Discuss Social Identity Theory
Theory - SIT was proposed by Tajfel 1979
- He identified three psychological mechanisms involved in the creation of a SIT
- Social categorization, social comparison, and the tendency for people to use group membership
as a source of self-esteem
- SIT based on the cognitive process of social categorization
- Is the process of classifying people into groups based on similar characteristics,
nationality, age, occupation
- This categorization gives rise to in-group (us), and out-group (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 found that when people are randomly assigned to a group they see themselves as being
similar in attitude and behaviour, and this is apparently enough for a bond to be formed among
group members
-
Study Tajfel Abrams et al
Aim + Hyp Aim: Aim
- To investigate if intergroup - Determine if in-group identity would affect
discrimination would take place based one’s willingness to conform
on being put into different groups
Hypothesis
- Categorization and discrimination
operate automatically, even when
there is not necessarily any prior
prejudice
Procedure - Sample: 48 boys ages 14-15 y.o. - Independent samples design
- Asked to rate 12 paintings by the - Four groups and manipulated 2 different
abstract expressionist painters Klee independent variables
and Kandinsky - One IV was whether the confederates
- They were not aware of which artist were from an in-group (psych student)
had painted which painting during the or an out-group (ancient history
test students)
- The boys were then randomly - Second IV was whether the
allocated to one of two groups and participant’s responses were public or
told that they had preferred either private
Klee or Kandinsky
- Each boy was then given the task to
In-group public response Out-group public
award points to two other boys, one
response
from the same group and one from
the other group In-group private Out-group private
- The only info that each boy was given response response
was the code numbers and the name
of the group of the two boys they - 50 undergrad students enrolled in
were supposed to award introductory psychology course participated
- There were two systems of awarding - At the start of the experiment, the three
points that were employed by the confederates were introduced either as
first-year students from the psychology
, researchers department of prestigious university
- Point allocation system 1: The point (in-group) or as students of ancient history
scores for each boy were linked so (out-group) from the same uni
that the sum of the two scores was 15 - As in the asch paradigm, the participants were
- If a participant choose 8, the shown a stimulus line, and then three other
other boy automatically got a lines
score of 7 (15-8) - One of which was the same length as
- This means that as the score the stimulus line
for the partici[ant increases, - The task was to identify which of the three
the score of the other boy lines attached the stimulus line
decreases - There were 18 trials
- Point allocation system 2: - In the 9 trials, the confederates gave
- If a Klee member chose a high the correct response
value for another Klee - In 9 of the trials, the confederates
member, it would give a gave a unanimous, incorrect response
higher profit to the out-group - In each session the confederate and one
- If a Klee member chose a participant sat in a row, facing the monitor
mid-range value for another - The participant was always placed at one end
Klee member, it would give of the row
the same points for the other - The group always gave their judgement in
group turn, beginning at the opposite end from the
- If a Klee member chose a low participant
value for another Klee - In the public condition, all 4 members of the
member, it would award only group gave their judgement aloud, and the
1 point to the other team experimenter recorded the real participant’s
responses
- In the private condition, the experimenter
asked if one of the participants would note
down the responses, in order to leave her free
to ‘operate the computer’
- The real participant who happened to be
nearest was asked if they would like to record
response
- The three confederates then gave their
judgements aloud in turn and the real
participant recorded their responses on a
score sheet along with their own privately
Results - In the first system of point allocation, - 77% of all the participants conformed to the
the boys generally awarded more erroneous confederate judgements on at least
points to the members of their one trial
in-group = showing in-group - There were no gender differences observed
favouritism - The actual proportion of confirming responses
- In the second system, the boys were was 138 out of 432
willing to give their own eam fewer - Conformity was maximised in the in-group
points with the goal of maximising the public condition with the mean number of
difference between their in-group and confirming responses of 5.32 and minimised in
the out-group the out-group public condition
- One of the most obvious conclusion is - The in-group private and out-group private did
the natural tendency of members of a not differ significantly
group to favour their in-group
, - Despite the seemingly meaningless - The results seem to indicate that social
groupings created by the categorization can play a key role in one’s
experimenters, the participants were decision to conform publicly
able to identify with their respective - public conformity exceeded the usual level in
groups and create a positive social the in-group condition but was far below
identity by giving their in-group more normal in the out-group condition.
points - The explanation for this, from self-categorization
- Tajfel demonstrated that a “minimal theory, is that we tend to exaggerate the
group”is all that is necessary for difference between us and the out-group, while
individuals to exhibit discrimination feeling that members of our own group share a
against an out-group common set of traits.
