Social Psychology: Prejudice and Social Identity Theory

What is the definition of prejudice?

An unfavorable opinion or attitude formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought or reason.

What is the definition of discrimination?

An action arising because of prejudiced beliefs. The mistreatment against a person based on gender, ethnicity, religion, age, disability or sexual orientation.

Who created social identity theory and when?

Tajfel and Turner (1979)

What is the definition of social identity?

Social identity is an individual’s self-concept (identifying as belonging to a particular social class, family or sports team).

According to Tajfel and Turner’s 1979 Social Identity Theory, what are the three main processes in becoming prejudiced against the ‘out-group’?

1. Social Categorisation: of people based on their hobbies, values, beliefs leads to the development of distinct social groups, an ‘us and them’ mentality.  In-group favouritism and negative out-group bias occurs.

2. Social Identification: identifying with the group, explicitly by taking on norms and attitudes of the in-group.

3. Social Comparison: comparison with the out-group and perceiving the in-group to be better increases self–esteem and eventually results in prejudice and discrimination between the two groups. Exaggerate the in-group’s successes (dispositional) and underplay the out-group’s achievements (situational)

According to Tajfel and Turner’s 1979 Social Identity Theory, what is the ‘quest for positive distinctiveness’?

The desire to see the in-group as superior and this can lead to discrimination.

What is the Supporting evidence for Tajfel and Turner’s 1979 Social Identity Theory? (SCODA)

SIT is supported by Jane Elliot who conducted the Class Divided, blue and brown eyes study. Students were shown to display prejudice and discrimination toward others just because they were categorised into in-groups and out-groups based on eye colour.

Is Tajfel and Turner’s 1979 Social Identity Theory Credible? (SCODA)

Tajfel & Turner carried out empirical research to support Social Identity Theory, which included 2 replications that demonstrated the boys chose to allocate more points to the 'in-group'. The method of this experiment is falsifiable and scientific (equipment/ procedure/ lab).

What are the Other explanations of Tajfel and Turner’s 1979 Social Identity Theory? (SCODA)

Realistic Conflict Theory (Sherif) is an alternative explanation which processes the role of competition between the in-group and out-group.

What are the Debates around Tajfel and Turner’s 1979 Social Identity Theory? (SCODA)

Ethics: Social Identity Theory has wider ethical implications as the theory could be manipulated and used by governing bodies and organisations to try and create in groups and out groups in society to create prejudice and discrimination as form of social control.

Social Identity Theory also has links to explaining socially sensitive research when considering social issues like migration of refugee populations or portrayal of stereotypes in the media and newspapers. This could influence political voting? Trump/ Brexit?

What is a real life Application of Tajfel and Turner’s 1979 Social Identity Theory? (SCODA)

This theory can be applied to a range of real-life scenarios to explain the development of prejudice and discrimination. For example, school settings, juvenile gangs and football hooliganism; your self-esteem is linked to the success of the team. People may behave in a hostile and aggressive manner towards the challenging teams.

What study did Tajfel and Turner do before creating their 1979 Social Identity Theory?

Minimal Groups Study (Tajfel and Turner 1971)

Experiment 1: Over or under estimation of 40 flashing dots formed the 'in-group and out-groups'.

Experiment 2: Preference for Klee or Kandinsky paintings

formed the 'in-group and out-groups'.

What was the aim of Tajfel and Turner’s 1971 Minimal Groups Study?

To investigate if being classified into one of the two groups was sufficient to cause prejudice and discrimination against the other group, without any history and without using competition.

To investigate whether participants allocated points to their in-group.

Who were the participants of Tajfel and Turner’s 1971 Minimal Groups Study?

64 British male schoolboys aged 14-15 years old from a school in Bristol, UK.

What was the methodology of Tajfel and Turner’s 1971 Minimal Groups Study?

Laboratory experiment

What the procedure of Tajfel and Turner’s 1971 Minimal Groups Study?

Procedure:

Experiment 1:

• 64 British school boys were told this is an investigation into vision.

• Participants (8 groups of 8) were shown an image of 40 flashing dots on the screen and asked to estimate the number of flashing dots.

• Participants were told they belonged to/were divided into 2 groups - over-estimators and under-estimators of the 40 flashing dots. In reality, the boys were randomly allocated to the 2 groups.

Experiment 2:

• 48 British school boys (3 groups of 16) were asked if they preferred Klee or Kandinsky paintings and told they were divided based on their preference. In reality, the boys were randomly allocated to the 2 groups.

Both experiments

• Each participant was given a matrix of 2 rows and 12 boxes.

• Each participant was asked to allocate 'points' to either participants in the in-group or the out-group. Points were later converted into money.

What were the results of Tajfel and Turner’s 1971 Minimal Groups Study?

Experiment 1: the boys chose to allocate more points to those in the same group as themselves 'in-group' despite the accuracy of the 40 dots estimation.

Experiment 2: if the participants had the choice of maximum joint profit for all or maximum profit for their own group, they chose in-group.

What was the conclusion of Tajfel and Turner’s 1971 Minimal Groups Study?

Even though there was no direct competition between the 2 groups, the boys consistently displayed in-group favouritism. The mere existence of in-groups and out-groups alone is enough to cause prejudice.

What was the Generalisability of Tajfel and Turner’s 1971 Minimal Groups Study? (GRAVE)

Unrepresentative sample of male participants only, who may have already been part of an 'in-group' coming from the same high school.

ANDROCENTRIC - male only and aged 14-15 years only.

ETHNOCENTRIC - centred on one culture only (Western/

British culture)

What was the Reliability of Tajfel and Turner’s 1971 Minimal Groups Study? (GRAVE)

Laboratory studies have standardised procedures which means the study can be replicated easily and is reliable. There were also 8 trials in the experiment where the procedure has been repeated successfully.

What are the real life Applications of Tajfel and Turner’s 1971 Minimal Groups Study? (GRAVE)

In-group and out-groups are evident in real-life (e.g. football teams, peer groups, religious groups) so Social Identity Theory can explain prejudice apparent in society today.

What was the Validity of Tajfel and Turner’s 1971 Minimal Groups Study? (GRAVE)

High internal validity as control variables were managed enabling cause and effect to be established. For example, randomly assigning participants to groups, equal number of matrices, same paintings and flashing dots shown to each group.

Low ecological validity due to the artificial laboratory-based setting of the experiment and low mundane realism of the task completed which has low task validity and cannot be applied to real-life settings.

Participants could be influenced by demand characteristics: the boys might try to behave how they think the researcher wants them to act.

This decreases the internal validity and cause and effect cannot be established as factors like pre-existing friendship groups at the school or the researcher's tone of voice could influence the behaviour of participants.

What was the Ethics of Tajfel and Turner’s 1971 Minimal Groups Study? (GRAVE)

The participants were deceived about the nature of the experiment. For example, they were told this is about 'vision'.

However, this was required to avoid demand characteristics.

Presumptive consent from teachers/parents rather than fully informed consent from actual participants (too young).

Potential for long term psychological harm: the boys returned to their 'normal lives' attending the school in Bristol, where the existence of these artificial groups 'over- and under-estimators' could continue to display prejudice and discrimination against each other.