SCLOA - Evaluate Social Identity Theory with reference to relevant studies

Question 1

Social Identity Theory

Answer 1

• theoretical †framework developed by Tajfel

SIT is based on 4 interrelated concepts:

• social categorization
• social identity
• social comparison
• positive distinctiveness

Main studies:

• Cialdini et al. (1976)
• Tajfel et al. (1971)

Question 2

SIT Concepts: social categorization

Answer 2

divides the social environment into in-groups and out-groups

In-groups show:

• ethnocentrism
• stereotypical thinking
• self-serving biases

Question 3

ethnocentrism

Answer 3

similar to SSB but the self-serving effect applies to everyone we perceive as in-group members

Question 4

SIT Concepts: social identity

Answer 4

• how we think of ourselves according to our membership of social groups
• Turner (1982): it’s different from personal identity as personal identity is how we label our personality
• when establishing relationships with members of different groups, the social identity can influence our behavior

Question 5

SIT Concepts: social comparison

Answer 5

• our social identity influences how we feel about ourselves
• to maintain and build up self-esteem, we seek positive social identities
• we continuously compare our in-groups with relevant out-groups and usually conclude that our in-group is superior

Question 6

SIT Concepts: positive distinctiveness

Answer 6

• occurs when we establish superiority of in-group over out-groups
• we make sure that our social identities (and therefore our self-esteem) are positive enough

Question 7

Cialdini et al. (1976) - Overview

Answer 7

• observed college football supporters
• after their college team won, supporters were more likely to be seen wearing college clothing
• vice versa for after a loss
• supports the notion of positive distinctiveness as the supporters wanted to be associated with a positive social group (a winning team)

Question 8

Tajfel et al. (1971) - Process

Answer 8

• British schoolboys were randomly grouped
• participants were informed that their groups were according to a preference for Klee or Kandinsky paintings
• with knowledge of which groups they belonged to, the boys worked individually to give points to both in-group and out-group members
• they were not allowed to award points to themselves

Question 9

Tajfel et al. (1971) - Findings and Conclusion

Answer 9

• participants showed ingroup favoritism: strong tendency to award more points to in-group members
• category accentuation effect/positive distinctiveness: some would give up point gains for their in-group just to make sure there was a difference in points between in-group and out-group
• this supports the notion of social identity
• social identity was still established despite the arbitrary method used to form groups
• the boys still regarded themselves as belonging to a group even when they were working individually

Question 10

Tajfel et al. (1971) - evaluation

Answer 10

Strengths:

• supports SIT
• showed formation and features of SIT
• lab study: clear determinism
• despite the arbitrary method to determine groups, participants still showed characteristics described by SIT
• controlled environment minimized chances of confounding variables

Weaknesses:

• sample bias: all participants were male schoolboys from the same country
• boys may have misinterpreted the study as some sort of competitive game
• lab study: low ecological validity
• reductionist: simplistic reduction of a complex psychological phenomenon, focusing just on minimal groups and performance of a simple experimental task

Question 11

strengths of SIT

Answer 11

• empirical support
• raises the idea that intergroup conflict is not necessary for discrimination to occur

can explain behaviors such as:

• ethnocentrism
• ingroup favoritism
• positive distinctiveness
• stereotyping
• conformity

Question 12

limitations of SIT

Answer 12

• Rubin and Hewstone (1998) against self-esteem explanation: increase in self-esteem associated with out-group discrimination is too short-lived to have long-lasting effects on how in-group members view themselves
• SIT describes but does not predict human behaviour
• SIT does not explain why in some cases our personal identity is stronger than the group identity
• SIT fails to take the environment into consideration
• generally, experimental methods used to study SIT have low ecological validity