Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Social Identity Theory and stereotypes - Coggle Diagram
Social Identity Theory and stereotypes
Identity is connected to
membership in a social group
4 tenets of SIT
Social Comparison
Group v Group
Features are valued and interpreted: whether a group is 'good' or 'bad'
Feature evaluation through comparison to other groups (Festinger, 1954)
Strive for positive social identity
Social Identity
Realisation that one
belongs to a social category
with a
positive or negative evaluation associated
with membership
4 tenents of social identities
Divisive and exclusive
(you belong or you don't)
Are context dependent
(football fan in a stadium)
Have a cultural component that turns a category into an identity
Include a judgement of the nature of people in a certain category
Social Categorisation
Putting individuals into a group through shared group-defining features
Similarities ingroup and diffferences outgroup
Basis of how we see ourselves
Psychological group distinctiveness
Desire/need to belong to a positively evalusation group and to be distinct from others
Self-Categorisation Theory
Added to SIT by Turner et al. 1987.
Grant theory and helps to explain SIT
Looks into INTRA-group processes and interacting with ingroup members
Sees identities as categorised into 'true self' to 'group member
Focuses on cognitive processes that underpin our behaviour e.g. stereotyping
Applying SIT
Boda and Neray
Roma adolescents in Hungary (low status)
Non-Roma made negative nominations of Roma and vice-versa
Outgroup Homogeneity
Outgroup can identify other races, but ingroup majority cannot. Worse when it is the dominant group
E.g. the dominant group wrongly accused Black people of a crime over white people
WHY?
Familiarity with your own group and the majority you compete with if you are in the minority
Members of dominant groups: do not need to pay attention
Members of subordinate groups: need to form detailed impressions as they are impacted by the majority
More to lose
Othering
Impermeable boundaries
Not being 'ethnic enough' e.g. with dual identity
Social mobility is tough when there are clear and bright boundaries e.g. being Black and the majority is white
People prefer clear boundaries
Stereotypes, Prototypicality and Indispensability
Stereotypes
"pictures in our heads" -> simplify views of groups -> used to form opinions about others (Lippmann, 2922)
normally societally widespread and endorsed by man
Stereotypes can change based on context e.g. Germans are punctural which can be positive, but if I want to go out later that is less positive
Stereotypes as FUNCTIONAL
Cognitive tools for processing information about individuals - help us simplify the complex world
BUT - faulty generalisations and distortions. Painful for the receiver and serve as a cognitive basis for affective reactions (prejudice) and behaviour (aggression)
Clusters of Stereotypes on warmth and competence
LC-HW: friendly but not capable (paternalistic)
LC-LW: want to harm us but they aren't able to do it (contemptuous)
HC-HW: ingroup members, cultural default, allies (admiration)
HC-LW: they want to harm us and they can (envy)
Emotions tied to these
Superordinate identities
Common Ingroup Identity Model (CIIM
Aim: reduce prejudice and intergroup conflict
A model of re-categorisation of finding a common identity in multiple groups =
larger more inclusive group
Shared category = improved attitudes to former outgroup as we tend to favour our ingroup (Gaertner and Dovidio, 2000)
:check: Prejudice is reduced and increases cooperation
:red_cross: a common identity represents the value of the majority = minority values are neglected. Awareness of discrimination disappears and protest is reduced
In-Group Projection Model (Mummendy and Wenzel, 1999)
Problems of being given a bigger identity in CIIM
:no_entry: The ingroup projects its own characteristics of the superordinate category and therefore are 'better'
Overarching categories = intergroup comparisons
Tendency to view the
ingroup as more prototypical
for the superordinate category compared to other subgroups
Higher relative ingroup prototypicality can worsen intergroup attitudes and increase opposition to granting rights to (minority) outgroups.
Group indispensability
Minority group see themselves as indispensable and necessary for the superordinate group
Perceived subgroup indispensability improves intergroup attitudes and increases support for minority rights among the majority
Function indispensability e.g. immigrants are needed in lower level labour
Cultural indispenability e.g. subgroups are necessary for a common identity
:red_cross: but the more the majority sees the minority as indispensable, less they want to give them independence
Operario and Fiske 2003 - Stereotype principles
Stereotypes as ambivalent - never a full antipathy
Stereotypes augment negative and extreme behaviour - mass media and negative association with outgroup
Unusual group + rare event = association
Gays + Aids = association
Advantage to an ingroup and disadvantage to an outgroup - SIT
