SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY Flashcards
Who created social identity theory?’
Tajfel & Turner (1971)
What does social identity theory suggest?
Group membership itself is enough to create prejudice without any need for competition over resources. Simply being part of a group can cause ingrate loyalty in our group hostility.
Background information on Tajfel
- He was a Polish Jew whose family was killed by the Nazis
- He devoted himself to research on prejudice and discrimination
- There was no competition between Polish Jews and the Nazis so RCT did not apply
What is group formation?
SIT suggests that group formation generates in group loyalty and outgroup hostility
-Social categorisation
- Social identification
- Social comparison
What is social categorisation?
Categorising ourselves and others into social groups such as “emos” or “nerds”
What is social identification?
Adopting behaviours and attitude of our group to associate ourselves with them
What is social comparison?
The tendency to compare our in-group favourably against the out-group in order to maintain self-esteem
What does social comparison create?
Negative stereotypes, beliefs and discrimination
What is heterogeneous and homogeneous?
Heterogeneous - individuals in a group who are different and have individual/unique views and opinions
Homogeneous - when members in a group have the same opinion/views
What is the main principle of social identity theory?
Perceived group membership
What study did Tajfel conduct to create the basis of SIT?
- He placed 64 boys from a Bristol comprehensive school into two groups based on a minimal criteria - the boys thought they had similar interests
- Each group was asked to allocate a set ratio of point distribution between their own team and the other team
- despite that being no direct competition, the boys consistently favoured their own group
- Some even chose to disadvantage their own team in order to disadvantage the other team
- Tajfels results created the foundation of SIT as pps always showed in group preference without direct competition
4 supporting studies - SIT
- Steele & Aronson
- Tajfel
- Cialdini et al
- Fein & Spencer
What was Steele & Aronson study? How does it support SIT?
- African-American students were asked to identify their ethnicity on a pre-test questionnaire
- The performance was significantly reduced compared to when they were not asked about this before hand
- Potentially negative stereotypes associated with African-American academic abilities affected their self-esteem and cognitive performance
What is the Cialdini et al study? How does it support SIT?
- He studied US university football fans
- He found that supporters referred to the team as “us” or “them” depending on whether their team had lost or won
- This demonstrates that their personal identity is affected by their association with the football team (social identity)
What is the Fein & Spencer study? How does it support SIT?
- They gave pps false feedback on an IQ test giving them high or low self- esteem
- Pps with low self-esteem rated a Jewish applicant less favourable for a job than an Italian candidate (in-group preference)
- Whereas pps with high self-esteem showed no bias
- This shows self-esteem affects out-group hostility
3 competing arguments - SIT
- Weatherall
- Dobbs & Crano
- Individual differences
What is Weatheralls argument? How does it go against SIT?
- He observed New Zealand Polynesians
- He found them more likely to favour the out-group then show biased towards the in-group
- This demonstrates how cultures who emphasise collectivism and cooperation are less likely to show group prejudice
- therefore we must not conclude that conflict is the inevitable consequence of group membership and identification
What is Dobbs & Crano’s argument? How does it go against SIT?
- Where individuals perceived that their group was the majority there was much less in group favouritism and outgroup hostility compared to when they were perceived in group as a minority
- This suggests that discrimination and prejudice is more complex than SIT
individual differences? How does it go against SIT?
- The theory cannot explain individual differences in levels of group loyalty in our group hostility
- Not everyone will show the same levels of loyalty and hostility
- Authoritarian personality may explain individual differences better
