Social Identity Theory - Coggle Diagram
Social Identity Theory
Aim: To see whether intergroup discrimination would occur based on being put into different groups
Method: Laboratory experiment
-The boys were asked to rate 12 paintings from abstract expressionist painters Paul Klee and Wassily Kandinsky. They weren't aware of who painted what.
-They were then randomly allocated into groups and told that they preferred either Klee or Kandinsky.
-Each boy was given the task to award points to two other boys- one from the in-group and one from the out-group. The only information given to the boys was code numbers and the name of the group of the two boys they were supposed to award. There were two systems of point allocation used.
-1st system: boys generally awarded more points to the members of their in-group showing in-group favouritism.
-2nd system: boys were willing to give their own team fewer points to maximise point difference between the groups. This was surprising- it meant that boys left the study with fewer points.
Implication: -People have a natural tendency to favor their in-group
-Despite the meaningless nature of the groups, participants identifies with their respective groups and created positive social identity through giving their in-group more points.
-A "minimal group" is all that is necessary for individuals to exhibit discriminations against an out-group.
-Shows that intergroup-conflict isn't required for discrimination to occur.
-May not reflect behavior in a real life situation.
-Winning a competition feeling
Strengths: -high level of control. - easily replicated.
Dobbs and Crano 2001
Aim: To investigate factors that affect minimal group paradigm-based discrimination.
Method: lab experiment
Procedure: - accountability vs. no accountability
writing names on their work being told that they were seen after by the out group
-high competence vs. low competence
sorting by over or under estimators
majority vs minority
told that they were in to 80% or the 20%
Result: Out-group decrease in discrimination was especially evident when the allocator was of majority status. Allocators of minority status tended to discriminate more when made accountable to the out-group.
Implications: : The status of the group as a majority or minority group affects discrimination. Asking people to justify their in-group favoritism changed prejudice. In members of the minority group, in-group favoritism increased, whereas it decreased in the majority group. This is more complex than social identity theory would predict, so is difficult to explain.
Strengths: As this was a highly-controlled lab experiment, a cause and effect relationship can be established. Prejudice.
Limitations: lab experiment, psychological harm from discrimination, true aim of the study could have been more hidden.