Social Identity theory

• The political animal (ARISTOTLE)

  being in a grp is imp, gain help from political rs. this idea has an evolutionary perspective.

  isolation = death, lose advs, dont pass genes on

  grps = survival, passing on social genes
• ADMIRAL RICHARD BIRD (1930s)

  isolated in a research base in Antarctica

  3 psychological stages:

  • loneliness
  • spiritual feeling, connected w nature
  • hallucinations (auditory)
• Dimensions of grps

  grps will vary:

  • numbers e.g. family, sex
  • longevity e.g. jury, religion
  • concentration e.g. flight crew, wrld leaders
  • structure e.g. army, shoppers
  • purpose e.g. assembly line, teenage gang
  • autocracy/democracy (organisation)

  identifying these help make studies that focus on one type
• definitions

  broad categories of grps

  • common bond grps - see eo regularly e.g. family
  • common identity grps - psychologically think of ourselves as a member wo regular meeting e.g. nations
  • social aggregate - grps we dont necessarily think abt e.g. those w hazel eyes
  • entitativity - extent to which a grp is seen as distinct, coherent and bounded entity. can be low or high

  grps have boundaries, can be clear or unclear
• grp cohesiveness

  a powerful, emotional sense of exp while in a grp.

  very imp to us :

  • solidarity, team spirit
  • uniformity of conduct and mutual support
  • may be the 'essences' of 'groupness'
  • based in a social attraction, liking based on shared grp membership and the other persons proto-typicallity (how strongly someone conforms to being a grp member) within the grp
• research example: grp cohesiveness

  BOYD, KIM, ENSARI & YIN (2014)

  demonstrate rs btwn motivational climate and cohesion within sports team

  contrasts task inv, climate w ego inv. climate in bball and ftball teams

  task = atmosphere of effort and personal improv., all members matter and learn from mistakes

  ego = most skilled celebrate, mistakes socially punished, inter-personal rivalry thrives

  found that task inv climate promotes cohesion
• grp socialisation

  diff ways of thinking abt grps opens diff ways of researching them

  grps r dynamic over time, change as ppl leave and join -. which leaves their impressions on the grp and vice-versa

  stages:

  • investigation
  • socialisation
  • maintenances (negotiation)
  • resocialisation (change or rejected)
  • remembrance (leaving)
• research example: grp socialisation

  LAUGER (2014)

  looked at street socialisation

  drug gangs in US

  interviewed and observed gangs/former members

  identified aspects of gang micro-culture with its own norms of conduct

  stories taught new members conducts of being a member

  explains socialisation stage
• research example: grp socialistation 2

  DECKER, PYROOZ & MOULE (2014)

  looked at leaving a gang

  drug gangs in the US

  mixture of surveys and interviews

  RESULTS -> leaving occurred in stages, no. of stages and time depended on the ind lvl of embeddedness in the gang

  inc:

  • first douts
  • considering alt. lifestyle
  • turning points e.g. concerns for family
  • validation after leaving
• normatives

  shared beliefs abt appropriate conduct for grp members

  relate to beh, can also relate belief, values and goals

  defines grp membership and differentiate btwn grps

  co-ordinate grp actions toward grp goals

  violation of grp norm can provoke sanctions and potentially ostracism

  norms are imp for grps to function
• research example: norms

  MCNEILL, KERR & MAVOR (2013)

  study on norms of med students in australia

  suffer from stress, mental disease, drug abuse and burnout -> contributed to by a work hard, play hard micro-cult.

  norms = work hard, party hard and being strong (not seeking help)

  results = identifying as med student had beneficial effect on well being, prob due to social support. students who identified strongly w being strong had reduced well being. students who identified w party hard had mixed findings. partying a source of social support
• status within grps


  high status members have:

  • consensual prestige (rest of grp agrees)
  • tendency to contribute ideas (obligation and inf.)

