1 / 40

Learning outcome

Learning outcome. Evaluate social identity, making reference to relevant studies. What contributes to self Esteem?. Personal accomplishments or group identity ?. Application of terms.

adelle
Download Presentation

Learning outcome

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Learning outcome • Evaluate social identity, making reference to relevant studies.

  2. What contributes to self Esteem? Personal accomplishments or group identity ?

  3. Application of terms • Do you think that dispositional and situational factors could both play important roles in an individual’s social identity? • Discuss and justify your answer by referring to your knowledge of biases in attribution.

  4. terms • Use Crane p 106 • Explain with an example for the following terms • Social identity • Social categorization • In-group • Out-group • Social Comparison

  5. Improving self esteem through groups • Brainstorm factors that enhance self esteem…things which help one feel good about oneself. • Identify which factors relate to personal identity and which to social identity. • So…esteem can be improved either through personal accomplishments or through group identification

  6. Social Identity • Tajfel (1978), and Tajfel and Turner (1986) suggest that membership in a group provides people with positive self-image that gives them a sense of belonging in the social world. • Two components of positive self image: personal identity and social identity. • Complete these two sentences….personal identity is like and social identity is like….

  7. Social Identity • Personal identity: Personal characteristics that make us unique. • Social identity: A sense of what we are like derived from groups to which we belong. We belong to several social groups, and the more positive the groups identity, the more positive our social identity will be (and our self image).

  8. Social Identity • The more favorable the social comparisons made with other groups, the higher the members’ self-esteem will be. • This results in competition; every group tries to enhance self esteem.

  9. Social Identity theory • Based on a cognitive process of social categorization.

  10. Social Categorization • Social categorization theory states people tend to divide their social world into two categories, us and them. (Tajfel)

  11. Social Categorization • . In-group members see themselves in highly favorable terms; possessing desirable characteristics and being strongly liked. What theory can you apply here?

  12. Social categorization • People favor their own group compared with other groups. This is because people tend to divide their social world into two categories: “us” and “them”. • Social categorization can result in prejudice, stereotyping, ethnocentrism. Why ? • …because it can produce competitive intergroup behavior.

  13. Explain the following ‘story’- slides 7 -12

  14. Minimum Group Paradigm

  15. The Basics • Developed by Tajfel and Turner in 1979 • Developed to understand the psychological basis of inter-group discrimination • Attempted to find the minimal conditions that would lead group members to discriminate in favor of the in-group and against the outgroup

  16. Explanation • The Minimal group paradigm (MGP) is a methodology employed in social psychology(e.g. Tajfel, 1970) to investigate the minimal conditions required for discrimination to occur between groups. Experiments using this approach have revealed that even arbitrary and virtually meaningless distinctions between groups (e.g. the color of their shirts ) can trigger a tendency to favor one's own group at the expense others.

  17. Social Categorization • Wetherell (1982) proposed that intergroup conflict as a result is not inevitable. • Studied white and Polynesian children in New Zealand. • Polynesian children were more friendly towards whites, reflecting cultural norms that emphasize cooperation.

  18. Conflict necessary? • Conflict is not even necessary for divisions between groups to exist according to Tajfel. • Merely belonging to a group and being aware of another’s existence is enough. • Explain this using Tajfel- Crane p 107 and scan on portal. • Use KSS guidelines

  19. Tajfelet al. (1970)-Part 2 • Aim: Demonstrate that merely putting people into groups is sufficient for people to discriminate in favor of their own group and against members of the other group • Experimental Method • Subjects were 64 14/15 year-old-boys • Separated into groups of 8 • Outcome- maximum difference in allocation of rewards in favor of the in-group

  20. Klee and Kadinsky

  21. Sherif (1935) (Robber’s Cave Experiment) - Examine slides 28-36 and prepare a key study sheet of Sherif’s experiment. - Clearly identify how SIT is demonstrated in the study.

  22. Method: Experimental • Design: Repeated Measure • Variables: • Independent variable: Situations that the subjects were put into • In group formation exercises • Friction causing situations • Integration phase • Dependant variable The behavior of the subjects, whether hostile or non-hostile

  23. Participants • Eleven year old boys • All with similar backgrounds • Western culture

  24. Procedure • Boys were picked up by two buses, each containing 11 boys each • They were assigned to two living areas far apart enough that each group remained ignorant of the other's presence for the first few days • Groups were asked to choose names for their own teams. One group chose “The Rattlers” the other “The Eagles”.

  25. In-group formation • At first group cohesion was low, as they didn't know one another. • Sherif gave each group a set of problems to solve which required that the boys in each group must co-operate (separately from the other group). • Group cohesion grew rapidly. Within two or three days, the two groups spontaneously developed internal social hierarchies.

  26. A Friction Phase • Sherif introduced contests between the two groups in which either group could win a prize only at the expense of the other group. • Very rapidly, the groups began calling one another names, fights broke out regularly and there were raids on one another's camps. • Hostility between the groups escalated to the point where the study team concluded the friction-producing activities could not continue safely. Phase Two was terminated and Phase Three commenced.

  27. Integration Phase (reducing friction) • Sherif devised and introduced tasks that required cooperation between the two groups in an attempt to bring them back together. • The first method he tried was to unite them by giving them a common enemy. This was fairly effective to the extent that the Eagles and the Rattlers became closer, but conflict was not reduced, strictly speaking, because they held hatred for their common enemy. • Sherif then tried confronting the two hostile groups with a common threat. For example, a water shortage 'suddenly developed' or the trucks bringing their food 'broke down' when the boys were particularly hungry. In these cases, the problems could only be solved if they co-operated.

  28. Super-ordinate goals • These tasks are referred to in the study as super-ordinate goals. A superordinate goal is a desire, challenge, predicament or peril that both parties in a conflict need to get resolved, and that neither party can resolve alone. Challenges set up by the Sherifs included a water shortage problem, a "broken down" camp truck that needed enough "man" power to be pulled back to camp, and finding a movie to show. These and other necessary collaborations caused hostile behavior to subside. The groups bonded to the point that, by the end of the experiment, the boys unanimously insisted they all ride back home on the same bus.

  29. Prejudice: The division of the boys into groups formed a prejudice against the other group where the other group was seen as the enemy or competitor. • Discrimination: The different groups exhibited hostile behavior towards one another where the friction-producing activities had to be halted due to the aggressiveness of the two teams and safety of the participants had become an issue.

  30. Evaluation • Culture: The subjects used were from a western culture only and the findings cannot be applied to people from other cultures. • Ethical: The ethical aspects of this experiment can be questioned as the boys were provoked to violent behavior • Gender: This experiment is ethically unsound as the experiment only focuses on males. It does not show whether females would behave the same way. • Methodological: It lacks mundane realism as the variables are fabricated situations that may not always reflect real-life situations. Variables such as the background of the boys are hard to control therefore there are extraneous variables present.

  31. Pair work - using studies to evaluate SIT • Examine the document ‘Studies relating to social categorization.’ • (For clarification refer to scans on Social Categorization theory) • Carefully discuss each study to decide…. • Which studies explain social identity theory? Justify clearly . • Complete ..’this study shows social identity theory because….’

  32. Homework • Answer questions on blog- ‘Questions on SIT’ • Use Crane 104-107; e book on blog (??); “Social Categorization theory 1 & 2”. • Evaluate social identity theory using the link below • http://www.smartpsych.co.uk/evaluation-of-social-identity-theory

  33. Bibliography • http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/psychology/social/sherif_robbers_cave_experiment.html • http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Sherif/

  34. Evaluation

More Related