Social Identity Theory (original) (raw)

Social Categorization and the Perception of Groups and Group Differences

Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2008

The classification of human beings into distinct groups is a fundamental feature of social perception. Problematic phenomena, such as prejudice, discrimination, and intergroup conflict, are commonly traced back to categorization. We explore the minimal conditions under which categorization occurs and the basic mechanisms by which it affects cognition and behavior. We show that comparisons between groups are not necessary for categorization, reveal the conditions under which people overestimate or underestimate differences between groups, and sketch a model showing how social categorization gives rise to differences in the evaluation of ingroups and outgroups and to differences in the accuracy of judgments of ingroups and outgroups. We conclude with reflections on intergroup conflict and the role of moral judgment in such conflicts. [The first man was created alone] for the sake of peace among men, so that no one could say to another, 'My ancestor was greater than yours' ... for when a human being strikes many coins from one mould, they all resemble one another, but the supreme King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He, fashioned every man in the stamp of the first man, and yet not one of them resembles his fellow.-Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5.

In-Group or Out-Group Extemity: Importance of the Threatened Social Identity

Personality and Social …, 1993

ScmL researchrrl have found that out-group mnn.bnJ art ~ sporuJ.ed to man: alrrmely than in-group mrrnbers; others haw found tk mJn'Se. The present authars hypothe.siud that whm importance ofgroup mnn.bnJhip was low, out-group al~y would ~ oburued. That is, when the tawt '5 actions haw f~ ur no implicationsfur theperceivt!r 's identiJy, out-group exlTt"miJ) will occur. In-group exlremity was expected whm perceivt!rs art high in identification wiJh tk in-group. The prtsrna ofa thrtat to one '5 idmJity was fmdicted to intmsify the in-grou p exlTt"miJ) effect fur highly idmJiflbi fln'S011.5 only. Evaluations of a loyal ur disloyal in-group ur out-group ~UJt!Tt made by highly idenlifud ur wealtly idmJifud in-group participants u7ll.Ur thrtalening urnonlhrtalnling conditions. The muUs confirmul tk fmdicted pattern ofeffects. Implications fur spurts sptctal.an and other self-selected group mrrnbers art discussed.

The Minimal Group Paradigm and its maximal impact in research on social categorization

Current Opinion in Psychology, 2016

One of the most influential paradigms in research on intergroup relations is the Minimal Group Paradigm. Initially motivated by an interest in understanding the basic determinants of social discrimination, this paradigm investigates the impact of social categorization on intergroup relations in the absence of realistic conflicts of interests, and for social categories that are arbitrary and novel. Based on a short overview of the main features of the paradigm and its impact on social-psychological theories, some recent modifications-mostly stemming from the past five years-are introduced. Moreover, attesting its versatility and great value, current research will be presented revealing that the Minimal Group Paradigm does not only target ingroup favoritism and social discrimination, but is successfully used in a wide array of research fields.

Social Identity and Intragroup Differentiation as Subjective Social Control

Social Identity: International Perspectives, 1998

simplicity, we herein designate as "SIT framework"; ideas recently set forth by Marques and Paez (1994) on the subjective dynamics of intragroup differentiation based on research on the "black sheep effect" and related to the Durkheimian perspective on social control and deviance; and research by Sherif and Hovland (1961) on attitudes and judgment. Its aim is to propose a cognitive-motivational framework to explain why people differentiate more strongly among ingroup than outgroup members as shown in the "black sheep effect". Research on this effect has addressed those situations in which normative and counter-normative ingroup and outgroup members are made salient to the subjects, to show that people tend to, respectively, upgrade and downgrade ingroup members who bolster and oppose normative ingroup standards, as compared to outgroup members. The black sheep effect has been assigned to subjects' attempt to legitimate the overall ingroup's positiveness, by derogating those ingroup members who, in opposing the ingroup's normative standards, threaten such positiveness. This view is consistent with the SIT framework (cf Marques and Paez, 1994). However, a full explanation of the black sheep effect requires qualification of some SIT assumptions as well as the proposal of some complementary processes which, in our view, better substantiate its emergence.

Group distinctiveness and intergroup discrimination

1999

Manipulation of in-group and out-group norms of discrimination and fairness allowed for the operation of competing social identity principles concerning in-group bias, conformity, and group distinctiveness. The combined effects of these principles on in-group bias were first examined in a modified minimal-group setting (Study 1). Results demonstrated that participants' allocation strategies were in accord with the in-group norm. Furthermore, dissimilar norms resulted in greater use of positive differentiation allocation strategies. However, in natural groups (Study 2), more in-group bias was found when both group norms were similar and discriminatory. The results confirm the importance of in-group norms and demonstrate differences between experimental and natural groups in the applicability of competing social identity and self-categorization principles.

Social Identification, Interdependence and Discrimination

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 1998

Identification u'ith the ingroup is a rreccssan' condition for ingroup faloritisrn. Operationalll,. the corrcept of ingrotrp identificatior-r irnplics belraviors u'hich are onll.dcdtrcible fron tlre fact that an individual has in sonre degrce rcdcfined himself as a mcmber of thatgroup (Turuer, 1978, p. l{t7). ... ue lrave shou'n that the allocation behavior in the MGP is perfectlv rational, instrumental and utiliurian at lcast rr'hen rnonetal-\' ot)tcomes are invollcd (Rabbie , Schot, & \'isser, 1989, p.197). Socrar tDENTrry rHEoRy (SIT; Tajfel & Turner, 1986) originated as an explanation of Group Processes €l [ntergroup Rclations 1998Vol l(1): a9-66 the discrimination effect obtained in the Minimal Group Paradigm (\{CP; Tajfel, Flament, Billig, & Bundy, 1971). In a qpical minimal