  status inf by context

  often, status is institutionalised over time

  factors tht contribute to high status -> assertiveness, high grp orientation, specific status char (specific to grp goal), diffuse status char (e.g. white, male, well educated)
• marginal members

  dont fufill norms of grp

  disliked by grp, often more than outgrp

  'black sheep effect' e.g. traitors

  vilification of marginal can increase grp cohesion

  binds other mem closer based on shared dislike

  ingrp criticism = taken more srsly

  marginal members can be imp agents of change
• research example: marginal members

  ABRAMS, PALMER & RUTLAND (2014)

  children and their reaction to 'disloyalty'

  btwn 5-12 yo. responded to norm or non-norm in grp beh.

  norm - going to fair

  non norm - staying at home

  non-norm seen as strange

  =<6 -> unconcerned

  =>8 -> saw it negatively and expected friends to think the same
• intergrp beh

  study of intergrp beh involves processes of categorisation -> categorising ppl, simplifies social world, can assume things abt each person

  SHIFTING FROM PERSONAL ID TO SOCIAL ID

  personal id = idiosyncratic aspects of self

  self-categorisation = in-grps and out-grps

  social id frames are dynamic. they are salient. shift can be very powerful, opens up all types of norms. intergrp change constantly
• early theories of intergrp beh

  Frustration-aggression hypothesis (DOLLARD, 1930s)

  Realistic conflict theory (SHERIF, 1966) - Mutually exclusive goals

  Game theory - e.g. commons dilemma

  Minimal grps study (TAJFEL, 1971)
• Frustration-aggression hypothesis (DOLLARD, 1930s)

  theory attempts to explain unpleasant effect of intergrp conflict.

  white men kidnapped black men to lynch them. said we face difficulties that create and build frustration. achieving life goal rids this stress. if we dont, we become aggressive to rid of it. bad hypothesis, doesnt explain why the vice versa wasnt happening.
• Realistic conflict theory (SHERIF, 1966) - Mutually exclusive goals

  study with 12 yo boys.

  formed grps - eagles and rattlers, each had own social norms

  competed for rewards

  attacked eo

  peace was promoted w cooperative tasks

  became allies with a common goal

  reframed nature of social identity grp for the boys.
• Game theory e.g. commons dilemma

  provides excellent ctrl of variables but poor ecological validity

  cow, common land, £1, place one or two cows. 20 players. 30 cows per turn, if more, game ends. if you tell players they share an identity, less likely to play selfishly.
• Minimal grps study (TAJFEL, 1971)

  reduce grps to minimum, then add components till intrgrp bias appears

  arbitrary grps e.g. painting preferred

  pattern = fairness or maximising intrgrp difference. removal of fairness -> all ppt chose max diff.

  no matter the grp, ppl aim to make their grp superior. creates a distinction and hierarchy
• Self categorisation

  self = personal id + numerous social ids, that will be salient depending on context and chronic accessibility

  we self categorise then through process of depersonalisation, we act in accordance with the grp prototype

  ID categories fall into hierarchies. basis for them can change, altering order
• advantage of social identification

  we do this to boost our self esteem when our grp is higher up on the hierarchy.

  1. SELF-ENHANCEMENT = main emphasis of Tajfel's original formulation. mixed support, low self esteem doesnt motivate intrgrp differentiation
  2. UNCERTAINTY REDUCTION = associates self categorisation and social categorisation with general human categorisation processes
• strategy for improving social id

  social id arranged in status hierarchy, inf their impact on self esteem

  permeable intrgrp boundaries lead to ind social mobility

  fixed boundaries lead to social creativity or social competition. choice of which to adopt is dependent on two factors: legitimacy and stability of the social hierarchy
• social creativity

  if hierarchy of grps viewed as legitimate, stable or both, then either

  1. seek new dimensions of comparison
  2. redefine value of existing dimensions
  3. compare w different outgrp
• social competition

  if hierarchy viewed as neither, competition occurs where low status grps seek to change hierarchy through political action, protest, revolution, war etc.