Evaluate social identity theory, making reference to relevant research – Flashcards

-Must evaluate the studies as well in order to decide if the theory is valid and reliable. -Must come to a conclusion about this -Set out points by strength and weaknesses of theory and then use studies to back these up

According to Tajfel (1981) social identity is "that part of the individuals self concept which derives from their knowledge of membership of a social group, together with the value and emotional significance of the membership" Our social identity contributes to how we feel about ourselves so we seek positive social identities to maintain and enhance our self esteem One way of achieving a positive social identity is to compare or group (in-group) with other groups (out-group). Therefore we develop in group bias or favoritism. SIT predicts that this bias towards one's own group can lead to hostility and prejudice towards others.

-Ethnocentrism: Group equivalent of SSB i.e. positive behaviours by ingroup members being attributed to disposition and negative to situation. Positive behaviours of out group associated with situation and negative to disposition. -Ingroup favouritism -Intergroup differentiation: Behaviour emphasising differences between groups -Sterotypical thinking: ingroup and outgroup members perceived according to relevant stereotypes -Conformity to ingroup norms

Categorization: The first is our tendency to categorize individuals, including ourselves into groups. This leads to categorization of the social world into 'them' and 'us'. This categorization can occur with incredible ease.

Category accentuation effect is the exaggeration of group differences and intragroup similarities. - This reduces perceived variability within the ingroup (we are similar), reduces perceived variability in the outgroup (they are all the same) and increases perceived variability between the ingroup and outgroup (we are different from them)

We also adopt the identity of the group we have categorized ourselves as belonging to, which means we may adopt some of the values and behaviours of that group. Individual identities partly come from group memberships When relating to another as a member of a social group, our social identities affect our behaviour towards them Having this social identity enhances our self esteem

Social identity contributes to our self-image so we seek positive social identities to maintain and enhance self-esteem Having a positive social identity or positive distinctiveness means drawing favourable comparisons with other relevant groups, fuelled by our need for positive distinctiveness (motivation to show ingroup is different to outgroup) We compare our in-group with out-groups of a similar status to enhance thus establish the superiority of our group. SIT states that the in-group will discriminate against the out-group to enhance their self-image. Positive social identity is achieved by social comparison Positive distinctiveness is motivation to show that our ingroup is better and more preferable to an outgroup Need for positive distinctiveness --> Social comparison --> Positive self-concept

-SIT assumes that intergroup conflict is not required for discrimination to occur. This is supported by empirical research. -SIT has been applied to understanding behaviors such as ethnocentrism, ingroup favoritism, conformity to ingroup norms, and stereotyping. -Explores how our basic need to belong affects social interaction+Distinction between personal and shared identity

Minimal group research has been criticized for artificiality. The experimental set-up is so far from natural behavior that it can be questioned whether it reflects how people would react in real life. This could limit the predictive value of the theory. Self-esteem hypothesis is no longer viewed as central to SIT. Some studies have shown that increase in self-esteem associated with out group discrimination is too short lived to have long-lasting effects on how ungroup members view themselves. SIT cannot fully explain how ingroup favoritism may result in violent behavior towards outgroups. Doesn't fully factor in the role of dispositional factors i.e. in competitive behaviours

-A member of an in group has feelings of attachment, sympathy and affection towards the other members of the group -The members of in group consider their group superior than other groups -In the relationship among the member of in group, they display co-operation, good will, mutual help and respect for each other

The aim of Tajfel's study was to demonstrate that merely putting people into groups (categorization) is sufficient for people to discriminate in favor of their own group and against members of the group.

In 1971, Henri Tajfel conducted two experiments to find out what the minimal conditions were for intergroup bias.

In experiment 1: 64 boys, 14 and 15 years old who knew each other well before the experiment. At first the boys were brought together in a lecture room and were told that the experimenters were interested in the study of visual judgements. Forty clusters of varying numbers of dots were flashed on a screen and the boys were asked to record each estimate in succession on prepared score sheets. After the judgements had been made and scored by the experimenter the boys were told that they were going to be grouped on the basis of the visual judgements they had just made. The subjects were actually assigned to groups at random. There were two conditions, 1) an overestimate and underestimate condition- where it was stressed that these tendencies were in no way related to accuracy 2)In the other condition the boys were told that some people are consistently more accurate than others. ('better' - 'worse' condition).

