Week 2-Social Identity Theory

Question 1

What’s a political animal?

Answer 1

-we seem to need others for advantages evolutionary wise e.g., sexual partners, hunting etc.,
-one can be a group member and be influenced by a group even in isolation e.g., Mandela
-Aristotle created the idea of a political animal (we’re connected to others and it affects who we are)

Question 2

What are the 6 dimensions of the group? (i.e., what classes as a group)

Answer 2

1.Numbers e.g., family, sex
2.Longevity (lasting period of group) e.g., jury, religion
3.Concentration (presence to other group members) e.g., flight crew (cock pit of plane), world leaders
4.Structure e.g., army, crowd of shoppers (but no hierarchy)
5.Purpose (roles) e.g., assembly line, teenage gang
6.Autocracy/democracy e.g., army, commune

Question 3

Define common bond groups

Answer 3

everyone is in face to face contact a lot of the time e.g., family

Question 4

What are the 3 main type of groups?

Answer 4

1.Common bond groups
2.Common identity groups
3.Social aggregate groups

Question 5

Define common identity groups

Answer 5

we’re in the group more because we think ourselves as a member of the group rather than the consistent face to face contact e.g., an italian man who lives in france

Question 6

Define social aggregate groups

Answer 6

individuals in a group they’re not consciously aware of being in (i.e., find psychologically important) e.g., people with hazel eyes

Question 7

Define entitativity

Answer 7

The extent to which a group is seen as a distinct, coherent and bounded entity. E.g., a football team knows who’s in/not in the team (high entitativity)

Question 8

Define group cohesiveness

Answer 8

-contains solidarity, team support and esprit de corps (mutual feeling of pride and loyalty)
-everyone works together + has mutual interests.
-it’s the “essence of groupness”
-based on social attraction where liking is based on shared group membership and the other person’s proto-typicality (behaves in the way you expect) within the group.

Question 9

What did Boyd, Kim, Ensari and Yin (2014) do to demonstrate the relationship between motivational climate and cohesion in sports teams? + findings

Answer 9

-Task involving climate= atmosphere of effort and personal improvement, all members matter and mistakes are a learning curve
-Ego involving climate=most skillful players celebrated, mistakes socially punished, thriving inter-personal rivalry

Findings: Task involving climate promotes group cohesiveness in basketball and football (soccer) teams

Question 10

Define proto-typicality

Answer 10

The extent to which an individual conforms to the ideals of a group

Question 11

What’s group socialisation?

Answer 11

-Groups are dynamic over time
-Members come and go and leave an impression on the group + the group on them
1. Investigation
2. Socialisation
3. Maintenance-negotiation
4. Resocialisation
5. Remembrance

Question 12

How did Lauger (2014) investigate street socialisation?

Answer 12

Conducted interviews and observations with current and former gang members (in USA). Identified a within gang micro-culture with its own norms of conducts. (i.e., teaches new members lessons about violence: 1.preparation to use extreme violence 2.be in control and know when to use violence)

Question 13

How did Decker, Pyrooz & Moule (2014) investigate leaving a gang? + findings

Answer 13

Mixture of surveys and interviews
Findings: leaving a gang occurs in stages (no. of stages + length to leave dependent on level of embeddedness in a gang)
Stages include: first doubts, considering alternative lifestyles,
turning points (especially concern for family), validation following
leaving

Question 14

What are Norms (Normatives)

Answer 14

-shared beliefs about appropriate conduct for group members e.g., behaviours, beliefs, values and goals
-defines group membership and differentiates between groups
-Co-ordinates group actions towards goals
-Violation of group norms= sanctions or ostracism

Question 15

How did McNeill, Kerr & Mavor (2013) investigate the norms of medical students in Australia?

Answer 15

Medical students suffer from stress, mental distress, drug abuse and burnout contributed by a ‘work hard, play hard’ micro-culture including norms of working hard, partying hard and being strong (not seeking help)
Results: Overall identifying as a medical student had a beneficial effect on well-being (probably due to social support)
Students who identified strongly with a staying strong norm suffered reduced well being
Results for identifying with the ‘partying hard’ norm had mixed findings as partying was still a source of social support

Question 16

What do high-status members have?

Answer 16

-Consensual prestige (status acknowledged by everyone)
-Tendency to contribute ideas (obligation and influence)

Question 17

What is status influenced by and what factors contribute to a high status?

Answer 17

-influenced by context (e.g., star striker high status in match but not after the pub because shy) which often becomes institutionalised over time
Factors: assertiveness, high group orientation (if group is important to them), specific status characteristics (i.e., good for the group), diffuse status characteristics i.e., celebrated societal aspects (white, male, well educated)

Question 18

Who are the marginal members of the group?

Answer 18

-disliked by the group>outgroup members (‘black sheep effect’ e.g., traitors)
-vilification of marginal members can increase group cohesion
-ingroup criticism took more seriously than outgroup criticism
-hence why marginal members can be important agents of change

Question 19

How did Abrams, Palmer & Rutland (2014) test children’s reactions to ‘disloyalty’?

