Article 3 Presentation


Published on

Focus on slides 8,14, 19, & 22

Published in: Technology, Spiritual
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Article 3 Presentation

    1. 1. Social Identity Complexity and Outgroup Tolerance Destiny Dallmann Liselle Elizondo Heather Puebla Rebekah Pangrac
    2. 2. Social Identity Complexity <ul><li>Roccas and Brewer proposed that multiple social identities can be presented along a continuum of complexity and inclusiveness, reflecting the degree to which different identities are both differentiated and integrated in the individual’s cognitive representations of his or her group memberships. </li></ul>
    3. 3. Social Identity Theory <ul><li>The need to partition people into ingroups and outgroups. </li></ul><ul><li>You can feel good about yourself in two ways either by your own achievements or by the achievements of the group that you belong to. </li></ul>
    4. 4. Defining Social Identity Complexity <ul><li>Social Identity Complexity- The sum of the perceived overlap among parties of ingroup memberships. </li></ul><ul><li>Low Social Identity Complexity </li></ul><ul><li>High Social Identity Complexity </li></ul>
    5. 5. How do individuals construct their social identities? <ul><li>Having a complex social identity is based on two conditions: </li></ul><ul><li>-Awareness </li></ul><ul><li>- Recognition </li></ul><ul><li>Social identity complexity requires the use of cognitive resources. </li></ul>
    6. 6. Types of Groups <ul><li>Cross-Cutting Groups- People with high Social Identity complexity are able to see their groups as cross-cutting. </li></ul><ul><li>Overlapping Groups- People with low Social Identity Complexity see the groups to which they belong to as highly overlapping. </li></ul>
    7. 7. Social Identity Complexity and Tolerance <ul><li>Roccas and Brewer believed that social identity complexity would be associated with tolerance of outgroups. </li></ul><ul><li>High/Complex social identity complexity leads to increased tolerance among individuals. </li></ul><ul><li>Low/Simple social identity complexity leads to decreased tolerance among individuals. </li></ul>
    8. 8. ***The IMPORTANCE of a Complex Social Identity*** <ul><li>***THREE REASONS*** why people with complex social identities should be more tolerant and show less discrimination. </li></ul><ul><li>-CROSS CUTTING. </li></ul><ul><li>Overlapping groups do NOT FEEL THE NEED TO COMPARE THEMSELVES WITH OTHER GROUPS. </li></ul><ul><li>Being in MULTIPLE GROUPS DECREASES THE IMPORTANCE OF ANY ONE INDIVIDUAL GROUP. </li></ul>
    9. 9. Social Identity Complexity and Tolerance Cont. <ul><li>Cognitive Inconsistencies </li></ul><ul><li>Extended Contact Effect </li></ul>
    10. 10. Method <ul><li>1 st phase: Mail Questionnaire </li></ul><ul><ul><li>random sample of households in Ohio </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>screening instrument </li></ul></ul><ul><li>2 nd phase: Computer Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>follow up to mail questionnaire </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>selected subsample of respondents to phase 1 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>primary data of interest </li></ul></ul>
    11. 11. Mail Questionnaire <ul><li>Purpose: “to elicit information on respondents’ important group memberships” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Basic demographic information </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Series of probes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Membership in various organizations/ social groups </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Religious, political, or fraternal organizations, occupational or ethnic/national identities, and recreational/sports groups </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Yes/No questions & if answered yes an open-ended response was asked to be written to specify </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Review all of the groups/organizations listed & select 3-5 groups that were “most important” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>If willing to be contacted for a telephone interview </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Name & Number </li></ul></ul></ul>
    12. 12. Mail Questionnaire <ul><li>Mailed to 1,500 addresses </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Randomly picked from Ohio telephone directory listings </li></ul></ul><ul><li>497 completed questionnaires returned from eligible respondents </li></ul><ul><ul><li>291 men & 206 women </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>~300 respondents offered to do the follow-up telephone survey </li></ul></ul>
    13. 13. Telephone Interview <ul><li>242 respondents selected </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Criteria for selection: “listed at least four different group memberships (including America), across different domains, among those “most important” to them” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Interviews conducted by trained interviewers from the Ohio State University Center for Survey Research. </li></ul><ul><li>222 interviews successfully completed </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Final sample used for data analysis </li></ul></ul>
    14. 14. CATI Content <ul><li>The names of the specific four groups each respondent had chose in phase 1. </li></ul><ul><li>All U.S. citizens (important identity shared- American* was everyone’s 1 st group) </li></ul><ul><li>Interview questions generated to assess social identity complexity </li></ul>
    15. 15. Sections of CATI <ul><li>Complexity </li></ul><ul><ul><li>One section measured perceived overlap between groups by respondents </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>High overlap scores = low social identity complexity </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Tolerance </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Another section measured respondents’ attitudes toward multiculturalism, affirmative action & feelings toward specific groups </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Contact with members of other ethnic/racial groups </li></ul>
