social identity theory

• Social Identity Theory

  Social Categorisation, Social Identity, Social Comparison, Positive Distinction
• Social Categorisation

  Divide the world into in-groups and out-groups. Perceived variability reduced within in-groups. Perceived variability reduced within out-groups. Increased perceived variability between both groups
• Social Identity

  Part of our self-concept is based off our membership in our social groups. People have many social identities reflecting the groups they are within. Behaviour displayed depends on whatever social identity is more relevant at a given time.
• Social Comparison

  Constantly comparing one's in-group to relevant out-groups. Fueled by a need for positive distinction. Making ones group appear superior to the out-group to boost self-esteem.
• Positive Distinction

  The motivation to show that ones group is preferable to an out-group.
• Strengths of SIT

  Reducing prejudices, Organisational behaviour, Political and social movements, Provides an explanation for why discrimination occurs
• Weaknesses of SIT

  Choice in aquiring identities vs assigned, Subjective meaning of identities, Stability of identities overtime, Demand characteristics
• Minimal Group Paradigm

  The idea that the act of splitting people into groups is enough to create conflict
• How is the minimal group paradigm evidence for SIT

  Social categorisation: Splitting into separate groups (Klee and Kandinsky)

  Social Identity: Klee/ Kandinsky fan

  Social Comparison: Allocation of points

  Positive Distinction: System 1 - minimum points to out-group, maximum to out-group. System 2 - Maximising the difference between in-group and out-group in favour of the in-group
• Aim (Tajfel)

  To investigate if in-group discrimination would take place based on being put into different groups
• Procedure (Tajfel)

  A sample of 48 boys were asked to rate 12 paintings by Klee and Kandinsky but weren't aware of which painter painted which. The boys were then randomly allocated to one of two groups based on who they preferred. The boys were then asked to allocate points to two boys, one from the in-group and one from the out-group based off two point systems.
• Findings (Tajfel)

  In the first point system, the boys generally allocated more points to the members of their in-group showing favourtism. In the second point system the boys were willing to give their own team fewer points in order to maximise the difference in points between the in-group and out-group.
• Aim (Schaller)

  The mere categorisation of people into social groups spontaneously biases the manner through which group-relevant information is perceived and processed.
• Procedure (Schaller)

  141 psychology students were randomly assigned to be members of a group, either group A or group B or a control group with no categorisation. They were told Group A had the Majority and group B had the minority. They were then given a booklet with a series of positive and negative statements about people in the other group They were given a list of traits and asked to rank each group on a 10 point scale.
• Findings (Schaller)

  the control group perceived an illusory group-behaviour correlation conveying the cognitive bias to associate the minority group with distinctive behaviours. Participants within the groups favoured their in-group members which suggests that a categorisation-based in-group favourtism guided the manner in which the information was processed.
• Conclusion (Schaller)

  Social categorisation spontaneously instigates specific cognitive mechanisms that contribute to group stereotype formation.