Social Psychology Lecture Notes
Course Overview
The material provides an overview of a university course in Social Psychology 2 (PSYB17-125) taught by Anna Kende, with the syllabus and course structure presented across multiple pages. The course runs under the “Social Psychology” text by Elliot R. Smith, Diane M. Mackie, and Heather M. Claypool (Fourth Edition). The schedule notes that class meetings occur on Thursdays from 12:30 to 14:00 in room 301, with the Canvas platform as a central hub for assignments and resources. The syllabus emphasizes three broad topical domains: interpersonal social behavior (e.g., intimate relationships, helping, aggression), group processes (e.g., group formation, dynamics, leadership, and decision-making), and intergroup relations (e.g., intergroup conflict and conflict resolution). The course aims to introduce both classical theories and newer developments, while highlighting broader societal implications and applied aspects of social psychological topics. The course requirements state that completion hinges on a written exam at the end of the semester during the exam period, and that course assignments are not weighted toward the final grade.
Course Requirements and Assessment
The course employs a practical grade that accounts for 40\% of the final mark and an exam grade that accounts for 60\%. Students must achieve a minimum of 50\% on both components. The final examination is an in-class multiple-choice test consisting of 25 questions. In addition to the exam, there may be practical components contributing to the 40\% portion, but the syllabus notes that assignments themselves are not weighted—only this split between practical and exam contributes to the final grade. The exam format and grading emphasize objective assessment through multiple-choice items, aligning with standard assessment practices in psychology courses. The course reiterates the schedule: Thursdays, 12:30-14:00, in room 301. The syllabus also underlines the scope of the course: understanding social behavior at interpersonal, group, and intergroup levels, and connecting theories to real-world contexts and ethical considerations.
Core Concepts and Theoretical Frameworks
The course introduces a set of core concepts that recur across social psychology: the social world constructs personal experience, and social influence pervades behavior. Key processing principles include the distinction between superficial vs. deep processing and motivational principles such as mastery, valuing self and group, connectedness, and conservatism. The framework also highlights how accessibility shapes perception, and how various conditions can modulate the experience of belonging to a social group.
Self-Categorization and Levels of Abstraction
A central theme is self-categorization, attributed to John Turner, with a model that operates across different levels of abstraction. These levels range from the broad humanity level to social groups and categories, down to the personal level. This framework explains how individuals move between personal identity and social identity depending on context and motivation, and how group memberships become salient under certain circumstances.
Self-Categorization (Turner et al., 1987)
The concept posits that individuals categorize themselves at multiple levels of abstraction. The levels can be described as: all of humanity, social groups and categories, and personal identity. This hierarchical structure explains how the salience of a particular identity changes with situational cues, leading to shifts in attitudes, norms, and behaviors that align with group membership.
Learning About Our Groups
Group membership is learned through observation and socialization: (1) observing other group members, (2) learning cultural stereotypes of the group, (3) recognition of correspondence bias (attribution error), and (4) learning from roles socially assigned to the group. These processes contribute to the internalization of group norms and expectations, shaping how individuals perceive themselves and others within the group context.
Minimal Group Paradigm (Billig & Tajfel, 1973)
The minimal group paradigm shows how people form in-group and out-group distinctions even when groups are arbitrarily defined. Minimal groups are characterized by no history, no shared interests, no interaction, no conflict, and no stereotypes. Despite the absence of meaningful distinctions, participants still demonstrate in-group favoritism and allocate resources favoring their own group over others, highlighting the powerful influence of social categorization per se on behavior.
Ingroup and Outgroup Dynamics
Ingroup vs. Outgroup Perception
A recurring theme is how individuals perceive and evaluate members of their own group (the ingroup) relative to others (the outgroup). Ingroup members are often perceived as similar to one another, with shared norms and values, while outgroup members are perceived as more homogeneous and distinct from the ingroup. This perception influences judgments, behavior, and intergroup relations.
Minimal Group Paradigm and Group Favoritism
The minimal group paradigm demonstrates that group membership, even when arbitrarily assigned, can lead to preferential treatment of the ingroup. This underlines the powerful role of categorization in social behavior, independent of meaningful intergroup conflicts or histories.
