Social Identity Theory Flashcards
What is social identity
Social identity is a person’s sense of who they are based on their group membership(s). Tajfel (1979) proposed that the groups (e.g. social class, family, football team etc.) which people belonged to were an important source of pride and self-esteem.
What is social identity theory
Social identity theory (SIT)
SIT is a theoretical framework developed by Tajfel and Turner (1979).
Social identity can be defined as the part of one’s self-concept based on the knowledge of membership in social group(s) in combination with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership.
What 3 processes do groups go through in social identity theory
Social categorisation
Social identification
Social comparison
Social categorisation.
Social Categorisation: this is seeing yourself as part of a group. As well as a personal identity (who you see yourself as) everyone has a social identity (the groups they see themselves as being a part of). Social identity may involve belonging to groups based on your gender, social class, religion, school or friends.
Social Identification:
Social Identification: once you have a social identity, you automatically perceive everyone else you meet as either part of your ingroup (the ones who share the same social identity as you) or the outgroup. You pay particular attention to ingroup members and adopt their values, attitudes, appearance and behaviour.
Social comparison
Social Comparison: this is viewing your social identity as superior to others; it comes from regarding the products of your ingroup (the things your ingroup does, their attitudes or utterances) as better than the products of an outgroup. This leads to prejudice and, if you have the power to influence the outgroup, it will lead to discrimination too.
Evidence for social identity theory
Minimal group experiments
(Tajifel et al 1971)
Prior to Tajfel’s work, it was believed that group bias (favoritism and/or prejudice) arose from personal interests of group members or from conflict. Tajfel demonstrated that the minimal condition needed for group favoritism is simply categorization into a group, no matter how arbitrary the criteria for categorization.
Real world group conflicts
Northern Ireland
Rwanda
Methodology of tajafel minimal group paradigm
In 1971, Henri Tajfel conducted experiments to find out what the minimal conditions were for intergroup bias. In order to conduct proper experiments, he followed several criteria:
No face-to-face interaction between subjects (in- or out-group)
No subjects could know to which group other subjects belonged
The responses of the subjects that would demonstrate bias could not in any way be justified by the group membership inclusion criteria
The responses of the subject should not benefit them in any utilitarian way
A strategy of intergroup differentiation should be in competition with a more utilitarian or rational strategy that benefits the in-group in absolute terms
The response should be made important and real to the subject
Example of tajifel experiment
A minimum group study consists of two phases. In the first phase, participants are randomly and anonymously divided into two groups (e.g., “Group A” and “Group B”), ostensibly on the basis of trivial criteria (e.g., preference for paintings or the toss of a coin). Sometimes, these participants are strangers to one another. In the second phase, participants take part in an ostensibly unrelated resource distribution task. During this task, participants distribute a valuable resource (e.g., money or points) between other participants who are only identified by code number and group membership (e.g., “participant number 34 of Group A”). Participants are told that, after the task is finished, they will receive the total amount of the resource that has been allocated to them by the other participants.
Results and analysis of minimum group paradigm
The minimal group paradigm is a methodology employed in social psychology. Although it may be used for a variety of purposes, it is most well known as a method for investigating the minimal conditions required for discrimination to occur between groups. Experiments using this approach have revealed that even arbitrary and virtually meaningless distinctions between groups, such as preferences for certain paintings or the color of their shirts,can trigger a tendency to favor one’s own group at the expense of others, even when it means sacrificing in-group gain.
Criticisms and limitations of social identity theory
- Minimal group research has been criticized for artificiality. The experimental set-up is so far from natural behaviour that it can be questioned whether it reflects how people would react in real life. This could limit the predictive value of the theory.
- SIT can not fully explain how ingroup favoritism may result in violent behaviour towards outgroups.
- SIT can not explain why social constraints such as poverty could play a bigger role in behaviour than social identity.
Strengths of social identity theory
- SIT assumes that intergroup conflict is not required for discrimination to occur. This is supported by empirical research. For example, Tajfel (1970).
- SIT can explain some of the mechanisms involved in establishing “positive distinctiveness” to the ingroup by maximizing differences to the outgroup.
- SIT has been applied to understanding behaviours such as ethnocentrism, ingroup favoritism, conformity to ingroup norms, and stereotypes.
Social categorisation theory
Self-categorization theory describes how the cognitive process of categorization, when applied to oneself, creates a sense of identification with the social category or group and produces the array of behaviors that we associate with group membership: conformity, stereotyping, ethnocentrism, and so forth. Self-categorization theory was developed by John Turner and his colleagues at the University of Bristol and described in a classic 1987 book
Self categorisation theory
Turner et al 1987
Hierarchy of social categories
Individual - group - all human
Category salience
Stereotype accessibility
Applied social identity approach
Social identity theory proposes that, when acting in groups, we define ourselves in terms of our group membership and seek to have our group valued positively relative to other groups. So if we define ourselves in terms of our nationality (e.g., as American, Australian or British), we want our country to look good compared to other countries.
However, in our unequal world, many people find themselves in groups that are devalued compared to others – for instance, black people in a racist world. What do they do then?
Social identity theory argues that this depends upon two factors. The first is permeability. If we believe that we can still progress in society despite our group membership (i.e., group boundaries are permeable) we will try to distance ourselves from the group and be seen as an individual. If there is no chance of advancement (because group boundaries are impermeable), we will begin to identify with the group and act collectively with fellow group members to improve our situation.
What we do as group members depends upon the second factor: security. If we believe that the present situation is either legitimate or inevitable, we will adapt to it. We may seek to improve the valuation of our own group (e.g., by stressing new positive characteristics) but we won’t question the system itself. However, if we see the situation as illegitimate and we can envisage other ways of organizing society (cognitive alternatives) then we will act collectively to challenge the status quo and bring about social change.
