Personal And Social Identity Out-Group Analysis

2694 Words11 Pages
Social groups are characterised by their social norms, values and confer to members a sense of belonging and social support. However threats to one’s group can have indirect effects on individual’s self-esteem and psychological well-being and lead to prejudiced attitudes to out-groups. Social psychologists have long examined the role of group membership on people’s behaviours attitudes and self-esteem. Tajfel and Turner (1986) proposed Social Identity Theory (SIT) in which there is a distinction between personal and social identity. They argued that this underlies the difference between interpersonal situations and group situations. SIT is concerned with intergroup situations and is based on the assumption that social identity
…show more content…
This scale is divided into two subscale blatant (α = .73) and subtle prejudice (α = .59) subscales.
Participants followed a link contained in an email to the survey hosted on Survey Monkey. Having read the instructions and after giving informed consent participants continued onto the study.
In the perpetrator and victim conditions participants read short narratives depicting the Catholic Churches actions. Both narratives describe the power the Catholic Church gain within the Irish state after independence by running schools and hospitals. The narratives differ in that the Catholic Church as perpetrator condition participant’s read the Catholic Church wielded this power to cover up instances of child abuse conducted by its priests. In the Catholic Church as victim condition participants read how the Catholic Church the Irish government is taking schools away from the church. After reading the assigned article participants were asked to write about their reaction to the article. Participants then proceeded to answer questions on collective guilt, in-group variability and out-group
…show more content…
For the total prejudice scale F (1,118) = 6.3, p = 0.013, η2 = 0.05. T-test revealed that males differed significantly on prejudice between conditions, Catholic victim group males (M = 2.5, SD = 0.12), and for Catholic perpetrator group males (M = 2.1, SD = 0.1); t (42) = 3.2, p = 0.003. Females did not differ across condition. Furthermore, Catholic victim group males were significantly higher on prejudice (M = 2.6, SD = 0.49) than females (M = 2.1, SD = 0.5); t (59) = -3.2, p =
Open Document