Social identity theory - ERQ Flashcards
Introduction of Social identity theory
Social identity theory (SIT) proposed by Tajfel and later developed by Tajfel and Turner (1971) to understand intergroup relations and group processes.
SIT is based on the assumption that individuals strive to improve their self-image by trying to enhance their self-esteem, based on either personal identity or through various social identities (in-groups/out-groups).
SIT is based on 4 main concepts which will be further discussed in the following essay.
Purpose of essay on evaluation
This essay will attempt to make an appraisal by weighing up the strengths and limitations of the social identity theory, with studies supported.
What is SIT based on?
Social categorisation
C
STRENGTHS OF SIT
Supported by hundreds/high amounts of empirical studies
Demonstrates the role of social categorization in intergroup behaviours
Difference between personal identity and social identity
Explores how basic need to belong affects social interaction
Contributes to explanation of other areas of social psychology
E.g. stereotypes, conformity, groupthink, etc.
Explains intergroup conflict in situations where there is no need for conflict
Original SIT has been expanded on and continues to generate further research
WEAKNESSES OF SIT
Applications of SIT are restricted by the methodological limitations (e.g. low EV), unrepresentative samples and reductionist principles adopted in its supporting studies.
Self-esteem hypothesis is no longer central to SIT
Some studies indicate that increase in self-esteem from positive ingroup is too short to have long-term effects on personal identity
Social comparison to make ingroup superior does not change personal identity
Aim of SIT to favour situational factors rather than dispositional is not supported by evidence.
Platow et al. (1990) found that competitive participants showed greater ingroup favouritism than co-operative participants
What did Tajfel believe?
Tajfel believed that people have a tendency to identify with and fight for the interests of their groups - even when the groups are randomly assigned and devoid of any real meaning.
Tajfel wanted to demonstrate that even the most trivial and meaningless groups tend to inspire in-group loyalty and competitiveness, and thus carried out experiments based on what he called the minimal group paradigm.
Method of Tajfel
Schoolboys from Bristol were randomly allocated into groups (though they were told it was off a basis for a preference of artwork for Kandinsky or Klee).
Told they were participating in a decision making experiment
They individually assigned points based off a matrix to their group or another group.
They were allowed no face to face contact or communication.
Results of Tajfel
Boys tended to favour ingroup members over outgroup members (ingroup favouritism)
Boys maximised differences between groups (category accentuation effect), even if it was potentially disadvantageous to their own group
Conclusion of Tajfel
The idea of being in a group is enough to induce own group bias (minimal group paradigm)
Limitations of Tajfel
Unusual task in an artificial environment –> Lacks ecological validity
Might have been influenced by demand characteristics of the situation and acted in the way that they thought was expected of them.
Tajfel”s study has reduced this complex psychological phenomenon down to a very simple level, focusing just on minimal groups and performance of a simple experimental task.
Participants can”t be generalized to the wider population
All boys
Same age range & Country
Ethics:
Deception
Participants were told it was a study on decision making, when it was actually about group bias
Consent
Participants did not give informed consent as they did not know the true aim of the study
Tajfel connection to question
This study supports SIT because the participants showed ingroup favouritism and category accentuation effect, which is an intergroup behaviour and concept of SIT
Cialdini argument
Based on the concepts of the social self and the need for self-esteem, psychologist Cialdini came up with an interesting prediction - that we’ll closely identify with a particular social group when it is successful, but we’ll put a little distance between ourselves and the social group when it fails.
Cialdini tested this idea with a simple yet brilliant field study on football fans in American universities.
Aim of Cialdini
To investigate the tendency to associate one”s self publicly with successful others, referred to as “basking in reflected glory” (BIRG).
Cialdini method
This was a field study carried out on the campuses of 7 large American universities, which all had popular American football teams
Researchers recorded what clothing students were wearing the Monday after a big football match was played against a rival university
Researchers also called the students and asked them their opinion of their team’s performance
Results of Cialdini
Students were far more likely to wear clothing associated with their university (like a T-shirt with the school logo) if their university team won the football match
When asked to describe their team’s performance, students were more likely to use first person pronouns (ex. “We played a great game”) if the team won, and more likely to use third person pronouns (ex. “They didn’t play well as a team”) if the team lost
Conclusion of Cialdini
Social identity (the groups you belong to) play an important role in self esteem To maintain a strong sense of self-esteem, people tend to closely associate themselves with a group when it is successful, and establish distance from a group when it fails
Connection of study to question of Cialdini
This study supports the SIT as it demonstrated the concept of social identity.
People”s self-image was affected by their in-group in that the victory gave a sense of “positive- distinctiveness” for the group and therefore enhanced self-esteem.
What is SIT used to explain?
Social identity is used to explain social phenomena in terms of intergroup behaviours such as
Ethnocentrism - ingroup SSB
positive behaviours attributed to dispositional factors
negative behaviours attributed to situational factors
vice versa for outgroups
Ingroup favouritism
Favouring of ingroup as opposed tutgroups
E.g. Our sporting team wins more than them, therefore, we are better
Intergroup differentiation - emphasising differences between ingroups and outgroups
Stereotypical thinking
Ingroup and outgroup members are perceived according to relevant stereotypes
Conformity to group norms
Behaves in accordance to standards of behaviour defined by the ingroup
Argument of Bagby and Rector
Bagby and Rector (1992) criticised the minimal group paradigm as too artificial and wanted to investigate in-group bias in groups that already exist. They also wanted to explore the role of in-group bias in a less artificial setting - a court-room.
Aim of Bagby and Rector
Investigate in-group bias in groups that already exist. They also wanted to explore the role of in-group bias in a less artificial setting - a court-room.
Method of Bagby and Rector
Participants read a transcript of a rape trial which varied the of the ethnicities. Either French or English.
Asked to do a questionnaire asking on the personality traits and guild to the defendant.
Results
Chi-squared was used and found that there was no gender difference in the results. In addition, there was no significant difference in the personality ratings in the first part of the questionnaire.
However, the researchers found that the French Canadians rated the out-group (English) defendant more guilty when the victim was from their in-group (French).
What can Bagby and Rector show?
The study is done with groups that occur naturally, showing that the phenomenon of in-group bias is not limited to artificially created groups.
The study also gives us a potential insight into why conviction rates of minority groups tend to be higher in countries like the US, Canada and Australia.
Criticisms of Bagby and Rector study
However, the study is still artificial. Although the sample may believe that this is a legitimate case, they are not actual jurors and they did not see the actual testimonies; they only read a transcript.
There was a control to make sure that the social identity of the defendant and victim was actually noted by the participants.
There was a sampling bias as the sample was made up of university students.The level of intelligence, social skills and age may have played a role in the results of the experiment. In addition, being French Canadian in Quebec means that they are in the majority position. French Canadians outside of Quebec may see themselves as disenfranchised and this may affect their responses.
Only one crime was used in the study - and rape is a rather emotional topic. It is unclear to what extent the nature of the crime may have influenced the participants’ responses.
