SL - The individual and the group - formation of Stereotypes Flashcards
Tajfel and Turner (1979)
There are three key processes within SIT (we refer to them as ‘processes’ rather than ‘stages’ because it’s hard to separate them out and there is a lot of overlap between them, with various other processes occurring at the same time):
1) Social categorisation - perceiving people in any given social setting to belong to different social groups (the in-group plus a number of out-groups).
2) Social identification - clarifying what it means to belong to one of these groups and adopting that group’s values and behaviours.
3) Social comparison - where one considers how the in-group compares to any given out-group on any relevant characteristic.
There are a few key ideas from SIT that are important to remember:
Self-esteem: we want to feel good about ourselves. Therefore, we will try to belong to groups that are positively viewed by others and/or we will try to improve the way others view the groups we belong to. The more our groups are valued, the better we feel about ourselves.
Positive distinctiveness: we want our social groups to come out on top of any other groups that we compare ours to. We want to be different and better.
Out-group homogeneity: it’s easier to engage in social identity processes if we assume that all members of any given out-group are very similar to each other.
Origin of conflict:
Groups are easier to make judgements about if we assume that everyone in them is the same. This is where stereotypes most clearly develop.
The more comparable the group (the more similar, local or socially relevant), the more pressure there is to establish positive distinctiveness, and the more likely it is that we will discriminate against members of the other group in order to create that positive difference.
When we have identified a group that we feel we belong to, we will automatically compare it to any other relevant groups that are present.
Conflict resolution:
Through education, we can help members of opposing groups either to understand how their group is not in competition with the other group (clarifying the group identities so that they’re no longer so comparable) or we can demonstrate that the two groups are so close that, in fact, they’re the same. Sherif achieved the latter in his study.
Hamilton and Gifford (1980)
Aim ->
To investigate the illusory correlation
Method -> participants were shown 39 statements about named individuals and their behaviour. There were 26 statements about members of Group A (18 positive, 8 negative) and 13 about members of Group B (9 positive, 4 negative). They were made aware that Group A was a larger group in the population and thus that there would be more statements about them.
After this, ppts had to rate Group A and B members for 20 personality traits - such as ‘agreeableness’ and ‘generosity’ - and to determine whether certain behaviours were more likely to have been committed by a
member of Group A or someone from Group B.
Results -> Ppts attributed more negative social traits to members of Group B. Ppts attributed significantly more desirable behaviours to members of Group A.
Conclusion -> They concluded that this was because ‘paired distinctiveness’ - the coinciding of a minority (Group B) member with a minority (negative) behaviour - created in participants the illusion of a correlation between minority groups and negative behaviours.
Evaluation ->
✔ n/s ~ good positive evaluative point
✔ n/s ~ good positive evaluative point
❌ n/s ~ good negative evaluative point
❌ n/s ~ good negative evaluative point