- This experiment is considered a - Thus, in this experiment, in-group members may
classic in psychology because it be seen as more correct, while out-group
demonstrates that intergroup conflict members are seen as less likely to be correct
is not required for discrimination to when participants are made conscious of their
group membership.
occur
- A follow-up study done by Tajfel &
Billig (1973) showed that even when
members of the groups were aware
that the groupings were completely
random and not based on any criteria,
the participants still showed in-group
favouritism
Evaluation Strengths: Strenghts:
- The experiment had a high level of
control. Confounding variables were
minimised Limitations:
- The procedure can be replicated to - Low ecological validity = may not predict what
establish reliability would happen in naturalistic situation
Limitations: - Ethical concerns about the use of deception
- The task the participants were asked - Made up of uni students = difficult to
to was highly artificial; the study lacks generalise
ecological validity - Done in an individualistic society = culturally
- This may not reflect actual biassed
behaviour in a naturalistic - Isolate a single variable to test its role in
setting conformity. In real life, there may be several
- The boys may have shown demand variables that interact to determine
characteristics, trying to please the conformity behaviours
researcher - The manipulation of the independent variable
- The boys may have and the high level of control in the experiment
interpreted the task as allows us to see a casual relationship between
competitive and tried to ‘win’ group membership and the dependent
- Sampling bias-- the study was carried variable- the rate of conformity to an incorrect
out on British schoolboys. It is difficult response
to generalise the results to women,
adults, or other cultures.
Conclusion
Theory - SIT was proposed by Tajfel 1979
- He identified three psychological mechanisms involved in the creation of a SIT
- Social categorization, social comparison, and the tendency for people to use group membership
as a source of self-esteem
- SIT based on the cognitive process of social categorization
- Is the process of classifying people into groups based on similar characteristics,
nationality, age, occupation
- This categorization gives rise to in-group (us), and out-group (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 found that when people are randomly assigned to a group they see themselves as being
similar in attitude and behaviour, and this is apparently enough for a bond to be formed among
group members
-
Study Tajfel Abrams et al
Aim + Hyp Aim: Aim
- To investigate if intergroup - Determine if in-group identity would affect
discrimination would take place based one’s willingness to conform
on being put into different groups
Hypothesis
- Categorization and discrimination
operate automatically, even when
there is not necessarily any prior
prejudice
Procedure - Sample: 48 boys ages 14-15 y.o. - Independent samples design
- Asked to rate 12 paintings by the - Four groups and manipulated 2 different
abstract expressionist painters Klee independent variables
and Kandinsky - One IV was whether the confederates
- They were not aware of which artist were from an in-group (psych student)
had painted which painting during the or an out-group (ancient history
test students)
- The boys were then randomly - Second IV was whether the
allocated to one of two groups and participant’s responses were public or
told that they had preferred either private
Klee or Kandinsky
- Each boy was then given the task to
In-group public response Out-group public
award points to two other boys, one
response
from the same group and one from
the other group In-group private Out-group private
- The only info that each boy was given response response
was the code numbers and the name
of the group of the two boys they - 50 undergrad students enrolled in
were supposed to award introductory psychology course participated
- There were two systems of awarding - At the start of the experiment, the three
points that were employed by the confederates were introduced either as
first-year students from the psychology
, researchers department of prestigious university
- Point allocation system 1: The point (in-group) or as students of ancient history
scores for each boy were linked so (out-group) from the same uni
that the sum of the two scores was 15 - As in the asch paradigm, the participants were
- If a participant choose 8, the shown a stimulus line, and then three other
other boy automatically got a lines
score of 7 (15-8) - One of which was the same length as
- This means that as the score the stimulus line
for the partici[ant increases, - The task was to identify which of the three
the score of the other boy lines attached the stimulus line
decreases - There were 18 trials
