Lecture 8 - Social Identity and Interaction
Difficulties
● Example Dissonance
○ Heider (1959)
■ when you and a person you like agree on something
■ when you and a person you like disagree on something
○ Universal mechanism – but people in the US more concerned than people in Japan
○ Festinger (1957) [Assimilation/Accommodation]
■ Experience of psychological tensions when they perceive mismatch between attitudes, behaviors, and any
combination of the two.
■ “Adjust one or the other. Repeat as necessary.”
○ Dogmatism
■ Refers to the inclination of some individuals to assume their beliefs are correct
○ Application
■ Holistic view – reality in flux (as expressed in Tai Chi, encompassing Yin & Yang)
■ Lao Tzu: “To take something, you need to give it first”
■ Aristotle: Two contradicting statements cannot be true at the same time. “A ≠ not A”
■ Philosophical acceptance of contradiction coined naive dialecticism (Peng & Nisbett, 1999)
○ Study Example
■ Sociologist & Biologist on nicotine and weight gain
● Rating of plausibility, separate or joint presentation
● People exhibit profound differences in their perception of contradictory and non-contradictory
statements (comparison in study American and Chinese participants)
● Example Attribution
○ Definition:
■ The process through which we seek to explain and identify the causes of the behavior of others as well as
our own. See also: Fundamental Attribution Error
■ Dispositional attributions
● the ascription of one’s own or another’s actions, an event, or an outcome to internal or
psychological causes specific to the person concerned, such as traits, moods, attitudes,
decisions and judgments, abilities, or effort. Also called internal attribution.
■ Situational attributions
● the ascription of one’s own or another’s behavior, an event, or an outcome to causes outside the
person concerned, such as luck, pressure from other people, or external circumstances. Also
called external attribution.
○ In-group/out-group distinction
■ In-group more heterogeneous
○ Locus of Control: internal/external
■ Adaptiveness: usually internal>external - but depends on frame of reference – with far-reaching
consequences
■ Current research on social axioms: “fate control” (Leung & Bond, 2004)
○ Western/Urban - internal
○ Non-Western/rural - external (but consider domain specificity)
○ Three explanations
■ Individual ability
■ Effort
■ Task difficulty
○ Self-centered bias (USA)
■ Take credit for personal success and avoid responsibility for failure
○ Unassuming bias (Japan)
■ Success results from external and failure from internal factors
○ Acculturation can change these!
● Example Inter-group Contact
○ Allport’s (1954) contact hypothesis
■ Equal status
■ Common goals
■ Intergroup cooperation
■ Support of authorities, law or customs
■ Personal interaction
○ Evidence
■ African Americans, Muslims, Homosexuals
, ○ Also: negative contact hypothesis > stereotypes
■ Definition: If groups with a negative outlook were brought together, it would lead to increases of negative
attitudes rather than positive
○ Example: Racial shooter bias (Meta-analysis)
● Participants shot more quickly at armed Black targets than armed White targets
● Slower to not shoot unarmed Black targets (than unarmed White targets)
● Had a more liberal shooting threshold for Black targets than White targets (= a bias toward
shooting)
Stereotypes
● General
○ Definition: Categorical assumptions that all members of a given group have the same trait, which may be (often is)
inaccurate
■ Simplification leading to two types of errors
● Genuine differences masked by stereotyped similarities
● Genuine similarities masked by stereotyped differences
○ Stereotype expression is difficult recognize/ perceive as discriminatory
○ Cycle of self-fulfilling mechanisms
● (Fiske, 2015)
● Stereotypes and National character
○ Perceived behavioral and psychological features and traits common in people from a specific nation
○ E.g. Think of nationalities/ethnic groups that fits the stereotype
■ This person was never late for breakfast, lunch, or dinner.
■ This person was constantly drinking wine.
