Fichas
DD307 OU Social Psychology - Intergroup Processes: SIT
Fichas del conjunto (25)
- 1Early research• Avoided large-scale groups
• In favour of small scale groups - e.g. Triplett (1898) - social facilitation, children working in pairs => group
•Allport - groups act simply to intensify habits & responses of individuals => groups nothing more than aggregated responses of individuals - 2Early research cont...Balance of SP research implies groups distort rational thinking of individuals - often resulting in conflict
Reinforced by experimentation - putting individuals into extreme & staged situations as unit of analysis - 3Tajfel•Intergroup relations - different from Le Bon's study of crowd behaviour
•Look @ how people identify with social groups & how that affects their beliefs & actions
•The impact of attribution of social groups on social interactions
•Rejected dominant approach of experiments w/o social context, ecological validity & w/o reference to socio-cultural issues
•Wanted to find theories to link macro-social & micro-social - 4Social Identity Theory (SIT)•Group = collection of individuals who perceive themselves to be members of same social category
•Groups exist in social hierarchy - not equal in access to power & resources
•We have multiple social Ids - linked to groups we belong to (given & chosen)
•Combines cognitive & social - looks at which individual & social variables affect intergroup relations
•How people identify with social categories (groups of differing scale) shapes their perception of their immediate social context & how they may act
•Contrast between groups important - 'us' & 'them' differentiation reinforces identification with our group & contrasts its +ve attributes with -ve's of 'their' group - potentially leading to conflict - 5Tajfel & Turner (1979) article (1)•Suggests SP of intergroup relations = 2 approaches:
1) Adorno et al - Theory of Authoritarian Personality: liked by T&T, stresses role of intra-individual & interpersonal psych processes
2) Sherif et al - Realistic Group Conflict Theory (RCT): competition>conflicting interests>conflict w/ out-group
Strong empirical support
Can lead to +ve attachment to in-group & more identity w/ group
•T&T argue RCT weak re identification w/ in-group which they see as central to explaining intergroup phenomena - RCT identification seen as more of by-product of belonging to group - 6Tajfel & Turner (1979) article (2) Social Context of Intergroup BehaviourReasons for intergroup behaviour can be found on continuum between interpersonal (individual r'ships within group fully determine behaviour) & intergroup (membership of social group/category fully determines behaviour)
Interpersonal extreme - wife & husband
Intergroup extreme - opposing armies
Assumes conflict between groups cause members of each group to behave towards each other on basis of group membership, overriding individual characteristics & r'ships - 7Tajfel & Turner (1979) article (3) Social categorisation & intergroup discrimination•In-group bias is enough for conflict
•Lab analogue: Minimal Group Paradigm (MGP) - groups minimal as defined by members, no real features
•Just telling someone they're a member causes in-group favouritism & out-group prejudice
•Boys divided into 2 rnd groups
•They apportioned money between pairs w/ different group memberships
•Money divided to maximise difference between groups (disadvantage out-group more)
Not result of demand characteristics or experimenter effects - 8Tajfel & Turner (1979) article (4) Social identity & social comparison•Group = collection of individuals who perceive themselves to be members of same social category; Share emotional involvement in common definition of themselves; Achieve social consensus re evaluation of their group & membership of it
•Intergroup behaviour depends on individuals identifying their group & those of others belong to different social categories
•Social categorisations = cognitive tools (in this view) - used to segment society & enable self-orientation - 9Tajfel & Turner (1979) article (5) Assumptions & arguments for SIT1) Individuals try to maintain & enhance self-esteem
2) Social groups have +ve or -ve attributions
3) We evaluate our own group by comparing it to others
Therefore:
1) Individuals want +ve social identity
2) +ve social identity is based on favourable comparisons w/ other groups
3) If social identity unsatisfactory, individuals leave & join more +ve groups - 10Tajfel & Turner (1979) article (6) Status hierarchies & social changeStatus = outcome of intergroup comparison
Change thru:
1) Individual mobility - dis-identification w/ current in-group
2) Social creativity - new dimension for comparison found; changing values assigned to attributes of group (e.g. black is beautiful); comparing in-group w/ different out-group
3) Social competition - improve status by direct competition w/ out-group
Tajfel - depends on whether cognitive alternatives available for strategy to be successful - 11Tajfel & Turner (1979) article (7) Objective v Subjective conflictsNearly impossible to determine if cause of conflict is objective (competition for resources) or subjective (defence of identity)
Even things appearing to be objective (e.g. salary levels & maintenance of differentials) have subjective aspects too
i.e. some advantages only make sense in a comparative framework on intergroup competition - 12Tajfel & Turner (1979) article (8) 3 processesT&T suggest integration of 3 processes can explain social conflict:
1) Categorisation - we segment society
2) Identification - we feel part of certain groups (& not others)
3) Comparison - we compare our group to others & act according to our conclusions - 13Chapter commentary•RCT - competition drives social conflict
BUT T&T argue RCT not explain conflict w/o these factors - e.g. identity based on religion or ethnicity
•SIT - perception of 'us' & 'them' due to separate groups - causes conflict
Interaction in society: interpersonal<>intergroup continuum - move along via belief in social mobility <> belief in social change
