Social Identity Theory

Criteria B
THE GIST
● Social Identity Theory ​was proposed by ​Henri Tajfel​ (1979). It argues that
people don’t have one “personal self” but a variety of social selves which
correspond to group membership.
● People have a need to belong and be valued. That’s why we categorise ourselves
into groups.

MORE INFO
● There are three psychological mechanisms involved in the creation of a social
identity: ​social categorisation​, s
​ ocial identification​ and ​social comparison​.
● We categorise ourselves into groups, thus developing conceptions of “us” (the
in-group) and “them” (the out-group).
● SIT states that the in-group will discriminate and be prejudiced against the
out-group in order to enhance their self-image. This is called, aptly, ​out-group
discrimination​.
● In-group favouritism​ is showing bias towards your in-group.
● We can increase our self-esteem by discriminating against the out-group. Your
self-esteem becomes bound to your group membership.

Social categorisation
● The process of classifying people into groups based on similar or shared
characteristics.
● We do this in order to understand each other better.
● In the same way, we can understand ourselves better by identifying with a
group.

Social identification
● We adopt the behaviour of the group we identify with.
● What we define as appropriate behaviour derives from group norms.
● Having this social identity increases self-esteem and gives us a sense of
belonging.

Social comparison
● Once we have categorised ourselves into groups, we tend to compare that group
with others.
● In order to maintain self-esteem, the group needs to be seen as better than
other groups.
 ● Positive distinctiveness- distinguishing the positive attributes of your
in-group and comparing them to the negative attributes of the out-group.
○ Individuals do this to make their social groups more valued, thus
increasing the group’s self-esteem.
○ Need for positive distinctiveness → social comparison → positive
self-concept

Criteria C

Study: T
​ ajfel et al. (1971)—“Kandinsky vs Klee Experiment”

Aim
To investigate whether boys placed in random groups would display in-group
favouritism and out-group discrimination.

Procedure
48 British boys (aged 14-15) were randomly placed into two groups, based on their
supposed preference for Klee or Kandinsky paintings. Then, they had to award money
to the other group of boys.
There were three schemes for awarding money:
1. Maximum joint profit​—give largest reward to both groups
2. Maximum in-group profit​—give largest reward to in-group
3. Maximum differences​—give largest possible difference in reward between
in-group and out-group (favours in-group)

Findings/Results
● Most boys chose maximum differences option, maximising the difference
between the in-group and the out-group.
● The boys adopted a strategy of in-group favouritism thus supporting SIT.

Conclusion
The study demonstrates that:
● Out-group discrimination is easily triggered
● Once it has been triggered, out-group discrimination is considered to be a
group norm.
● Members of a group have a natural tendency to favour their in-group
Criteria D

Evaluation of study
Reliability
● The experiment was very controlled.
● It is easy to replicate.

Low ecological validity

Sample issues
● Only British boys were used for the study.
● It is difficult to extrapolate the findings of the study to people of other ages and
cultures.

Demand characteristics
● The boys interpreted the task as a competition. They changed their behaviour to
try to win, thus showing demand characteristics.

Criteria C

Study: A
​ brams et al. (1990)

Aim
To investigate the effect of SIT on one’s likelihood to conform.

Procedure
1. The study was a replication of Asch’s paradigm with some changes. An
independent samples design was used where two different variables were
manipulated—whether participants had to announce their answers or keep
them private. The sample was university psychology students.
2. In some trials, confederates were introduced either as history students
(out-group) or psychology students (in-group).
3. The confederates sometimes gave the wrong answer and the researchers
wanted to see how this affected the participants’ response.
Findings/Results
● Most of the participants conformed to what confederates said when the answer
was incorrect.
● The highest rate of conformity was seen in the in-group public condition.

Conclusion
● Social categorisation affects whether or not one conforms. When confederates
were from the out-group, participants were less likely to conform. It was the
opposite for in-group confederates.

Criteria D

Evaluation of study
Sample bias​: Only university students were used so it’s difficult to generalise the
findings to other populations.

Low ecological validity: C

High internal validity: V

Evaluation of theory
Strengths
● Shows that ​intergroup conflict​ (disagreement/confrontation between two
groups) isn’t required for discrimination to occur (as shown by Tajfel et al.).
● Through SIT, we can understand behaviour such as in-group favouritism,
stereotyping, conforming to in-group norms and e ​ thnocentrism​ (the belief
that your culture or society is superior to others).

Limitations
● The theory is ​reductionist​. It doesn’t take factors such cultural expectations,
rewards as motivators or societal constraints into consideration.
● SIT doesn’t fully explain ​violent behaviour​ against the out-group.
● Doesn’t explain how social constraints like poverty play a bigger role in
behaviour than social identity.
Summary (1-2 sentences)
SIT is a person’s sense of who they are based on their group memberships. It is about
categorising yourself into an in-group and an out-group in order to belong and boost
self-esteem.