Tajfel's Social Identity Theory and Prejudice

Tajfel's Social Identity Theory. The video explains how Tajfel explored in-group and out-group bias. Tajfel found biases towards ingroup and explored how and why groups become negatively biased and judgemental of other groups.
Facebook: / psychology-on-demand-1...
Instagram: / _psychology_on_demand_
#HenryTajfel #ingroupoutgroup #Socialidentitytheory
Contribute to the channel: www.buymeacoff...

[@gabrielbiacchi6169]

Nice video! Thanks!

[@arthurarsekey6634]

Great vid - not on the "curriculum" but ESSENTIAL info.

[@hodabeingextra8071]

thank you, I have to write an essay about this topic and this helped a lot

[@muskduh]

Thanks for the review

[@Louisvandam]

Very interesting comparison to current problems in the world! If you are familiar with the antropological term of kinship (Lewis Henry Morgan), every type of kinship, how much do you think it correlates with this study of Tajfel et al.?

[@PsychologyonDemand]

Hi Louis, Thank you for the comment! I'm afraid I haven't read much on Lewis Henry Morgan. From what I can tell his theory is suggesting that we band together based on biology. I think Tajfel's work incorporates this idea that we are more likely to band on biology / familiarity, but the study was to show that you can band together on almost anything and that it's a strong force in all of us to create an in-group/ out-group, so that we can have a sense of certainty/ identity.

[@Louisvandam]

@@PsychologyonDemand that is very much true, i also think once we create some sort of kinship feeling (that can be acquired from anything as shown by Tajfel), we will automatically , i would not say discreminate, but favor our in-group (the group we had some sort of knishop feeling with). This will result that if a conflict occurs between members of the in-group, the conflict will be much easier resolved than if there was a conflict between members from the in and out group. This is theorized by Evans Pritchard, who says stronger and much nearer kinship relationships are less open for long conflict or disagreements than people from the out-group so to speak. My new question is now if you think if we form two random selected groups (like in Tajfel's study with the points) and say to each group they all have the same score on a total meaningless test, do you think the theory from Pritchard (the one with the conflicts) can apply to this as well (a sort of kinship relation with strangers based on the results of a meaningless test)? Or do you think it won't apply to strangers?

[@PsychologyonDemand]

@@Louisvandam My guess would be that there might be a very small but significant effect for disagreements. However I feel like there was such little interaction of the in-group that there wasn't enough time for there to be 'true' affiliation and bonding. If there was in-group disagreements the group could split again into smaller sections, but this is just me surmising. You often see this as a technique when someone disagrees with someone. They pretend to come from their point of view (Their in-group) and then start to pick apart their theory. So potentially you need to be grouped by something that speaks to the persons core values before they'll see past conflicts? What do you think ?

[@Louisvandam]

@@PsychologyonDemand yes i could definitely see that, the stronger the bond and affiliation in your group the easier a conflict is resoluted. However to create a strong affiliation i think they experiment of Tajfel isn't big enough in quantities of kinship (the in/out group bond is based on a simple Task that really doesn't mean anything) but this doesn't mean some sort of 'weaker' feeling of kinship Will appear. I think if your feeling of kinship and affiliation towards people gets larger (most large one is family in my opinion), the conflict can be easily resoluted. 'The further away' someone is in terms of kinship or affiliation, the more difficult conflict resolution is. A example would be that an argument between brothers is more easily controlled/resoluted than An argument between brothers and nephews. Because the kinship bond is stronger between brothers than between brothers and nephews but if one random person enters this example than the nephews and brothers will band together. If we could apply this to Tajfel's experiment i would assume that you wil band with your group (in group) when there is an argument between in and out group and that arguments are more easily resolved. Another thing i would think is that if they study of Tajfel would be duplicated but with family (brothers are in group and nephews out group) the subjects would most certainly give give more Points to the in group. For short: the stronger your affiliation and kinship bond (can be family or friends etc.), the more easily conflicts are resoluted and we Will always favourite our in group (randomly Selected or Selected due to social facties like family ties). Sorry if i tend to stretch things out, English is not my native language but i really like discussing this sort of themes! Thank you

[@PsychologyonDemand]

@@Louisvandam Some very interesting points! I completely agree. It makes sense based on evolutionary psychology that we band together and then try to back up our in-group. We would have been in little bands of people hunting and gathering, and exclusion from the group would have meant death, so completely makes sense in relation to conflict resolution.

[@bushfuch]

Very interesting James. Lovely summary 👍🏻

[@PsychologyonDemand]

Thanks Jon!! Appreciate the support! =)