"Who we are" and "Who we Blame": A Social Identity Model of Scapegoating (SIMS)

Abstract

Existing social psychological models of scapegoating view its occurrence as either an outcome of subconscious drives and displacement of aggression, or of irrational attributions based on limited human cognitive capacities. It is also suggested that there is a particular and generic scapegoat 'type'. For the former account the type of minority groups which are blamed for crises are those who are weak and vulnerable, while the latter argues that competent but cold groups will be blamed. Historical incidences of scapegoating, as well as existing research on social and stereotype change, suggests that various 'types' of minority groups may serve as a scapegoat for the majority in particular contexts. From this, we can (at least anecdotally) conclude neither of these existing models can explain how different types of scapegoat can emerge in response to different crises. This is likely because, with respect to the psychological processes that underpin scapegoating, both models neglect an intergroup approach, and instead are oriented to individual psycho-dynamic processes or explanations focussed on an understanding of stereotyping as largely fixed and immutable. As yet, there is no role for the subjective beliefs from the perspective of the perceiver (i.e. the majority group member) who is actually making an attribution of blame to a minority group. This thesis argues that these subjective, shared, and group-based perceptions of reality are crucial, without including a model of how the majority ingroup derives attributions which are informed by this subjective reality an adequate explanatory framework for understanding the psychology of scapegoating is not possible. Incorporating the idea of the majority as a psychological group provides formal cognitive basis for the derivation of shared attributions of blame and collective action per se, both of which are necessary conditions for the emergence of organised scapegoating movements. Based on this theoretical contribution, the empirical program focusses on majority ingroup stereotypes (i.e. shared understandings of 'who we are' and 'what defines us') as a key determinant of which particular minority groups are most likely to become targets of scapegoating (i.e. those who are 'not like us'). Given that the stereotypical characteristics of majority groups are multiple, differing both within and between various and diverse societies, then it is likely that there is no universal 'type' of scapegoat, but rather that who is blamed will vary predictably in accordance with salient ingroup stereotypes and their opposites. The program also investigates whether the intensity of threat posed by a social crisis is important in determining whether scapegoating will occur in the first instance, and the role of ingroup leaders in making attributions of blame and gaining endorsement for scapegoating initiatives. The findings are supportive of the hypotheses, therefore providing preliminary evidence for the reconceptualised model of scapegoating proposed by this thesis. Important contributions of this new model are that it serves to integrate existing theory and research and opens new directions and pathways to advance understandings of the causes and consequences of scapegoating.