2702404
| Pregunta | Respuesta |
| Early 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 |
| Early 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 |
| Tajfel | •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 |
| Social 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 |
| Tajfel & 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 |
| Tajfel & Turner (1979) article (2) Social Context of Intergroup Behaviour | Reasons 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 |
| Tajfel & 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 |
| Tajfel & 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 |
| Tajfel & Turner (1979) article (5) Assumptions & arguments for SIT | 1) 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 |
| Tajfel & Turner (1979) article (6) Status hierarchies & social change | Status = 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 |
| Tajfel & Turner (1979) article (7) Objective v Subjective conflicts | Nearly 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 |
| Tajfel & Turner (1979) article (8) 3 processes | T&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 |
| Chapter 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 |
| Why 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) |
| Billig (2002) article (1) Intro | Argues 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 |
| Billig (2002) article (2) Tajfel's image of humanity | Lorenz - 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 |
| Billig (2002) article (3) Prejudice | Others 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 |
| Billig (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 |
| Billig (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 |
| Billig (2002) article (6) Prejudice & Bigotry | Cognitive 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!!) |
| Billig (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 |
| Billig (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 |
| Billig (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 |
| Billig (2002) article (10) Towards a study of bigotry | Social 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 |
| Chapter conclusion | Billig 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 |
¿Quieres crear tus propias Fichas gratiscon GoConqr? Más información.