Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner)

Question 1

What are the 3 stages of group formation?

Answer 1

1. Social Categorisation
2. Social Identification
3. Social Comparison

Question 2

What is Social Categorisation?

Answer 2

Seeing yourself as part of a group (social identity). May involve belonging to groups based on gender, social class, religion, school or friends.

Question 3

What is Social Identification?

Answer 3

You adopt the norms, attitudes and appearance of the group you ‘belong to’. You percieve everyone else you meet as part of the ingroup or the outgroup.

Question 4

What is the Ingroup?

Answer 4

Those who share the same social identity as you.

Question 5

What is the Outgroup?

Answer 5

Anyone who doesn’t share the same social identity as you.

Question 6

What is Social Comparison?

Answer 6

Viewing your social identity as superior to others; comes from regarding products of your ingroup as better than the products of an outgroup (leads to prejudice and maybe discrimination).

Question 7

What is Prejudice?

Answer 7

Preconceived opinion about people based on their membership of a particular group.

Question 8

What is Discrimination?

Answer 8

Acting upon prejudicial thoughts.

Question 9

Why is Self-esteem at the core of SIDT?

Answer 9

We need to feel good about ourselves so we need to feel good about the groups we belong to.

Question 10

What does Adorno’s Authoritarian Personality Type say about self-esteem?

Answer 10

People get their self-esteem from SIDT rather than personal identity.

Question 11

What grounds are needed for making comparisons with other groups?

Answer 11

Groups have to be relevant to one another, e.g. football fans tend to compare themselves to supporters of rival clubs.

Question 12

What were Tajfel et al. (1970) experiments known as?

Answer 12

“Minimal Groups” studies, as he was looking at groups that had minimal possible reason to feel loyal to.

Question 13

Who did Tajfel recruit?

Answer 13

Bristol schoolboys aged 14-15, and divided them into minimal groups.

Question 14

How were the boys split into minimal groups?

Answer 14

1. Showed them dots on a screen and told them some boys over-estimated and others under-estimated the number of dots.
2. Showed them paintings from Klee and Kandinsky, then told some boys they had shown preference for one, some boys the other.

But were actually assigned randomly.

Question 15

What were the boys asked to do?

Answer 15

Assign points from a book of matrices. Each matrix offered different allocations of points to a pair of anonymous boys. Points converted into money (10 points = 1 p) but the boys didn’t know which people they were giving points to.

Question 16

What would be the fairest allocation of points?

Answer 16

If they allocated to 2 outgroup OR 2 ingroup members.

Question 17

What were the results from Tajfel?

Answer 17

The boys would choose max difference even if it meant their group had less than ingroup max profit (they wanted to do better than outgroup).

Question 18

What did Tajfel conclude?

Answer 18

• Outgroup discrimination is easily triggered - just perceiving someone else to be in an outgroup is enough.
• There was no need for the boys to be in competition - they chose competitive options even when matrices gave them fair options as well.

Question 19

How do football fans show social identity?

Answer 19

Their self-esteem is linked to success of the time. If the team wins, you feel good. If they lose, you can feel good believing the fans of the other teams are inferior to you.

Question 20

What is social identification for football fans?

Answer 20

Wearing team colours, singing team chants, or talking lot about new players or old managers.

Question 21

What evidence is there for SIDT?

Answer 21

Tajfel et al’s 1970 study into minimal groups.

• showed boys will discriminate to outgroup (by choosing max dif) and favour in group, even if they were strangers, even if the group identity is built on something as filmsy as “over-estimating” dots on a screen or “preferring art of Klee”.

Question 22

What is the objection to SIDT?

Answer 22

• Minimal group studies that support SIDT lack ecological validity. discriminating an outgroup (who may have included friends) based on preference of a painting or estimating dots is not comparable to racism or sexism.
• Adolescent boys are naturally competitive and matrices may have looked like a competition of some sort. Boys may have assumed Tajfel wanted them to ‘win’ at this game - displayed demand characteristics.
• Gaps in theory, e.g. why some people cling to social identity for self-esteem more than others - Adorno’s authoritarian personality may explain this better.

Question 23

What differences are there for SIDT?

Answer 23

• Sherif’s RCT - prejudice arises from comp and when there’s a scarcity of resources like food, money or jobs. Backed by Robbers cave where discriminatio occured during tournament (name-calling, food fights and increased violence).
  
  • But may not generalise to adult behaviour, but had ecological validity.

Question 24

What are the applications of SIDT?

Answer 24

• Cognitive therapy to increase people’s sense of personal identity to reduce prejudice. Religion may also do this.
• Encouraging people to see themselves as part of a larger social identity can combat outgroup discrimination - some think teaching “Britishness” in schools may reduce conflict between groups.
  
  • But this could backfire if it leads to more conflict with people are seen as “un-British”.