Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Key
vocabulary
Downward
comparison:
In
a
study
by
Taylor,
Wood
&
Lichtman
(1983),
they
found
that
breast
cancer
patients
who
engaged
in
downward
comparison
(comparing
themselves
to
someone
worse
off
than
themselves)
had
better
recovery
times
and
more
positive
self-esteem;
those
who
engage
in
upward
comparison
(comparing
themselves
to
someone
better
off
than
themselves)
tended
to
have
longer
recovery
times
and
were
more
likely
to
suffer
from
depression.
In-group
favoritism:
When
an
individual
gets
self-esteem
from
being
a
member
of
a
group
and
sees
his/her
group
as
superior
to
others.
Actions
taken
tend
to
benefit
the
group.
Out-group
homogeneity:
A
result
of
social
categorization,
this
is
when
all
members
of
the
out- group
are
seen
to
have
the
same
characteristics.
They
are
all
cheaters
or
rich
or
snobby
or
fashion
unaware.
Social
categorization:
The
cognitive
process
of
allocating
people
to
groups
-
either
as
an
"in-group"
to
which
one
belongs,
or
an
"out-group.."
This
process
helps
us
to
describe
and
predict
the
world
more
efficiently.
Social
comparison:
Individuals
evaluate
their
own
opinions
and
abilities
by
comparing
themselves
to
others
in
order
to
reduce
uncertainty
in
these
domains,
and
learn
how
to
define
the
self.
It
is
a
way
to
build
self-esteem
and
a
way
to
resolve
ambiguity.
Context of SIT
Henri
Tajfel's
(1919-1982)
greatest
contribution
to
psychology
was
social
identity
theory.
Social
identity
is
a
persons
sense
of
who
they
are
based
on
their
group
membership(s).
Tajfel
(1979)
proposed
that
the
groups
people
belong
to
(e.g.
social
class,
family,
football
team
etc.)
are
an
important
source
of
pride
and
self-esteem.
Groups
give
us
a
sense
of
social
identity:
a
sense
of
belonging
to
the
social
world.
In
order
to
increase
our
self-image
we
enhance
the
status
of
the
group
to
which
we
belong.
For
example,
England
is
the
best
country
in
the
world!
We
can
also
increase
our
self-image
by
discriminating
and
holding
prejudiced
views
against
the
out
group
(the
group
we
do
not
belong
to),
for
example,
the
Americans
are
a
bunch
of
losers!
Therefore
we
divided
the
world
into
them
and
us
based
through
a
process
of
social
categorization
(i.e.
we
put
people
into
social
groups).
This
is
known
as
in-group
(us)
and
out-group
(them).
Social
identity
theory
states
that
the
in-group
will
discriminate
against
the
out-group
to
enhance
their
self-image.
The
central
hypothesis
of
social
identity
theory
is
that
group
members
of
an
in-group
will
seek
to
find
negative
aspects
of
an
out-group,
thus
enhancing
their
self-image.
Prejudiced
views
between
cultures
may
result
in
racism;
in
its
extreme
forms,
racism
may
result
in
genocide,
such
as
occurred
in
Rwanda
between
the
Hutus
and
Tutsis
and,
more
recently,
in
the
former
Yugoslavia
between
the
Bosnians
and
Serbs.
Henri
Tajfel
proposed
that
stereotyping
(i.e.
putting
people
into
groups
and
categories)
is
based
on
a
normal
cognitive
process:
the
tendency
to
group
things
together.
In
doing
so
we
tend
to
exaggerate:
1.
the
differences
between
groups
2.
the
similarities
of
things
in
the
same
group.
We
categorize
people
in
the
same
way.
We
see
the
group
to
which
we
belong
(the
in-group)
as
being
different
from
the
others
(the
out-group),
and
members
of
the
same
group
as
being
more
similar
than
they
are.
Social
categorization
is
one
explanation
for
prejudice
attitudes
(i.e.
them
and
us
mentality)
which
leads
to
in-groups
and
out-groups.
Examples
of
In-groups
Out-groups
Northern
Ireland:
Catholics
and
Protestants
Rwanda:
Hutus
and
Tutsis
Yugoslavia:
the
Bosnians
and
Serbs
Politics:
Labor
and
the
Conservatives
Football:
Liverpool
and
Man
United
Gender:
Males
and
Females
Social
Class:
Middle
and
Working
Classes
Social
Categorization:
The
first
is
categorization.
