3.1.1 Social Identity Theory

↳

Key Definitions

In-group favoritism: behavior that is biased towards the benefits of the in-group

Minimal group paradigm: the experimental procedure where trivial group differences are created artificially to investigate the effects of social categorization to intergroup discrimination

Out-group discrimination: behavior that creates disadvantages for the out-group

Social categorization: cognitive process of categorizing people into in-groups and out-groups

Social comparison: process of comparing the in-group and out-group (us vs. them)

Social identity: the part of self-concept that is based on group membership

Essential Understanding

→ Social Identity Theory

↳ a theory of intergroup conflict from previously made theories of intergroup conflict like : theories of aggressive personality and realistic group conflict theory (Sherif 1996)

→ Claims of social identity theory are based on intergroup concepts including:

↳ Social categorization

↳ Social comparison

↳ Positive distinctiveness

↳ Self-esteem

↳ Out-group discrimination

↳ In-group favoritism

→ Claims of this theory have been supported by research using the minimal group paradigm like in Tajfel et al (1971)

—> The mere fact of belonging to two different groups (even on the basis of trivial criteria) can trigger in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination

→ Evaluation of Minimal Group Studies

↳ minimal group studies have been criticized for being artificial in their procedure:

↳ group allocation is not random enough

↳ matrices involve forced choice

→ However, further research does not support these criticisms

Ex: Locksley, Ortiz, and Hepburn (1980)

→Evaluation of Social Identity Theory

→ the theory has great explanatory power, but it does not explain individual differences

Social Identity Theory

↳ Theory of intergroup conflict and explains why conflict and discrimination occur

→ Context

↳ Better understood in the context of previously existing explanations of intergroup conflict including the following:

↳ Theories that stressed intrapersonal reasons (factors within the personality).

These theories of aggressive personality largely ignored social variables

↳ Realistic group conflict theory (Sherif 1966)

This suggests that intergroup conflict is caused by real conflict between group interests (competition over scarce resources)

↳ emphasizes social variables and did not pay enough attention to the psychological variables

→ Claims of Social Identity Theory

i. Competition over resources is not always necessary for the development of conflict between groups

ii. The mere perception of belonging to two groups (social categorization) is sufficient to trigger out-group discrimination and in-group favoritism

iii. Social categorization provides individuals with a means of building their social identity so that people can define themselves in social terms, in terms of being similar to or different from “better” or “worse” than members of other groups

iv. Individuals strive to achieve a positive social identity because it increases their self-esteem

v. Positive social identity is based on distinctiveness in-group must be perceived as positively different form (better than) certain out-groups, involving social comparison

vi. When social identity is not positive, individuals will try to either leave the group or make the existing group more positively distinct

→ Some of the claims have been supported by research studies using minimal group paradigm

↳ In this experimental paradigm, participants are randomly classified as members of two groups on the basis of a very trivial criterion

↳ Groups are purely cognitive as there is no objective reason for the group members to complete

Research on Social Cognitive Theory

• Tajfel et al (1971)→ Minimal group experiment 1

↳key: mere fact of belonging to two different groups (even on the basis of trivial criteria) can trigger in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination

Aim: investigate effects of social categorization on intergroup behavior in a minimal group paradigm

Minimal group paradigm:

→ to make minimal groups to investigate the effects of social categorization, the following conditions have to be met

↳ there should be no face-to-face interaction between participants

↳ there should be anonymity regarding group membership

↳ criteria for social categorization should be very trivial and completely unrelated to what the participants are required to do in the experiment

↳ responses shouldn’t have any economic value to the participants (i.e. economically preferable to others)

↳ strategy of in-group favoritism should be in competition with a strategy based on rationality and common sense like benefit to all

↳ decisions made in the experiment should involve some real outcomes like using real money not symbolic tokens

Participants:

↳ 64 male students of a Bristol school (England), ages 14-15

↳ were tested in 8 groups of eight participants

↳ all came from the same school and knew each other as well

Procedure:

→ Stage 1: Categorization

↳ participants were shown 40 slides (each for less than a second) with clusters of dots on a screen and requested to estimate number of dots

