Two Key Studies of Social Identity Theory: Tajfel (1972) & Howarth (2002) (SL IB Psychology)

Aim: To investigate the minimal groups paradigm and how it is relevant to social identity theory (SIT)

Participants: 48 males aged 14-15 from the same state school in Bristol, UK. The boys were randomly allocated to 3 groups consisting of 16 boys per group

Procedure:

• The boys were randomly assigned to a group by the researchers 
• The boys had been shown slides of paintings by the artists Klee and Kandinsky and were asked to state which artist they preferred 
• They were then told that their preference for one of these two artists would form the basis of the group they would be assigned to (in actual fact this did not happen – the boys simply thought that this had happened, thereby creating minimal groups) 
• The boys were not told which of the other boys were members of their group and there was no face-to-face contact with other group members once they had made their choice
• The boys were then shown, individually, to a cubicle and asked to conduct the following task: 
  assign money (virtual, not real) to members of either the boy’s ingroup (based on the preference for the artist previously stated) or outgroup (preference for the other artist) 
• The boys did not know the identity of each boy, only a code number which identified whether they were ingroup or outgroup
• The trials were set up in a randomised design by the researchers and tested the boys on a range of measures including whether they would opt for maximum joint profit, maximum ingroup profit, maximum difference between ingroup and outgroup

Results: The boys tended to favour the ingroup members, choosing to go for a higher reward and to penalise the outgroup i.e. they went for the choice which maximised the biggest profit/loss difference between the ingroup and the outgroup, often at the expense of possible maximum joint profit
This was based solely on the mere idea of the other group rather than on any actual interaction between ingroup and outgroup members, even when the difference between the groups was minimal i.e. not based on any shared group characteristics but on the (illusion) that the other boys in the group also preferred the same artist

Conclusion: Ingroup favouritism can be manipulated via the minimal groups paradigm in which participants use social categorisation to make decisions i.e. simply knowing that another (rival) group exists is enough to suggest the idea of ‘us’ and ‘them’

Evaluation of Tajfel et al. (1971)

Strengths

• This was a lab experiment which uses a standardised procedure and quantitative data which should ensure reliability
• The fact that the boys did not meet or even see the ingroup and outgroup members adds validity to the procedure as it eliminates possible sources of bias from the decision as to how to award money i.e. physical appearance and personality factors cannot have influenced the decisions made in the task

Weaknesses

• There was no jeopardy involved in the task: assigning virtual money to faceless strangers does not reflect real-life situations therefore the study lacks ecological validity
• The boys may have succumbed to response bias i.e. rewarding their ingroup because they felt that this is what the researchers wanted them to do

Key terms:

• Minimal groups paradigm
• Ingroup
• Outgroup

Aim: To investigate the ways in which prejudice and discrimination affect social identity

Participants: 44 teenagers aged 12-16 years old from Brixton from an ethnically diverse demographic. 5 head teachers of Brixton secondary schools. Brixton is an area in South London which has been associated with crime, violence and social disadvantage

Procedure: 8 focus group interviews were run by the researcher with an average of 5 participants per session. The researcher began by introducing a topic e.g. ‘Tell me about your life in Brixton and how you think other people might feel about Brixton’ and then the participants discussed the topic together with the researcher recording the session.
Interviews with the head teachers were conducted so that the researcher could gain some insight into school students from Brixton and their cultural backgrounds

Results: The researcher collected qualitative data under three main headings as follows:

• Constructing Social Identities through Representations: the teenagers reported that other people are often shocked, negative or fearful when they find out where the participants are from e.g. references to weapons, drug use etc. The participants felt that the media played a significant role in stereotyping and stigmatising them and that this could be seen in the body language of non-Brixton residents e.g. a white woman holding on tight to her handbag when two black Brixton teenagers were walking towards her
• The Psychological Violence of Stigmatising Representations: the participants reported that they see themselves through the eyes of strangers i.e. as violent, deviant, aggressive and that this has a massive impact on their self-identity and self-esteem with some participants reporting feelings of great shame and conflict about coming from Brixton. Some of the participants have attempted to eradicate any traces of their Brixton identity, psychologically and metaphorically removing themselves from the area. Some participants experienced anger and depression and some succumbed to a self-fulfilling prophecy - i.e. ‘they expect me to be hostile, so I’ll be hostile’
• Social Relationships and Institutional Cultures in Empowerment: family and school played a key role in the lives of the Brixton teenagers, both to help the young people to build self-esteem and a positive identity. The head teachers reported however, that not all parents are positive role models in this context. Some parents actively block a school’s efforts to integrate the students and to enable their children to become confident and well-rounded individuals, mainly due to some misguided attitudes towards child-rearing. The participants all felt that children can help their parents to shed prejudiced attitudes and to gain a better insight into and understanding of the community in which they live

Conclusion: Social identity can be hugely affected by the prejudiced attitudes of individuals and of society as a whole

Evaluation of Howarth (2002)

Strengths

• Qualitative data is rich and insightful which gives it great explanatory power
• Using focus groups allows for a relaxed atmosphere in which the participants are less likely to be guarded or artificial about what they say

Weaknesses

• The analysis of qualitative data is time-consuming and may be prone to researcher bias as the researcher has collected the data themselves so they may only look for themes within the data which confirm their initial beliefs and ideas
• Focus group interviews may not be representative of the full range of views within the group as they can tend to be dominated by the more confident members of the group, leaving the more reserved, shy members feeling that they are not able to express their feelings and attitudes