1. 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?

2. Punctuated Equilibrium

3. Mid-Range Theories
WHY?

4. 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

5. 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

6. Social Identity Theory
Categorization
Social
Identity
Social
Comparison

7. 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.

8. 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…

9. 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.

10. WHY?

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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)

14. 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.

15. What’s Next?