Social identity theory Flashcards
define social identity theory
Social identity theory-
individuals strive to improve their self-image by trying to enhance their self-esteem based on personal identity or with various social identities. ie. with affiliation w successful groups
Suggests that many of our social behaviors such as prejudice can be explained by our tendency to identify ourselves as part of a group.
We make sharp judgements about people
separate “us” or “them” in-group vs out-group
ppl show in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination
3 stages
Social categorisation- categorising people into groups- in-group and out-groups
Social identification- you identify with certain groups/ feel a part of/ form close bond with group. You try to act like them, you want to be associated with them
Social comparison- We begin to start acting differently towards others (out-group), and start to either discriminate or treat them differently, or favor our own group (in-group)
Cialdini procedure
Aim- Demonstrate social comparison with college football supporters, to find out if ppl favor their own in-groups more
Experiment 1
Procedure-
Apparel of psych students at unis was monitored during football season
3 types of data recorded at every school Monday morning:
a) no. of students in class
b) no. of students with apparel identifying their school
c) no. of students with apparel identifying other schools.
The data recorders were not part of the class they monitored Due to large difference in no. of students @ each school, a standard was used: no. of students wearing relevant apparel that day/ no. of students in the class that day.
Results-
More students wore apparel identifying their school than apparel from another school.
Consistent tendency for students to wear school of attendance apparel after victories than non-victories
Not the case for non school of attendance apparel- suggests apparel is worn due to a tendency to wear clothing of a certain type (team jackets, sweatshirts etc) rather than due to an athletic victory
Experiment 2
IV- 2 factors manipulated:
1) subject’s personal outcome on survey task
2) the outcome of game described
DV- Subject’s tendency to use “we” or non- “we” responses when describing the football outcome.
Hypothesis- Subjects would emit more “we” responses when describing victory. The effect of hypothesis 1 would be greatest for subjects who “failed” survey test. subjects would associate themselves with a positive event to distance themselves to salvage their image
Procedure-
Subjects randomly selected
During football season, subjects contacted by experimenters who claimed to be conducting survey on their knowledge of campus issues.
Subjects that agreed to participate asked series of 6 factually oriented force-choice qs abt campus life (e.g “what percent of students in your school are married? Would u say its closer to 20 or 35%?”)
After 6th response, caller administers first manipulation. Half were told they did well, half were told they did poorly.
Subjects then asked about campus athletic events- 2nd manipulation. Half asked to describe outcome of football game they won, and the other half asked for football game they lost. If they didn’t know outcome, another subject was called
Results
People tended to use the pronoun “we” more to describe their team when they won and “they” more when the team had lost.
The researchers were able to show that people tend to associate with positive others most closely when their own public image is threatened. When subjects told they did poorly, they were more likely to use “we”
Stereotypes define
schema theory suggests that we have a framework of knowledge that we use to organize information. This can allow us to process information faster and quicker; organize knowledge, assist recall, guide behaviour and make sense of our current experiences. people are more likely to notice things that fit into their schemas. We predict what will happen based on what has happened before.
They are made up of our prior experiences and knowledge.
having schemas means that we have preconceived ideas of certain things prior to our experiences. As such, this could lead to stereotyping as we may already have preconceived ideas of certain groups of people due to our schemas, and as such hold a certain perception about others.
Self serving bias define
Self serving bias
more likely to attribute own behaviour to dispositional factors when it’s a good thing, and situational factors when its a bad thing. Boost self esteem
We think we can judge others based on their personality, which is fixed and predictable. We like to think we are flexible and can be affected by the environment.
Actor- external. Observer- internal
Kashima and triandis procedure
Aiim of their study
investigate the use of the self-serving bias in Western and Eastern countries.
Method
They had shown Japanese and American students slides regarding life in Iraq, Israel and Greece.
The participants were then given a recognition test on the slides, followed by seeing slides showing life in India, which they were then given another recognition test on.
Participants were then randomly assigned into success or failure groups, with the success groups being told they had gotten a high score, and the failure groups being told they had gotten a low score.
The participants were then given an attribution questionnaire regarding their performance on the tests.
Results
American students tended to attribute their successes to ability or internal factors, while the Japanese students tended to attribute their failures to lack of ability or internal factors, a result that supports the idea of a modesty bias.
Gives evidence to show culture does affect cognition, as individualistic cultures/Western/ American participants had shown greater self-serving bias, due to their individualist values, which put emphasis on standing out and personal achievement.
Japanese students displayed a modesty bias/ less self-serving bias, as collectivist societies push the idea that the individual is less important, and so they may be more modest in an attempt to blend in with the group.
Enculturation define
A significant part of the development of our personal identity is the learning and maintenance of the necessary and appropriate behaviours and norms of our own culture. This is a process called enculturation. For example, for Asian American families, enculturation refers to the process of becoming socialized into and maintaining the norms of the Asian culture.
Enculturation can occur through direct tuition – that is, your parents tell you what you are supposed to do-, observational learning, participatory learning- when kids do an activity and transfer that learning to later situations
acculturation
Acculturation- when 2 cultures interact and they begin changing- when an individual comes into contact with a foreign culture
acculturation is the process of cultural and psychological change that takes place as a result of contact between two or more cultural groups.. At the individual level, it involves changes in a person’s behaviour.
Can explain how people learn the norms of society.
Types of acculturation:
Separation- adopted by ethnic groups. Avoid interaction w/ other cultures, hold value on original culture. Want to keep cultures different and separate themselves
Marginalization- little possibility to make contact. When they are rejected by both cultures, they feel they don’t belong in either group. Diffuse groups (uncertain about place in society, e.g refugees)
Assimilation- when individuals don’t want to maintain cultural identity. Give up on original culture.
