IB Psych. notes Feb. 26-27, 2025

​Discover new features in Lessons!
Finish all phases of “I-do ; We-do ; You-do” with Quizizz

According to SIT, one important cognitive process involved in intergroup

behavior is the simple act of distinguishing between in-groups and out-groups. This is known as social categorization and is one of the key components of SIT. If people didn’t think about in-groups and out-groups, the effect of belonging to a group might be minimal or perhaps even non-existent. Moreover, SIT attempts to explain intergroup behavior, and it’s impossible to explain intergroup behavior (e.g. conflict, prejudice,

discrimination, etc.) without there being groups to interact with in the first place.

Why is social categorization an important process to consider when studying intergroup behavior?

An important cognitive process involved in intergroup behavior is the simple act of distinguishing between in-group and out-groups. If people didn't think about in-group and out-group...the effect of belonging to a group might be non-existent. This helps explain intergroup behavior like conflict, prejudice, and discrimination.

positive distinctiveness

To be distinct, means to be obviously different from something else. In the context of explaining inter-group behavior and conflict, positive distinctiveness has to do with one group trying to make themselves better (positive) and different (distinct) from out-groups. This could easily lead to competition as being victorious and defeating an out-group in some way could increase positive distinctiveness.

is a potential goal for members of in-group. They want to make themselves different and better than out-groups.

​

Positive Distinctiveness

Tajfel and Turner’s original theory claimed that positive distinctiveness is a result of a natural human desire to increase our self-esteem. This is another key aspect of the theory called the self esteem hypothesis. Tajfel and Turner suggest that “individuals will strive to achieve or maintain their positive social identity,” and we can base our positive social identity by favorably comparing our in-group with out-groups (Tajfel and Turner, 1979). Our “identity” is a term that generally means how we view ourselves, so our social identity simply refers to how people view themselves based on their belonging to a particular group. Once again, try to relate this abstract concept to your own experiences to understand it better. Who are you? How do you see yourself? What is your identity? What factors influence your feeling of identity?

​SIT suggests that it is our belonging to particular groups and our identification with those particular groups we belong to, which can enhance our self-image and enable us to have a positive social identity. Similarly, the process of social comparison can help to boost our self-esteem, especially if we view and treat our own in-group favorably at

the expense of out-groups. This bias of thinking and acting towards one’s in-group is

called in-group bias.

Researchers have observed real life examples of social identity and self-esteem on college campuses. Cialdini et al. (1976) conducted a field study where they counted the number of college sweatshirts and t-shirts worn by students on campus after their football team had just won or lost a game. They found that after a victory students were more likely to wear clothing that showed their college’s name. As Cialdini puts it, they were “basking in reflected glory.” Similar studies by the same researchers showed that after the football team lost, college students were more likely to describe the team using the pronoun “they.” When they won, on the other hand, suddenly they would say “we.” For example, a fan might say something like “they just didn’t work hard enough and the other team were better, which is why they lost.” Or if they won they might say something like: “We’ve been really working hard for this and waiting for so long. We were just better than the other team.”

• Demonstrates that people seek a positive social identity and that their social identity is affected by being a part of their group so that you are more positive towards anything that your own group represents. 

• Membership to a social group affects the behavior of an individual. 

​

​Conclusion

​This study supports the SIT as it demonstrated the concept of social identity. 

• People's self-image was affected by their in-group in that the victory gave a sense of "positive- distinctiveness" for the group and therefore enhanced self-esteem. 

​Connection of study to question

In-group bias could be observed in experimental situations even when the

groups had nothing in common.

Tajfel and Turner when they were investigating group dynamics involved

what has come to be known as the minimal group paradigm.

Minimal Group Paradigm

The participants have nothing in common with other members of their in-group, which is where the “minimal group” phrase comes from: they are formed based on the basic definition of what it means to be a group in that they are simply grouped together.

• Boys tended to favor ingroup members over outgroup members (ingroup favoritism) 

• Boys maximized differences between groups (category accentuation effect), even if it was potentially disadvantageous to their own group

Key Study: Tajfel et. al (1971)

Results

• The idea of being in a group is enough to induce own group bias (minimal group paradigm) 

Key Study: Tajfel et. al (1971)

Conclusion

Stereotypes and Out-group Homogeneity

Stereotypes are cognitive processes and are examples

of social cognition, as they are ways of thinking about others.

By simply thinking of another group as just that, a group, we make generalizations about their behavior. Thus, it’s rather easy for stereotypes to occur.

Stereotypes and Out-group Homogeneity

Another possible explanation for stereotypes based on SIT has to do with one byproduct of social categorization: the out-group homogeneity effect. If a group is

homogeneous it means that they are alike or at least they are viewed as alike. The

out-group homogeneity effect is what happens to an in-group member’s perception of the out-group: they begin to see members of the out-group as all being more alike than members of their in-group.

Study by Park & Rothbard, 1982

There are numerous studies that demonstrate the out-group homogeneity effect.

One example was conducted on 90 college females on a university campus (Park and Rothbard, 1982). They were asked to judge the similarity of the members of their own sorority (their in-group), as well as the similarities of the members of two other sororities. The results showed that they typically judged the out-group sorority members as being more similar to each other than girls in their own sorority.