    16. 16. Results
    17. 17. <ul><li>222 respondents who completed the interview, 12 were dropped. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Because they provided undifferentiated responses to all 12 overlap pairs (ex. All 10’s or all 5’s) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Remaining 210 respondents (118 men, 92 women) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Age range from 21 to 81 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>184 White/Caucasian Americans and 26 Non-White minorities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Because there were too few non-white respondents, analyses was conducted on data from the white respondents only </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(106 men, 78 women) </li></ul></ul>
    18. 18. Correlates of Overlap Complexity <ul><li>A correlational analyses was conducted to determine what respondent characteristics were correlated with their overlap complexity index score </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Found no significant difference between male and female respondents in mean complexity. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>But, overlap complexity was marginally significantly correlated with age of respondent. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Older respondents tended to have higher social identity complexity and lower overlap scores. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Complexity was significantly negatively related to level of education with more education associate with higher complexity. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Complexity scores were significantly correlated with self reported political ideology . </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>More liberal respondents had a higher complexity than more conservative respondents. </li></ul></ul></ul>
    19. 19. Social Policy Attitudes <ul><ul><li>The primary interest is the relationship between overlap complexity scores and measures of tolerance and acceptance of outgroups. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>High complexity was associated with greater acceptance of multicultural diversity and positive attitudes toward affirmative action principles. </li></ul></ul></ul>
    20. 20. Thermometer ratings and ingroup -outgroup distance. <ul><li>Group affect </li></ul><ul><ul><li>No significant correlation between complexity and ingroup affect. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Overlap complexity did correlate with outgroup affect. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Relationship between complexity and all three tolerance measures remained significant even when controlling for age, education, and ideology. </li></ul>
    21. 21. Discussion <ul><li>Some “important” groups had little effect on complexity scores </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Religion </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Included by majority of respondents </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>But the mean & variance were identical for those who did not list religion in their important ingroups </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Consistent with research: religiosity and prejudice </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Religious affiliation is unrelated to outgroup attitudes </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
    22. 22. Discussion <ul><li>“ Important” ingroup: Sports Fan </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Did affect complexity and inclusiveness scores </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Associated with low complexity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(And higher perceived overlap between the sports group and their other groups) ‏ </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Believe fellow fans make up a homogeneous group of people like them </li></ul></ul>
    23. 23. Discussion <ul><li>Complexity and Inclusiveness </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Complex representations may be facilitated by presence of an all-inclusive, superordinate category </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Cognitive balance </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Reducing intergroup prejudice </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Formula: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Cross-cutting category structure </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Identifying with multiple ingroups </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Awareness of ingroup diversity / high complexity </li></ul></ul></ul>B C D A
    24. 24. Discussion <ul><li>Why do people develop exclusive definitions? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>High need for certainty or cognitive simplification </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Uncertainty about group membership classification </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Simple strategy reduces stress of uncertainty </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ingroup Overexclusiveness Effect (Leyens & Yzerbyt, 1992) ‏ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>When in doubt, assume the other is NOT part of the ingroup </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Optimal Distinctiveness Theory of Social Identification (Brewer, 1991) ‏ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Social identification motivated by 2 opposing needs: </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Need for Inclusion with others </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Need for Distinction from others </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>When one feels lost in the crowd, they seek distinction </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>When one feels alone, they seek inclusion </li></ul></ul></ul>