The Social Psychology of Groups: The European Perspective

Def of groups from European perspective

Set of individuals who perceive themselves as members of the same social category, sharing a sense of belonging, emotional attachment, and identification with the group

Key principle of groups from this perspective

• Social identity: self-concept is derived from group membership

What European perspective focuses on (2)

• Intergroup relations

• Processes of social change

Origins of perspective + what theory it led to

• Sherif’s Robber’s Cave experiment → challenged idea that intergroup conflict stemmed solely for hateful personalities

• Led to development of Social Identity Theory (Tajfel et al.)

Social Identity Theory (SIT) as a 3 step process

1. Social categorisation: we naturally identify with groups

2. Social identification: we adopt the group’s identity as part of our self-concept → gives us sense of belonging and self-esteem

3. Social comparison: we compare groups + tend to resort to in-group favouritism/out-group derogation to maintain self-esteem

What SIT questions + experiment type it’s supported by

• Questions whether conflict over resources (Robber’s Cave experiment) was even necessary for in-group favouritism + outgroup derogation to emerge

• Minimal group experiments

Flaw of social identification (2)

• Often oversimplify social world (“us vs them” mentality, when it often isn’ this simple)

• Can exaggerate differences between groups and similarities within groups

Explanations for in-group favouritism/out-group derogation in minimal group (MG) studies (3)

• People come to define themselves in terms of their group membership

• Group identities can be equally/more important than individual identities (think religion)

• Social identities have value + emotional significant (not just self-perceptions)

Important note on MG studies (1→1)

• Should not be interpreted that discrimination against outgroup is ubiquitous; the set up of MG studies makes the distinction between the in-group and the out-group was the only meaningful feature + exceptionally clear to participants (maximally salient)

  • This is not always the case in real world scenarios, where group boundaries are more complex + intersecting

Conditions for real-world discrimination (beyond minimal groups): example of racial hostility (1, 3)

• As well as requiring that in-group members see themselves as distinct from out-group members (as in MG studies)

real-world discrimination (e.g. racial hostility) requires that:

• Racial categories are socially available, salient + accepted as being valid + meaningful in the given context

• In-group members choose to compare themselves with racial ‘other’

• In-group members seek to emphasise dimensions that lead to antisocial behaviour

Discrimination vs prosocial behaviour (2)

• Discrimination = choosing an “us vs. them” dimension that justifies exclusion (belonging, purity, superiority).

• Prosocial outcomes = choosing an “us vs. them” dimension that obligates inclusion (morality, justice, compassion).

Why SIT is considered more of a theory of resistance than a theory of prejudice (1)

• Because its primary focus extends beyond simply explaining in-group favouritism/outgroup derogation

• Explores how low-status groups psychologically cope with and actively respond to being made to feel bad by their disadvantaged positions in unequal societies

How low-status groups cope when group boundaries are permeable

• Social mobility/exit strategy: move into higher status group

Example of impermeable group boundary + how low-status groups cope when group boundaries are permeable (1→3, 1)

• Ethnic groups, low SES

• Social creativity strategy: try to reconstruct the meaning of their low status position

  • Downward comparisons: comparing to group that’s even worse off

  • Choosing more flattering dimension for comparison: focusing on positive attributes of group, e.g. “we may be poor, but at least we’re friendly”

  • Redefine in-group membership: usually in a positive or moral way, e.g. “we are resilient survivors”

• Social competition strategy

Social competition strategy: when it occurs (1→2), what it involves (3), what it stimulates

• Occurs when intergroup status relations are seen as insecure in the sense of being

  • Illegitimate

  • Unstable/changeable

• Low status groups engage in one or more:

  • In-group bias

  • Intergroup conflict

  • Collective action

• Stimulates counterfactual thinking (cognitive alternatives to status quo) → hope for change

Successful leadership from this perspective (1), elaboration (1), example (1), related phrase (1)

• Leadership as intra-group social interactional identity process rather than being defined by individual traits of leader

• Creating shared sense of social identity by mobilising social identity processes → creates alignment between aspiring leader + groups of people they wish to lead

• E.g. politcal candidates spouses giving speeches to align aspiring leader with shared national myths (e.g. “We are family” or “We are defenders of freedom”))

• ‘entrepreneurs of identity’

European perspective on crowds (1)

• Crowds are not mindless but meaning-making

European perspective on crowds: interpretation of behaviour, perspective on identity, how behaviour is guided, effect of anonymity

• Behaviour is patterned + meaningful, not meaningless destruction

• Shift in identity (from personal to shared social), but not loss of identity

• Behaviour is guided by group norms, values + goals (which can be destructive or constructive)

• Anonymity strengthens adherence to group norms rather than just unleashing antisocial impulses

Strength of social identity approach to crowds over “madness of the crowd” thesis (2)

• “Madness of the crowd” thesis arguably de-politicises/delegitimises collective action/protest

• Social identity approach recognises that conflict often arises from perceived illegitimacy of dominant groups and recognises individuals comprising crowd as rational actors (rather than irrational)