Social Identity Theory

1
Social Identity Theory

• The minimal group paradigm

2
Outline

• Relative deprivation
• Realistic conflict theory
• MGP experiments
• Social Identity Theory (SIT)
• Self-Categorisation Theory (SCT)
• Minority Groups

3
Relative Deprivation Stouffer et al 1949

• Military Police
• Low status
• Poor promotion prospects
• Satisfied
• No actual/desired or self/other gap
• No deprivation

• Air Corps
• High status
• Good promotion prospects
• Dissatisfied
• actual/desired or self/other gap
• Deprivation

4
Relative Deprivation

• Relative vs. absolute (Gurr)
• RD when an individual feels entitled to a certain
  amount of goods but which they are not able to
  obtain
• They must believe that it is possibe to obtain
  them (Runciman)

5
Runciman (1966)

• egoistic individuals sense of deprivation
  relative to other individuals
• ? individual dissatisfaction
• fraternalistic sense of deprivation for groups
  to which one belongs compared to other groups.
• ? collective dissatisfaction
• This is the type of RD that is associated with
  social unrest

6
Deprivation/Gratification Matrix
7
Unresolved issues

• Choice of referent/standard of comparison?
• which groups/ individuals are the focus of
  comparison when assessing whether or not you are
  deprived?
• Inadequate measures conceptualisation
• Magnitude
• Intensity
• Temporal dimension
• Legitimacy?
• Correlational rather than causal relationship
  with collective action

8
Intergroup Approaches to Prejudice

• Intergroup behaviour
• whenever individuals belonging to one group
  interact, collectively or individually, with
  another group or its members in terms of their
  group identifications Sherif 1962
• Prejudice is not a personality characteristic,
  but a product of the intergroup context
• Realistic Conflict Theory
• When groups compete for scare resources, conflict
  and ethnocentrism arise

9
Robbers Cave Experiments ( Sherif 1951,1953)

• Initial phase
• general camp activities, friendships established
• Phase 1 Creation of 2 groups
• -gt ingroup norms and hierarchies,
• (some intergroup hostility)
• Phase 2 Introduction of tournament
• -gtStrong competition, hostility, stereotyping
• Phase 3 (1966) Superordinate goals.
• Tasks which were desirable for both groups but
  which could not be achieved unless they combined
  their efforts
• -gt reduced hostility, some cross-group friendships

10
Conclusions

• Mutually exclusive goals produce conflict
• Shared goals requiring interdependence and
  cooperation reduce conflict and promote harmony
• Conflict is clearly sufficient - but is it
  necessary ?

11
Minimal Group Paradigm

• Experimental Criteria
• trivial/meaningless basis for categorisation
• no history or future
• no interaction with ingroup or outgroup members
• complete anonymity of ingroup/outgroup members
• no self interest
• E.g. artist preference, dot estimation

12
Possible strategies

• Fairness
• equal distribution between groups
• Maximum joint profit
• highest amount of points for both groups together
  
• Maximum ingroup profit
• most points possible for ingroup
• Maximum difference
• greatest difference in points allocated to
  ingroup outgroup
• tended to adopt a combination of last two
  favouritism

13
Example matrices

• These numbers are rewards for
• Member no. 74 of the Klee group (top row)
• Member no. 44 of the Kandinsky group
• Maximum ingroup favouritism141
• Maximum fairness78 or 87
• Maximum generosity to outgroup 141

14
Another example

• These numbers are rewards for
• Member no. 12 of the Klee group (top row)
• Member no. 50 of the Kandinsky group
• Maximum joint profit1925
• Maximum difference favouring ingroup 71

15
Explanations

• Intergroup discrimination can be produced by mere
  categorisation in the absence of any prior
  knowledge of, contact, or conflict with the other
  group
• Demand Characteristics? St Clair Turner 1982
• Assumed similarity? Tajfel Billig 1973
• BUT positive-negative assymetry (Mummendey et al)

16
But

• Demand Characteristics? St Clair Turner 1982
• Assumed similarity? Tajfel Billig 1973
• Subjective uncertainty? Hogg
• Positive-negative asymmetry (Mummendey et al)

17
SIT

• Personal and social identity are fundamentally
  distinct aspects of a person's self-concept
• Personal identity perception of self a unique
  individual
• Social identity " that part of an individuals
  self-concept which derives from his knowledge of
  his membership of a social group (or groups)
  together with the value and emotional
  significance attached to that membership"
  Tajfel, 1978
• Context determines
• whether personal or social identity
• which social identity

18
SIT How it works

• we divide the world into social categories and
  define ourselves in terms of our social identity
• social categorisation accentuates similarities
  within and differences between groups
• (Especially when the category has importance,
  relevance or value)

19
Tajfel Wilkes, 1963

• 3 conditions
• Randomly labeled A or B
• Short lines labeled A, long lines labeled B
• No labels
• In condition 2, Ps thought lines A were shorter
  and B longer than in other conditions
• Appear to use labels to help judgment

20
How it works

• people are motivated to achieve positive social
  identity
• this is achieved by making social comparisons
  between groups
• in making these comparisons we are motivated to
  seek out positively valued distinctions between
  groups
• intergroup differentiation/discrimination
• ingroup bias outgroup derogation
• each group seeks to view itself as somehow better
  than other groups
• -gt a state of "social competition"

21
In other words

• People are therefore motivated to establish
  positively valued differences between ingroup and
  outgroup, in order to achieve a positive social
  identity
• Group members will compete in the absence of any
  rational reason (on whatever dimension is
  available) simply because their self-esteem is
  linked to the position of their group

22
Self-Categorisation Theory

• Personal and social identity represent different
  levels of self-categorisation
• Moving from personal to social
  depersonalisation
• At social level
• see self/others in terms of shared ingroup traits
• self-stereotype
• adhere to group norms

23
Accessibility Fit

• Category within a given context selected on basis
  of
• a) accessibility 'readiness' of person to use
  that category
• b) fit
• i) comparative/structural fit
• Metacontrast principle
• ' a group of stimuli are more likely to be
  categorized as an entity to the degree that the
  differences within the group are smaller than the
  differences between that group and other stimuli'
  Turner 1991 p156
• ii) normative fit
• is the content of the category appropriate?