Video lecture Social Identity Theory
Research philosophy
• Different disciplines have different research philosophies
• Here: Problem-driven research
1. Problem: What do we want to know?
2. Theory: How does a theory explain the problem?
3. Research: Test the predictions made by the theory.
Problem-based research questions
• Problem = societal issue & a related question
• Related question= research question: judgment and value free, as specific as possible
– Descriptive question: To what extent do we observe a problem?
– Trend question: How did the problem change over time?
– Comparison question: To what extent are there differences within a problem (e.g.,
between areas or groups)?
– Explanation question (why-question): Why does this problem exist? Why did the
problem change? Why do we observe differences?
Group formation: why do we form groups, why are groups necessary?
• Categorization process is a central component of Social Identity Theory
– Evolutionary perspective: necessary to distinguish friend and enemy
– Cognitive perspective: necessary to process large amount of information
Categorization
• People actively search for information.
• People simplify processing all that information by ignoring certain differences and
emphasizing (or even exaggerating) certain similarities of that information. We stuff people
into different groups
SIT experiment 1: non-social stimuli
Tajfel: how do people deal with categories?
People have to rate non-social stimuli. 8 lines, from long to short, categorized into 2
categories A and B
What happened is people overestimated the differences between the two groups, and
underestimated the differences within each group.
> Can this be generalized to social stimuli?
SIT experiment 2: Minimal group experiment Goal: manipulate social categorization as an
independent variable
• Step 1: Generate social categorization on the basis of a trivial criterion, create new
categories; don't use existing ones and manipulate whether people do or do not belong (no
meaning)
• Step 2: Let participants give rewards to members of their own and the other group
,Conclusion minimal-group experiments
• Group formation leads to discriminatory behavior (ingroup favoritism)
• Even if groups are formed on basis of a trivial (meaningless) category
• Tajfel: “Social categorization per se is a sufficient condition for the development of
intergroup bias” (discrimination in favor of the own group)
> Self interest trumps all of these factors.
> When the grouping is NOT meaningless, the same thing happens.
SIT: four central concepts
1. Social categorization
2. Social identity
3. Social comparison
4. Psychological group distinctiveness
Social categorization
• “process of bringing together social objects or events in groups which are equivalent with
regard to an individual’s actions, intentions and system of beliefs” (Tajfel, 1981, p. 254).
• Similar to categorization of non-social stimuli:
– Use of any characteristic available
– Perceive more similarity within and more difference between categories
• Not just the basis of how we perceive the world, but also who we perceive ourselves…
Social Identity
Social identity is based on the realization that one belongs to a social category and the
positive or negative evaluation associated with this membership.
• Are divisive and exclusive (you either belong or you do not)
• Are context dependent (you identify with different groups in different situations)
• Have a cultural component: this turns a category into an identity (people associate some
normative behavior with the members of this group)
• Include a judgment of the nature of people in a certain category
> This is more than a minimal group. Social identities may thus have even more powerful
consequences in intergroup interaction!
Social comparison
• Through social comparison with other groups, people try to evaluate their group’s relative
status
• People strive for a positive social identity
– People are motivated to belong to a positively evaluated group (this can result in
making the other group out to be more negative than they really are, to ensure your own
superiority)
• They value their own group more than other groups (social identification versus contra-
identification)
Psychological group distinctiveness
• Need for belonging to a positively evaluated group but also need to be distinct from others
• People thus try to achieve a position of their group that is distinct and positive
,> Cognitive alternatives: do you believe that the position of your group can be changed?
Summary
• Social identity theory
– Helps understand positive and negative social relationships
– Explains behavior of dominant and subordinate group
– Allows clear hypothesis about group members’ behavior if they face negative social
identity
– Is broadly applicable
Video lecture Realistic Group Conflict Theory
Classical explanations of prejudice
• Early explanations of prejudice focused on personality characteristics
– Allport: the prejudiced personality is ego-alienated (cannot live with themselves),
longs for definitiveness, for safety, and authority
– Authoritarian personality
• But: “Prejudice is fundamentally a matter of relationship between racial groups.” (Blumer
1958)
Foundation of RGCT: Robbers Cave Experiment > Muzafer Sherif
• How do group conflicts develop?
• How can we solve group conflicts?
Study design:
• 22 boys (aged 12) sent to a summer camp
, • Don’t know each other
• Same social background
• Random allocation to 2 groups who are unaware of each other’s existence
• 3 phases
Maximal group experiment: great external validity due to “real life” setting
Phase 1: Group formation, friendships and group names developed.
Phase 2: Group competition, the groups were introduced to each other and competition
started
> Name calling, fights, group favoritism, etc. started.
Sherif’s conflict theory
Proves the old approaches wrong
• Randomization, same background
• Negative attitudes and behavior toward an out-group not by dysfunctional individuals, it is
not a matter of personality
• No history of group conflict necessary
• No need for a strong leader (authority) who wants to dominate others
What is needed for prejudice and conflicts to emerge?
• Social categorization
– On basis of shared characteristics
– In-group-favoritism (“we” against “them”)
• Competition over resources
– Outgroup-derogation (outgroup-homogeneity)
Phase 3: Integration
• Get-to-know activities of both groups (watch a movie, shooting firework crackers) did not
work.
Shared activities on urgent problems that affected both groups the same, and could not be
ignored.
