Social Identity theory

Who are considered "others"?

People who do not identify in the same way as a particular group.

What is categorization in this context?

The process of setting people apart based on how they were raised and grew up, often defining a group by what it is not, or by individuals who do not identify with it.

What is identification?

How an individual wishes to be seen as or referred to (e.g., woman, man, non-binary).

What is comparison in the context of identity?

The act of comparing oneself to people more closely linked to one's own identity and categorization, versus those who are not.

What are the processes related to 'Homogeneity of the outgroup' and 'positive distinctiveness of the ingroup'?

The ingroup appears as a collection of distinct, varied individuals, while the outgroup is viewed as a 'mass' of identical, indistinct members with no individuality.

What is a potential negative consequence of favouring the ingroup?

Favouring the ingroup can make it easier to dismiss and even demonize the outgroup (e.g., Jewish people in pre-war Germany).

What was the aim of Tajfel's (1972) study?

To investigate social identity theory in terms of preference for the ingroup via the minimal groups paradigm.

Who were the participants in Tajfel's (1972) study?

48 males aged 14-15 from the same state school in Bristol, UK.

Describe the procedure of Tajfel's (1972) study.

Boys were randomly allocated to groups (minimal groups created artificially), told their assignment was based on artist preference (Klee/Kandinsky). They assigned virtual money to ingroup or outgroup members, knowing only group membership by code.

What allocation strategies were tested in Tajfel's (1972) study?

• Maximum joint profit

• Maximum ingroup profit

• Maximum difference (favouring ingroup while disadvantaging outgroup)

What were the results of Tajfel's (1972) study?

The boys tended to favour ingroup members, choosing higher rewards for them and penalizing the outgroup, often maximizing the profit/loss difference between groups at the expense of maximum joint profit.

What was the conclusion of Tajfel's (1972) study?

Ingroup favouritism can be manipulated via the minimal groups paradigm; simply knowing another (rival) group exists is enough to suggest 'us' and 'them' through social categorisation.

What is a strength of Social Identity Theory (SIT) and group behaviour studies like Tajfel's?

SIT provides a framework for understanding group categorisation, which can inform interventions against racism, bullying, and other anti-social behaviours. The lack of face-to-face interaction in Tajfel's study increases validity by reducing bias from physical appearance or personality factors.

What are limitations of Social Identity Theory (SIT)?

• Over-emphasises group membership, understating individual agency.

• Tajfel's task lacked jeopardy and ecological validity, as assigning virtual money to faceless strangers doesn't reflect real-life situations.

How is 'causality' a criticism of SIT?

SIT is based on a vague theory that people sort others into categories, making it difficult to test and measure. It may ignore the complexity of individuals viewing others through personal and social identity prisms, rather than a mechanistic labelling approach.

How might 'bias' have influenced Tajfel's study?

The boys might have succumbed to participant expectations, believing researchers sought a particular response (i.e., rewarding the ingroup over the outgroup), potentially influencing their behaviour rather than solely SIT mechanisms.