What are the major assumptions and approaches of social psychologists who study groups? What are the benefits and limitations of social psychological approaches to studying groups? How can other fields contribute to social psychologists’ understanding of groups?

Punctuated Equilibrium

Mid-Range Theories WHY?

WHY? The theory must be strong, compelling, and potentially broad. The theory must generate impressive research results. The theory must have active, prestigious, vocal advocates. Bandwagon effects

Social Identity Theory Self-Categorization Theory Tajfel & Turner (1979) Self-Categorization Theory Turner (1985) Both theories were developed initially to explain intergroup relations, but they have since been extended to many forms of intragroup relations as well. Group Formation, Group Cohesion, Majority/Minority Influence, Group Polarization, Leadership

Social Identity Theory Categorization Social Identity Social Comparison

Self-Categorization Theory Similar to social identity theory, but focuses on social categorization, and emphasizes uncertainty reduction (rather than self-esteem) as a motive. A group “exists” and can affect behavior whenever people view themselves as members of that group. Interaction among group members is thus unnecessary.

Self-Categorization Meta-Contrast Ratio Which categorization both minimizes intracategory differences and maximizes intercategory differences? The likelihood of a particular categorization also depends on its accessibility and “fit.” A complex and dynamic process…

Self-Categorization Important byproducts of the self-categorization process are the development of a group prototype and a depersonalization of the self and others. The group prototype is a shared image of the type of person who best exemplifies the group. Depersonalization involves assimilation to that prototype.

WHY?

WHY? Discovery of weaknesses in the theory. Over-extension of the theory to phenomena that other theories can explain better. Attacks by “Young Turks.” Boredom with the theory.

Are Outgroups Important? Gaertner, Iuzzini, Witt, & Orina (2006) ~ Gaertner, Iuzzini, Witt, & Orina (2006) Independent variables included the presence/absence of an outgroup and levels of interaction or interdependence among ingroup members. Dependent variables included group entitativity, evaluations of group members, and cooperation among group members. The presence/absence of an outgroup had no effects, but entitativity, evaluations, and cooperation were all greater when group members interacted or were interdependent, even when there was no outgroup. The effects of member interaction and interdependence were mediated by entitativity.

Self-Categorization as Social Shared Cognition Can anyone really accomplish self-categorization alone, given (as described) its complex and dynamic nature? Hunt & Benford (1994) Lyon (1974)

Small Groups Matter More Than Large Social Categories Sassenberg (2002) Wang (2006) On the Internet, common-bond groups evoke more commitment, enjoy greater conformity, and suffer less membership loss, than do common-identity groups. Lickel, Hamilton, Wieczorkowska, Lewis, Sherman, & Uhles (2000) Intimacy and task groups seem more real (entitative) and valuable to people than do social categories.

What’s Next?