The Individual and the group - Sociocultural Approach Flashcards
Social Identity Theory
Instead of having a singular “self”, it’s argued that one has 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.
So when an individual talks of himself as a male, Australian, a student, a member of a swimming team, and a surfer, he refers to his social identities.
Strengths of Social Identity Theory
- “Explains Group Behaviour” -> SIT explains why people tend to favor and identify with their in-group, and it provides insights into the cognitive processes that underlie group formation and behavior. It is useful to understand in-group favoritism, the formation of stereotypes, and group polarization
- “Real-World Applicability” -> SIT can be used to understand and address real-world problems like discrimination, prejudice, and intergroup conflicts
Limitations of Social Identity Theory
- Describes but does not accurately predict human behavior
- Environmental interactions
Who found the three psychological mechanisms involved in the creation of social identity, and what were they?
Tajfel (1979)
1. Social categorization
2. Social comparison
3. Tendency for people to use group membership as a source of self-esteem.
What is social categorization and what does it lead to?
The process of classifying people into groups based on similar characteristics, whether it be nationality, age, occupation, or some other trait.
Leads 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).
Tajfel (1970) Study
AIM: See if intergroup discrimination would take place when put into different groups regardless of any prior prejudice
PROCEDURE:
- 48 boys aged 14-15
- Rate 12 paintings and told that they were placed in groups based on ratings (but was random)
- P. had to award points to a boy from each of the two groups using one of two point allocation systems
- SYSTEM 1: Points linked, the sum of points was 15 - the other boy given remainder of points
- SYSTEM 2: G.1 members gave higher value to in-group, out-group would receive more points. Mid-range values were equal for both groups, if low value for in-group, only 1 point awarded to out-group.
FINDINGS:
- SYSTEM 1: More points given to in-group (in-group favoritism)
- SYSTEM 2: Less points given to in-groups to maximize difference of points between groups. P. Left study w/ fewer points than if they gave each other max. points.
- Shows natural tendency of P. to favor in-group - intergroup conflict not needed for discrimination to occur
- “in-group favoritism.”
Evaluation Points for Tajfel (1970) study
High level of control - confounding variables minimized
Task was highly artificial - lacks ecological validity (may not reflect actual behavior in naturalistic setting)
P. may have shown demand characteristics - try to please researchers
May have interpreted the task as competitive and tired it ‘win’
Procedure can be replicated to establish reliability
Hard to generalize to women, adults or other cultures - sampling bias (BR Schoolboys)
What Study did Abrams replicate?
Asch (1956)
Abrams et al. (1990) Study
AIM: Investigate the effect of social identity (in- and out-group) on conformity
PROCEDURE:
- Independent measures design - in- & out-group changed, along with if responses were kept private or public
- 50 undergraduate students, in introductory psychology course
- Entered room with confederates which P. were led to believe we’re psychology (in-group) or ancient history (out-group) students
- Task was to identify which line (of three) shown matched the stimulus line shown prior
- In 9 trials, peers gave correct response, other 9 trials confederates agreed on incorrect response beforehand
FINDINGS:
- Majority (77%) of P. conformed at least once with in-group, most conformity with in-group public condition
- Only minority conformed with out-group peers (although private in- and out-group results didn’t differ significantly)
→ One’s behavior (here: conformity) influenced more by in-groups when public
SIT: desire to elevate one’s in-group above out-group overrules the reasonable response; demonstrates effect of social categorisation on behavior
Evaluation Points for Abrams Study
Used deception
Did benefits outweigh permanent consequences?
Individual responses not kept private
Temporal validity - outdated data
Generalization - apply to different cultures/ages
Easily replicated - high validity
Extensive debriefing
Demand characteristics: P. being psychology students may have known of Asch line paradigm and therefore deduced aim of experiment or known that they should answer with their own personal opinion & disregard conformity
Drury et al. (2009) research method
Lab experiment independent samples design
Drury et al. (2009) Study
AIM: To investigate the impact of social categorization and identity on a person’s behavior/ decision on helping others.
PROCEDURE:
- 40 students from the University of Sussex with an age range of 20 to 25 years.
1. 7 participants male
2. 33 was female
- Virtual reality simulator to experience an emergency in the London metro.
- Escape a fire. In order to do this, they could help people or push them out of their way as they tried to make it to safety.
- Primed about thinking of an emergency situation
- Group identification: given a “shared identity” (England supporters of a football game)
- Individual identification: On your way back from shopping.
- For salient group identification: “shared identity” VR people wore same color vests, “individual identification wore different color vests.
- Two conditions, small crowd and large crowd to ensure the number of people was not a confounding variable.
FINDINGS:
- Participants with a high in-group identification gave more help and pushed others less than did those who did not have in-group identification
- Crowd size did not affect the amount of help given.
- Those who shared a common identity were more likely to help one another, even at risk to their own safety.
- Making announcements to “All customers” or “Real Madrid Fans” or “Americans”, will cause people to act as a group
Evaluation Points for Drury Study
high internal validity, as it could control for extraneous variables.
high mundane realism. Although it was “virtual,” it still was highly realistic.
Replicable, allowing us to test the reliability of the results.
Social Cognitive Theory
Social Cognitive Theory (Social Learning Theory) assumes that humans learn their behavior through observation-watching models. Sometimes models have a direct effect on the learned - e.j. a teacher and a student - however it can also be indirect - the model is not trying to influence behavior. Unlike other claims that we need positive reinforcement (rewards), individuals do not need this to continue a behavior. Whatever treatment the model was presented with is enough for the observer. This is called “Vicarious Reinforcement”.
4 cognitive factors for Social Cognitive Theory
- ATTENTION: The learner must pay attention to the model. Factors to influence whether attention is paid: attractiveness of the model, authority of the model, or desirability of the behavior.
- RETENTION: the observer must be able to remember the behavior in order to reproduce it either immediately after or after some time.
- MOTIVATION: the learner must want to replicate the behavior. Hence, they need to be aware of the potential outcomes if repeated - whether good or bad. This is called ‘outcome experience’.
- POTENTIAL: in order to even be able to reproduce the behavior, the observer must be physically and/or mentally able to carry it out.
