Paper 1 - Sociocultural Approach - Social Identity Theory (SIT)

SIT

Proposed by Tajfel (1979). Argues an individual's sense of self is developed on the basis of a group membership, and this identity is shared w/ other group members.

To enhance their self esteem, individuals categorize themselves and others into groups and identify w/ specific social groups.

This results in the formation of an in-group ('us') and out-group ('them'),

- Out-group discrimination: the process in which the in-group prejudices against the out-group to enhance their self esteem.

- In-group favoritism: showing bias towards your in-group

The 4 psychological mechanisms involved in the SIT

Social categorization: the division of social groups into in-groups and out-groups as an individual identifies w/ the group they belong in.

Social identification: the process in which an individual identifies strongly w/ an in-group and co-opts it's norms and attitudes.

Social comparison: the process by which an individual favorably compares their in-groups w/out-groups

Positive distinctiveness: an individual's motivation to show their in-group is preferable to an out-group.

Tajfel et al (1971) - 'Kandinsky vs Klee' - Aim

to investigate the effect of social categorization on intergroup behavior when boys are placed into random groups based on minimal differences.

Tajfel - hypothesis

when subjects are provided w/ an intergroup categorization that had a value connotated to them, they would engage in discriminatory out-group behavior.

Tajfel - method

48 british boys (14-15 years old) were randomly allocated to 3 groups of 16 boys. Each groups was then then split based on their preference for Kandinsky or Klee paintings, and the boys were told this would determine which of two groups they would join, setting up the idea of 'us' and 'them' in their minds. Tajfel ensured the boys had no idea who was in their groups or what the groupings meant.

Then, they individually distributed money to the other groups members, given only each boy's code number and group membership.

There were several rules for awarding money, including:

- maximum joint profit (give largest reward to both groups)

- maximum in-group profit (give largest reward to in-group)

- maximum differences (give largest possible difference in reward btwn in-group and out-group, favoring in-group)

Tajfel - results

most boys chose the maximum differences option, favoring their own group in the distribution of rewards in a situation where only the variable of fairly irrelevant classification distinguished btwn the in-group and out-group.

Tajfel - conclusion

This supports SIT as it demonstrated out-group discrimination is easily triggered by being put into a group, even if there's minimal differences between the 2 groups. Once this has been triggered, out-group discrimination is considered to be a group norm, as belonging to a group instils a loyalty to that group and prejudice towards others. Members of a group have a natural tendency to favor their in-group, as seen by most boys in this study favoring their groups when distributing money.