Social Identity Theory - Tajfel and Turner (1979, 1986) Flashcards
What do humans desire according to Tajfel and Turner?
To belong.
Where do humans derive their self-esteem from according to Tajfel and Turner?
From group membership and the acceptance of others.
What is our social behaviour driven by according to Tajfel and Turner?
The motivation to maintain a positive sense of self as a valued member of the group.
Ingroup:
The group in which we see ourselves as belonging to (like me, us).
Outgroup:
Anyone not belonging in the ingroup (not like me, them).
Social Categorisation:
The separation of individuals into in- and out- groups.
Said to be a basic characteristic of human thought - we have little control over it.
What do Tajfel and Turner argue to cause prejudice?
The mere existence of an outgroup is enough to cause prejudice.
Social Identification:
The individual adopts beliefs, values, and attitudes of their ingroup as well as adopting behaviours to fit the ingroups norms.
A shift in a person’s thinking and self-concept also occurs as this new social identity is formed.
How may an individual boost their self esteem?
Through social comparisons between in- and out- groups.
Since the outcomes of these comparisons affect our self esteem they may not be subjective (we perceive the ingroup as better because that means we are better).
Positive Distinctiveness :
The desire to see the ingroup as different and better.
Similarities will be ignored/minimalised and differences will be exaggerated.
What can positive distinctiveness lead to and why?
Discrimination and prejudice, because we think about and treat the outgroup differently.
Strength of social identity theory:
It is supported by Tajfel’s 1970 minimalist group experiment.
He worked with 12 year old Bristol school boys. Ingroups and outgroups were created by telling them who had picked the same painting as their favourite. They were then asked to allocate points to the other boys (which would be exchanged for money). More points were allocated to the ingroup than the outgroup. The boys also opted to maximise the difference between points even if it reduced the final sum of points allocated to the ingroup.
Social categorisation is enough to trigger discrimination.
Opposing argument for social identity theory:
Although Tajfel’s study appears to support social identity theory, allocating points lacks mundane realism. In real life discrimination may not be as covert and have serious consequences. The affects the ecological validity.
A weakness of social identity theory:
Research evidence suggests that it may only explain intergroup behaviour in western societies.
Wetherell 1982 conducted a replication of Tajfel’s minimalist group experiment with 8 year old school children in New Zealand and found that indigenous Polynesian children were significantly more generous with their allocation of points than their white classmates.
It may be ethnocentric and it may not apply to minority groups.
Application of social identity theory:
It provides testable suggestions about how to reduce prejudice and discrimination though efforts to increase self-esteem.
Fein and Spencer 1997 gave students a sense of high or low self-esteem using false feedback on an intelligence test. Students who had low self esteem rated Jewish applicants for a job less favourably than an Italian candidate. When their self-esteem was increased by getting them to write about something they loved, anti-jewish prejudice was reduced.
