Social identity theory evaluation Flashcards
Supporting study:
Tajfel
> minimal group studies
a series of lab based studies
school boys were placed in arbitrary groups when asked to conduct a task during which they had to allocate points to a boy
consistently awarded more point to the boy they saw as being on their team
> > we have a tendency for in-group favouritism
Supporting study:
Jane Elliott
‘Blue eyes / Brown eyes’
> field experiment
children placed in 2 groups based on eye colour
children quickly developed prejudiced attitudes and discriminatory behaviour
not observed when they identified as one group
> > the mere perception of another group can cause prejudice
Criticisms:
minimal group experiments
SIT was based on minimal group experiments
There’s a circularity involved
It is necessary to test SIT’s predictions in other ways
Supporting study:
Verkooijen et al. (2007)
> studied drug use in Danish teens
6000 16-20 year olds sent a survey asking about their sub cultural affiliations and use of alcohol/tobacco/cannabis
those who identified as skater/hip-hop/techno/hippie were most likely to use drugs
those who identified as nerdy/sporty/religious were least likely
> > individuals adopted the drug-related norms of their sub-culture
Supporting study:
Poppe and Linssen (1999)
> conducted a survey
Eastern European teens, when asked about stereotypes of East and Western European countries, favoured their own country followed by other Eastern European countries
> > SIT provides a partial explanation for discrimination in favour of people from our own countries
Criticism:
reductionism
SIT is reductionist
it reduces a complex behaviour down to one factor: social categorisation
too simplistic
SIT ignores other factors
Opposing study:
Platow et al. (1990)
> found that personality characteristics are also involved in determining how we are affected by the in/out-group phenomenon
e.g. competitiveness and cooperation
people rated as having a very competitive nature tend to shore more in-group favouritism
> > SIT doesn’t take into account individual differences
> > SIT alone is not sufficient to explain prejudice
Wetherall (1997)
> investigated in-group favouritism in different cultures
Polynesian children were more generous towards the out-group than white children in New Zealand
> > There are cultural diffs in in/out-group formation
Applications:
It can explain a wide range of social phenomenon, such as…
>racism and class conflict >the sense of togetherness we feel from being in a team/club
Applications:
If we can understand the factors that lead to prejudice…
we can devise ways to reduce its formation –>
the ‘redrawing of group boundaries’ to create one large group can reduce tensions - e.g. school uniform
Different theories:
Realistic conflict theory
> suggests that the mere presence of another group is not enough to generate prejudice and discrimination
> RCT states that there must be competition / a conflict of interests
Criticisms:
Prejudice is natural?
Tajfel saw the process of categorisation as a basic characteristic of human thought
Milner (1991): SIT is easily misinterpreted as an explanation and justification of racism
