Transcript Social Identity Theory Self-concept • A cognitive representation of the self, which coordinates an individual’s selfperception. • People categorize and evaluate themselves based on.

Social Identity Theory
Self-concept
• A cognitive representation of the self,
which coordinates an individual’s selfperception.
• People categorize and evaluate
themselves based on physical
characteristics and skills as well as
social categories (e.g. gender, and
ethnicity)
• Self-esteem: based on evaluation of
self along a positive-negative
continuum (positive and negative selfconcept).
Jette Hannibal Inthinking 2011
Turner (1982)
Self-categorization Theory
Turner distinguished
between one’s
personal identity and
one’s social identity.
Identity is the result of
categorization – for
example, gender,
ethnicity, or
nationality.
Jette Hannibal Inthinking 2011
Social identity
•
Part of an individual’s
self-concept comes
from knowledge of
his or her
membership of a
social group
including the value
and emotional
significance related
to that group
membership.
Social Identity Theory (Tajfel)
Definition:
Social identity theory proposes that
the membership of social groups and
categories forms an important part of
our self concept.
Therefore when an individual is
interacting with another person, they
will not act as a single individual but
as a representative of a whole group
or category of people.
Even during a single conversation an
individual may interact with another
person both on a personal level and
as a member of a particular group.
Social Identity Theory (Tajfel)
• Social Comparison – drives self esteem
• Positive distinctiveness: showing our ingroup is
superior to outgroup
Ethnocentrism
• +ve ingroup behaviours – dispositional
• -ve ingroup behaviours – situational
• +ve outgroup behaviours – situational
• -ve outgroup behaviours – dispositional
Social Identity Theory (Tajfel)
Intergroup Behaviours (continued):
Ingroup favouritism
Intergroup differentiation – behaviour emphasising
differences between ingroup and outgroup
Stereotypical thinking – ingroupers/outgroupers
perceived according to stereotypes
Conformity to ingroup norms
Depersonalization – see others not in terms of their
individual identity – but collectively as part of their
group
Social Identity Theory (Tajfel, 1971)
There are three fundamental psychological
mechanisms underlying social identity theory (Tajfel
& Turner 1979).
Social Identity Theory (Tajfel)
Social Categorisation: the process
whereby objects, events and people are
classified into categories. By doing so
we tend to exaggerate the similarities of
those in the same group and
exaggerate the differences between
those in different groups
•
The more important and meaningful the
category membership, the more it forms
the basis of an individual’s social
identity.
•
Individuals strive for a positive selfconcept and therefore also a positive
social identity.
Social Identity Theory (Tajfel)
Social comparison:
the process of comparing one’s own social group with
others. Some social groups have more power, prestige or
status than others and therefore members of a group will
compare their own groups with others and determine the
relative status of their own group.
•
This also results in the tendency for members of a group
to distance themselves from membership of a group which
does not share the same beliefs and ideas of their group
and take more account of the beliefs and ideas of their
social group.
•
Social comparison may contribute to positive
distinctiveness (feeling better than the out-groups) or the
opposite (negative distinctiveness).
•
Discrimination can be seen as a way of establishing
positive in-group distinctiveness.
Social Identity Theory (Tajfel)
Group membership as a source
of positive self esteem.
Maintaining positive self esteem
is seen as a basic motivation for
humans therefore if a group
does not compare favourably
with others we may seek to
leave the group or distance
ourselves from it.
However if leaving the group is
impossible then people may
adopt strategies such as
comparing their own group to a
group of a lower status.
Social Identity Theory (Drivers)
Self-enhancement
intergroup differentiation enhances self-esteem
Collective (rather than personal) self-esteem
Group membership makes people highly creative in
protecting against low self-esteem
Uncertainty reduction
Helps define relationships with others and sets out
how others will act
Provides a clear sense o self
Social Identity Theory
(Other components)
Referential informational influence theory
(conformity & group polarization)
Social attraction hypothesis (cohesion &
attraction in groups)
SIT of deindividuation phenomena
Collective guilt (feeling guilty about the
actions of other group members in the past)
Social Identity Theory
(Other components)
Deindividuation
Deindividuation into a group results in a loss of individual
identity and a gaining of the social identity of the group.
When two groups argue (and crowd problems are often
between groups), it is like two people arguing.
When you are in a group, you may feel a shared
responsibility and so less individual responsibility for your
actions. In this way a morally questionable act may seem
less personally wrong. You may also feel a strong need to
conform to social norms.
Social Identity Theory
(Other components)
Deindividuation
The three most important factors for
deindividuation in a group of people are:
•
Anonymity, so I can not be found out.
•
Diffused responsibility, so I am not responsible
for my actions.
•
Group size, as a larger group increases the
above two factors.
Tajfel (1970) minimal group
paradigm
•
Aim: To investigate if intergroup discrimination could take place
based on being randomly allocated to different groups based on
arbitrary categories.
•
Procedure: Two experiments with UK schoolboys who were
randomly placed in groups based on results of an initial task. In
the second experiment they were categorized based on their
artistic preferences. Then they were asked to give small amounts
of money to the other boys.
