Social Identity Theory

Social Identity Theory-
Henri Tajfel: Father of the theory, French, jewish was part of the holocaust. Social identity theory seen as a way to explain the holocaust and how one group could turn on another
Tajfel : “social identity will be understood as that part of the individuals’ self-concept which derives from their knowledge of their membership of a social group (groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership. not concerned with individual identity or self-awareness, regardless of the individual identity, some aspect of it will be determined by membership of certain social groups or categories
“The effects of the nature and subjective importance of these memberships on those aspects of an individual’s behavior which are pertinent to intergroup relations.

Intergroup Behavior - whenever individuals belonging to one group interact collectively or individually with another group or its members in terms of their group identifications we have an instance of intergroup behavior.
Turner- The intergroup- interpersonal continuum. Not necessary to have group cohesion or direct interaction to formulate an intergroup identity.
“ A sufficient condition for group formation is to be found according to him in processes of social influence which lead individuals to internalize certain social norms, to see themselves embodying these norms in their attitudes and social behavior

Deschamps- Social identity as it concerns group relations. Issue of power. Social groups that dominate and impose a view of the world in which the norm or the point of reference in relation to which other people are defined comes from the centre where the power resides and thus, the individual is able to express more full fully their individual identity

Chapter 1. John Turner
What is a social group? - Two or more individuals who share a common social identification of themselves or, which is nearly the same thing, perceive themselves to be members of the same social category. - “a group has been defined as two or more persons who are in some way socially or psychologically interdependent: for the satisfaction of needs, attainment of goals or consensual validation of attitudes and values.”

What is necessary for group formation? - Social Cohesion Model- Based upon the development of mutual and positive emotional bonds. What matters is how individuals feel about each other ❋ Do I like these other individuals? - Social Identification Model- Group membership has primarily a perceptual or cognitive basis ❋ Who am I?

“Social categorizations are discontinuous divisions of the social world into distinct classes or categories (Tajfel, 1972).” 17 - Social identification is thus locating oneself or another within this system of social categorization

Our concept of the self arises from a cognitive structure “a system of concepts available to a person in attempting to define himself” 18 The cognitive structure remains constant but it’s the operating system that cranks out our self-image which changes depending upon context. ❋ Intergroup Interpersonal Behavior Continuum ❋ ←→
- One extreme end is “the interaction between two or more individuals which is fully determined by their interpersonal relationships and individual characteristics and not at all affected by various social groups or categories to which they respectively belong.”
- The other extreme “consists of interactions between two or more individuals (or groups of individuals) which are fully determined by their respective memberships of various social groups or categories, and not at all affected by the interindividual personal relationships between the people involved… (Tajfel and Turner, 1979, p34)” 20

Social identity - subsystem of the self-concept Turner’s argument is that social identity is the cognitive mechanism which makes group behavior possible.
Social cohesion- experiments show that it might be neither necessary nor sufficient for group formation.

Social Categorization - Both inductive and deductive. induction is the means by which the criterial attributes of some category are inferred from one or more individual members and deduction is the process of assigning them to all members of the category.

Tajfel’s law: as category memberships become salient, there will be a tendency to exaggerate the differences on criterial dimensions between individuals falling into distinct categories and to minimize these differences within each of these categories. 28 - Stereotyping leads to the homogenization and depersonalization of outgroup members. - we use social identification to come up up with a stereotypic perception which assigns oneself criterial attributes and ca instigate and control behavior directly and also, changes how we perceive others and how we act towards them - self-stereotyping - Process called Referent Informational Influence -> Define oneself as a member of a distinct social category, learn the norms and behaviors expected of the category and assign these norms to themselves

Self-esteem and group behavior -social categories are evaluated through social comparisons with other categories on relevant value dimensions. - when ingroup lacks positive distinctiveness, members might leave

Deschamps: “a collection of questions and a basis for discussion rather than an attempt to provide a series of answers.” - Interested in how social identity is affected by power ie. group who dominates, group who is dominated.
- Those belonging in minorities, dominated groups, are less likely to identify themselves as unique, not belonging to any category “Groups exist within a system of mutual dependence, they acquire a reality which is defined in and through their interdependence” 87 - In a group of high social status, tendency to use I more than the working class group.
Dominated defining themselves as belonging to a collection

University vs Polytechnic lecturers experiment

To see the ingroup bias and outgroup discrimination. Asked questions about advantages and disadvantages to each job. Brought up imaginary budget cuts and asked how they would allocate it.
Actually, turned out they were more interested in being fair. They did favor some but not completely heinous.

In terms of the minimal group, isn’t it easier to discriminate against the outgroup in this case because nothing is known about the others, and thus complete depersonalization.

static vs dynamic group dynamics
Depersonalization
Social Group comparison - Power Relations
Larger social context
Process of group formation - identity vs instrumentality