- Point allocation system 2: - In the 9 trials, the confederates gave
- If a Klee member chose a high the correct response
value for another Klee - In 9 of the trials, the confederates
member, it would give a gave a unanimous, incorrect response
higher profit to the out-group - In each session the confederate and one
- If a Klee member chose a participant sat in a row, facing the monitor
mid-range value for another - The participant was always placed at one end
Klee member, it would give of the row
the same points for the other - The group always gave their judgement in
group turn, beginning at the opposite end from the
- If a Klee member chose a low participant
value for another Klee - In the public condition, all 4 members of the
member, it would award only group gave their judgement aloud, and the
1 point to the other team experimenter recorded the real participant’s
responses
- In the private condition, the experimenter
asked if one of the participants would note
down the responses, in order to leave her free
to ‘operate the computer’
- The real participant who happened to be
nearest was asked if they would like to record
response
- The three confederates then gave their
judgements aloud in turn and the real
participant recorded their responses on a
score sheet along with their own privately
Results - In the first system of point allocation, - 77% of all the participants conformed to the
the boys generally awarded more erroneous confederate judgements on at least
points to the members of their one trial
in-group = showing in-group - There were no gender differences observed
favouritism - The actual proportion of confirming responses
- In the second system, the boys were was 138 out of 432
willing to give their own eam fewer - Conformity was maximised in the in-group
points with the goal of maximising the public condition with the mean number of
difference between their in-group and confirming responses of 5.32 and minimised in
the out-group the out-group public condition
- One of the most obvious conclusion is - The in-group private and out-group private did
the natural tendency of members of a not differ significantly
group to favour their in-group
, - Despite the seemingly meaningless - The results seem to indicate that social
groupings created by the categorization can play a key role in one’s
experimenters, the participants were decision to conform publicly
able to identify with their respective - public conformity exceeded the usual level in
groups and create a positive social the in-group condition but was far below
identity by giving their in-group more normal in the out-group condition.
points - The explanation for this, from self-categorization
- Tajfel demonstrated that a “minimal theory, is that we tend to exaggerate the
group”is all that is necessary for difference between us and the out-group, while
individuals to exhibit discrimination feeling that members of our own group share a
against an out-group common set of traits.
- This experiment is considered a - Thus, in this experiment, in-group members may
classic in psychology because it be seen as more correct, while out-group
demonstrates that intergroup conflict members are seen as less likely to be correct
is not required for discrimination to when participants are made conscious of their
group membership.
occur
- A follow-up study done by Tajfel &
Billig (1973) showed that even when
members of the groups were aware
that the groupings were completely
random and not based on any criteria,
the participants still showed in-group
favouritism
Evaluation Strengths: Strenghts:
- The experiment had a high level of
control. Confounding variables were
minimised Limitations:
- The procedure can be replicated to - Low ecological validity = may not predict what
establish reliability would happen in naturalistic situation
Limitations: - Ethical concerns about the use of deception
- The task the participants were asked - Made up of uni students = difficult to
to was highly artificial; the study lacks generalise
ecological validity - Done in an individualistic society = culturally
- This may not reflect actual biassed
behaviour in a naturalistic - Isolate a single variable to test its role in
setting conformity. In real life, there may be several
- The boys may have shown demand variables that interact to determine
characteristics, trying to please the conformity behaviours
researcher - The manipulation of the independent variable
- The boys may have and the high level of control in the experiment
interpreted the task as allows us to see a casual relationship between
competitive and tried to ‘win’ group membership and the dependent
- Sampling bias-- the study was carried variable- the rate of conformity to an incorrect
out on British schoolboys. It is difficult response
to generalise the results to women,
adults, or other cultures.
Conclusion