Integration- maintaining a level of cultural integrity but also wishing to engage with the larger society. Could be bilingual- feels comfortable in ethnic and national cultures
Lueck et al procedure
Acculturative stress
The aim of this study was to investigate the variables that may predict acculturative stress inAsian immigrants and Asian Americans.
The sample consisted of several different Asian cultures, including Chinese, Filipino and Vietnamese.
The researchers carried out semi-structured interviews.
The interviews measured the participants’ level of acculturative stress. They also measured the impact of language proficiency, language preference, discrimination, social networks, family cohesion and the socioeconomic status on acculturative stress.
Results”
70% found to have acculturative stress
A bilingual language preference contributed to lower acculturative stress. Asians who are able to use both languages equally with their friends are able to build up networks of support within and outside their community. Stress may arise when Asian Americans do not know the native language well enough to discuss sensitive issues with family members at home or in the native country who may have limited or no abilities in English
Although bilingualism is a predictor of low acculturative stress, the preference for speaking English only is a predictor of high acculturative stress.
Negative treatment – including prejudice harassment and threats - significantly contributed to higher acculturative stress.
Sharing similar values and beliefs as a family significantly contributed to lower acculturative stress
Chen et al
People from individualistic and collectivist cultures would show decreased or increased ingroup bias if they succeed while their group fails
Hypothesis- ppl from China (collectivist) would exhibit more in-group favoritism when they did well but group performed poorly.
Ppt told they were assigned to groups based on similarity of their attitudes
Ppt completed aptitude survey to measure level of individualism/ collectivism-. Q’s such as “my happiness is dependent on those around me”
Ppt assigned to group w/ similar attitudes and had to complete self-perception questionnaire
Ppt shown supposed average of attitudes in their group. (deliberately created by experimenter to be similar to ppt’s own answers)
Groups were seated close together and away from other group
Took a test and were told it would assess their intellectual competencies
Manipulation- Ppt given random feedback. Half received successful feedback (above average), failure (below average).
Ppt given both individual and group feedback (4 conditions: both succeed, both fail, individual or group fail or succeed)
Ppt given questionnaire rating in-group and out-group/ to rate how much they identified with the group and how attached they felt, and significance of their group’s performance (how important)
Results
When the group failed, US ppt favored out-group more than in-group, vice versa for chinese
US scored higher in individualism and Chinese higher in collectivism
Chinese showed higher in-group favoritism than American
In-group evaluated more positively in when they succeeded.
Chinese showed more positive evaluations of in-group and lower of out-group overall
Method-
Strengths
Well controlled, lab experiment
tested interactions between 3 variables: culture, individual performance feedback, in-group performance feedback
groups based on questionnaire answers - not everyone in PRC more collectivist than US. Didn’t assume all chinese were collectivist, all Americans individualistic
questionnaire - objective, less researcher bias and subjective interpretation
Weaknesses
social desirability bias in questionnaire - answered according to how they think they should answer according to their culture, not true representation
low reliability of self report data - may answer how they think they act but in reality something else
Culture-
Not ethnocentric, has ppt from both eastern and western cultures.
There is a difference between collectivist and individualist cultures and their in-group and out-group biases.
Doesn’t support SIT entirely, as the idea that ppl are motivated to identify with various groups to achieve personal enhancement is less applicable to collectivist cultures
Tajfel
Minimal group paradigm- the minimal condition for group biases (e.g favoritism for own group) is simply being a member of that group
Group members never meet and don’t know who is in their group. Investigates the minimal conditions required for discrimination to occur between groups
SIT- Even if groups are defined arbitraily, people still feel the need to separate themselves from ppl not in the group
Aim-
to demonstrate the minimal group paradigm in creating in-group bias
Procedure-
Schoolboys randomly allocated into groups (though they were told it on what artwork they preferred). in-groups and out-groups defined by arbitrary criteria
Told they were participating in a decision making experiment
Individually assigned points based off a matrix to their group or another group. Could give their group and other group points.
They were allowed no face to face contact or communication.
Results-
Boys favored in-group members
Showed Categorisation accentuation- maximised differences between groups even if disadvantages to their group (e.g giving 1 to out and 7 to in instead of 13 and 13 points). Exaggerated difference between the groups.
Showed positive distinctiveness- the motivation to show in-group is better than the out-group, establishing superiority
Method-
Lacks ecological validity- unusual task in artificial environment. Lab experiment
Lab experiment- well controlled. Low demand characteristics as boys were told expm abt decision making
Culture-
Ethnocentric. All from same country
Gender-
All young boys
The idea of being in a group is enough to cause group bias
Criteria can trigger a tendency to favor in-group at the expense of others, even if it means sacrificing in-group gain
eval of theory
Testable- yes
Ecological validity- Happens in the real world, relevant.
Applicable- yes, as if we can understand prejudice and discrimination, we can help prevent it and help this issue
Clearly defined variables- some, but not perfect. There are many different components
Unbiased- it does have bias, e.g in chen et al and individualist and collectivist cultures
Predicts behavior- may be able to predict a general change in attitude, but cannot predict specifics or individual’s specific prejudice and behavior.
Evaluation from text + idea that there are so many applications but also so many factors which can affect the characteristics of social comparison. How cross culturally relevant it is questionable
Clear evidence from studies such as Tajfel that being part of a group is sufficient to lead to prejudice against people not in that group
SIT can explain a wide range of phenomena and can be applied to a large range of social and cultural situations
SIT doesn’t explain individual differences in prejudice. There’s variations in the degree of prejudice for each person.
