SIT

Question 1

What is our social identity?

Answer 1

This identity can be defined as - how we see ourselves as (self-perception). We categorize/evaluate ourselves based on our traits, skills and social categories (gender, age, nationality, ethnicity, beliefs).

Question 2

Which bish made this thing?

Answer 2

It was TAJFEL (1979) that had introduced this theory by proposing three main mechanisms that make up our social identity:

1. Social comparison
2. Social categorization
3. Self-esteem

Question 3

What are these 3 mechanisms?

Answer 3

1. Social categorization
   This is when shared characteristics are viewed in order to decide “which group I belong to?” In other words - to determine our group membership
2. Social comparison
   This is when we compare our “in-group” and the “out-group” in order to obtain positive distinctiveness of our “in-group”

(for eg; ingroup members are seen as individuals with positive traits > in-group favouritism

for eg; outgroup members are seen as individuals with negative traits > out-group discrimination )

3. Self-esteem
   This is when we use our group membership as a source to boost our self-esteem

Question 4

Studies?

Answer 4

Tajfel + Cialdini

Question 5

tf is tajfel’s study all about?

Answer 5

So, he invited teenage British boys into his experiment, where he had shown boys around 15 paintings of two different artists’ and he had asked them which one they had preferred.
Then, Tajfel had randomly allocated boys into one of the two groups. The boys were told that their group members share the same preferences as them of the paintings that had been shown previously.
Boys were asked to give money to either their “in-group” or the “out-group” by proving them with 3 possible options to choose from:

1. Maximum joint profit where both groups benefit equally
2. Maximum in-group profit
3. Maximum difference, in favour of the in-group

Findings of Tajfel showed that boys tended to favor their in-group over the out-group members, displaying in-group favouritism. Boys also maximised differences between groups (category accentuation effect), even if it was unbeneficial for their own in-group.

Conclusions: it’s not necessary for group conflict to occur to favor or prefer your groups’ success etc

Question 6

Cialdini

Answer 6

Had done questionnaires and observations on college football fans. After the game Cialdini went to ask “How they felt” “What could have they done better”. The interesting thing is that if the fans’ team had won they had fully identified themselves as a part of that team to boost self-esteem - this was shown as the pronouns representing a union were used such as: we, us. However if their team had lost they no longer wanted to categorize themselves as apart of that group in order to maintain their social image and reputation - thus pronouns such as: they were utilized to emphasize the fact that the fan wasn’t responsible for the loss.
The next day Cialdini observed if the fans had been wearing the football team’s merch, and it was noticed that fans tended to wear merch when the team had won as this way they show pride in representing a team that had succeeded, however when the team had lost the presence of the merch didn’t tend to occur.

Question 7

Evaluation of SIT

Answer 7

+ can explain why in-group favouritism occurs and why it may fade (Cialdini)
+ shows that conflict is not required for discrimination to occur
+ explains why we want our in-group to stand out (positive distinctiveness)

• reductionist (the complex phenomena is described in simple terms, which doesn’t necessarily make the explanations representative of the theory)