•
Results: The majority of the boys gave more money to boys in
their own group (in-group favouritism). In the second experiment
the boys also tried to maximize the difference between the ingroup and the out-group (discrimination)
•
Evaluation: The lab experiment suffers from artificiality and
demand characteristics. The theory is rather reductionist.
Howarth (2002)
•
Aim: investigate how social representations of being from Brixton
affected the social identity of adolescent girls.
•
Procedure: Qualitative focus-group interview to investigate social
representations in the ingroup (people from Brixton).
•
Results: The girls from Brixton did not share the negative
representation of “being from Brixton” that people outside the city
held (stereotype/prejudice). People from Brixton had a positive social
identity, seeing themselves as “diverse, creative, and vibrant.”
•
Evaluation: The study lends support to social identity theory (positive
social identity). The qualitative approach provides in-depth
understanding of the participants’ self-perception, which could not
have been obtained under experimental conditions. The study has
high ecological validity.
Other studies
Maass (2003) carried out a laboratory experiment to
investigate the hypothesis that threat to male identity would
increase the likelihood of gender harassment. In the
experiment a computer harassment paradigm was used - that
means, a situation was simulated on the computer which
would allow a male to sexually harass a "virtual female" in
order to avoid the ethical considerations of using a real female
participant.
Results show that (a) participants harassed the female
interaction partner more when they felt threatened; (b) this was
mainly true for highly identified males; and (c) harassment
enhanced post-experimental gender identification. Results are
interpreted as supporting a social identity account of gender
harassment.
Other studies
Cole, Kemeny & Taylor (1997) carried out a study on the role
of SIT on the health of HIV infected gay men. HIV infected gay
men were ranked on their "rejection sensitivity" - that is, the
extent to which they felt that they were subject to homophobia
and rejection by their local community or "in-group."
The researchers analyzed data for a 9 year prospective study
of 72 initially healthy HIV positive males and found that those
with high "rejection sensitivity" showed a significantly faster
rate of T cell depletion, diagnosis of "full blown AIDS" and HIV
related mortality.
Those who were not in homophobic, unaccepting
environments - or those who were not "out" to their community
- did not show this acceleration of symptoms.
Cross Cultural Differences
Wetherall (1982) compared three samples of 8 year old
children – New Zealanders of European origin; Maori
(indigenous); Samoan (islander) immigrants. They randomly
split the children into groups. All groups were given Tajfel
matrices.
European background maximised the difference between
ingroup and outgroup.
Samoans maximised rewards evenly between two groups. The
Maori results were mixed.
Collectivist culture of the Samoan may explain why the
children did not perceive fellow Samoans as ingroup or
outgroup. Could also be due to the importance of gift giving –
giving more raises the status and prestige of the ingroup. Or it
could be that the white experimenters procedures may have
just been to strange.
Cross Cultural Differences
Kitayama et al. (2003) found cross-cultural differences in ingroup bias between Americans and Japanese students.
The strength of this study is that the hypothesis was tested in
the openly competitive, emotionally charged contexts that are
known to exacerbate in-group bias.
They compared amount of in-group bias among students
before and after a university football match between two
Japanese teams and between two American teams.
The results revealed that both American teams showed ingroup bias through evaluations of their universities.
Japanese ratings on the other hand, reflected the universities’
status in the larger society.
Evaluation of SIT
The theory has high heuristic validity - that is, it can be used to explain
a variety of human behaviours.
There does seem to be biological support for this. Hart et al (2000)
and Fiske (2007) both observed activity in the amygdala when
participants were shown images of racial out-groups while in an fMRI.
This may provide biological support for the process of social
categorization into in-groups and out-groups.
We all have a lot of different social identities. The theory does not
predict well which identity will determine our behaviour. In the case of
sexuality, the theory may explain why a particular child may become
lesbian, but it does not account for all the others that do not.
Much of the research is non-experimental. It is based on anecdotal
evidence - for example, Drury et al's stories of survivors of disasters or on correlational data.
Evaluation of SIT
•
•
•
Many of the early studies lacked
ecological validity, but there are many
studies that have been done in a
naturalistic environment.
The theory does not look at dispositional
factors. For example, in the Tajfel &
Turner study, some people may be more
competitive.
•
Environmental factors, such as war or
poverty, may play a greater role.
•
Self-esteem may not play as great a role
as once thought. It may be an initial
reason for identifying with a group, but it
does not appear to be sustainable.
•
Social groups in real life are normally not
of a minimal nature. Group members use
more information about the social context
than mere categorization
•
Overly theoretical and difficult to refute.
Cannot predict when someone’s
individual identify will supercede that of
the group
The theory does not look at cultural
factors. Collectivistic societies tend to be
less consistent in this behavior.
•
Has high heuristic validity – that is, it can
be used to explain a lot of things.
•
Why does some out-group discrimination
lead to violence? Sherif said it was about
limited resources. Is this a valid claim?