Social Identity Theory (Tajfel and Turner, (1979)

Question 1

What is SIT?

Answer 1

It is a theory of prejudice that explains how prejudice arises.

Question 2

What is social categorisation?

Answer 2

Placing yourself in one particular group and seeing yourself as part of that group

Question 3

What is social identification?

Answer 3

The process of moving from categorising oneself as part of the in-group to identifying with the group more overtly. Individuals usually take on the norms and attitudes of the group.

Question 4

What is social comparison?

Answer 4

People start to see their in-group as better than the out-group which enhances their self esteem. To see their group as better, they make a direct comparison.

Question 5

What is in-group favouritism?

Answer 5

Seeing our own group and members in a positive light and as unique.

Question 6

What is negative out-group bias?

Answer 6

Seeing members of a different group as all the same and in a negative light.

Question 7

Tajfel and Turner’s minimal groups studies found

Answer 7

when boys were given options to give points to people they overwhelmingly gave them to people in their own group demonstrating in group favouritism.

Question 8

Tajfel and Turner’s minimal groups studies concluded that

Answer 8

without direct competition, hostility arises due to competing identities

Question 9

3 variables that contribute to in group favouritism?

Answer 9

> The extent to which the individuals identify with the in group
Whether there are grounds for comparison
The relevance of the comparison group in relation to the in group

Question 10

Tajfel et al (Klee and Klandinsky) found

Answer 10

that even if giving more money to the other group did not mean less money for the in group, they still gave more to their own group

Question 11

A strength is that Willets and Clarke (2013) suggested that

Answer 11

it would be beneficial to use SIT to help nurses (who have many diff. identities due to profess. diversity) emphasise their interrelatedness and group belonging to develop their professional diversity

Question 12

A weakness is that the theory may be too simplistic in explaining prejudice as

Answer 12

other factors are not taken into account and the theory only focuses on groups, it cannot explain how much prejudice there is in different situations and which situations there would be more prejudice

Question 13

Realistic Conflict Theory offers an alternative explanation of prejudice which states that prejudice only takes place when

Answer 13

the groups are competing in some way either when there is a goal in sight or when there is the possibility of material gain

Question 14

There are many supporting studies that demonstrate in-group favouritism, e.g

Answer 14

Tajfel (1970/1) and Sherif et al (1961) and Poppe Lissen (1999) who took a survey of 1143 Eastern Europeans and found they were more likely to judge their own nation as more efficient that any other

Question 15

A closer look at the minimal groups studies indicates that individual participants differed considerably in the extent to which they favoured the in group over the out group, e.g

Answer 15

Platow et al (1990) assessed these differences and found that those assessed as highly competitive showed greater in-group favouritism than those who were high cooperative

Question 16

Application? Can help explain prejudice in society including both racial groups and football teams for eg

Answer 16

Breaking down barriers between groups could therefore reduce prejudice, can suggest real ways of solving problems

Question 17

Tajfel’s minimal groups studies support the theory as they were able to show in-group favouritism in the absence of competition. Also…

Answer 17

They had a high level of control and used large samples, increasing the generalisability, reliability and validity of the results. Strengthens the level of support that the theory has to offer,

Question 18

Verkooijen et al (2007) conducted a survey with 6000, 16-20 yr olds. They found that those who identified themselves as part of skater, hip hop, techno and hippie groups were

Answer 18

particularly likely to use drugs. Those identifying with nerdy, sporty and religious groups were least likely. Suggests they took on dug related norms of their culture

Question 19

Dobbs and Crano (2001) conducted a minimal groups study where participants allocated point but then had to explain why they had made those allocations. When person allocating the group was

Answer 19

in the majority group there was much less in-group favouritism which suggests that in-group favouritism may actually be more complex than indicated by SIT