Within social psychology, the social identity tradition (Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, & Flament, 1971) argues that individuals possess more than their characteristic personal identities, which are activated during interpersonal contact with others; in addition, people can engage in intergroup behavior as informed by their social identities (Gudykunst & Bond, 1980). Such social identities comprise memberships in any psychologically relevant grouping with which an individual identifies, including kin, peers, profession, nation, and cultural identity (Galang, Quiñones, Adriano, Portillo, & Carvajal, 2015). The ingroup identification afforded by social identities then allow individuals to distinguish between people belonging to and excluded from the
…show more content…
Their research is summarized below in five points, in terms of their findings and the methodology used to arrive at their explanations.
Finding 1: Announced affiliation. In the first experiment, Cialdini et al. (1976) observed how students reacted to the aftermath of a football match between their university’s team and that of a rival school. They found that students were more likely to wear apparel or emblems that clearly indicated their school-of-attendance whenever their university’s football team had won its latest match. Conversely, these students tend to refrain from wearing the same apparel when the team lost instead. That is, as a function of another person’s success, individuals may then increase their identification with the successful other by announcing one’s affiliation with them—in this case, through the use of shared symbols and attire. It can be observed that such increase in affiliation is founded on a previously existing association (i.e. an established connection through a shared ingroup identity, already in place prior to the outcomes of the source of achievement …show more content…
As demonstrated in the second and third experiment, the tendency to BIRG is heightened when the students’ self-esteem was threatened, either through their own failures or by being associated with the failure of a group to which they are affiliated. In the former experiment, students were asked questions under the guise of examining their knowledge of life in their university; in the latter, they were tasked to narrate the outcome of two of their university football team’s games—one each where the team lost and won. In Experiment 2, the threat to self-esteem (through personal failure) was done by telling half of the respondents that they have done poorly in the task, regardless of their actual performance (the other half was given positive feedback, being informed that they have done well). In Experiment 3, participants were told to describe either the winning (no threat introduced) or losing game first (threatened self-esteem, through unit relation with the team) before the second game which had an opposite outcome as the first. These two demonstrations were necessary to support an explanation of BIRG in terms of Heider’s (1958) balance concept (as discussed in the previous section), and against an alternative referred to as “heightened attraction”. In the latter formulation, it is argued that students became encouraged to wear symbols that represent their university due to the increased positivity they felt towards their university
Their research is summarized below in five points, in terms of their findings and the methodology used to arrive at their explanations.
Finding 1: Announced affiliation. In the first experiment, Cialdini et al. (1976) observed how students reacted to the aftermath of a football match between their university’s team and that of a rival school. They found that students were more likely to wear apparel or emblems that clearly indicated their school-of-attendance whenever their university’s football team had won its latest match. Conversely, these students tend to refrain from wearing the same apparel when the team lost instead. That is, as a function of another person’s success, individuals may then increase their identification with the successful other by announcing one’s affiliation with them—in this case, through the use of shared symbols and attire. It can be observed that such increase in affiliation is founded on a previously existing association (i.e. an established connection through a shared ingroup identity, already in place prior to the outcomes of the source of achievement …show more content…
As demonstrated in the second and third experiment, the tendency to BIRG is heightened when the students’ self-esteem was threatened, either through their own failures or by being associated with the failure of a group to which they are affiliated. In the former experiment, students were asked questions under the guise of examining their knowledge of life in their university; in the latter, they were tasked to narrate the outcome of two of their university football team’s games—one each where the team lost and won. In Experiment 2, the threat to self-esteem (through personal failure) was done by telling half of the respondents that they have done poorly in the task, regardless of their actual performance (the other half was given positive feedback, being informed that they have done well). In Experiment 3, participants were told to describe either the winning (no threat introduced) or losing game first (threatened self-esteem, through unit relation with the team) before the second game which had an opposite outcome as the first. These two demonstrations were necessary to support an explanation of BIRG in terms of Heider’s (1958) balance concept (as discussed in the previous section), and against an alternative referred to as “heightened attraction”. In the latter formulation, it is argued that students became encouraged to wear symbols that represent their university due to the increased positivity they felt towards their university