•Brown ('00) - move from personal to societal view = depersonalisation; Tajfel = putting one's group's interests ahead of one's own
•T&T conclude - conflict inevitable as societies develop thru societal conflict as groups perceive situation as unfair, that it can be changed and they do something to change it - 14Why would a given individual treat another as "one of them" rather than a unique person?T&T argue it relates to 2nd belief continuum:
strong belief in social mobility (possible to change group membership)
<====>
strong belief in social change (groups set for life - not possible to change membership)
Strong beliefs re social change associated with intergroup social interactions - i.e. the more someone believes in unchanging group membership, the more they focus on social identity (what group someone belongs to) rather than personal identity (personal characteristics) - 15Billig (2002) article (1) IntroArgues for development of Tajfel ideas:
1) No SP is value free - society is different over time
2) Tajfel wrong to ignore motivational themes - i.e. extreme prejudice cant be understood w/o those factors
3) Gaps in Tajfel help us understand context & situational knowledge - 16Billig (2002) article (2) Tajfel's image of humanityLorenz - aggression=instinctive (biological 'blood & guts' explanation)
Tajfel argues bio explanation not complete - need to consider social/historical/political conditions - role for SP
Suggesting social conflict as unchanging instinct (re Lorenz) creates argument that nothing can be done to prevent prejudice & justifies it as part of human condition - 17Billig (2002) article (3) PrejudiceOthers being rated on basis of their membership of social groups, ignoring them as individuals
Tajfel suggests we simplify approaching others thru categorising
Which can distort situation:
over estimate similarities w/in categories; over estimate differences between categories
3 universal processes for maintaining self-image:
1) Categorisation
2) Assimilation (introduces social element)
3) Coherence
Apparently irrational behaviour (prejudice) = outcome of rational cognitive processes - 18Billig (2002) article (4) Discursive view of categorisation•Discursive view of categorisation more appropriate than cognitive view re prejudice
•Prejudice constructed in language
•Speakers are flexible in use of categories & aren't restricted to minimising in-group similarities &/or maximising out-group differences - 19Billig (2002) article (5) Holocaust•Tajfel didn't apply SIT to explain holocaust:
>wasn't talked about
>could lead to it being forgotten
•Billig argued cognitive cause-effect not suitable explanation - Inappropriate to explain Nazi actions in terms of protecting German identity
•Tajfel's 3 processes don't a/c for Nazi actions...
Therefore actions resulted from their thinking regarding Jews
•Billig argues there cant be anything intrinsic about Tajfel's processes - 20Billig (2002) article (6) Prejudice & BigotryCognitive approach links prejudice to categorisation
Doesn't explain waxing & waning of bigotry - missing component could be many things (historical/cultural)
These are motivational factors - prejudice is not by-product of cognitive processing but part of "being" - emotional investment
If Tajfel right - factors need to be assimilated by individuals
Differences between extremes of prejudice & bigotry MUST incl. social element as categories socially constructed (BUT Tajfel ignores this!!) - 21Billig (2002) article (7) Prejudice & Bigotry cont...Prejudice seems to incl. cognitive decision making element
Bigotry incl. emotional/motivational element (Tajfel ignores this too!)
BUT Tajfel sees prejudice needing 'emotional investment' to move to "being prejudiced"
Doesn't elaborate on this as focus on groups - could be to avoid possible throwback to Adorno's Authoritarian Personality - 22Billig (2002) article (8) Prejudice & Bigotry cont...•Considering motivation doesn't lead to reductionism
•Emotion is socially constructed - created thru social interaction (discursive)
•Therefore: hate not an individual cognitive state but intersubjective construction in language of 'hate talk'
•Therefore: Hate = thought, talk & action - part of discourse & NOT located inside individuals - 23Billig (2002) article (9) Depersonalisation & Dehumanisation•SIT - dehuman = worsening of deperson
•Tajfel overlooked difference between deperson & dehuman
•Crucial difference between the 2 re extremity
•To get from deperson to dehuman requires 'emotional investment'
•Billig - Dehuman more extreme than deperson
•Deperson can be good - as identifying w/ many groups can make people broader & richer - 24Billig (2002) article (10) Towards a study of bigotrySocial phenomena - not sum of individuals who're bigoted
Ideologies - discursive basis; categories of ideology framed in language (not cognitive)
Emotion/motivation - must be considered; emotion not 'added-on' factor to cognition but part of interpretation (incl. repressed emotion)
Repressed/unrepressed emotion (Tajfel ignored unconscious) - Goes beyond DP re Freudian theories of repression...
Assumes people repress inappropriate talk (social norms)
Bigotry can take form of forbidden pleasure - e.g. extreme racist propaganda incl. jokes & mockery - 25Chapter conclusionBillig was Tajfel's student
He stresses historical context of Tajfel's 1969 work with SIT having situated knowledge & political beliefs
Billig argues Tajfel's cognitive approach doesn't explain everything
The gaps mainly relate to emotion & motivation
Billig proposes a discursive approach w/ categories formed thru discourse not cognition - which explains flexibility of prejudice/bigotry (missed by SIT)
Link between deperson & dehuman denied in later SIT work (Brown '00)
Tajfel saw prejudice as a problem...
SIT after sees it as a mere feature of group relations
Billig argues contemporary SIT squandered Tajfel's legacy
Discursive approach can be seen as radical redevelopment & continuation of Tajfel's intergroup approach
Información
- Descripción
- DD307 OU Social Psychology - Intergroup Processes: SIT
- Creado por
- Ken Adams
- Visitas
- 238
- Etiquetas
- Valoración