Sociocultural Approach: Social Identity Theory Flashcards
What is social identity theory?
- argues that a person has not just one “personal self”, but rather several social selves that correspond to group membership
- according to the theory, we need to understand who we are and know our value in social contexts - this is why we categorize ourselves in terms of group membership
What are the 4 concepts of SIT?
SIT is based on 4 interrelated concepts:
- social categorization
- social identity
- social comparison
- positive distinctiveness
What is social categorization?
- the process of classifying people into groups based on similar characteristics, whether it be nationality, age, occupation, or some other trait
- this categorization gives rise to in-groups (us) and out-groups (them)
- Tajfel argues that even when people are randomly assigned to a group, they automatically think of that group as their in-group (us) and all others as an out-group (them)
What is social identity?
- how we think of ourselves according to our membership in social groups
- it’s different from personal identity as personal identity is how we label our personality
- when establishing relationships with members of different groups, social identity can influence our behavior
What is social comparison?
- we continuously compare our in-groups with relevant out-groups and usually conclude that our in-group is superior
- our social identity influences how we feel about ourselves
- to maintain and build up self-esteem, we seek positive social identities
What is positive distinctiveness?
- occurs when we establish superiority of in-group over out-groups
- we make sure that our social identities (and therefore our self-esteem) are positive enough
Levine et al can be used for…
SIT, ethics, and research methods
Drury et al - aim
- to investigate the impact of social categorisation and social identity on a person’s behaviour/decision to assist others
Drury et al - procedure
- participants were under a VR simulation of a fire in the London underground
- participants either push people out of way to get out as quickly as possible, or help others (but take longer to escape)
- ther’re allocated to 2 conditions:
- P’s given “shared identity” (fans of same football team)
- P’s not given “shared identity” (ie. “you are on your way back from buying a pair of shoes.”)
Drury et al - findings and conclusion
- those who shared common identity were more likely to help another even at risk of safety
- Drury has argued that making a collective identity salient by making announcements to “All customers,” “Real Madrid Fans” or “Americans”, will cause people to act as a group and not panic in an emergency situation
Drury et al - evaluation
strengths:
- study conducted ethically with no distress or deception (no demand characteristics)
- no influence and change of behaviour, even though they were aware of the experiment and aim
- variable naturally occurring
- drury’s online VR provides a sense of reality
weaknesses:
- low ecological validity (can’t tell us about the real world due to the experiment being conducted through a simulation)
- VR might not translate into real life
- drury’s experiment can’t have a causal relationship
Levine et al (2005) can be used for…
SIT, ethics/research methods
Levine et al (2005) - aim
- to see the effect of in-group bias on helping
Levine et al (2005) - procedure
- sample was a group of male students who were self-identified Manchester United fans
- they were told that the experiment had to be moved to a larger room across campus
- as they walked to the other room, a confederate fell, holding onto his ankle and shouting out in pain
- the confederate was either wearing a Manchester United team shirt, a Liverpool FC team shirt, or a plain t-shirt
Levine et al (2005) - findings & conclusion
- students were most likely to help the confederate if he was wearing a Manchester United shirt and less likely to help a plain shirt or Liverpool shirt
- the difference between the other two conditions was not significant