Identity
● Social Identity
○ That part of an individual’s self-concept which derives from his knowledge of his membership in a social group (or
groups) together with the value or emotional significance attached to that membership
● Ethnicity
○ Indicates cultural heritage, the experience shared by people who have a belief in a common ancestral origin,
language, traditions, and often religion and geographic territory
● Ethnic identity
○ Ethnicity + Social Identity
● Context and Social/Ethnic Identity
○ Is one’s social identity just personal taste, fashion, and pop culture?
○ Most identities are largely context dependent
■ Being ethnic varies according to the situation and the people present
■ But some do not: emotions and loyalties are relatively constant
○ Interindividual differences: Some people are more inclined to see themselves as group members, irrespective of
context
○ Different groups have a different range of options.
● Characteristics -> Identities -> Discrimination
○ Example: Eye of the Storm Experiment 1970, Jane Elliott
● Partial Identities
○ Everyone belongs to multiple categories
○ Depending on a specific context, one of these partial identities may come to the foreground
○ Number of identities/roles depends on the stage of life and the social network
○ Cultural differences in the number of partial identities: higher in nontraditional, lower in traditional cultural contexts
● (Ethnic) Identity Formation
○ Ascribed / Self-ascribed identity
■ Ethnic category = by others
■ Ethnic group = self-categorization
○ Terms are often not neutral
■ Ethnic minorities, immigrants, guest workers, foreigners
■ Struggles about names: coloured -> negro -> black -> African American
○ Identity formation always concerns power
, ● The Importance of Ethnicity
○ Circumstantialism
■ Structural conditions – ethnicity based on the circumstances
■ Ethnic groups = interest groups
■ Changing circumstances alters the utility of ethnicity
● Limitations
○ People do nothing?
○ Self-interest as the only motivation?
○ Only focus on non-ethnic circumstances
○ Constructed Primordiality
■ Blood, family, home
■ Emphasis on the emotional and imperative nature of ethnicity
■ Three reasons for the persistence of ethnic attachments
● Socialization
● Communal sharing
● Providing answers to the questions of life
○ Limitations
■ External classifications & ethnic hierarchies often more important than
socialization
■ No change across contexts?
Case Study: Selcuk
● Selcuk
○ A “I sure feel Turkish. Like Ahmed says, we really feel Turkish and that’s very important to us. Our culture should be
maintained and we are proud of it.”
○ B “Of course I am Turkish, but I do not mind much. I mean, I can hardly speak Turkish, and I do not go to the
mosque. I have lived here almost all my life and will stay here, so I have become more Dutch than Turkish.”
● The role of context (1)
○ Ideological context
■ Classroom ≠ canteen
■ Multiculturalism vs. Assimilation in relation to in -group identification
○ Experimental induction of multicultural and assimilation ideology (Verkuyten, 2005)
■ 1. Turkish participants endorse multiculturalism more than Dutch
■ 2. The more multiculturalism (Turkish) = more in -group identification
■ 3. The more multiculturalism (Dutch) = less in -group identification
● Ideology?
○ A: multiculturalism
○ B: assimilation
● The role of context (2)
○ Ethnic self-stereotyping and group context
■ Identity: personal & social sense, comparison different groups (majority, ethnic in-group; SCT, Turner,
1987)
■ Verkuyten & de Wolf (2002b) compared ratings of Chinese in relation to their in-group and the majority
group -> Stereotypes show up in the inter-group condition more than in the intragroup condition
● Self-stereotyping?
○ A: inter-group
○ B: intra-group
● The role of context (3)
○ Cultural context
■ Cultural frame switching (Hong et al., 2000)
■ Culture = domain-specific knowledge (biculturalism lecture)
● Bicultural?
○ A: Turkish
○ B: Dutch
● The role of context (4)
○ Conversational and rhetorical context
■ Discursive point of view: Statements are a part of a debate, positioning, and social interactions
● Interaction?
