SOCIAL CATEGORIES AND SOCIAL IDENTITY
Experiments by Tajfel and colleagues provided the most convincing evidence that competitive goals are not a necessary condition for intergroup conflict. In fact, merely being categorized as a group member can cause negative intergroup behaviour (Tajfel, Flament, Billig & Bundy, 1971). In Tajfel’s studies, participants were randomly divided into two groups and asked to distribute points or money between anonymous members of their own group and anonymous members of the other group. There was no personal interaction, group members were anonymous, and the groups had no ‘past’ and no ‘future’ – for these reasons these groups are called ‘minimal groups’, and this experimentalprocedure is called the minimal group paradigm. The consistent finding of this research is that the mere fact of being categorized is enough to cause people to discriminate in favour of the ingroup and against the outgroup.
This research spawned the ‘social identity perspective’ on group processes and intergroup relations (Tajfel & Turner, 1986; see also Hogg & Abrams, 1988). According to this perspective, the groups that we belong to define who we are. Part of our identity and how we feel about ourselves is derived from the groups we belong to, and how we evaluate them. When we categorize ourselves and others in groups, we stereotype ourselves and outgroup members in terms of our respective group memberships, and our own group identity helps to determine our attitudes, feelings and behaviours. This process produces a sense of group identification and belonging, as well as ingroup solidarity, conformity and bias.
According to this social identity perspective, because groups define and evaluate who we are, intergroup relations are a continual struggle to gain superiority for the ingroup over the outgroup. How the struggle is conducted – and the specific nature of intergroup behaviour (e.g. competitive, conflictual, destructively aggressive) – is thought to depend on people’s beliefs about the status relations between groups. Are status relations between groups stable or unstable, legitimate or illegitimate? And is it possible to pass from one group to another (see Tajfel, 1978)
Experiments by Tajfel and colleagues provided the most convincing evidence that competitive goals are not a necessary condition for intergroup conflict. In fact, merely being categorized as a group member can cause negative intergroup behaviour (Tajfel, Flament, Billig & Bundy, 1971). In Tajfel’s studies, participants were randomly divided into two groups and asked to distribute points or money between anonymous members of their own group and anonymous members of the other group. There was no personal interaction, group members were anonymous, and the groups had no ‘past’ and no ‘future’ – for these reasons these groups are called ‘minimal groups’, and this experimentalprocedure is called the minimal group paradigm. The consistent finding of this research is that the mere fact of being categorized is enough to cause people to discriminate in favour of the ingroup and against the outgroup.
This research spawned the ‘social identity perspective’ on group processes and intergroup relations (Tajfel & Turner, 1986; see also Hogg & Abrams, 1988). According to this perspective, the groups that we belong to define who we are. Part of our identity and how we feel about ourselves is derived from the groups we belong to, and how we evaluate them. When we categorize ourselves and others in groups, we stereotype ourselves and outgroup members in terms of our respective group memberships, and our own group identity helps to determine our attitudes, feelings and behaviours. This process produces a sense of group identification and belonging, as well as ingroup solidarity, conformity and bias.
According to this social identity perspective, because groups define and evaluate who we are, intergroup relations are a continual struggle to gain superiority for the ingroup over the outgroup. How the struggle is conducted – and the specific nature of intergroup behaviour (e.g. competitive, conflictual, destructively aggressive) – is thought to depend on people’s beliefs about the status relations between groups. Are status relations between groups stable or unstable, legitimate or illegitimate? And is it possible to pass from one group to another (see Tajfel, 1978)
No comments:
Post a Comment