Ingroup Norms and Personal Norms
The experience of membership changes the self-concept. Group norms can become personal norms, meaning that opinions, feelings, and behaviors shift toward alignment with what is typical of the group. This illustrates how social identity can modulate individual psychology and everyday actions.
Social Identity Theory and Its Implications
Social Identity Theory (Tajfel, 1972)
The theory explains how self-esteem can be enhanced through positively evaluated groups. It involves three core processes: (i) group categorization, (ii) intergroup comparison, and (iii) feelings about group membership. The interplay among these processes influences prejudice, discrimination, and collective action. The basic premise is that individuals derive part of their self-concept from group memberships, and that positive group status can bolster self-esteem.
Intergroup Comparison and Self-Esteem
Positive evaluation of one’s group can elevate self-esteem, which in turn motivates behaviors aimed at maintaining or improving group status. This can lead to competitive intergroup dynamics, bias, and selective information processing in order to preserve a favorable social identity.
Role of Group Categorization
Categorizing oneself and others into groups simplifies social information processing but can also reproduce stereotypes and biases. The categorization process sets the stage for in-group favoritism and out-group differentiation, influencing attitudes toward both members within and outside the group.
The Minimal Group Paradigm in Practice
Experimental Findings (Billig & Tajfel, 1973)
Minimal groups demonstrate that even without prior history or shared interests, people show a preference for their own group in resource allocation. This suggests that the mere labeling of people into groups is sufficient to produce in-group bias, underscoring the strength of social categorization as a driver of group-based preferences.
Optimal Distinctiveness and Group Identity
Optimal Distinctiveness (Brewer, 1991)
The theory posits a tension between two needs: belongingness (similarity with others in the group) and differentiation (uniqueness from other groups). Individuals seek a balance between similarity (connectedness) and distinctiveness (uniqueness) to optimize their social identity. This dual drive can explain why people cling to group norms while also seeking individual differentiation within or across groups.
Perception of the In-Group and Its Members
Group Members and Typicality
Within the ingroup, members are seen as similar to one another, and there is acknowledgment of individual differences in roles and characteristics. This layered view explains how group identity coexists with individual variation, and how roles within a group can influence self-perception and behavior.
Basking in Reflected Glory (BIRG)
BIRG refers to the tendency to enhance self-esteem by affiliating with successful group outcomes. Cialdini et al. (1976) describe how people engage in self-affirming behavior after their group achieves success, such as celebrating wins or displaying team logos. The slide example (Candidate Munich vs Paris Saint-Germain… final) illustrates how fans and others may publicly associate with successful teams, even in distant or indirect ways. The Munich football arena example from May 31, 2025, is shown as a hypothetical or illustrative case of BIRG in action, with sponsors and media context around a major match. This demonstrates the emotional and social investment tied to group success.
Emotions and Group Identity
Emotional Significance of Group Membership
Group membership carries emotional weight. Individuals experience emotions typical of the group and may also mirror the emotional state of other group members. Emotions tend to be more intense when group membership is salient or when there is uncertainty about group status, cohesion, or external threats. The affective dimension of social identity contributes to motivation, cooperation, competition, and conflict.
Liking, Norms, and Group Solidarity
Liking In-Group Members
Positive regard toward ingroup members can arise simply from group membership, even without direct knowledge of individuals. This liking is driven by perceived group belonging and social identity processes rather than personal familiarity alone. There is a preference for typical or prototypical group members, reinforcing the perception that group membership itself carries evaluative weight.
Treating the In-Group Rightly
Group-based ethics emphasize fair, just, and altruistic treatment of the in-group, along with loyalty and willingness to make sacrifices for the group. The ideal of “Self-interest = group interest” (often summarized as "All for one, one for all") captures a normative stance aligned with collective welfare, even if it requires personal costs.
Perceiving and Evaluating the Out-Group
Social Comparison and Group Categorization
Out-group perception frequently involves social comparison and categorization that frames the out-group negatively. The out-group is often viewed as more uniform and less differentiated, leading to simplistic judgments and stereotyping.
