WordPress.com



Evaluate social identity theory (8)Tajfel and Turner (1979) said that prejudice and discrimination could be explained using social identity theory. This theory says that our self-concept is based on a number of social selves which are linked to groups that we belong to in society such as our ethnicity and gender. Social categorisation explains how we see ourselves as fitting into in-groups and anyone who does not fit the category as being part of the outgroup. These psychologists think that the mere existence of an outgroup, e.g. a set of people, who we feel we do not belong with, is enough to create prejudice and discrimination. They talk also about the process of social identification whereby we change our behaviour to fit in with the social norms of the ingroup. We gain self-esteem through the sense of being accepted by them and consequently “belonging” to this group. Finally, social comparison is a process which explains the way in which these processes can lead us to view outgroup members as inferior to ingroup members and this can lead to hostility and discrimination. They use the term quest for positive distinctiveness to explain how people wish for their own ingroup to be seen as different to others in a favourable way and will do what they can to improve the perception of their own group in mind, e.g. playing down the strengths of other groups and minimising any potential failings of the ingroup, by putting them down to situational factors. For example, “our team lost because the other team were cheating”.One strength of this theory is that it is supported by the study by Tajfel et al (1970) which showed that boys who had been randomly assigned to one of two groups (over or under estimators) overwhelmingly allocated more points in the final task to supposed group members who they were led to believe had performed in the same way as them on the estimation task. The points allocation task demonstrated that the boys were keen to ensure the greatest difference between the points allocated to in and outgroup members rather than simply attempting to get the most for their own group. This is important because the boys had never met the other group members, yet the mere act of categorising them was enough to make them discriminate in favour of the ingroup and against the outgroup. However, this task was extremely artificial as the boys never came into contact with anyone else and the points allocation task was unusual to them. They may have suffered from demand characteristics and picked up that the task was about discrimination and acted accordingly. This lowers the ecological validity of the study and means that in real life situations the mere act of categorisation may not be enough to create prejudice and discrimination. However, a further strength for the theory can be found in the study completed by Sherif at Robbers Cave as at the end of stage 1 the Rattlers and Eagles became aware of the existence of the other gang and they immediately wanted a tournament to prove which gang were the best without the camp counsellors even suggesting any competition. This study is important because it shows that the mere existence of an outgroup may be enough to elicit social comparison in a more ecologically valid and natural study.However, both Tajfel et al and Sherif et al were conducted in individualist Western cultures (US and UK) and on teenage boys meaning that the evidence base is ethnocentric and androcentric. This is important because it shows that social identity theory may not predict outcomes as successfully in collectivist cultures or when with groups of females who may be less naturally competitive. This argument is supported by the study of Wetherall et al who was unable to replicate the findings of Tajfel’s minimal groups experiment when using Polynesian immigrant children in New Zealand. They tended to award points in a more egalitarian fashion, (assigning points more fairly). This is important as it shows that cultural norms from their more collectivist home lives may have over-ridden situational factors created through the categorisation of the children into over and under estimators.Other psychologists disagree with Tajfel and Turner and believe that although categorisation is an important process it is not enough to bring about discrimination. For example, Sherif’s Realistic Conflict Theory (RCT) suggests that the fiercest forms of conflict only arise when teams are competing in zero-sum situations, both striving towards the same goals. Some support for this can be found by considering the role of economic and political factors which shows that prejudice does indeed increase when there is hardship, i.e. people feel that they are fighting against each other for limited resources. In Hovland and Sears (1940), the mere existence of blacks and whites in the Southern states of America was not enough to cause violence, however when cotton prices were low, there were more lynchings of the black people, suggesting that social identity theory alone is not enough to explain when low level prejudice may turn into explosive violence. This was also true in the Rwandan Genocide, social identity theory may be enough to explain why there is hostility between Hutus and Tutsis but it cannot explain why they were able to live relatively peacefully alongside each other for years at a time. RCT can explain why the genocide broke out in 1994 as there had been a significant economic down turn and political unrest in the preceding months.In conclusion, although SIT gains support from some studies such as Tajfel et al (1970) and Sherif (1954), both studies are not without their problems regarding, not least, generalisability. The idea that self-esteem stems from group membership is an important one but SIT alone does not explain why levels of prejudice and discrimination change over time. Also, the theory suggests that prejudice is almost an inevitable feature of human thinking and offers little in terms of suggestions on how to reduce prejudice in society, other than attempts to redraw boundaries between groups and foster self-esteem and group identity in ways which no not require denigration of others. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download