We
categorize
objects
in
order
to
understand
them
and
identify
them.
In
a
very
similar
way
we
categorize
people
(including
ourselves)
in
order
to
understand
the
social
environment.
We
use
social
categories
like
black,
white,
Australian,
Christian,
Muslim,
student,
and
bus
driver
because
they
are
useful.
If
we
can
assign
people
to
a
category
then
that
tells
us
things
about
those
people,
and
as
we
saw
with
the
bus
driver
example
we
couldn't
function
in
a
normal
manner
without
using
these
categories;
i.e.
in
the
context
of
the
bus.
Similarly,
we
find
out
things
about
ourselves
by
knowing
what
categories
we
belong
to.
We
define
appropriate
behavior
by
reference
to
the
norms
of
groups
we
belong
to,
but
you
can
only
do
this
if
you
can
tell
who
belongs
to
your
group.
An
individual
can
belong
to
many
different
groups.
Social
Identification:
In
the
second
stage,
social
identification,
we
adopt
the
identity
of
the
group
we
have
categorized
ourselves
as
belonging
to.
If
for
example
you
have
categorized
yourself
as
a
student,
the
chances
are
you
will
adopt
the
identity
of
a
student
and
begin
to
act
in
the
ways
you
believe
students
act
(and
conform
to
the
norms
of
the
group).
There
will
be
an
emotional
significance
to
your
identification
with
a
group,
and
your
self-esteem
will
become
bound
up
with
group
membership.
Social
Comparison:
The
final
stage
is
social
comparison.
Once
we
have
categorized
ourselves
as
part
of
a
group
and
have
identified
with
that
group
we
then
tend
to
compare
that
group
with
other
groups.
If
our
self-esteem
is
to
be
maintained
our
group
needs
to
compare
favorably
with
other
groups.
This
is
critical
to
understanding
prejudice,
because
once
two
groups
identify
themselves
as
rivals
they
are
forced
to
compete
in
order
for
the
members
to
maintain
their
self-esteem.
Competition
and
hostility
between
groups
is
thus
not
only
a
matter
of
competing
for
resources
(like
in
Sherifs
Robbers
Cave)
like
jobs
but
also
the
result
of
competing
identities.
Conclusion
In
conclusion,
social
identity
theory
the
group
membership
is
not
something
foreign
or
artificial
that
is
attached
onto
the
person,
it
is
a
real,
true
and
vital
part
of
the
person.
Again,
it
is
crucial
to
remember
in-groups
are
groups
you
identify
with,
and
out-groups
are
ones
that
we
don't
identify
with,
and
may
discriminate
against.
*Abram et al. (1990) the role of SIT in conformity (later) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1111/j.20448309.1990.tb00892.x/asset/j.20448309.1990.tb00892.x.pdf?v=1&t=hn3dxuib&s=ca4f1551c1cb368524e05e76d02390f2 071e0385 Bem (1996) theory on the origin of sexuality and SIT http://dbem.ws/Exotic%20Becomes%20Erotic.pdf Elliott (1968): A class divided: eye colour experiment http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/divided/etc/view.html Howarth (2002) study of the Brixton girls http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/2435/1/Struggle_for_recog_(LSERO).pdf Reicher & Haslams (2001) replication of the Stanford Prison Experiment http://crimepsychblog.com/?p=987 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaZCHpqEei0 *Sherif et al. (1961) Robbers cave experiment http://www.snow.edu/davida/2400/robbers.pdf *Taijfel (1970) in and out group experiment http://courses.washington.edu/pbafhall/514/514%20Readings/tajfel.pdf Zimbardo (1973) Stanford Prison Experiment http://www.prisonexp.org
Videos
In-group vs.out-group formation in a public school
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga4Zr7P25o0
Documentary on football hooliganism answer the question, what does this have to do with Social Identity Theory?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tBps0GUITM
Reicher
&
Haslams
replication
of
the
Stanford
Prison
Experiment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaZCHpqEei0
References
Abrams, D., Wetherell, M., Cochrane, S., Hogg, M. A. and Turner, J. C. (1990), Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: Self-categorization and the nature of norm formation, conformity and group polarization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29: 97119. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1990.tb00892.x/asset/j.20448309.1990.tb00892.x.pdf?v=1&t=hn3dxuib&s=ca4f1551c1cb368524e05e76d02390f2071e0385
Bem (1996) theory on the origin of sexuality and SIT http://dbem.ws/Exotic%20Becomes%20Erotic.pdf
Elliott
Jane,
web
site:
http://www.janeelliott.com/index.htm
Elliott,
J.