Out-Group Homogeneity Effect
A key bias is the out-group homogeneity effect: we perceive fewer out-group members as individuals, and we experience more constrained interactions with the out-group. In-group members are seen as more varied and individually distinctive, whereas out-group members are treated as a more homogeneous block. This effect reduces cognitive effort in processing out-group information but increases biases and misperceptions.
Language and Thought: Linguistic Intergroup Bias
Linguistic Intergroup Bias (LIB) – Maass et al., 1989
LIB describes how language used to describe actions differs depending on group membership. The pattern typically involves abstract language for positive ingroup actions and concrete, specific language for out-group actions, and the reverse for negative actions. In short, in-group-positive behaviors tend to be described more abstractly, while out-group actions are described more concretely, and similar (reciprocal) patterns appear for negative actions. This linguistic bias helps maintain group distinctions and supports biases in attributing causes to actions across group lines.
Connections to Foundational Principles and Real-World Relevance
The material demonstrates how social identity, categorization, and group dynamics shape everyday perception, emotion, and behavior. The synthesis of (i) self-concept change via group norms, (ii) bias in intergroup perception (ingroup favoritism, out-group homogeneity), (iii) minimal group effects showing the power of categorization without history, and (iv) the emotional and moral dimensions of group membership, provides a comprehensive framework for understanding prejudice, discrimination, intergroup conflict, and collective action. The course emphasizes connecting these theories to real-world contexts and ethical considerations, illustrating how intergroup processes influence politics, sports fandom, workplace dynamics, and social cohesion.
Important References and Key Points to Remember
Self-Categorization Theory (Turner et al., 1987): levels of abstraction from humanity to personal identity; group norms become personal norms.
Social Identity Theory (Tajfel, 1972): self-esteem from positively evaluated groups; group categorization; intergroup comparison; feelings about membership.
Minimal Group Paradigm (Billig & Tajfel, 1973): even arbitrary group assignment yields ingroup bias; no history, no shared interests, no interaction, no conflict, no stereotypes needed to produce bias.
Optimal Distinctiveness (Brewer, 1991): the balance between connectedness (similarity) and uniqueness (distinctiveness).
BIRG (Basking in Reflected Glory) – Cialdini et al., 1976: emotional and social benefits of associating with successful groups.
Ingroup Liking and Norms: positivity toward ingroup members; norms become personal norms; group loyalty and sacrifice as moral imperatives.
Perception of Out-Group: social comparison and out-group negativity; out-group homogeneity effect reduces perceived individual differences.
Linguistic Intergroup Bias (Maass et al., 1989): differential linguistic treatment of ingroup vs out-group behaviors depending on valence and group membership.
Connections to Real-World Relevance
Educational settings: understanding how student identity and group membership influence classroom dynamics, collaboration, and attitudes toward peers.
Sports and media: BIRG effects explain fan behavior, team branding, and sponsorship dynamics.
Workplace diversity: insights into how ingroup/outgroup perceptions can influence teamwork, leadership, and conflict resolution.
Public policy and prejudice: recognition of minimal group effects and LIB can inform interventions to reduce bias and promote inclusion.
Summary of Key Concepts (Concise List)
Self-categorization and levels of abstraction: personal vs. group identities.
Social Identity Theory: self-esteem from group status; intergroup comparison.
Minimal Group Paradigm: bias arises from mere categorization.
Optimal Distinctiveness: balance between connectedness and uniqueness.
Ingroup norms becoming personal norms: shifts in attitudes and behavior.
BIRG: affiliating with successful groups to enhance self-esteem.
Liking and fairness within the ingroup: in-group positive regard and sacrifices for the group.
Outgroup perception: homogeneity, negativity, and social comparison.
Linguistic Intergroup Bias: language patterns reinforce group distinctions.
Appendix: Key Figures and References
Tajfel, H. (1972). Social Identity Theory.
Turner, J.C., et al. (1987). Self-categorization theory.
Billig, M., & Tajfel, H. (1973). Minimal Group Paradigm.
Brewer, M. (1991). Optimal Distinctiveness.
Cialdini, R.B., et al. (1976). Basking in Reflected Glory.
Maass, A., et al. (1989). Linguistic Intergroup Bias.
Smith, S. Elliott R., Mackie, D., Claypool, H. (Fourth Edition). Social Psychology texts used as course material.