A sample of 48 boys, 14-15 years old, was initially divided into three groups of 16 boys each. Each group was shown 12 slides portraying different painting. One half of the paintings were by Kandinsky and the other half were painted by Klee, but the boys were not aware of who the painters were. After the exposition of the paintings, the boys were asked to express their preferences. After this initial stage of the experiment, the boys were seemingly allocated to two separate groups the 'kandinsky' and 'klee' group. They were given the impression that this grouping was based on their preferences towards the paintings. The names that were given to the group added to this impression but really the groupings were completely randomised. The subjects were then presented with matrices where they could assign monetary rewards to their own group and the other group. The matrices gave them three options: 1) maximum joint profit - where boys could give the largest reward to members of both groups 2) largest possible reward to in-group - where the boys could choose the largest reward for the member of their own group regardless of the reward to the boy from the other group; 3) maximum difference - where boys could choose the largest possible difference in reward between members of the different groups (in favour of the in-group)

The subjects in both experiments were then taken to separate cubicles and told which group they were in. The students were given a booklet of matrices and told that the task would consist of giving to others rewards and penalties in real money. The boys would not know the identity of the individuals to whom they would be assigning these rewards and penalties since everyone would be given a code number. The matrices gave the boys three types of choices 1. There were in-group choices, where both top and bottom row referred to members of the same group as the boy. (other than himself) 2. There were out-group choices, with both top and bottom row referred to members of the different group from the boy. 3. There were intergroup choices, where one row referred to the boys' own group and one row referred to the other group.

The experiments carried out by Tajfel clearly demonstrate that inter-group discrimination is easy to trigger off. Tajfel demonstrates that the very act of categorisation into groups is enough to produce conflict and discrimination. In making their intergroup choices a large majority of the subjects, in all groups in both conditions, gave more money to members of their own group than to members of the other group. Intergroup discrimination was the strategy used in making intergroup choices. In contrast the in-group and out-group choices were closely distributed around the point of fairness. The second experiment also clearly demonstrated that the most important factor in making their choices was maximising the differences between the two groups.

Tajfel uses Social Identity Theory (SIT) as an explanation for intergroup discrimination. Social identity theory argues that the boys favoured their own group because it increases their self-esteem. Even though the boys were never giving points to themselves they knew that if they gave less to the other group and more to their own group that they would be in the group which gained most points therefore improving their self esteem because they belonged to the 'best' group.

A major strength of the procedure was the high level of control Tajfel managed to employ. For example, there was no face-to-face interaction between group members; the boys only knew of other in-group/out-group members by a code number; although the boys did not realise this, they were in fact assigned randomly to the e two groups; the boys could only award points to others (either in-groupers or out-groupers) and never to themselves and that they could not know what others would do or in any way influence how others behaved

Tajfel's experiment has been criticised because it is very artificial (not ecologically valid). Would the simple act of categorisation be sufficient to create discrimination in a more ecologically valid situation? In everyday life categorisation does often come with some degree of competition. Importantly Tajfel's experiment has also been criticised because it contains demand characteristics. The experiment aimed to demonstrate that competition was not a sufficient factor in the creation of intergroup discrimination. Tajfel demonstrated that merely categorising people into in-groups and out-groups is sufficient to create intergroup discrimination. However it has been suggested that if schoolboys are divided into groups, by adults, they will automatically interpret these groups as 'teams' and think in terms of competition. Tajfel has also been criticised for the way he interpreted his results. Brown (1988), for example, suggests that the behaviour of the boys can be seen in terms of fairness as much as discrimination. Although the boys showed bias towards their own group, this bias was not very extreme and seemed to be moderated by a sense of fairness.

Sherif argued that intergroup conflict (i.e. conflict between groups) occurs when two groups are in competition for limited resources.

22 boys 12 years of age from white middle-class backgrounds none of which knew each other prior to the study were randomly assigned to one of two groups, although neither was aware of the other's existence. They were then, as individual groups, transported by bus to a 200 acre Boy Scouts of America camp in the Robbers Cave State Park in Oklahoma

At the camp the groups were kept separate from each other and were encouraged to bond as two individual groups through the pursuit of common goals that required co-operative discussion, planning and execution. During this first phase, the groups did not know of the other group's existence. The boys developed an attachment to their groups throughout the first week of the camp, quickly establishing their own cultures and group norms, by doing various activities together like hiking, swimming, etc. The boys chose names for their groups, The Eagles and The Rattlers, and stenciled them onto shirts and flags.

A Competition Stage was then arrayed where friction between the groups was to occur over the next 4-6 days. In this phase it was intended to bring the two groups into competition with each other that would create frustration between them. A series of competitive activities (e.g. baseball, tug-of-war etc.) were arranged with a trophy being awarded on the basis of accumulated team score. There were also individual prizes for the winning group such as a medal and a multi-bladed pocket knife with no consolation prizes being given to the "losers."