Video:
A
Class
Divided
the
famous
study
from
Frontline
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/divided/etc/view.html
Howarth,
C.
(2002)
'So,
you're
from
Brixton?':
the
struggle
for
recognition
and
esteem
in
a
multicultural
community.
Ethnicities,
Volume
2
(2).
pages
237-260
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/2435/1/Struggle_for_recog_(LSERO).pdf
Reicher,
A.
&
Haslam,
S.
(2001)
replication
of
the
Stanford
Prison
Experiment
http://crimepsychblog.com/?p=987
Sherif,
M.,
Harvey,
O.J.,
White,
B.
J.,
Hood,,
W.R.,
&
Sherif,
C.
W.
(1961)
Intergroup
conflict
and
cooperation:
The
Robbers
Cave
Experiment.
Norman:
University
of
Oklahoma
Book
Exchange.
Robbers
Cave
experiment
http://www.age-of-the- sage.org/psychology/social/sherif_robbers_cave_experiment.html
Sherif,
M.
(1956)
Experiments
in
group
conflicts.
Scientific
American,
195
54-8.
http://www.snow.edu/davida/2400/robbers.pdf
Tajfel,
H.
(1970)
Experiments
in
intergroup
discrimination.
Scientific
American,
223,
96-102
available:
http://courses.washington.edu/pbafhall/514/514%20Readings/tajfel.pdf
Tajfel,
H.,
&
Turner,
J.
C.
(1979)
An
integrative
theory
of
intergroup
conflict.
The
social
psychology
of
intergroup
relations?,
33,
47.
http://web.comhem.se/u68426711/8/tajfel86.pdf
Taylor, S.E., Wood, R. R., & Lichtman, R.R. (1983) It could be worse: selective evaluation as a response to victimization. Journal of Social Issues, Volume 39, number 2, pages 19-40 http://taylorlab.psych.ucla.edu/1983_It%20Could%20Be%20Worse_Selective%20Evaluation%2 0as%20a%20Response%20to%20Victimization.pdf
Zimbardo
(1973)
Stanford
Prison
Experiment
http://www.prisonexp.org
Essay Tips
preferred either Klee or Kandinsky. Tajfel then asked the boys to fill out similar sets of reward booklets to the first experiment. In this experiment, Tajfel was interested in which of the three variables would have the greatest effect on the boys choices: maximum joint profit (giving the largest reward to members of both groups); largest possible reward to in---group (giving the largest reward to the member of the in-group regardless of the reward to the boy from the other group); or maximum difference (giving the largest possible difference in reward between members of the different groups, i.e. in-group favouritism).
Discussion The results indicated that the boys clearly adopted a strategy of in---group favouritism although the groups were indeed very minimal since they had been created on the basis of flimsy criteria, had no past history or possible future, the boys did not even know the identity of other members of each group, and there was no self---interest involved since they could not award money to themselves. Social identity theory was therefore supported. Since this classic study, Social Identity Theory has been associated with group behaviours such as ethnocentrism, in---group favouritism, conformity to in---group norms and stereotyping. The study is important because it contributed to the development of social identity theory, which states that social groups and categories to which we belong are an important part of our self--- concept, and therefore a person will sometimes interact with other people as a representative of a whole group or category of people rather than as a single individual. Tajfel demonstrated that a "minimal group" is all that is necessary for individuals to exhibit discrimination against an out--- group. This experiment is considered a classic in psychology because it demonstrates that intergroup conflict is not required for discrimination to occur. The study thus challenged previous beliefs that competition was necessary and sufficient to produce prejudice. The study has been criticised for artificiality. The experimental set---up is so far from natural behaviour that it can be questioned whether it reflects how people would react in real life. This criticism relates to demand characteristics of experimental design that is that the boys in this experiment perhaps interpreted the experimental task as a sort of a competitive game and therefore reacted the way they did. It has also been argued that competition and discrimination demonstrated in the experiment is less likely to happen in other cultural settings. References Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223, 96-102 available: http://courses.washington.edu/pbafhall/514/514%20Readings/tajfel.pdf
