Social identity and social categorization

Author

Mary Rust

Publication Year

1996

Type

Thesis

Abstract

Two models of intergroup bias reduction were examined. The social categorization model, as outlined in the Common Ingroup Identity Model by Gaertner et al., (1990) states that degrading the boundary between groups will result in decreased bias, as former outgroup members are pulled psychologically closer and raised to ingroup status. The social motivation model, as outlined in Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1982) proposes that the desire of groups to maintain positive distinctiveness is more important, therefore reduction of the salience of the intergroup boundary will result in greater bias as distinctiveness is threatened. It was proposed that when group identity confers positive distinctiveness, as when a group is of higher status relative to another group, group members will exhibit greater bias when the boundary between groups is degraded. However, it was expected that lower status groups will demonstrate reduced bias when boundary salience is reduced, due to the common ingroup identity. In the current study, class standing was used as a naturally occurring status variable: freshmen and sophomores participated as subjects. The degree of boundary degradation and group inclusivity was manipulated by mixing the freshmen and sophomores into heterogeneous task groups (cross-cut condition) versus maintaining the class standing boundaries in homogeneous task groups (convergent condition). Additionally, a common group identity factor was manipulated by emphasizing the common university identity of all participants in the experimental session versus no mention of the common identity. Results suggested a degree of reluctance on the part of higher-status sophomores to recognize their common identity with freshmen when the manipulations suggested such a configuration. However, the boundary degradation of the cross-cut task groups generally resulted in improved ratings of the outgroup members in terms of evaluation, affect generated and in terms of task allocation. The social categorization model received greater support than the social motivational model.

Keywords

psychological boundries, group dynamics, intergroup dynamics, models, social identity, group identity, motivation, social behavior, social categorization

Academic Department

Department of Psychology

Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Thesis Type

Dissertation

University

University of Delaware

URL

External link to reference

Full text

The following is an excerpt of the intervention methodology. For more information, please see the full text of the article on the publisher's website or through your institution's library.

Methods

Participants

One hundred four participants were run in same-sex groups of four, resulting in 25 male groups and 36 female groups. [...]

Procedure

Group Formation

Four participants (all same sex) were selected to participate in each session composed of two sophomores and two freshmen. At the start of the session, each pair was unaware of the existence of the other pair. [...]

The instructions began by giving a brief description of the tasks involved in the study, which was described as a "problem-solving" study. [...]

They were told that the two of them together would be working on a task in which they would rank-order ten listed items in order of their importance for success in college [...]. [...] Participants then were told to come up with a group name for themselves [...] and then completed the rank ordering task together.

Next, participants answered four questions about the problem-solving process; these questions [...] were included in order to emphasize the stated concern of the study [...]. Next were four questions regarding their identification with their class group [...].

Group Merger

Taped instructions indicated that for the next task they would be brought into a larger room with "the two other people participating in this session," where they all would watch a videotape of a person relating several incidents. Their goal was to determine when the story-teller was telling a true story and when a false story was being told. Instructions further stated that two people would be watching for body language cues, and two people would be watching for facial expression cues [...]. The experimenter then held out four index cards and asked one of the participants to select one of them. The experimenter then exited the small room to the larger merger room, where he or she ostensibly set up for the task assignment. In reality, the assignments were randomly predetermined. After synchronizing with the other experimenter, both returned to the small rooms to bring the participants out into the larger room.

Superordinate Identity

In the conditions where a superordinate identity is imposed, the merger room had a university [...] banner hung on the wall near the table where participants were sitting, and they were asked to don university t-shirts. [...]

Instructions in the superordinate identity condition also indicated that the assessments of the truthfulness of the videotaped person from each of the four participants would be combined into one solution for the whole group. If the solution met a certain criterion of accuracy, then this solution would be entered into a lottery for the chance to win fifteen dollars per person. This manipulation caused the participants to share a common fate [...].

Task Assignment

There was a table midway between the two smaller rooms. When participants were brought into the larger room, placemats indicated where they should sit and whether they were assigned to concentrate on "facial expression" or "body language." In the cross-cut condition, one freshman and one sophomore were assigned to the facial expression task, and one freshman and one sophomore were assigned to the body language task. In the convergent conditions, the freshmen worked on the same task and the sophomores on the same task. In the convergent conditions, the two tasks were alternated between the two class groups.

Interaction

In the interaction condition, participants were told that there would first be a training exercise in deception detection, in which each partner would tell the other partner about incidents in which they were involved. [...] For each of the four topics, they would tell two stories: one true and one false. The listening partner would know when each of the eight stories was true or false, and they were told to study differences in facial expression or body language between the two types of stories. Two of the topics given to talk about gave participants the opportunity to disconfirm a stereotypical view held about them as either a freshman or a sophomore. [...] [...]

Task

After their training session, all four participants returned to the center table, and a videotape was played (without sound) in which one person (same sex as the participants) related eight incidents. During pauses in between each story, participants indicated on a form whether the story was true or false, and their degree of confidence in their assessment (50 - 100%). The answer sheets were taken to another table, and experimenters checked off their answers, ostensibly to see if the accuracy level was high enough to qualify for the lottery. [...]

Type of Prejudice/Bias

Country

Method

Setting