○ A: “Turkish” positioning
○ B: no positioning
● Differences in Meaning
○ Selcuk might not be talking about the same thing in his statements
Difficulties
● Example Dissonance
○ Heider (1959)
■ when you and a person you like agree on something
■ when you and a person you like disagree on something
○ Universal mechanism – but people in the US more concerned than people in Japan
○ Festinger (1957) [Assimilation/Accommodation]
■ Experience of psychological tensions when they perceive mismatch between attitudes, behaviors, and any
combination of the two.
■ “Adjust one or the other. Repeat as necessary.”
○ Dogmatism
■ Refers to the inclination of some individuals to assume their beliefs are correct
○ Application
■ Holistic view – reality in flux (as expressed in Tai Chi, encompassing Yin & Yang)
■ Lao Tzu: “To take something, you need to give it first”
■ Aristotle: Two contradicting statements cannot be true at the same time. “A ≠ not A”
■ Philosophical acceptance of contradiction coined naive dialecticism (Peng & Nisbett, 1999)
○ Study Example
■ Sociologist & Biologist on nicotine and weight gain
● Rating of plausibility, separate or joint presentation
● People exhibit profound differences in their perception of contradictory and non-contradictory
statements (comparison in study American and Chinese participants)
● Example Attribution
○ Definition:
■ The process through which we seek to explain and identify the causes of the behavior of others as well as
our own. See also: Fundamental Attribution Error
■ Dispositional attributions
● the ascription of one’s own or another’s actions, an event, or an outcome to internal or
psychological causes specific to the person concerned, such as traits, moods, attitudes,
decisions and judgments, abilities, or effort. Also called internal attribution.
■ Situational attributions
● the ascription of one’s own or another’s behavior, an event, or an outcome to causes outside the
person concerned, such as luck, pressure from other people, or external circumstances. Also
called external attribution.
○ In-group/out-group distinction
■ In-group more heterogeneous
○ Locus of Control: internal/external
■ Adaptiveness: usually internal>external - but depends on frame of reference – with far-reaching
consequences
■ Current research on social axioms: “fate control” (Leung & Bond, 2004)
○ Western/Urban - internal
○ Non-Western/rural - external (but consider domain specificity)
○ Three explanations
■ Individual ability
■ Effort
■ Task difficulty
○ Self-centered bias (USA)
■ Take credit for personal success and avoid responsibility for failure
○ Unassuming bias (Japan)
■ Success results from external and failure from internal factors
○ Acculturation can change these!
● Example Inter-group Contact
○ Allport’s (1954) contact hypothesis
■ Equal status
■ Common goals
■ Intergroup cooperation
■ Support of authorities, law or customs
■ Personal interaction
○ Evidence
■ African Americans, Muslims, Homosexuals
, ○ Also: negative contact hypothesis > stereotypes
■ Definition: If groups with a negative outlook were brought together, it would lead to increases of negative
attitudes rather than positive
○ Example: Racial shooter bias (Meta-analysis)
● Participants shot more quickly at armed Black targets than armed White targets
● Slower to not shoot unarmed Black targets (than unarmed White targets)
● Had a more liberal shooting threshold for Black targets than White targets (= a bias toward
shooting)
Stereotypes
● General
○ Definition: Categorical assumptions that all members of a given group have the same trait, which may be (often is)
inaccurate
■ Simplification leading to two types of errors
● Genuine differences masked by stereotyped similarities
● Genuine similarities masked by stereotyped differences
○ Stereotype expression is difficult recognize/ perceive as discriminatory
○ Cycle of self-fulfilling mechanisms
● (Fiske, 2015)
● Stereotypes and National character
○ Perceived behavioral and psychological features and traits common in people from a specific nation
○ E.g. Think of nationalities/ethnic groups that fits the stereotype
■ This person was never late for breakfast, lunch, or dinner.
■ This person was constantly drinking wine.