– Fix water reservoir
– Help food delivery truck back on the road
Sherif on conflict reduction
• Conflict theory predicts when group conflicts will occur
– Group competition over scarce resources
• Conflict theory also suggests how conflicts can be solved
– Work on common (important) goal
Research philosophy
• Different disciplines have different research philosophies
• Here: Problem-driven research
1. Problem: What do we want to know?
2. Theory: How does a theory explain the problem?
3. Research: Test the predictions made by the theory.
Problem-based research questions
• Problem = societal issue & a related question
• Related question= research question: judgment and value free, as specific as possible
– Descriptive question: To what extent do we observe a problem?
– Trend question: How did the problem change over time?
– Comparison question: To what extent are there differences within a problem (e.g.,
between areas or groups)?
– Explanation question (why-question): Why does this problem exist? Why did the
problem change? Why do we observe differences?
Group formation: why do we form groups, why are groups necessary?
• Categorization process is a central component of Social Identity Theory
– Evolutionary perspective: necessary to distinguish friend and enemy
– Cognitive perspective: necessary to process large amount of information
Categorization
• People actively search for information.
• People simplify processing all that information by ignoring certain differences and
emphasizing (or even exaggerating) certain similarities of that information. We stuff people
into different groups
SIT experiment 1: non-social stimuli
Tajfel: how do people deal with categories?
People have to rate non-social stimuli. 8 lines, from long to short, categorized into 2
categories A and B
What happened is people overestimated the differences between the two groups, and
underestimated the differences within each group.
> Can this be generalized to social stimuli?
SIT experiment 2: Minimal group experiment Goal: manipulate social categorization as an
independent variable
• Step 1: Generate social categorization on the basis of a trivial criterion, create new
categories; don't use existing ones and manipulate whether people do or do not belong (no
meaning)
• Step 2: Let participants give rewards to members of their own and the other group
,Conclusion minimal-group experiments
• Group formation leads to discriminatory behavior (ingroup favoritism)
• Even if groups are formed on basis of a trivial (meaningless) category
• Tajfel: “Social categorization per se is a sufficient condition for the development of
intergroup bias” (discrimination in favor of the own group)
> Self interest trumps all of these factors.
> When the grouping is NOT meaningless, the same thing happens.
SIT: four central concepts
1. Social categorization
2. Social identity
3. Social comparison
4. Psychological group distinctiveness
Social categorization
• “process of bringing together social objects or events in groups which are equivalent with
regard to an individual’s actions, intentions and system of beliefs” (Tajfel, 1981, p. 254).
• Similar to categorization of non-social stimuli:
– Use of any characteristic available
– Perceive more similarity within and more difference between categories
• Not just the basis of how we perceive the world, but also who we perceive ourselves…
Social Identity
Social identity is based on the realization that one belongs to a social category and the
positive or negative evaluation associated with this membership.
• Are divisive and exclusive (you either belong or you do not)
• Are context dependent (you identify with different groups in different situations)
• Have a cultural component: this turns a category into an identity (people associate some
normative behavior with the members of this group)
• Include a judgment of the nature of people in a certain category
> This is more than a minimal group. Social identities may thus have even more powerful
consequences in intergroup interaction!
Social comparison
• Through social comparison with other groups, people try to evaluate their group’s relative
status
• People strive for a positive social identity
– People are motivated to belong to a positively evaluated group (this can result in
making the other group out to be more negative than they really are, to ensure your own
superiority)
• They value their own group more than other groups (social identification versus contra-
identification)
Psychological group distinctiveness
• Need for belonging to a positively evaluated group but also need to be distinct from others
• People thus try to achieve a position of their group that is distinct and positive
,> Cognitive alternatives: do you believe that the position of your group can be changed?
Summary
• Social identity theory
– Helps understand positive and negative social relationships
– Explains behavior of dominant and subordinate group
– Allows clear hypothesis about group members’ behavior if they face negative social
identity
– Is broadly applicable
Video lecture Realistic Group Conflict Theory
Classical explanations of prejudice
• Early explanations of prejudice focused on personality characteristics
– Allport: the prejudiced personality is ego-alienated (cannot live with themselves),
longs for definitiveness, for safety, and authority
– Authoritarian personality
• But: “Prejudice is fundamentally a matter of relationship between racial groups.” (Blumer
1958)
Foundation of RGCT: Robbers Cave Experiment > Muzafer Sherif
• How do group conflicts develop?
• How can we solve group conflicts?
Study design:
• 22 boys (aged 12) sent to a summer camp
, • Don’t know each other
• Same social background
• Random allocation to 2 groups who are unaware of each other’s existence
• 3 phases
Maximal group experiment: great external validity due to “real life” setting
Phase 1: Group formation, friendships and group names developed.
Phase 2: Group competition, the groups were introduced to each other and competition
started
> Name calling, fights, group favoritism, etc. started.
Sherif’s conflict theory
Proves the old approaches wrong
• Randomization, same background
• Negative attitudes and behavior toward an out-group not by dysfunctional individuals, it is
not a matter of personality
• No history of group conflict necessary
• No need for a strong leader (authority) who wants to dominate others
What is needed for prejudice and conflicts to emerge?
• Social categorization
– On basis of shared characteristics
– In-group-favoritism (“we” against “them”)
• Competition over resources
– Outgroup-derogation (outgroup-homogeneity)
Phase 3: Integration
• Get-to-know activities of both groups (watch a movie, shooting firework crackers) did not
work.
Shared activities on urgent problems that affected both groups the same, and could not be
ignored.
– Fix water reservoir
– Help food delivery truck back on the road
Sherif on conflict reduction
• Conflict theory predicts when group conflicts will occur
– Group competition over scarce resources
• Conflict theory also suggests how conflicts can be solved
– Work on common (important) goal