Fifty undergraduate students (23 males and 27 females) enrolled in an introductory psychology course participated. At the start of the experiment, the three confederates were introduced either as first-year students from the psychology department of a prestigious university (in- group) or as students of ancient history (out-group) from that same university. The participants were instructed not to talk to each other. As in the Asch paradigm, the participants were shown a stimulus line, and then three other lines - one of which was the same length as the stimulus line. The task was to identify which of the three lines matched the stimulus line. There were 18 trials. In nine of the trials, the confederates gave the correct response. In nine of the trials the confederates gave a unanimous, incorrect response. In each session the confederates and one naive participant sat in a row, facing the monitor. The participant was always placed at one end of the row. The group always gave their judgments in turn, beginning at the opposite end from the participant. In the public condition all four members of the group gave their judgments aloud, and the experimenter recorded the real participants responses. In the private condition, however, the experimenter asked if one of the participants would note down the responses, in order to leave her free to 'operate the computer'. The real participant, who 'happened to be nearest', was asked if he or she would like to record responses. The three confederates then gave their judgments aloud in turn and the real participant recorded their responses on a score sheet along with his or her own, privately. Results Preliminary analyses revealed no sex differences in conformity. Seventy-seven per cent of all participants conformed to the erroneous confederate judgments
on at least one trial. The actual proportion of conforming responses was 138 out of a possible 432 (i.e. 32 per cent). This is very similar to the results of the original Asch experiments. Conformity was maximized in the ingroup public condition with a mean number of conforming responses of 5.23 and minimized in the out-group public condition (M = 0.75). The ingroup private and out-group private conditions did not differ significantly (Ms = 3.00 and 2.33, respectively).
Discussion The results seem to indicate that social categorization can play a key role in ones decision to conform publicly. When compared to Aschs original findings, the overall conformity levels are about the same. But when we consider social categorization, public conformity exceeded the usual level in the in-group condition but was far below normal in the out-group condition. The explanation for this, from self-categorization theory, is that we tend to exaggerate the difference between us and the out-group, while feeling that members of our own group share a common set of traits. Thus, in this experiment, in-group members may be seen as more correct, while out-group members are seen as less likely to be correct, when participants are made conscious of their group membership. As with the original Asch experiment, there are several strengths and limitations of the study. The situation in which the participants found themselves was highly artificial - both because the task was not something that you would everyday and because the event was staged. Thus, it is difficult to know whether the results predict what would happen in a naturalistic situation. However, the control over the experiment by the researchers allows us to see a causal relationship between the independent variable - group membership - and the dependent variable - rate of conformity to an incorrect response.
Reference Abrams, D., Wetherell, M., Cochrane, S., Hogg, M. A. and Turner, J. C. (1990), Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: Self-categorization and the nature of norm formation, conformity and group polarization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29: 97119.
Procedure
The
aim
of
the
study
was
to
study
informal
groups
and
observe
the
natural
and
spontaneous
development
of
group
organization,
attitudes
(prejudice)
and
group
norms.
The
study
also
tested
"Realistic
conflict
theory"
which
is
based
on
the
assumption
that
groups
interacting
with
each
other
generate
attitudes
towards
each
other.
The
theory
predicts
that
Groups
that
are
positively
independent
-
that
is,
they
work
toward
common
goals
-
will
have
good
intergroup
relations.
The
participants
of
the
first
experiment
were
22
boys,
aged
11-12.
They
were
carefully
selected
and
matched
so
that
they
were
all
healthy,
socially
well
adjusted,
somewhat
above
average
intelligence
and
from
stable,
White,
Protestant,
middle-class
homes.
None
of
the
boys
knew
each
other
before
the
study.
The
matching
of
the
sample
was
done
in
order
to
reduce
the
chances
of
bringing
established
social
conflicts
to
the
study.
The
researchers
organized
a
regular
summer
camp
in
the
Robbers
Cave
State
Park
in
Oklahoma
with
camp
staff
so
that
the
boys
did
not
know
that
they
were
taking
part
in
an
experiment.
This
was
done
to
guarantee
ecological
validity
of
the
research,
which
was
done
within
the
framework
of
regular
camp
activities
and
games.
The
researchers
collected
data
by
making
written
records
of
the
observed
behaviour,
as
well
as
sometimes
using
cameras
and
microphones.
