Week 13 - Introduction to the Social Identity Approach

Authoritarian Personality

Concept developed in post-WWII America, informed by European theorists like Freud, Marx, and Fromm. Characterized by insecurity, submission to authority, and projection and displacement of aggression to outgroups.

Scales Used to Measure Facets of Authoritarianism

A-S (Anti-Semitism), E (Ethnocentrism), PEC (Political & Economic Conservatism), F (Potential for Fascism). Hypothesis : If A-S, E, PEC all positively correlated with F, then form syndrome

Adorno et al 1950 study on Authoritarian personality

• Sample characteristics: American, white, middle class, non-Jewish

  • so NOT from right-wing/fascist groups

• Recruited from organisations (e.g Rotary)

• The idea of a ‘susceptible personality’

• Scales to measure facets of the authoritarian syndrome

• Surveys and clinical-style interviews of target group

• Use of projective tests for deeper insights

  • e.g. ink blots

Methodological Critiques

• Sampling:  purposive samples of people in organizations

       “joiners” differ from non-joiners

  • the people recruited for the study came from clubs, so are already more likely to join a type of organisation

• Item wording:  all positively-phrased

    “Yea-sayers” vs. “Nay-sayers”

• Interviewers & coders knew study hypotheses

---

Theory and practice critiques

• No evidence that child rearing changed in Germany

• How to explain variability within community?

• How to explain rapid changes in ‘hostile environment’?

  • Americans and Japan in post WW2

  • Contemporary Britain and America?

Theory of Authoritarian Personality

• Parents’ status anxiety leads to → authoritarian parenting (rigid & harsh)→ leads to identification with aggressor →  leads to projection of bad qualities & displacement of hostility towards out-groups

Limitations of Authoritarian Personality

Link to child-rearing practices is weak

Not very good at accounting for within-group variability

Not very good at accounting for change over time

Needs a theoretical approach which is better at explaining the interaction of the individual and the social context

Interactionist approach –Sherif’s  Realistic Conflict Theory

Realistic Conflict theory (Mustafa & Caroline Sherif 1966)

Examines intergroup conflict due to mismatched group interests

• argues that intergroup conflict arises as a result of conflict of real or imagined interests between groups. Not because the personality or the needs of individuals

• E.g. When there is limited resources, then this leads to conflict, prejudice and discrimination between groups who seek that common resource.

Sherif’s Summer Camp (Method)

Number of studies over several years

• Sample characteristics

  • White, middle class well-adjusted boys – no history of violence, personality disorder etc

  • Didn’t know each other

  • Aged 12-13

  Running of the study

  • Sent to Summer camp (Robbers Cave State Park – Oklahoma) 1951, 1953, 1954

  • Researchers doubled as camp councillors –

  • Sherif = Mr Musee (camp caretaker)

Sherif Summer Camp (Stages)

• First stage kept separate – ingroup formation – Rattlers/Eagles flags songs etc

• Second stage – competition (over scarce resources)  - competitions/

• Third stage – cooling off

Sherif Summer camp (Stage 1)

The Groups were not aware of each other.

They developed an attachment to their groups establish norms and values by doing activities

Chose names for their groups

Sherif summer camo (stage 2)

Groups competed against each other in activities with prizes for the winning group.

Situations were crated so that one group gained at the expense of the other

Sherif Summer camp (stage 2 consequences)

• Intergroup Hostility quickly emerged

  • Taunting, name-calling

  • Flag burning

  • Breaking into others accommodation and stealing

  • Physical fights

• Intensity of animosity surprised Sherif

  • The boys had no prior experience of aggression /violence

  • In one study boys that had formed friendships were split into different groups – and they quickly became enemies

• Seemed to confirm the Realistic Conflict hypothesis

Sherif summer camp (stage 3)

Having produced this conflict Sherif wanted to repair relationships

• Had ethical responsibility

• But also theoretical interest – how do you reduce intergroup aggression?

• So introduced a third stage – trying to produce repair and reconciliation

Sherif summer camp (stage 3 - strategies for conflict resolution)

Moral instruction (”love thy neighbour”)

• Didn’t work

• Needs action as well as words

• Tried ‘Contact ‘ (bringing the boys back together)

  • Didn’t work

  • lead to opportunities for conflict escalation

  • Conditions of contact?

• Introducing superordinate goals worked

  • Jointly pushing food truck

  • Fixing the water supply

  • Jointly paying pocket money to hire film

  • THIS DID WORK

RCT key insights

• herif surprised by ease and heat of hostility in studies

• intergroup hostility can arise as a result of conflicting goals and competition over limited resources

• Groups may be in competition for a real or perceived scarcity of resources such as money, political power, military protection, or social status.

• positive relations can only be restored if superordinate goals are in place.

Critiques of Sherif

There was only 3 groups

In an abandoned experiment, the boys realised it was fake and rebelled.

In later repeated study, boys found out about the other group early and wanted to have a competition → no need for resource competition

Self-categorisation theory

Argues we have a personal identity and a social identity:

• Personal identity is determined by individual idiosyncratic traits and interpersonal relationships.

• Social identity is determined by salient category memberships.

Principles of self categorization theory

• We are motivated to view ingroup members positively and outgroup members negatively to maintain positive social identity (social comparison processes).

• Consequences include favouritism towards in-groups and discrimination towards outgroups.

Consequences of in-group favouritism and outgroup discrimination

We are motivated to view in-group members positively and outgroup members negatively to maintain positive social identity (social comparison processes).

Consequences include favouritism towards in-groups and discrimination towards outgroups

Principles of self categorization theory

Focus on the cognitive aspect of prejudice:

• Social categorisation is a fundamental and ubiquitous human process (ingroups and outgroups)

• we exaggerate:

  • similarities within groups

  • differences between groups

Minimal group paradigm

Based on principles of self categorization theory, this states that the minimal condition for group biases is simply being a member of a group. (Tajfel et al 1971)

Findings of minimal group paradigm

• Showed that in-group favouritism and outgroup discrimination can take place even when there is no competition.

• Individuals will favour in-group members even when it goes against their own interests.

Randomly assigned participants were more likely to give money to their in-group members even if it meant getting less money themselves

Self-categorisation theory

Argues we have a personal identity and a social identity:

• Personal identity is determined by individual idiosyncratic traits and interpersonal relationships.

• Social identity is determined by salient category memberships.

Principles of self categorization theory

• We are motivated to view ingroup members positively and outgroup members negatively to maintain positive social identity (social comparison processes).

• Consequences include favouritism towards in-groups and discrimination towards outgroups.

Consequences of in-group favouritism and outgroup discrimination

We are motivated to view in-group members positively and outgroup members negatively to maintain positive social identity (social comparison processes).

Consequences include favouritism towards in-groups and discrimination towards outgroups

Principles of self categorization theory

Focus on the cognitive aspect of prejudice:

• Social categorisation is a fundamental and ubiquitous human process (ingroups and outgroups)

• we exaggerate:

  • similarities within groups

  • differences between groups

Minimal group paradigm

Based on principles of self categorization theory, this states that the minimal condition for group biases is simply being a member of a group. (Tajfel et al 1971)

Findings of minimal group paradigm

• Showed that in-group favouritism and outgroup discrimination can take place even when there is no competition.

• Individuals will favour in-group members even when it goes against their own interests.

Randomly assigned participants were more likely to give money to their in-group members even if it meant getting less money themselves

Social Identity Approach (SIA)

A theoretical framework encompassing self-categorization theory and social identity theory, emphasizing the dynamic interplay between individual and group identity in shaping behavior.