinctiveness.(1)

Answer 8

Positive distinctiveness is a component of Social Identity Theory and is when a social group is made to appear more positive and valued by using verbal and non-verbal cues. Individuals seek to build and maintain positive distinctiveness for their group.