1. Social Identity Theory
In-groups & Out-groups

2. LO #7: Evaluate Social Identity Theory, making reference to relevant research studies. (ESSAY)

3. Social Identity Theory (Tajfel, 1970s)
Based on the assumption that individuals strive to improve their self-image by trying to enhance their self-esteem based on: 1.personal identity (from personal achievement) and/or 2. social identity ( affiliation with successful groups) SIT is focused on #2.

4. 3 Steps in SIT: 1. Identification with a group
Groups that hold higher value tend to:
Help us meet our goals
Hold traits and attitudes that match up with individual’s
Satisfy basic needs
Have positive stereotypes
Have high status
Be ones we freely choose
Be higher in authoritarianism and ethnocentrism

5. 2. Social Comparison: the process of comparing one’s own social group with others. We tend to exaggerate the similarities of those in the same group (“in-groups”) and exaggerate the differences between those in different groups (“out-groups”).

6. 3. Positive Self-esteem: comes from being a member of the group
3. Positive Self-esteem: comes from being a member of the group. (self-esteem is seen as a basic motivation for humans) If a group does not compare favorably with others we may seek to leave the group or distance ourselves from it. However if leaving the group is impossible then people may adopt strategies such as comparing their own group to a group of a lower status.

7. Multidimensional Identification
There are several aspects to identity:
Attraction to the group
Interdependency (group’s fate is one’s own fate)
Depersonalization (members are interchangeable)
Intergroup context (seeing group ID as distinct from other groups)

8. Optimal Distinctiveness Theory
People strive to identify with groups that meet two conflicting needs: inclusiveness and individuality. If a group helps us maintain this balance we are more likely to identify with the group.

9. Group Identification
Situations that make us more likely to strongly identify with are:
Being in the minority (especially gender and racial minorities)

10. In-group Bias
Conflict with an out-group may lead to stronger in-group bias, and more prevalent use of negative stereotypes to define out-groups
On the other hand…
When people feel secure in their attachment and identification with the in-group, out-group derogation may be less likely. (attachment can even be created through use of words like closeness, hug and support.)

11. Scapegoat Theory
Frustration is a major cause of aggression. When aggression toward the direct cause is not possible, a scapegoat becomes the target of hostility.
Therefore…hostility toward out-groups may increase because of the frustration from external threat or hard economic times. In fact, economic hard times tend to correlate with violence. Ex. Deep South lynchings more common during the Depression.

12. In-Groups and Memory
Subjects in studies tend to be better able to recognize negative items for the out-group than for the in-group. (Harvard’s Project Implicit racism test)
Stereotype consistent behavior is recalled better for out-groups and stereotype inconsistent behavior is recalled better for in-groups.

13. In-Groups and Memory (cont.)
We are also especially prone to recall negative behaviors that have dispositional explanations and positive behaviors that are situationally caused for out-groups.

14. Perception of Out-Groups
We tend to assume members of out-groups do not share our basic attitudes and values. While in many cases, this may be true, we tend to exaggerate differences.

15. Black Sheep Effect
Unlikeable members of one’s own group are evaluated more negatively than unlikeable members of the out-group.
Similarly, in-group members who perform especially well or who are quite likeable would be evaluated more positively than similar out-group members.

16. A result of social categorization: Ethnocentrism
The tendency to measure the appropriateness of behavior in terms of one’s own cultural standards and to derogate the behavior of other groups precisely because they are not those of the in-group.
Abundant research supports the idea that ethnocentrism is universal across cultures and that it increases during times of group conflict.

17. Biological Basis?
In the early 1900s, Social Darwinism was popular, hence it was believed that there was an evolutionary basis for in-group bias and out-group derogation. By the 1930s, though, this theory went out of favor as it was considered dangerous and promoted racism.
Other problems with this theory were proving that a genetic link existed and the fact that other animals do not exhibit the same type of ethnocentric behavior.

18. Still, the line of thinking that all animal species have a genetic predisposition to favor closely related individuals and be hostile toward outsiders serves a useful function.

19. Studies that support SIT
Cialdini et al. (1976)- college football supporters are more likely to wear college clothing after a win rather than a defeat. (positive distinctiveness)
Tajfel et al. (1971)- boys randomly assigned to groups based on their interest in an artist will identify with those boys, and were willing to give higher awards to members of their own group. The other group was rated as less likeable.
Muzafer & Sherif et al (1954) - Robber’s Cave Experiment

20. Strategies for Decreasing In-Group Bias
Reclassifying former competing groups as one larger group reduces in-group bias because the former out-group members are seen in more positive terms.
Problems with this strategy are:
1. that it may not reduce the amount of violence or discrimination but merely redirect it.
2. Dissolving boundaries between rival groups can be threatening and negative feelings built up over time cannot easily be erased.

21. Strengths of SIT
Helps us understand behaviors like ethnocentrism, ingroup favoritism, conformity, stereotyping.
Assumes that intergroup conflict is not required for discrimination to occur (this has been supported by research).

22. Limitations to SIT
1.Does not accurately predict human behavior because in some cases our personal identity is stronger than our group identity and research criticized for artificiality.
2. Fails to address the environment, which is reductionist (focusing on behavior in isolation). Culture, rewards, social constraints (poverty) can play a greater role than simply a sense of in-group identity.