→ afterwards, experimenters told participants that the researchers were also interested in a different kind of judgment, and that they would investigate those as well, taking advantage of the participants’ presence

→ participants were then told for a convenience they would be divided based on the previous task

↳ group of four “overestimators” and group of four “underestimators”

→Stage 2: Distribution of Rewards

↳ participant were taken to another room one by one where they worked on their own separate cubicles

→ they then had to distribute rewards and penalties in real money to others using a given booklet with 18 matrices

→ Some matrices in the booklet involved two members of different groups and some was the choice between two anonymous members of the in-group or out-group

↳ Participants always gave money to others, never to themselves

↳ All participants were anonymous since names were replaced by codes

↳were told that at the end of the task, they would be given whatever amount of money others had allocated to them

Ex:

Results:

→ mean choice in the different-group matrices was 9.2 (compared to 7.5 as the point of maximum fairness)

→ choices in the same-group conditions (two members of the in-group of two members of the out-group) were more closely clustered around the point of fairness (7.5)

Conclusion:

↳ Participants demonstrate in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination when categorized into groups on trivial criteria

• Tajfel et al (1971)→ Minimal Group Experiment 2

↳key: participants sacrifice group and personal gain to achieve favorable intergroup differences

Aim: clarify the strategy used by participants when making between-group choices

Participants: 48 boys of the same age and from the same school as in the first experiment

Procedure:

↳mostly based on the first experiment but criterion for categorization and matrices used in booklets were different

→ Participants were shown slides with pairs of abstract paintings—one by Kandinsky and one by Klee—and asked to choose the one they liked better

→ were then told that they would be split into groups based on whether they preferred Klee or Kandinsky, but in reality the allocation was randomized

Different matrices were used to allow experimenters to separate three types of strategy:

↳ Maximum joint payoff (MJP): choice that corresponds to the highest total number of points

↳ Maximum in-group payoff (MIP)

↳ Maximum Difference in Favour of the In-group (MD): point in the matrix that maximizes the difference between the payoffs for the members of the two groups

→ Matrices were manipulated in such a way that three strategies would contradict each other

Ex:

In this table, a pure MD choice would dictate choosing option 1; a MJP and MIP strategy would dictate choosing option 13

Results:

→ Participants showed a clear preference for MD: they preferred their group to get less money if this meant that their group would compare favorably to the other group

Conclusion:

↳ subjects sacrifice group and personal gain to achieve favorable intergroup differences

↳ findings of the study lend support in particular to the idea of positive distinctiveness

Evaluation of Tajfel’s Research

→Strength

↳ procedure was the high level of control over confounding variables

↳ although separate studies can be criticized for lack of ecological validity and limited samples. social identity theory is now supported by a large body of empirical research, so the accumulated evidence is strong

→ Limitations

↳ minimal group studies have been criticized for being artificial in their procedures

↳ teenage boys may be naturally competitive

↳ matrices used involved forced choice, suggesting competition→ may trigger demand characteristics

→ However, social categorization effects remained even when researchers made the groups explicitly random and removed forced choice from the matrices

→Further Research: Locksley, Ortiz, and Hepburn (1980)

↳ conducted a series of experiments where they:

→ tossed a coin to allocate participants into groups so that participants could see that group membership was entirely random

→ gave participants a certain number of poker chips to allocate group members, thus removing the forced choice associated using matrices

Results: findings of Tajfel’s original studies were replicated even in these conditions

Evaluation of Social Identity Theory

→ Tajfel’s theory has large explanatory power since it can be applied to real-life phenomena like behavior of teens in cliques or behavior of football fans

↳ in both examples, people belonging to a group tend to value the products of the in-group and look down upon out-groups

→ According to social identity theory, these people’s self-esteem is based on the belief that their group is superior to others

→ Social identity theory offers explanation for why discrimination occurs when there is no competition over resources

→ Social identity theory doesn’t explain individual differences:

↳ why do some people rely on social identity for building their self-esteem more than others?

→ Additional theories are needed to explain these observed differences