Social identity and realistic con ict theory
Origin of Social Identity Theory
• Tajfel’s experiments with non-social stimuli
• Minimal group experiment
SIT four central concepts, criteria
- social categorization
- Social identity
- Social comparison
- Psychological group distinctiveness
Empirical application (Boda & Neray)
- Roma in Hungary have a low status
-> how does the social position of Roma affect their social relationship?
• Tested how much classmates dislike each other
Competition: Roma may challenge majority group to establish higher status
– H1: Disliking nominations are more inter-ethnic than intraethnic
• Social Mobility: Individual Roma may try to leave their group and join the
majority(Pretend their are not Roma)
– H2: Self-ascribed Roma students dislike those who they perceive to be Roma but who
identify as member of the majority group (“traitors”)
If it is above 1 they are more disliked.
Trainers most disliked by Roma’s
• Non-Roma make negative nominations
mainly of Roma (blue)
• Roma make negative nominations of
non-Roma ( rst red)
-> Hypothesis 1 supporte
• Roma are most likely to make negative
nominations of students who they
perceive to be Roma but who identify
with the majority (last red bar) -> Hypothesis 2 supporte
MC question
• The study by Boda & Neray (2015) shows that…
A. minority group members employ only individual strategies to improve their social
identity
B. minority group members employ only group strategies to improve their social identity
C. all minority group members agree that the situation in Hungarian classrooms is stable and
legitimized
D. there is no agreement in minority group members’s perception of whether the
situation in Hungarian classrooms is stable and legitimized or not
fi
d
s
fl
d
.
, Increased perception of threat-> increase prejudge-> bc people feel that they are personally in
competition and or their personal position treated.
RGCT: group position interpretation (traditional interpretation)
• RGCT is concerned with comparison of own group position with the position of the out-
group
• RGCT is not concerned with the comparison of individuals with other individual
RGCT: Individualistic interpretation
• People feel that they personally are in competition and/or their individual position is being
threatene
• Law: The higher the level of competition, the more people perceive competition, the more
people perceive threat to their position, and the more negative are people’s attitudes toward
the outgroup.
• Condition: People fear that people in low-income housing threaten their position because
they decrease house prices and increase crim
-> People have more negative attitudes toward people in low income houses
Are SIT and RGCT contradicting each other?
• Tajfel (1970 and later): minimal group experiments – Social categorization is suf cient
condition for discrimination
• Sherif’s (1954) experiment suggest that competition over scares resources is necessary
condition for discrimination
Problem with SIT
• Consistent evidence only for positive discrimination (people give more to their own group)
but not negative discrimination (people do not take stuff way from the out-group)
-> “Positive-negative asymmetry”, in favor of in-group but no harm to the out-group
Are SIT and RGCT complementary?
• Research found that
- Perception of competition and threat reinforces the processes of social identi cation and
contra-identi cation
- The stronger the threat, the greater the loss of “positive group distinctiveness” (social
comparison)
d
fi
.
e
fi s
fi
Origin of Social Identity Theory
• Tajfel’s experiments with non-social stimuli
• Minimal group experiment
SIT four central concepts, criteria
- social categorization
- Social identity
- Social comparison
- Psychological group distinctiveness
Empirical application (Boda & Neray)
- Roma in Hungary have a low status
-> how does the social position of Roma affect their social relationship?
• Tested how much classmates dislike each other
Competition: Roma may challenge majority group to establish higher status
– H1: Disliking nominations are more inter-ethnic than intraethnic
• Social Mobility: Individual Roma may try to leave their group and join the
majority(Pretend their are not Roma)
– H2: Self-ascribed Roma students dislike those who they perceive to be Roma but who
identify as member of the majority group (“traitors”)
If it is above 1 they are more disliked.
Trainers most disliked by Roma’s
• Non-Roma make negative nominations
mainly of Roma (blue)
• Roma make negative nominations of
non-Roma ( rst red)
-> Hypothesis 1 supporte
• Roma are most likely to make negative
nominations of students who they
perceive to be Roma but who identify
with the majority (last red bar) -> Hypothesis 2 supporte
MC question
• The study by Boda & Neray (2015) shows that…
A. minority group members employ only individual strategies to improve their social
identity
B. minority group members employ only group strategies to improve their social identity
C. all minority group members agree that the situation in Hungarian classrooms is stable and
legitimized
D. there is no agreement in minority group members’s perception of whether the
situation in Hungarian classrooms is stable and legitimized or not
fi
d
s
fl
d
.
, Increased perception of threat-> increase prejudge-> bc people feel that they are personally in
competition and or their personal position treated.
RGCT: group position interpretation (traditional interpretation)
• RGCT is concerned with comparison of own group position with the position of the out-
group
• RGCT is not concerned with the comparison of individuals with other individual
RGCT: Individualistic interpretation
• People feel that they personally are in competition and/or their individual position is being
threatene
• Law: The higher the level of competition, the more people perceive competition, the more
people perceive threat to their position, and the more negative are people’s attitudes toward
the outgroup.
• Condition: People fear that people in low-income housing threaten their position because
they decrease house prices and increase crim
-> People have more negative attitudes toward people in low income houses
Are SIT and RGCT contradicting each other?
• Tajfel (1970 and later): minimal group experiments – Social categorization is suf cient
condition for discrimination
• Sherif’s (1954) experiment suggest that competition over scares resources is necessary
condition for discrimination
Problem with SIT
• Consistent evidence only for positive discrimination (people give more to their own group)
but not negative discrimination (people do not take stuff way from the out-group)
-> “Positive-negative asymmetry”, in favor of in-group but no harm to the out-group
Are SIT and RGCT complementary?
• Research found that
- Perception of competition and threat reinforces the processes of social identi cation and
contra-identi cation
- The stronger the threat, the greater the loss of “positive group distinctiveness” (social
comparison)
d
fi
.
e
fi s
fi