Identity
● Social Identity
○ That part of an individual’s self-concept which derives from his knowledge of his membership in a social group (or
groups) together with the value or emotional significance attached to that membership
● Ethnicity
○ Indicates cultural heritage, the experience shared by people who have a belief in a common ancestral origin,
language, traditions, and often religion and geographic territory
● Ethnic identity
○ Ethnicity + Social Identity
● Context and Social/Ethnic Identity
○ Is one’s social identity just personal taste, fashion, and pop culture?
○ Most identities are largely context dependent
■ Being ethnic varies according to the situation and the people present
■ But some do not: emotions and loyalties are relatively constant
○ Interindividual differences: Some people are more inclined to see themselves as group members, irrespective of
context
○ Different groups have a different range of options.
● Characteristics -> Identities -> Discrimination
○ Example: Eye of the Storm Experiment 1970, Jane Elliott
● Partial Identities
○ Everyone belongs to multiple categories
○ Depending on a specific context, one of these partial identities may come to the foreground
○ Number of identities/roles depends on the stage of life and the social network
○ Cultural differences in the number of partial identities: higher in nontraditional, lower in traditional cultural contexts
● (Ethnic) Identity Formation
○ Ascribed / Self-ascribed identity
■ Ethnic category = by others
■ Ethnic group = self-categorization
○ Terms are often not neutral
■ Ethnic minorities, immigrants, guest workers, foreigners
■ Struggles about names: coloured -> negro -> black -> African American
○ Identity formation always concerns power
, ● The Importance of Ethnicity
○ Circumstantialism
■ Structural conditions – ethnicity based on the circumstances
■ Ethnic groups = interest groups
■ Changing circumstances alters the utility of ethnicity
● Limitations
○ People do nothing?
○ Self-interest as the only motivation?
○ Only focus on non-ethnic circumstances
○ Constructed Primordiality
■ Blood, family, home
■ Emphasis on the emotional and imperative nature of ethnicity
■ Three reasons for the persistence of ethnic attachments
● Socialization
● Communal sharing
● Providing answers to the questions of life
○ Limitations
■ External classifications & ethnic hierarchies often more important than
socialization
■ No change across contexts?
Case Study: Selcuk
● Selcuk
○ A “I sure feel Turkish. Like Ahmed says, we really feel Turkish and that’s very important to us. Our culture should be
maintained and we are proud of it.”
○ B “Of course I am Turkish, but I do not mind much. I mean, I can hardly speak Turkish, and I do not go to the
mosque. I have lived here almost all my life and will stay here, so I have become more Dutch than Turkish.”
● The role of context (1)
○ Ideological context
■ Classroom ≠ canteen
■ Multiculturalism vs. Assimilation in relation to in -group identification
○ Experimental induction of multicultural and assimilation ideology (Verkuyten, 2005)
■ 1. Turkish participants endorse multiculturalism more than Dutch
■ 2. The more multiculturalism (Turkish) = more in -group identification
■ 3. The more multiculturalism (Dutch) = less in -group identification
● Ideology?
○ A: multiculturalism
○ B: assimilation
● The role of context (2)
○ Ethnic self-stereotyping and group context
■ Identity: personal & social sense, comparison different groups (majority, ethnic in-group; SCT, Turner,
1987)
■ Verkuyten & de Wolf (2002b) compared ratings of Chinese in relation to their in-group and the majority
group -> Stereotypes show up in the inter-group condition more than in the intragroup condition
● Self-stereotyping?
○ A: inter-group
○ B: intra-group
● The role of context (3)
○ Cultural context
■ Cultural frame switching (Hong et al., 2000)
■ Culture = domain-specific knowledge (biculturalism lecture)
● Bicultural?
○ A: Turkish
○ B: Dutch
● The role of context (4)
○ Conversational and rhetorical context
■ Discursive point of view: Statements are a part of a debate, positioning, and social interactions
● Interaction?
○ A: “Turkish” positioning
○ B: no positioning
● Differences in Meaning
○ Selcuk might not be talking about the same thing in his statements
