Social identity theory（社会认同理论）

Social identity theory（社会认同理论） Social identity theory(社会认同理论) This classic social psychology study shows that people can form groups with only a little excuse and start discriminating against other people who don't belong to this group. The behavior of people in a group is always fascinating and often annoying. Once people formed groups, we began to do strange things: imitation of other members of the group behavior, biased in their group members, looking for someone to pay homage, and against other groups of leaders. Just look at Sherif's Robbers Cave experiment, and you'll find it's easy to provoke conflicts between different groups. But look at the different groups that you belong to, and you'll see a huge difference between them. Some groups are more like soldiers belonging to the same combat unit, who have known each other since childhood. The relationship is long and close, and the members protect each other. Perhaps it is not surprising that people in this group have radically changed their behaviour and in many ways defended their fellow citizens. Other groups, however, are far from so close. A supporter of a sports club, for example, or a colleague who studies the same subject in a few months, or even a group of people who appreciate the same painting in a gallery. Within any given range of attention, it seems impossible for us to assume that only 30 seconds of people standing in front of the same painting formed a group. Doesn't this relationship seem too fleeting? That's just what social psychologist Henry Tajfel and his colleagues are going to answer. They believe that a group and its consequent prejudices may be formed in a very short period of time. In fact, they think that even if there is no face-to-face communication between members, they do not know each other, and their group behavior has no actual influence, it is likely to form a group. In other words, they have the form from this group had absolutely nothing to gain. Form a "group concept" of the most weak groups" Tajfel and his colleagues came up with a simple and effective solution to prove their ideas. Some 14 - and 15 year old boys were brought into the lab as subjects and watched slides of Klee and Kandinsky's two paintings. They were told that the experimenters divided them into two groups based on their preference for the paintings. Of course, this is a lie to produce the concept of "we" and "they" in their minds. The experimenters hope that the two groups of children have little or no idea about who and what they are, what they mean, or what they do. After the arrangement, the children were brought into the compartment one by one. Each is then asked to distribute virtual money to other members of the two group. The information they know is only about which group the boys belong to, and the code that belongs to that person. To find out which children were more biased between their own group and those of the other, the experimenter designed a series of rules. In some other experiments, the rules have been slightly modified to validate some other theories. Are these children distributing virtual money?: Fair? In order to gain the maximum common interest? For maximum benefit of this group? In order to get the biggest gap between the two groups? Partial? This includes a combination of maximum group interest and the largest gap between the two groups. Surprising discovery According to the children's distribution of virtual money, the subjects did demonstrate the typical behavioral boundaries among group members: they preferred their peers to those of other groups. In many other trials, this pattern has continued to develop and has been replicated in other experiments. If you can believe it, In these experiments, the concept of community is even weaker. When I first saw the experiment, my first reaction was that it was so amazing. You know, those kids don't know who is in the same group as yourself, and who's in the other group. But one of the most puzzling things about the experiment is that the children are totally out of favour with their own group - and nothing seems to influence their decision. In the real world, there is a good reason to favour your own group - in general, it's good for yourself. You protect yourself by protecting other people like you. Social identity theory (Social, Identity, Theory) But Tajfel thinks there's something about the boys' decision. It was a very subtle and profound thing. Tajfel believes that people are based on their group membership. Consider, for example, what groups you belong to, for example, at work or in your family. Your own identity, in a sense, is defined by these groups. In other words: the nature of your group determines your identity. In view of this statement, we want to be a member of the high status and good image group. But the key point is that the status can be seen in comparison. That is to say, knowing that one's own group is superior to others requires the existence of another set of groups that can be overlooked. So, according to social identity theory, the boys in the experiment did have reason to become selfish when distributing virtual money. This is by simply making their group look better and raising their identity. criticism No experiment can, or should, remain on its surface value. We have to ask whether it really confirms the theory that the author claims it confirms. The experiment and its explanation are often subject to two criticisms. 1., the behavior of the subjects can be explained by economic egoism. But in another experiment, the virtual currency was changed into a symbol, and the result remained the same. The 2. subjects responded only to what they thought the experimenter wanted them to respond to (psychologists call it the "need feature"). But Tajfel thought the subjects didn't know what the experimenter wanted. Recall that the rules for distributing virtual money often change. What's more, the experimenter encouraged the participants to think of choosing which painter they liked (the first part of the experiment) and did not have any connection with the allocation of virtual money (the second part experiment). Despite these criticisms, Tajfel and colleagues' discoveries have been tested by time. The experiments and similar experiments were repeated many times after changing the experimental variables, and the results were almost unchanged. Centrality of group members The theory of social identity shows that our identity is shaped by the group we belong to. The result is a purposeful improvement in the relative image and status of our group and other groups. Experiments by Tajfel and colleagues show that the groups we belong to are so important to ourselves that we join the shortest group of people with little or no incentive. Then we spontaneously make our own group look better than the others. The importance of our group to us, and the fact that we often unconsciously join different groups, are subtle and profound observations of human nature.