Social Identity Theory

• what do we do in social identity theory?

  we socially compare people by putting them into categories
• what is social categorisation?

  comparing an assigning people into groups to help us understand the social environment
• what is the in group?

  groups we have a 'membership' to
• what is an out group?

  other groups that exist that we aren't apart of
• what is our personal identity?

  consists of our unique qualities, personality and our characteristics
• what is our social identity?

  groups that we are members by what we distinguish ourselves to be
• how can we achieve a positive personal identity?

  raise our self esteem
• why do we socially compare?

  to raise other positive attributes of our in-group so that we have a positive social identity - that raises our personal identity and therefore our self-esteem
• how do we socially compare?

  in-group favouritism and negative out-group bias
• what is in-group favouritism?

  tendency for the group members to see individuals in their groups as unique and different
• what does in group favouritism create?

  in-group heterogeneity
• what is negative out-group bias?

  tendency to view members of other groups as all the same
• what does negative out-group bias create?

  out-group homogeneity bias and unfavourable light
• what evidence supports this theory?

  minimal group paradigm experiments (Tajfel et al 1971)
• what is an example of in group favouritism?

  "roller-skating is better than rollerblades therefore they are better at skating"
• what is an example of negative out-group bias?

  all Liverpool fans are stupid
• what did Tajfel do?

  1. tested 64 boys from a school in Bristol
  2. asked to estimate number of dots flashed up on a screen
  3. gathered results
  4. told the boys if they under or over estimated (random) no reflection to their result
  5. then asked them to give a price out to a different subject in a matrices book
  6. they favoured their group by picking higher number of rewards for their in group
• what were the boys told that the study was about?

  different sorts of judgements
• what was the problems with Tajfel et al?

  1. lacks ecological validity - lab experiment
  2. not a real life scenario
  3. demand characteristics - more likely to interpret as a competition and respond in a manner that expected that
• what was good about the Tajfel et al?

  1. good reliability as it can be replicated
  2. the controls were all the same for the boys experiments
• what was the application of this theory?

  if we stop categorising people then it will reduce prejudice and competition
• what is the solution to the application being difficult?

  realistic conflict theory suggests that we introduce superordinate goals instead
• what is a strength of this theory?

  some people have high self esteem and therefore less likely to show negative out-group bias - less prejudice
• what is a shortcoming for this theory?

  it ignores the role of nature and where the threats that were posed by evolutionary ancestors that were different from our own.
• what is the alternate theory for the theory?

  realistic conflict theory is better at explaining prejudice when there is competition for limited resources
• what is another alternate theory?

  social identity is better at explaining prejudice when no competition eg straight and gay males (for females)
• what is the conclusion for the alternate theory?

  both theories may be reductionist - ignore factors