Social Identity Theory 1979 Flashcards
Social Identity Theory
in group and out group
In Group
• the group that we belong to
Out Group
• everybody else who does not belong into our group
Belonging to ingroup create Prejudice towards the outgroup
Social Identity Theory
Stage 1 of formation of prejudice
Social Categorisation
Social categorisation
• we categorize ourselves and others as members of a particular social group to aid our understanding
• some social groups are more important than others for example: gender is more important than if you are a cat owner or not
• assigning people to a category tells us things about these people and similarly we find things out about ourselves about knowing what categories that we belong to
• an individual can belong to multiple groups
• e.g.: classes, age, race, gender, rubber duck owner, pet owner, engaged etc
Social Identity Theory
Stage 2 of the formation of prejudice
Social identification
Social identification
• we adopt the identity of the groups we’ve categorized ourselves into
• will behave in ways we believe are appropriate to this identity unconformed the social norms and values of the group too
• there’ll be an emotional significance to your identity with a group and your self-esteem will become bound up with group membership (group membership will affect your self-esteem)
• for example if you were a part of a group of Ferrari Formula 1 supporters you would Express this identity by wearing red clothes and watching the Grand Prix
♤♡◇♧♤♡◇♧♤♡◇♧♤♡◇♧♤♡
• overall adopt the identity of group that you catagorized yourself into and you behave the ways appropriate to the group/ identity, you conform to the social norms of the group and membership in the group is connected to your self-esteem
Social Identity Theory
Stage 3 in the formation of prejudice
Social comparison
Social comparison
• compare our group of other groups showing in group favoritism and outgroup negative bias
• our group needs to compare well against others in order to maintain self-esteem
In group favouritism
• bias towards your in group for example complementing everybody in your in-group
Out group Negative bias
• this is a negative biot to outgroups for example insulting somebody who isn’t part of your group (discrimination)
• according to tajfel feeling that we belong to a group and believing that our group is in some way better than others, enhances our self-esteem.
• I.e Prejudice makes us feel good about ourselves.
Social Identity Theory
Minimal group studies
Minimal group studies
• the theory was based on series of lab experiments called minimal group studies. They were called this due to the reason why the participants would see themselves to belonging to a group which was only minimal (e.g the toss of a coin)
• therefore there was no real reason for the participants to feel that they were part of the group
Social Identity Theory
E +
Lalonde (1992)
Lalonde 1992
• study the poorly performing hockey team to determine if SIT applies in real life
• the team regularly had to credit other hockey teams were being better than them
• however they claimed that other teams were actually ‘dirtier’ than they were still showing in group favoritism
• observing the other teams they could not find any evidence of them playing ‘dirty’ therefore this is an example of in group favoritism and outgroup negative bias in real life
• Therefore this study supports social identity Theory as it demonstrates in group favoritism and outgroup negative bias in real life
Social Identity Theory
E -
Sherif et al 1954-61
Sherif found that an in group an outgroup coexisting alone does not cause Prejudice
• it was found that conflict/ competition between the groups caused Prejudice
• use two groups of 11 year old boys who once finding out each other existed challenged one another to a game of baseball
• after this game and other competition sports and experimental tasks, they were asked to complete a questionnaire to find out the out group friendship choices, one group “The Eagles”, had a result of 7.5%, while the other group “The ratlers” had their result of 6.4%
• this shows that unlike what social identity Theory suggests conflict/ competition causes Prejudice and discrimination between the ingroup and the outgroup
• therefore this study opposes social identity Theory
Social Identity Theory
How good is the research +
Lalonde 1992
Lalonde 1992
• this was a observational field study in real life meaning that the hockey teams and their relationship towards other hockey teams were real
• therefore meaning that it demonstrates that ingroup favouritism and outgroup bias can occur in real life therefore giving the study high ecological validity making it good evidence to support social identity Theory
Social Identity Theory
How good is the research -
Sherif 1954-61
Sherif et al
• is poor research to oppose SIT
as it has low internal validity
• this is due to years later the boys being interviewd and revealing that they knew they were being watched, meaning that the results and behaviour shown was demand characteristics
• and therefore would be invalid data
• meaning effect in cause and effect cannot accuratly be established
• meaning the study has low internal validity due to possible invalid results, and therefore it is poor evidence to oppose SIT
Social Identity Theory
Compared to RCT +/-
• Social identity theory is worse than RCT this is due to social identity here being too reductionist
• with it claiming the only way for prejudice to be created is simply for two groups to exist
• while RCT argues that conflict is also needed for prejudice to occur it also states that super ordinant goals is a way to reduce Prejudice
• Therefore due to being less reductionist RCT is better than social identity theory that explain the cause of prejudice
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
• RCT does not state the processes underlying the development or maintenance of group identity it only Focuses on how groups can cause Prejudice
• Whereas SIT Focuses on both how groups cause Prejudice ( ingroup favoritism and outgroup negative bias to enhance self-esteem) and the maintenance and formation of group identity ( social categorization and social identification)
•So therefore while RCT is more detailed in how groups can cause Prejudice via conflict
• SIT is better due to both explaining how and why groups cause Prejudice and the formation and maintenance of group identity
• So SIT is the better overall explanation of group Prejudice as it is, While less detailed, a more overall view at group Prejudice
Social Identity Theory
conclusion + ap
• In conclusion social identity Theory is a widely supported but limited theory on how prejudice is caused by the Mere existence of groups
• it is however a good Theory on social identity and social groups there’s a whole as it does not only include Prejudice but also the formation of social groups and explains that being the part of social groups affects the self-esteem
• making it a good Theory on social identity and social groups as a whole while a limited Theory when simply looking at the cause of prejudice from groups
• this theory can be applied to football matches and riots
• this is due to the different groups identifying with the teams and comparing themselves to the other teams
• for example discussions between the two teams could result in outgroup negative bias escalating into conflicts
• such as somebody saying your team could never be out soon and the other group starts throwing punches
• that is an application of social identity Theory
