High School Groups and their Correlation to Social Identity and Social Dominance Theories and Contact Hypothesis

Upon hearing about another tremendously tragic and terribly sad high school shooting, it made me think even more about the Social Identity, Social Dominance and Intergroup theories and how they particularly play a role in high schools. These groups were formed through social categorization–grouping those who were the most similar together. Still unsure of why there is a need for this today, but I suppose there is still some part of us who feels safest when we are in numbers with people who are like us as explained by the evolutionary psychologists, (PSU WC L6, 2018, p.1). At this point, I believe we have all been through high school and remember how it was segregated into these different social groups.

The most well-known and socially accepted groups were categorized into the Jocks, Nerds, Thespians, and Troublemakers. Social Identity theory states that individuals have their own personal identity as well as a social identity and the two overlap. Each individual person in these groups has their own personal moral sensibility, conscience and desires, but the group also plays a role in their beliefs, attitudes and behaviors. For instance, an individual in the Jock group may believe because of his athletic abilities he is superior and has a desire to succeed in sports, which would most likely go along with the other group member’s perception of themselves. When their social identity is tied to a group they derive part of their self-esteem from committing and belonging to the group, hence making it their in-group. Being part of the in-group provides protection and resources to the individuals and the group as a whole. Anyone who does not belong is considered the out-group and is not afforded the same protection and resources from that group. Instead they derive these things from the group they belong, which becomes their in-group and so on. Depending on any given situation, a person’s individual or social identity may dominate their behavior. For example, if the Jock group is being attacked and individual from that group steps up to protect them, they are most likely to use their social identity in the interaction, (PSU WC L6, p4).

This all sounds well and good until you take into account social dominance theory (SDT) and one group feeling superior over the others with a need to enforce a hierarchy where they serve as the dominant group. The Jocks were the ones who seemed to feel superior over the others when I was in school. Of the three SDT categories, they would qualify as an arbitrary set, rather than age or gender, coming together through the belief the world seemed to revolve around them. The Jocks seemed to have the physical power and resources to serve as the dominant group. They were given special treatment and perceived as having a positive social value, even over those who might be intellectually superior, reinforcing their in-group favoritism of each member. Additionally, they seemed to always be motivated to protect their group, unlike the other groups who just looked out for each other. The Jocks ensured their status by snubbing the other groups and ensuring they knew they who had the power and status (out-group derogation), (PSU WC L6, 2018, p5). This also happened down the hierarchy chain.

The rest of the hierarchy order was the Troublemakers, Nerds, then Thespians, The Troublemakers did not perceive the Jocks as superior nor did they have the desire to become part of the Jocks in-group; however, they did have a desire to be the dominant group. Perhaps they felt as if they became the dominant group they could shake their negative social status. This often caused a large amount of conflict between these two groups, (PSU WC L6, 2018, p.5). It may also be attributed to the fact that the individuals in both of these groups may have had a high Social Dominance Orientation (SDO). SDO is about the degree to which the individuals in the group want to keep the group hierarchy and dominate inferior groups. Along with SDT, it is posited that individuals high in SDO are always motivated to protect the group rather than providing that protection only during threatening situations. Individuals with high SDO are also predisposed to having prejudices and discriminating against other groups. Those individuals in dominant groups have been shown to have high SDO, (Pratto, Sidanious, & Levin, 2006). Additionally, in a study by Goodboy, Martin, & Rittenour, a correlation was found between high SDO and bullying behaviors in those in secondary school, (2016).

The Nerds and Thespians happily maintained the status quo, ceding any power and status they had to both groups reinforcing the legitimizing myths. In this case, I don’t think the subordinate groups were hopeful they would one day join the dominant group, although I am sure they wished they had the power and resources to do so. On occasion, an individual from one group may have sought and gained in-group favoritism from another group, (PSU WC L6, 2018, p5). These were times when the contact hypothesis came into play on an individual versus a group situation. For example, when individuals from varying social groups are in the same class and assigned to work together in groups and they have the opportunity to get to know each other they may even become friends. They have equal status as students in that classroom, the same goal of completing a project, and teacher’s support, meeting the three necessary conditions of contact theory. This did not, however, necessarily gain the individual who belonged to the lesser group, in-group favoritism of the other individual’s dominant group. Although sometimes it did buy some level of acceptance for the individual by the dominant group as well, (PSU WC L6, 2018, p.3).

All of these groups could be diverse within themselves with regard to race, gender, and to some degree age. Yet each group came with its own prejudices about the other and often displayed forms of discrimination amongst groups. Those high in SDO and in the dominant group may even have gone as far as to bully other individuals and groups.

Which brings me back to my original thought about the recent school shooting. If there is this dominant hierarchy and attitude among those who do belong to a social group and the potential for bullying those in lower status groups, what about those who don’t fit into any social group? Those individuals who do not belong, the one’s that are made fun of, bullied, ignored completely, or called a creepy loner?

References:

Goodboy, A.K., Martin, M.M., & Rittenour, C.E. (2016). Bullying as a Display of Social

Dominance Orientation. Communication Research Reports, Vol.33 No.2, pp.159-165.

Penn State University World Campus. (2018). PSYCH424: Applied Social Psychology. Lesson 6: Intergroup Relations/Diversity. from: https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1924488/modules/items/23682591

Pratto, F., Sidanious, J., & Levin, S. (2006). Social dominance theory and the dynamics of intergroup relations: Taking stock and looking forward. European Review of Social Psychology, 17, 271-320.

Leave a Reply


Skip to toolbar