Answer 19

-5-12yr old children
-kids responded to either normative OR non-normative ingroup member
-norm=going to fair and finding it fun + raising money for charity
-non-norm=wanting to stay at home instead (kids viewed as strange
-6 years below unbothered by normative deviancy
-8yrs+ viewed non-normative behaviour negatively and expected friends to feel similar

Question 20

Define Intergroup Behaviour

Answer 20

-Tendency to categorise the social world
-Shifts from personal to social identity (we’re in several groups)
-Power and status relations between categories (higher group status over other groups)
-Not necessarily face-to-face encounters

Question 21

How do we shift from a personal to a social identity?

Answer 21

Personal identity - idiosyncratic aspects of self
Social identity
Transcend the personal self
Self-categorisation – in-groups and outgroups
Norms of beliefs, values, behaviour, goals
Prototype – the ideal group member
Dynamic – framed by outgroups

Question 22

How are social identity frames dynamic?

Answer 22

-Psychologist vs sociologist
-Social scientist vs humanities
-Academics vs maintenance staff
-University staff vs non-university person

Question 23

Name 3 early theories of intergroup behaviour

Answer 23

1.Frustration-aggression hypothesis (Dollard, 1930’s)
2.Realistic Conflict (Sherif, 1966) – mutually-exclusive goals
3.Game Theory – e.g., Commons dilemma

Question 24

What is Dollard’s 1930s Frustration-aggression hypothesis?

Answer 24

-wanted to understand the phenomenon of lynching black men in the early 20th century
-based off the idea we go through obstacles which can build internal frustration
-achieve life goals e.g., dream job, marriage etc., = frustration lessened
-life goals not achieved= frustration lashes out=violence
-explains white male’s behaviour back in that time (why wouldn’t black men do this? + why would nazis do this in theory?)

Question 25

What’s Sherif’s 1966 realistic conflict theory?

Answer 25

-study with 12yr old boys split into the Eagles and Rattlers with social norms
-groups competed for trophies, medals, and pocket knifes i.e., mutually exclusive goals
-as a result groups attacked each other
-BUT researchers promoted peace with co-operative tasks (super-ordinate goals)

Question 26

What’s the Commons Dilemma game?

Answer 26

-P’s kept separate but told others are playing
-each player can graze either 1 or 2 cows on common land per turn AND receives a reward for each cow grazed
-If too many cows are grazed in one turn the common land is destroyed + the game ends
 E.g., 20 players; each paid £1 for each cow grazed per turn. If 30+ cows are grazed in a turn the game ends. A maximum of 50 turns are planned
-If players share a common identity and this is made salient (apparent/noticeable) before play, the common land is more likely to be maintained
 Game – provides excellent control of variables but poor ecological validity

Question 27

What is Tajfel’s (1971) Minimal Groups Study?

Answer 27

-Reduce groups to the minimum THEN add components (to identify with) until intergroup bias appears
-Arbitrary groups (i.e., meaningless) BUT P’s do the task alone just told about groups
-Choose from pairs of numbers-1st number to ingroup, 2nd to outgroup
Strategies e.g., choose either 4 or 3
■4:3 = minimise outgroup score (concern to have lower score)
■51:49 = maximise ingroup score (concern to have higher number for group)
■19:4 = maximise intergroup difference (concern to make difference large as possible between groups)
■ 3:5 = outgroup bias (prefer other group)
■10:10 = fairness
-we have an innate tendency to favour our group and either go for fairness or superiority (maximise difference)

Question 28

What’s self-categorisation?

Answer 28

Self: Personal identity + numerous social identities that will be
salient depending on context and chronic accessibility (come to mind readily)

-we self-categorise and then through the process of depersonalisation, act in accordance with the group prototype i.e., ideal member

-Identity categories fall into hierarchies. The basis for these
hierarchies can change, in turn altering the ordering of the
hierarchy

Question 29

Who came up with social identity theory?

Answer 29

Tajfel

Question 30

What are the 2 main advantages/ purposes of social identification?

Answer 30

1. Self-enhancement (main emphasis of Tajfel’s original formulation)
   Mixed support from research:
   -intergroup differentiation tends to heighten self-esteem
   -BUT low self-esteem does NOT motivate intergroup differentiation

2.Uncertainty reduction= associates self-categorisation and social categorisation with general human categorisation processes

Question 31

What 3 strategies can improve social identity?

Answer 31

1.Social identity status hierarchy influences their impact on self esteem
2.Permeable intergroup boundaries leads to individual social mobility (i.e., can leave/move)
3.Fixed boundaries (can’t leave) lead to social creativity or social competition. The choice of which to adopt is dependent on two factors: legitimacy and stability of the social hierarchy

Question 32

Social Creativity: What happens if the hierarchy of groups is viewed as legitimate or stable or both?

Answer 32

1). Seek New dimensions of comparison (e.g., focus more on wealth>family values as higher in the hierarchy that way)
2). Redefine the value of existing dimensions
3). Compare with a different outgroup (compare to lower group to look better)

Question 33

Social Competition: What happens if the status hierarchy is viewed as illegitimate and unstable?

Answer 33

Then competition occurs in which low status groups seek to change the status hierarchy through political action, collective protest,
revolution, war etc.