Part
one
of
the
study:
Defining
group
identity
Prior
to
the
start
of
the
study,
the
researchers
observed
the
development
of
relationships
and
Groups
that
are
negatively
independent
-
that
is,
they
are
in
competition
for
scarce
resources
-
will
create
conflict
and
ethnocentric
attitudes.
group structure among the boy participants. The boys were housed in the same house and could choose their own friends. After a few days the researchers divided the boys into two groups and they separated "best friends" so that they were not in the same group. The boys participated in a range of challenging activities such as hikes, campouts, athletics and sports in this period. In each group, the boys divided up the tasks and organized duties. The hierarchy of each group became obvious as leaders emerged, and each group developed its own way of interacting with special jargon, jokes, secrets and special ways of performing tasks. They maintained social control by ridiculing boys who did not perform well at a particular task. Threats and social exclusion were also used as social control. Each group selected a symbol and a name which was put on their baseball caps and T-shirts. The groups called themselves "The Eagles" and "The Rattlers". The researchers invented a game of target practice to test whether the boys would show favoritism when they had to evaluate performance of their peers. The target board had no marks on it, but it was secretly wired so that the researchers had an objective measure of accuracy. The boys consistently overestimated efforts of highly regarded boys and underestimated the efforts of lowly regarded boys. The researchers asked each boy to name his friends in the group, and the boy who was chosen the most time was regarded as having the highest status. The boy who was chosen the least was seen as having the lowest status. Part two of the study: Introducing conflict The researchers introduced conflict through games in this phase. The games started well but the boys soon called each other names such as "stinkers" and "cheaters". The boys refused contact with the opposing group and they even turned against their previous friends. The boys also gave negative ratings to boys in the other group. In this stage solidarity increased within each group and they showed hostility towards the other group such as stealing the other group's flag and setting fire to it. The boys also had fights between the two groups and there were incidents of abuse. This confirmed that conflict and negative attitudes between groups can arise from group identity and fighting for resources. Part three of the study: Resolving conflict The researchers wanted to bring the conflict between the groups to a stop. Initial attempts to reconcile the groups were not successful so they developed another hypothesis that working together to reach a common goal would encourage a positive relationship between the groups. They created a series of situations such as making the camp truck break down during an outing; the boys had to cooperate to pull the truck. The introduction of these superordinate goals eased the tension between the groups. The result was that the boys ended up having new friends from the other group and they cooperated. This resulted in less negative ratings of the other group and there was no longer any intergroup hostility. Discussion The methodology of the study is quite inventive. The measures of social behaviour that were introduced were part of real-life situations. This assured a high degree of ecological validity. However, because it was a field experiment, the researchers could not control many of the variables; for example, behaviour of the leaders could not be controlled - nor the effects of
weather, the surroundings, or private conversations between the boys. Another limitation is a question as to how the dependent variable was actually measured. It was not possible to actually confirm that the levels of hostility were actually as the researchers reported. Through the self-reports of the sample, the researchers concluded that hostility had first increased, and then, because of the superordinate goals, decreased. However, in measuring the level of hostility after the superordinate goal, the results could be do to demand characteristics. It is also questionable how long these effects would last once the groups were no longer working on such tasks. It could also be argued that there are ethical issues in this study as the research brought about conflict between the groups. However, the results of this study justified the use of deception and the procedure since the boys were eventually reconciled. It could also be argued that what they experienced could happen in everyday life. The study revealed one of the ways that intergroup conflict and negative intergroup attitudes may emerge. The study has been used to explain how racial prejudice and discrimination may arise between ethnic groups as a result of competition for resources. However, this appears to be just one explanation for intergroup prejudice and conflict. ___________________________________________________________________________ Furthering our knowledge How could the results of this study be explained by social identity theory? Could this study be linked to the principle of "needing to belong?" Think about it: The Wave and The Lord of the Flies are pieces of literature that deal with group processes, social norms, conformity, social identity and obedience. What is it that literature and art can do when dealing with psychological issue that even the best conducted research study cannot? For more information about this study, see: http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Sherif/ References Muzafer Sherif, O.J. Harvey, B. Jack White, William R. Hood, Carolyn W. Sherif (1961) Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave Experiment. Norman: University of Oklahoma Book Exchange 1961. Sherif, M. (1956) Experiments in group conflicts. Scientific American, 195 54-8.