Social identity theory

Question 1

Social identity theory

Answer 1

• argues that a person has not just one ‘personal self’, but rather several social selves that correspond to group membership. According to the theory, we need to understand who we are & know our value in social contexts. This is why we categorise ourselves in terms of group membership. So when an individual talks of himself as a male, Australian, a student, member of a swimming team & a surfer, he refers to his social identities
• sometimes one of our “social selves” can become more salient- that is, we can become more aware of the facet of our identity. Social identity theory predicts that when one of our social identities becomes more salient, it will have an influence on our behaviour
• Social theory is based on the cognitive process of social categorisation.

Question 2

social catégorisation

Answer 2

is the process of classifying people into groups based on similar characteristics, whether it be nationality, age, occupation or some other trait. This categorisation gives rise to in-groups and out-groups.

Question 3

Tajfel aim

Answer 3

to investigate if intergroup discrimination would occur based on being put into different groups

Question 4

In-group

Answer 4

“Us”—people with whom we share a common identity.

Question 5

Out-group

Answer 5

a social group toward which a person feels a sense of competition or opposition

Question 6

In-group bias

Answer 6

the tendency to favor our own group

Question 7

out-group bias

Answer 7

tendency to view all individuals outside our group as less favourable

Question 8

Tajfel method

Answer 8

experiment called minimal group studies, lab experiment

Question 9

Tajfel procedure

Answer 9

• sample of 48 boys, ages 14-15 years old, asked to rate 12 paintings by abstract expressionist painters Klee & Kandinsky
• not aware of which artist had painted which painting during test.
• boys randomly allocated to 1 of 2 groups & told that they preferred either Klee or Kandinsky.
• Each boy was given the task to award points to 2 other boys, 1 from his same group & 1 from the group.
  only info that each boy was given was the code numbers & the name of the group of the 2 boys they were supposed to award.
• 2 systems of awarding points used by researchers.
  Point allocation system 1: the point scores for each boy were linked so the sum of the 2 scores was 15. If a participant chose 8, the other boy automatically got a score of 7 (15-8). means that as the score for the participant increases, the score of the other boy decreases.
• system 2: Taijfel manipulated 2nd system → If a Klee member chose a high value for another Klee member, it would give a higher profit to the out-group, if a Klee member chose a mid-range value for another Klee member, it would give the same points for the other group, If a Klee member chose a low value for another Klee member, it would award only 1 point to the other team.

Question 10

Tajfel results

Answer 10

• In 1st system of point allocation, boys generally awarded more points to the members of their in-group favouritism.
• In 2nd system of point awarding, boys were willing to give own team fewer points w the goal of maximising the difference between their in-group & the out-group. This was a bit surprising since it meant that the boys left the study w fewer points than if they had all given each other the largest number of points possible.

Question 11

Tajfel conclusion

Answer 11

there was natural tendency of members of a group to favour their in-group.
- Despite the seemingly meaningless grouping created, the p were able to identify w their respective groups & create a positive social identity by giving their in-group more points.
The researcher demonstrated the a ‘minimal group’ is all that is necessary for an individual to exhibit discrimination against an out-group.
- study thus challenged previous beliefs that competition necessary & sufficient to produce prejudice.

Question 12

Minimal group paradigm

Answer 12

• experimental procedure where trivial group differences are created artificially to investigate the effects of social categorisation on intergroup discrimination
• some of the theories claims have been supported by research using the minimal group paradigm
• In this experimental procedure, p are randomly classified as members of 2 groups on the basis of a very trivial criterion. The groups are purely cognitive as there is no objective reason for the group members to compete