The Rattlers' reaction to the informal announcement of a series of contests was absolute confidence in their victory! They spent the day talking about the contests and making improvements on the ball field, which they took over as their own to such an extent that they spoke of putting a "Keep Off" sign there! They ended up putting their Rattler flag on the pitch. At this time, several Rattlers made threatening remarks about what they would do if anybody from The Eagles bothered their flag. Situations were also devised whereby one group gained at the expense of the other. For example, one group was delayed getting to a picnic and when they arrived the other group had eaten their food. At first, this prejudice was only verbally expressed, such as taunting or name-calling. As the competition wore on, this expression took a more direct route. The Eagles burned the Rattler's flag. Then the next day, the Rattler's ransacked The Eagle's cabin, overturned beds, and stole private property. The groups became so aggressive with each other that the researchers had to physically separate them.

During the subsequent two-day cooling off period, the boys listed features of the two groups. The boys tended to characterize their own in-group in very favorable terms, and the other out-group in very unfavorable terms. Keep in mind that the participants in this study were well-adjusted boys, not street gang members. This study clearly shows that conflict between groups can trigger prejudice attitudes and discriminatory behavior. This experiment confirmed Sherif's realistic conflict theory.

The events at Robbers Cave mimicked the kinds of conflict that plague people all over the world. The simplest explanation for this conflict is competition. Assign strangers to groups, throw the groups into competition, stir the pot, and soon there is conflict. There is a lot of evidence that when people compete for scarce resources (e.g. jobs, land etc.) there is a rise in hostility between groups. For example, in times of high unemployment there may be high levels of racism among white people who believe that black people (or asylum seekers) have taken their jobs.

STRENGTH The study was a field experiment which means it has high ecological validity. WEAKNESSES The two groups of boys in the study were artificial, as was the competition, and did not necessarily reflect real life. For example, middle class boys randomly assigned into two separate groups is not rival inner city gangs, or rival football supporters. Nor should the results be generalized to real life because the research used only 12 year old white middle class boys and excluded, for example, girls and adults. The sample was biased.

To determine if people automatically categorized themselves and favor in their groups across cultures. The experiment was to compare U.S. and Japanese university student in three scenarios.

Subjects were 171 male and female from Ohio State University, 171 male and female from Hokkaido University students and 28 male and female Hokkaido Education University students. Participants were given a questionnaire about three potential scenarios: asking someone to watch luggage in an airport, allowing someone to borrow money at a restaurant, and buying concert tickets online from an individuals. They were then told to decide which person you would trust from any of the scenarios defined above. The first scenario consisted of someone is from an in-group The second of someone from an out-group with potential (no actual) connection to the participant trough an acquaintance. Third, someone from an out-group with no potential connection.

The results are U.S and Japanese participants trusted the unknown person from the in-group more than they trusted either out-group person. In addition, the Japanese sample was more likely to trust the out-group member with potential connection. In contrast, the U.S. sample did not trust either out-group member, even if the person had a potential connection.

The aim of the experiment is to test the differences in trusting in-groups and out-groups because people value in-groups and make distinctions between in-group and out-group.

It replicated the first experiment, except it used a real money allocation game to test trust in risky situation where participants were told they would receive money based on their decisions to trust unknown others. Subjects were 146 male and female students from Ohio State University, and 122 male and female students from Hokkaido University. Three scenarios were the same was the experiment #1 (in-group members, out-group members with potential connections and out-group members with no connections). No rules were made to indicating the amount was to be allocated to any person and allocator (who received the money) decides how much money to keep and how much money to give to the recipient (received the money). Before the experiment, participants were told that they were part of a real-time online money allocation game and the computer would randomly assign the role of allocator or recipient. In real, the computers were never connected and the real participants were always assigned to be the recipient. They had to decide whether to trust the other unknown person or not in each of the three scenarios (dependent variables). During the experiment, participants were given two choices; first, either accepts a smaller amount of money 3 U.S dollars or 400 yen for sure, second, to allow the other person to allocate the larger amount as desired. And three trials were done for each condition. At the end of the experiment, then participants were debriefed the true nature of the experiment. And participants were filled out a questionnaire about their identification with the in-group. This would allow the researchers to correlate trust with being a U.S or Japanese participants

The results showed that U.S students trusted the in-group far more than either type of out-groups. No significant difference between both out-groups. In contrast, Japanese students trusted the in-group and out-group with potential connection. A significant difference was found between trusting the potential connected and the unconnected out-group.

Yuki suggested that participants had different reason for trusting groups because of their cultures and different views. U.S participants had greater identification with an in-group that strongly correlated with their likelihood to trust someone. In contrast, Japanese identification with a group was correlated with the extent to which they felt an indirect connection with a depersonalized group. These correlations are consistent with the theory that East Asians are more likely to make judgments about groups based on relational needs and Americans are more likely to make judgments about depersonalized groups based on categories.