Social identity theory

• Social identity

  Tajfel and turner (1979,1986)
• Social identity theory

  Tajfel and turner (1979,1986)

  The view that your behaviour (e.g discrimination) is motivated by your social identity 
• A persons self image has two components

  1. Personal identity - based on your characteristics and achievements 
  2. Social identity is determined by the various groups of people to which you belong - your ‘in group’
• • Personal identity
  • based on your characteristics and achievements 
• • Social identity 
  • is determined by the various groups of people to which you belong - your ‘in group’
• We seek to have our in group valued positively relative to other groups. This makes us feel more confident.
• The simple act of being grouped will inevitably lead to prejudice against another groups.
• Tajfel and turner classified groups as in groups or outrgroups 
• There are three stages to social identity theory 

  1. Social categorisation - categorisation is a process of identifying a characteristic people in the the in group have in common enough creating distance with outgroup
  2. Social identification - beliefs values and attitudes of people in this group will be adopted by members and behaviours may alter to fit into the groups and norms of group.
  3. Social comparison - self esteem is raised by comparing attributes to the out-group which can involve exaggeration of their own groups ability’s and success’s 
• • Social categorisation
  • categorisation is a process of identifying a characteristic that people in the the in group have in common enough to bring distance between us and them
• • Social identification
  • beliefs values and attitudes of people in this group will be adopted by members and behaviours may alter to fit into the groups and norms of group. This can include internalisation shift in self concept and a new social identity is formed, social comparison may follow after 
• • Social comparison
  • self esteem is raised by comparing attributes to the out-group which can involve exaggeration of their own groups ability’s and success’s 
• A affective: feelings of hostility and hatred
• B behavioural discrimination 

  I terms of prejudice, discrimination can be displayed as avoidance, assault, joke making or actively excluding and individual from things they are entitled to
• C cognitive stereotypes

  Social perception of an individual based on their group membership or physical attributes 

  • overgeneralised belief based on limited information 
• To reduce prejudice:

  • give teams a subordinate goal
• Tajfel and turner suggest that the benefit of making a negative comparison gains outgrouop are;

  • feeling better, superior
  • Raised self esteem
• Tajfel and Turner (1979, 1986) suggested that behaviour eg, discrimination is motivated by your social identity and they classified groups as in-groups or out-groups.
• We define ourselves in terms of our in-group membership and seek to have our group valued positively relative to other groups. Social Identity Theory explains behaviour, e.g. prejudice, as a result of in-groups to which they belong and out-groups to which others belong.

   
• The first stage is Social Categorisation which is an automatic sorting procedure where we subconsciously decide which group we belong to.The mere existence of in and out groups is enough for prejudice to be seen.

   
• Secondly, Social Identification occurs, where the individual adopts the beliefs, values and attitudes of their ‘in-group’ and behaves in accordance with the norms and values of a group. This means that who the group deems as acceptable or unacceptable will be treated differently, leading to prejudice being held towards groups in society  
• Finally social Comparison occurs when the person subjectively perceives the in-group as better than the out-group. Self-esteem is boosted by making subjective comparisons with out-groups.

  Social Identity theory therefore explains how this lead to altered feelings such as hatred of the out-group, changes in behaviour showing discrimination against out groups and altered cognition or thinking which may result in negative stereotypes about the out-group due to prejudice caused in the social comparison stage of SIT.
• supporting research from Tajfel who worked with 14-15 year-old Bristol boys who were shown several paintings by two artists, asked to say which they preferred.  Boys were falsely told by the researchers which boys had also chosen Same artist and those who didn’t, creating in- and out-groups.Later boys were asked to allocate points to other boys, which would be exchanged for cash. Tajfel found more points were awarded to boys in same in-group at 9/14 points than in out-group. when asked to allocate points to 2 boys in their in-group points were split fairly evenly between boys at 7.5.
• However there is some refuting research from Margaret Wetherell who recreated Tajfel’s study with 8 year old Polynesian children. She found that indigenous Polynesian children were significantly more generous in their allocation of points to outgroup members who belong to minority groups.

   
• Ralph Minard (1952) noticed that the difference in relations between black and white coal miners in the US. Below ground (when individuals identified as being a miner) they were friendly and worked well together, whereas above ground (where they identified with their white and black social groups) they held negative views towards each other.
• However, an alternative theory of SIT is Realistic Conflict Theory (RCT), which suggests that when groups are competing for a limited resource, and the zero-sum situation is put in action( meaning each group believes that the success of others will be at their expense).Then prejudice occurs will occur between groups. 
• Jane Elliot"s (1968)Blue-eye/Brown- eye study they separated primary school class in 2 groups based on eye colour. were told blue eyes meant you were smarter, quicker, and more successful whereas brown eyes meant you were lazy, untruthful, and stupid. Blue-eyed children were given privileges rather than other group. few days later roles were reversed. results showed blue eyed children became bossy, arrogant, and smarter + showed discriminatory behaviour towards brown eyes. Brown eyes became timid, submissive and performed less well academically. same thing happened when roles were reversed. 
• However, this research collected its findings using a sample from primary school children, who at age, are more impressionable and likely to engage in grouped behaviour rather than express individualism. They will favour things that will give immediate gratification to guide their actions, without having cognition to think about their actions with effective empathy.