Deductive hypotheses
General approach: we use previously developed theories to derive predictions for a concrete
situation (why-questions: why is something happening).
Deductive-nomological model:
1. Start with a law or general composition (theory): something (t) leads to
something else (y), t → y. Real competition leads to perceived competition
leads to prejudice
2. Applying the law to a specific condition: x is part of t. We expect the general theory
to apply to this specific situation
3. Explanandum: x was part of t, so x must lead to y. We call this a derived hypothesis.
Syllogism: you draw a conclusion based on an explanans (step 1 and 2) and an
explanandum
Social identity theory
Background information / origins of the theory
People constantly categorize the social world around
them into subgroups (subconsciously). People do this as a way to understand information to
process what is going on. People will simplify the information by ignoring differences and
emphasizing similarities (or the other way around, depending on the information you are
seeking).
- Evolutionary perspective: we do this to distinguish between friend and enemy. You
have to quickly decide if people are a danger to you or not.
, - Cognitive perspective: we do this to comprehend the world around us. It is too
complex to understand every detail, so we tend to simplify and categorize to make
sense of the things we see.
Tjafel (inspired by intergroup conflict when there are no rational reasons to do so)
researched how people deal with categories of non-social stimuli. People had to estimate the
lengths of different lines. Then they had to do the same task, but now the lines were
attached to a certain group. When the lines were attached to a group, people estimated
bigger differences in length than without the categorization, while people underestimated the
differences within the group.
CONCLUSION: The way we use information about categorization affects our judgement of
the nature of the stimuli we look at.
For social stimuli, this relationship is even more complicated because we always take our
own group into consideration when making comparisons. This was researched in minimal
group experiments: experiments on social cognitive processes where belonging to social
categories is limited. He does this by creating groups that did not exist before, and making
people believe they belong to a certain group he created. In the experiment he had the
participants divide money between the two groups he had assigned people to before.
Potential strategies to divide the money were:
- Fairness: both get the same amount
- Maximum joint profit: maximum payoff for both
- Maximum ingroup profit
- Maximum difference: in favour of the in-group
When people had to divide the money between the in-group and the out-group, most people
chose for maximum difference in favor of the in-group. They favoured their ingroup in a way
in which they can also harm the outgroup.
CONCLUSION: Simply categorizing people into different groups is enough to lead to
discriminatory behaviours (mere categorization effect). Social categorization is a sufficient
condition for the development of intergroup bias.
Social identity theory: explained
In social situations, people think of themselves and others as group members instead of
unique individuals. This social identity underlies intergroup behaviour and perceptions.
The social identity theory has four central concepts:
1. Social categorization: the process through which people are placed into a group.
We categorize people based on their characteristics that they have, the way they act,
or the assumptions that we hold. We make use of the characteristics that are
available to us, and are more likely to perceive similarities within and differences
between categories.
- As soon as we put someone into a group we assume that everyone within this
group is similar or even the same, while disregarding individual differences of
the individuals within this group.
- We also do social categorization to ourselves. We place ourselves within a
certain group or category. This leads to a social identity.
2. Social identity: The realization that one belongs to a social category (and does not
belong to other categories) and the positive or negative evaluation associated with
this membership OR “that part of an individual's self-concept which derives from his
, membership of a social group, together with the emotional significance attached to
that membership”.
- Social identities are divisive and exclusive: you either belong or you don’t.
- Social identities are context dependent: you identify with different groups in
different situations.
- Social identities have a cultural component: behaviours and values and
normative expectations attached to the category you belong to. Because you
belong to a certain category you are expected to behave a certain way.
- Social identities include a judgement of the nature of people in a certain
category.
A social identity is stronger than a minimal group. It is not just belonging to a certain
group but also identifying with the characteristics, and seeing the group membership
as part of your social identity. Social identities may this have even more powerful
consequences in intergroup interaction
3. Social comparison: The process through which characteristic group features are
interpet and valued. Through social comparison with other groups, people try to
evaluate their group’s relative status and (positively) distinguish their group from
other groups.
- You do this to feel good about yourself, to strive for a positive social identity.
This means that people are motivated to belong to a positively evaluated
group. When we compare the two groups we try to come out more positive
and feel better about ourselves. This is done in two ways:
- Social identification: ascribing positive characteristics to your own
group or members of your own group
- Contra-identification: ascribing more negative characteristics to
groups that we don’t belong to
4. Psychological group distinctiveness: People actively define social reality and their
own position within this reality. On the one hand, people want to belong to a
positively evaluated group, but on the other hand, people have the need to be distinct
from others. You are looking for a positive social identity that is also distinct from
others.
- If you have found an adequate social identity, so you are happy about the
group comparison, you will attempt to maintain or extend your superiority
- If you have not found an adequate social identity you will try to change your
social identity. There are different strategies to adopt, either through cognitive
alternatives (group strategy) or an individual strategy.
For SIT, the socio-structural characteristics are also important.The way people respond to
their group's circumstances depend on the perceived prevailing social structure.
- Permeability: the subjective belief that it is possible for individuals to act as
independent agents within a given social system. If people feel like group boundaries
are permeable they will be more inclined to pursue individual mobility as an attractive
and viable strategy. On the other hand, if boundaries are seen as impermeable,
individuals are likely to feel more bound to their group, and pursue group strategies.
- Stability: some differences between groups are seen as fluid and as subject to
change, while other differences tend to be regarded as more enduring and stable
over time. To the extent that status differences are thought to be stable, individuals
, with a devalued social identity are less likely to pursue strategies of social change
and instead will be inclined to pursue a strategy of individual mobility.
- Legitimacy: moral convictions that determine the motivation to change. When people
feel that the status-defining features of their group are invalid, or when higher value is
ascribed to other characteristics than they deem fair, the group is more likely to seek
change than when they feel that the group position is fair and legitimate.
Individual strategies are developed when someone feels like the situation of the group
position is stable or legitimized. Individual strategies are meant to feel better about the self,
not benefit the standing of the whole group.
- Social mobility: You try to leave the group
you are in now and to enter a better group
with more positive evaluations. You can also
deny being a member of a lower status
group.
- Intra-group comparison: feeling better about
yourself by comparing yourself to another in-
group member who is worse off /
emphasizing how you are different from other
group members
When someone does feel like the situation your
group is in is not stable or legitimized you do want to
take action to improve the position of the whole
group. There are several group strategies:
- Absorption: being absorbed into the majority. You are first a discriminated group but
slowly become part of the majority group.
- Redefine the characteristics where your group is negatively portrayed by. For
instance “black is beautiful”.
- Creativity: making up a new dimension where the comparison takes place. For
instance when a group scores low on education and performance, this group would
want to be compared to other grounds, like openness or creativity. You can also
include new groups into the comparison or change the meaning of low-status group
membership
- Challenge: really challenge the majority group and go in direct competition with them
to change the system. Collective action is needed to achieve change.
How can you leave an ethnic group?
There is a difference between a self-ascribed social identity and an ascribed social identity.
Self-ascribed means seeing yourself as a member of a certain group, and ascribed is when
others perceive you to be a member of a certain group. The classification then happens
through others instead of yourself.
- There is sometimes a mismatch between self-ascribed and ascribed ethnicity. This
most often happens when the person has mixed parents (so parents who identify to
different ethnic groups).
