social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979) Flashcards
who was social identity theory proposed by?
- Tajfel and Turner
what does this theory propose?
- the mere presence of another group can lead to prejudice
- that is, being aware of the existence of another group is sufficient for prejudice to occur
- prejudice can be explained by our tendency to identify ourselves as part of a group and to classify others as either within or outside that group
what is an in group?
- a social grouo to which a person psychologically identifies as being a member
what is an out group?
- any group to which one doesn’t belong or with which one doesn’t identify
what are the three stages of social identity theory?
- social categorisation
- social identification
- social comparison
what is social categorisation?
- when we categorise ourselves as being in a particular group often based on stereotypes
- group that we belong to is the in group and any comparison group is out group
- eg when someone classified themselves as a football supporter of a certain team, all other football teams are then viewed as the out group
what is social identification?
- refers to when we identify with a particular group and adopt the behaviours of that group
- we may also take on group’s norms and values
- the way we view ourselves is affected by how well the group is doing relative to other groups
- eg football supporter may adopt behaviours of their club eg certain football chants and wear clothes that identify them as being part of the group eg wearing club’s shirt/scarf
what is social comparison?
- when we compare our own group (in group) more favourably against other groups (out group) to boost our self esteem
- eg football supporters viewing their team as the best
- according to sit we deliberately put down others to try and raise own self esteem
how do people achieve a positive image?
- personal identity: our own unique qualities, personally and self esteem is formed from a self image a person holds about themselves
- social identity: the **attributes* of the group to which people belong to
what did Tajfel find about sit? (evidence supporting theory)
- investigated whether the simple act of grouping was enough to produce prejudice between groups of similar people
- study is known as minimal groups study
- sample of Bristol schoolboys were given fake art task (asked which painter they preferred Klee or Kandinsky) to do and told they’d be allocated into one of two groups on basis of which artist they preferred
- groupings were purely random
- they were then given a rewards allocation task where they allowed to award points to two other boys (one from each group** at a time
- only info they were given was which group the boys were in
- found that boys awarded more points to members of their in group showing strong in group favouritism
- Tajfel concluded that categorising boys into meaningless groups caused them to identify with their in group and create positive social identity by giving their group more points
supporting evidence: L
Levine
- carries out exp on football supporters
- fans were invited to a secluded part of university campus where they witnessed stranger fall and apparently injure themselves
- in one condition the person having the accident wore their team colours whilst in another condition they wore colours of rival football team
- football fans were much more likely to help someone wearing their team colours
other things (strength): Tajfel
- minimal group paradigm exps do offer convincing evidence that we have natural tendency to favour in group and discriminate against our group, even in the absence of normal intergroup social situations
other things (weakness): Tajfel
- could be argued that the boys’ tendency to ensure rewards for their group could be better explained by rct
- also be the same that these laboratory-based exps encourages degree of demand characteristics
- boys responded in a way that they believed was expected of them
other things (strength): replications
- there’s been many replications of minimal group paradigm exps, all concluding that the social categorisation of groups leads to out group discrimination
opposing evidence: W
- Weatherell
- suggests we shouldn’t conclude that intergroup conflict is inevitable
- in her observations of New Zealand Polynesians, she found them much more likely to favour out group than show bias towards their own in group
- cultures that emphasise collectivism and cooperation are less likely to demonstrate such group prejudice
supporting evidence: L + S
Lemyre and Smith
- not only replicated findings of Tajfel
- but also indicated that discriminating ppts had improve self esteem following exp
- supports notion that personal identity is bound up in social identity, and discrimination enhances both aspects
