Social Identity Theory II

1
Social Identity Theory II

• Refining the theory

2
Outline

• Factors which influence intergroup discrimination
• Dimension of comparison
• Status
• Legitimacy stability
• Numerical size
• Threat
• Type of group
• Minority group membership
• Role of identification

3
Social Identity in Real Groups

• In less minimal contexts, the motive for
  intergroup differentiation may be even stronger
• But there may be reality constraints on
  positive identity construction
• Despite the deliberately reductive nature of the
  MGP, the results have been supported in real
  groups,

4
Brown (1978) Aircraft factory

• prepared to sacrifice 2 pounds a week
• in order to maintain a 1 pound difference

5
Maass et al (1989) Linguistic Intergroup Bias in
Sienna

• Cartoons of ingroup/outgroup pos/neg behaviours
• DV language abstractness
• More abstractmore dispositional (cf.
  situational)
• Ingroup pos behaviour described more abstractly
  than outgroup
• Outgroup neg behaviour described more abstracly
  than ingroup

6
Beyond the laboratory

• there are factors associated with real life
  social contexts which influence and sometimes
  constrain the extent of intergroup discrimination

7
1. Dimension of comparison

• Mummendey Schreiber(1984) different but better
  strategy
• ingroup favouritism on those dimensions which are
  important to the ingroup
• outgroup favouritism on some dimensions (although
  ultimately these are less or not important so
  have no consequences for social identity)

8
E.g.

• University of Manchester students compared with
• a) Oxford Uni students (higher status)
• b) Manchester Poly students (lower status)
• In comparison a,
• outgroup described as intellectual, high
  achieving, hardworking
• ingroup as practically minded, easy-going,
  politically aware
• In comparison b
• ingroup described as intellectual, high
  achieving
• outgroup as politically aware, practically
  minded
• But, ratings of the importance of the dimensions
  also shift between conditions, such that the
  ingroup always has the edge on the important
  dimensions

9
2. Status Sachdev Bourhis (1987)
10
2. Status

• High status groups more biased?
• Easier to construct positive identity
• Maintain advantage/distinctiveness
• Or does high status confer positive identity
• Low status groups
• show outgroup favouritism reflecting low status
  position?
• Or have greatest need to differentiate?
• Equal status groups
• Strong differentiation to create distinctiveness
• in more naturalistic settings other important
  variable may be at work whichcan radically
  interact with the effects of status itself Brown
  2000 p323

11
3. Legitimacy/Stability

• Status diffs illegitimate or unstable ?
  strongest differentiation
• E.g. Turner Brown (1978)
• Arts students worse than science students on
  reasoning task
• Legitimacy expected/unexpected given skills
• Stability expectation based on good/bad previous
  research

12
4. Numerical Size

• Contrast high and low status minority groups
• Identification likely to be high for high status
  minorities (see later)
• Minority groups see members as more homogenous
  (Simon Brown 1987)
• Good for solidarity/social support

13
5. Threat

• Threats to distinctiveness ? strong
  differentiation (e.g. Brown Abrahms 1986)
• Current status or advantage under threat (e.g.
  affirmative action, feminist backlash)
• Negative stereotyping of ingroup by outgroup

14
6. Group Type

• Individualism individual achievement,
  interpersonal competition
• Collectivism intragroup cooperation, group
  achievements, group affiliation
• Relational concern for group standing/
  performance relative to other groups
• Autonomous asocial comparison with e.g.
  abstract standard or past achievements

15
Hinkle Brown 1990
Relational orientation
Sports teams Political parties
Business organisations?
0.55
0.24
Individualist orientation
Collectivist orientation
.23
.05
Jurys
Writers circles Therapy groups Families
Autonomous orientation
16
Minority Groups

• individuals bound together by common traits which
  are held in low self-esteem
• Hard to construct positive social identity (see
  earlier) ? therefore expect low SE
• E.g. Clark Clark 1974 disidentification
• Yet in general minority group members dont seem
  to have particularly low SE how come?

17
Social Identity in Minority Groups

• Are boundaries permeable?
• Yes ? social mobility (individual strategy)
• Individual mobility
• exit or
• Pass
• No ? social change or voice

18
Are there cognitive alternatives?

• No ? social creativity
• Redefine existing comparisons
• Black Pride
• Find alternative comparison dimension
• Lemaine 1974 hut building
• Compare with different outgroup
• NB All of these leave the unequal status
  relationship between ingroup and dominant
  outgroup unchanged
• Yes ? social competition
• Direct competition through strong intergroup
  differentiation
• Most effective for social change

19
Ellemers, Wilke van Knippenberg 1993

• Ps group always lower status workers role
• Allocation legitimate vs. illegitimate
• group status stable vs. unstable
• permeable vs. impermeable boundaries
• Ps identified more highly with illegitimate low
  status groups than legitimate low status

20
Results

• But status permeability interacted with this-
• lowest in legitimate, stable (lowest cog
  alternatives) and permeable
• highest in illegitimate and unstable (greatest
  cog alternatives and impermeable (couldnt
  leave)
• 2nd study intergroup measures
• when group boundaries are impermeable, Ps pursue
  collective enhancement strategies (ig
  favouritism, og competition)
• use individual strategies when the boundaries are
  permeable (pragmatic)

21
Crocker Major, 1989

• minority group members paradoxically can enhance
  their self esteem by embracing rather than
  denying their social identity
• the ingroup may serve as a buffer between the
  individual and the negative effects of social
  prejudice and discrimination
• Selective social comparison
• Ingroup members only
• Attribute negative outcomes to prejudice
• E.g. Crocker, Voekl, Testa Major 1991

22
Crocker, Voekl, Testa Major 1991

• Female Ps wrote essay - marked by man
• Led to expect that he was/wasnt generally
  prejudiced towards women
• Essay received poor mark
• women whose essays marked by non-prejudiced
  reviewer reported more negative affect and lower
  SE
• Cf. women with prejudiced marker

23
Role of identification

• Ellemers, Spears Doosje 1997
• Used bogus pipeline technique to induce high/ low
  identification
• feedback of poor performance on a group task
•  Low identifiers
• Perceived the group as less homogenous
• Were less committed to the group
• Wanted to move to a higher status group  
• Psychological readiness to leave the group may be
  more important than simply the structural
  possibility of leaving