Social identity theory + add tajfel & turner study Flashcards
What are ingroups and outgroups?
ingroups - we belong to
outgroups - the rest of them
Def ingroup favouritism
Def outgroup bias
Give examples
+ favouritism is to show a more encourage support to your ingroup compared to others
e.g. cheering for your team, if they lose you console them that they id their best
(-) bias is now showing hostility towards the opposing teams verbal or physical, triggered by the mere presence of another group
e.g. when free kicks are up you constantly boo them to get their attention off or if they win you throw your drinks/foods at them etc
Describe the 3 Stages and give an example
Social Categorisation: we are associated ourselves and other members of particular social group as ingroups and the rest are outgroups and it reveals things about people and us depending what category your in. a single person can belong to many different categories
Example: school, work place, ethnicity
Social Identification: adopting the identity of the group we are associated with thus behaving in ways we believe are appropriate to the identity
Example: if categorised as a specific football team you would buy shirts to show that your support them, act rude to other teams like trash talking and also think positive about your team
Social Comparison: contrast ourselves to other groups by showing ingroup favouritism and outgroup negative bias this is because we need to think highly of ourselves and look down on others to maintain self-esteem
Example: in a basketball match - show ingroup favouritism by cheering for your team, encouraging them and show outgroup negative bias by trash talking, shouting when they shoot the ball etc
Jane (1S)
+ Jane Eliot’s (favouritism & negative bias) blue/brown eyed study
-> in-groups/out-groups stopped getting along with each other only after both groups were separated.
comparison
-> brown eyes felt superior through support from an authority figure via teacher, had the arm band to show higher level & had the numbers compared to blue eyes
out-group bias
-> boys fighting due to the perception of brown eyes playing despite not being allowed to
-> She done studies with adults at later stages and found similar findings suggesting age doesn’t matter.
Therefore, Jane Eliot supports social identity theory because in her study she found evidence of in group favouritism and out group bias.
Compare (1W)
- conflicting theories suggest mere presence isn’t enough for producing prejudice for ingroups/outgroups
->RCT is better
-> conflict of interest/competition of 2 groups are needed for prejudice attitudes/discrimination to start
-> gives proper explanation of prejudice not tangible explanations like mere presence
= SIT lacks credibility - offers methods of reduction to prejudice -> superordinate goals
tajfel & turner (1S & 1W)
+ Tajfel and Turner (1979) argued = conflict not needed for prejudice to occur,
-> being in a group/aware of the existence of another group are sufficient for prejudice to develop.
+ minimal group studies (bridtol school boys 14-15)
arbitrary groups
-> allocate points to boys from own/other teams = mainly add points of own team (identified boys from own team)
-> we have a tendency for in-group favouritism
-> highlights how prejudice occurs just from being in a group environment.
= be useful and applicable
- generalisability is lacking
-> tajfel & turner only used children for the studied
-> study doesn’t consider any adult P’s to compare if kids reactions is any different from adults
= this reduces the credibility of the theory - plus breaking ethical rules by taking advantage of vulnerable P’s via most studies use children
-> due to kids are still developing from right to wrong -> easiest to control to show prejudice as for the good of the research, researchers wont scold them that their actions isn’t appropriate
reductionist (2 weaknesses)
- reductionist -> only states the cause of prejudice comes from social categorisation. begins only when we categories ourselves as ingroups no matter gender, age, race
-> not consider other factors that may determine how prejudice occurs
e.g. Platow = personality characteristics influence how affected we are by the in-group/out-group phenomenon
our tendency to show in-group favouritism/out-group negative bias
= it lacks a clear cause and effect to reinforce the theory - other factors could be individual personality or cultural differences that could influence our attitudes towards certain groups in society
-> everyone has a unique personality thus ppl in the ingroup are not at the same level
-> diff ppl = diff prejudice
= it also lacks overall credibility
Sherif (2S)
+ Sheriff (1954/61) competition was important
-> groups pitted against each other
-> shout insults at each other + would sneak into the other group’s camp and burn down their flags.
-> 1st week mere grouping of both groups in front of lake
-> rattlers swam, eagles didn’t = give rattlers the idea their more confident than eagles
This supports the theory as the theory suggests due to in group bias, we believe the group we are in to be superior to the out group, and we will therefore become competitive if we have to be, in order to prove our group is better. This means that Sheriff’s findings that competition is important is actually a strength of the study, not a criticism.
+ Sherif’s results of super-ordinate goals had 2 hostile to groups to eventually work together to benefit each other
-> scavenging food, eating together, fixing water tank, pushing stuck truck
-> an interaction (enough mere-grouping) between groups can lead to find common ground
= able to form strategies that can be beneficial to wider society
Application/Lab (2W)
- no application
-> SIT only suggest reasons for why it happens & the stages that led to favouritism/(-) bias
-> nothing about reducing/stopping it
weakness = not providing an application to society but only useless knowledge for clueless general public - Lab experiments for data collection
-> Prejudice towards outgroups is not formed using artificial tasks but in everyday situations e.g. work and education
-> Lab experiments lack mundane realism as the tasks used to create prejudice are forced and unlikely to happen in real life.
= loses credibility as the research gathered is not valid enough to prove the concepts theories
