Sociocultural Level of Analysis: Sociocultural Cognition

1
Sociocultural Level of AnalysisSociocultural
Cognition

• Part II

2
Social Identity Theory

• Henri Tajfels social identity theory assumes
  that individuals strive to improve their
  self-image by trying to enhance their
  self-esteem, based on either personal identity or
  various social identities.
• Social categorization theory has been used to
  explain social phenomena such as ethnocentrism,
  in-group favoritism, stereotyping, and conformity
  to in-group norms.

3
Social Identity Theory

• In-group (us)
• Out-group (them)
• Tajfel argues that people who belong to a group
  or even are randomly assigned to a group they
  automatically think that group as the in-group,
  and all others as the out group. They will show
  in-group favoritism, and a pattern of
  discrimination against the out-group.

4
Social Identity Theory

• An individuals self-esteem is maintained by
  social comparison, meaning the benefits of
  belonging to the in-group versus the out-group.
  The outcome of these comparisons is critical
  because it influences our own self-esteem.

5
Social Identity Theory

• Cialdini et at. (1976) demonstrated this
  phenomenon among college football supporters.
  After a successful football match, the supporters
  were more likely to be seen wearing college
  insignia and clothing than after defeats.
• Tajfel (1978) the establishment of positive
  distinctiveness - It is assumed that our need for
  positive self-concept will result in a bias in
  these intergroup comparisons, so that you are
  more positive towards anything that your own
  group represents.

6
Kandinsky versus Klee experiment Tajfel et al.
(1971)

• Boys, 14-15 years old, were shown 12 slides
  portraying different painting. One half of the
  paintings were by Kandinsky and the other half
  were painted by Klee. Boys were asked to express
  their preferences, which paintings did they like
  and which paintings did they hate.

Kadinsky
Klee
7
Kandinsky versus Klee experiment Tajfel et al.
(1971)

• The boys were seemingly allocated to two separate
  groups. They were given the impression that this
  grouping was based on the impressions that the
  experimenters received from them after the
  initial part of the experiment.
• The two groups were named Kandinsky group and
  Klee group. The names that were given to the
  group added up to the impression that the
  groupings were based on the expressed preferences
  of the boys but the truth is, the grouping was
  completely randomized.

8
Kandinsky versus Klee experiment Tajfel et al.
(1971)

• The last stage of the experiment is the rewards
  allocation task. Each boy was given a task to
  award points to two other boys, one from his same
  group and one from the other group. The only
  information that each boy was given were code
  numbers and the name of the group of the two boys
  they were supposed to award. There were two
  systems of awarding points that were employed by
  the researchers.

9
Kandinsky versus Klee experiment Tajfel et al.
(1971)

• In the first system of point awarding, the boys
  generally awarded more points to the members of
  their in-group showing in-group favoritism. In
  the second system of point awarding, the boys
  generally opted to maximize the difference
  between the profits of the two groups favoring
  their in-group

10
Kandinsky versus Klee experiment Tajfel et al.
(1971)

• One of the most obvious conclusions that we can
  draw from this experiment is the natural tendency
  of members of a group to favor their in-group.
  Despite the seemingly meaningless groupings
  created by the experimenters, the subjects were
  able to identify with their respective groups and
  create a positive social identity through giving
  their in-group more points.
• This phenomenon can be likened to self-serving
  bias. Since every individual within a group was
  able to identify themselves with their group, the
  group is now associated with ones self, thus,
  benefit of the group identified with the self is
  prioritized.

11
Limits of Social Identity Theory

• Social Identity Theory is a good way of
  understanding human behavior. It describes but
  does not accurately predict human behavior.
• Using the theory on isolation is reductionist,
  meaning it fails to address the environment that
  interacts with the self. The environment
  includes cultural expectations, rewards as
  motivators, and societal constraints such as
  poverty may play more of a role in behavior than
  ones sense of in-group identity.