Evaluate social identity theory, making reference to relevant studies.
What is Social identity theory (SIT)?
Social identity theory is where people strive to improve their self-image through personal achievement, and/or being accepted in groups which express their ideals, identity, and dreams. If you are 'in' with the group you choose to be a part of, you develop the image of that group. For example, if you aspire to be the "Cool rebel without a cause" you might grab the back seat of the bus, together with the other troublemakers.
Social identity theory is where people strive to improve their self-image through personal achievement, and/or being accepted in groups which express their ideals, identity, and dreams. If you are 'in' with the group you choose to be a part of, you develop the image of that group. For example, if you aspire to be the "Cool rebel without a cause" you might grab the back seat of the bus, together with the other troublemakers.
Categorization
Ingroup:group members seen as individuals + positive traits (-> ingroup favoritism)
|
Outgroup:group members seen as similar + negative traits (-> discrimination)
|
Tajfel (1970) Experiment in intergroup discrimination - the minimal group paradigm
Aim: To investigate if boys placed in random groups based on an arbitrary (minimal group) would display ingroup favoritism and intergroup discrimination.
Procedure: The participants were 64 school boys (age 14-15) from a state school in the UK. They came to a psychology laboratory in groups of eight. They all knew each other well before the experiment. The boys were shown clusters of varying numbers of dots, flashed onto a screen and had to estimate the number of dots in each cluster. The experimenters assigned the boys to groups at random categorized as 'over-estimator', 'under-estimator', etc.
Subsequently, the boys had to allocate small amounts of money to the other boys in the experiment. The only thing they knew of the boys was if they belonged to the same or a different category.
In a second experiment, boys were randomly allocated to groups base don their supposed artistic preferences for two painters. Then they had to award money to the other boys.
Results: A large majority of the boys gave more money to the members of their own category (ingroup) than to members of the other categories (outgroups). In the second experiment the boys tried to maximize the difference between the two groups.
The results of the both experiments indicated that the boys adopted strategy of ingroup favoritism. This supports the predictions of the social identity theory.
Evaluation: The experiment contributed to the development of social identity theory, which states that the social groups and categories to which we belong are an important part of our self-concept. Tajfel demonstrated that a "minimal group" is all that is necessary for individuals to exhibit discrimination against outgroups. The experiment has been criticized for artificiality and demand characteristics. The boys have interpreted that the task as sort of a competitive game and therefore reacted the way they did.
Procedure: The participants were 64 school boys (age 14-15) from a state school in the UK. They came to a psychology laboratory in groups of eight. They all knew each other well before the experiment. The boys were shown clusters of varying numbers of dots, flashed onto a screen and had to estimate the number of dots in each cluster. The experimenters assigned the boys to groups at random categorized as 'over-estimator', 'under-estimator', etc.
Subsequently, the boys had to allocate small amounts of money to the other boys in the experiment. The only thing they knew of the boys was if they belonged to the same or a different category.
In a second experiment, boys were randomly allocated to groups base don their supposed artistic preferences for two painters. Then they had to award money to the other boys.
Results: A large majority of the boys gave more money to the members of their own category (ingroup) than to members of the other categories (outgroups). In the second experiment the boys tried to maximize the difference between the two groups.
The results of the both experiments indicated that the boys adopted strategy of ingroup favoritism. This supports the predictions of the social identity theory.
Evaluation: The experiment contributed to the development of social identity theory, which states that the social groups and categories to which we belong are an important part of our self-concept. Tajfel demonstrated that a "minimal group" is all that is necessary for individuals to exhibit discrimination against outgroups. The experiment has been criticized for artificiality and demand characteristics. The boys have interpreted that the task as sort of a competitive game and therefore reacted the way they did.
Strengths and Limitations of the SIT
Strengths of SIT- SIT assumes that intergroup conflict is not required for discrimination to occur. This is supported by empirical research. For example, Tajfel (1970).
- SIT can explain some of the mechanisms involved in establishing "positive distinctiveness" to the ingroup by maximizing differences to the outgroup. - SIT has been applied to understanding behaviours such as ethnocentrism, ingroup favoritism, conformity to ingroup norms, and stereotypes. |
Limitations of SIT- Minimal group research has been criticized for artificiality. The experimental set-up is so far from natural behaviour that it can be questioned whether it reflects how people would react in real life. This could limit the predictive value of the theory.
- SIT can not fully explain how ingroup favoritism may result in violent behaviour towards outgroups. - SIT can not explain why social constraints such as poverty could play a bigger role in behaviour than social identity. |
Class notes:
social_identity_theory_notes_.pages | |
File Size: | 179 kb |
File Type: | pages |