1. Explain the social identity theory.

Social identity is an identity which you create or develop within yourself based on your
belongingness to a certain group. The social identity theory is derived from three assumptions:
social categorisation, social identification and social comparison. Social categorisation is the
process of categorising people into groups based on similar characteristics. This gives rise to in-
groups and out-groups. In-groups are the group that we consider ourselves to be a part of and
the out-groups is anyone who doesn’t have the similar characteristic that you share with your
in-group. Social identification is the process where people assimilate into their group by
behaving in certain ways as how the group behaves and through this they take on the group’s
identity. Social comparison is the act of comparing the in-group to the out-group where the in-
group is perceived as better. This is often used as a source of developing self-esteem whereby
you see yourself as better than the out-group.

A study which supports this study is the study completed by Tajfel et al in 1971. They did a
laboratory experiment to investigate the effect of in-group and out-group bias. They recruited
48 British school boys ages 14-15 from Bristol. These boys were shown slides of paintings by two
different artists, Paul Klee and Wassily Kandinsky without their signatures on the paintings. The
boys were asked to express their preferences, then the researchers randomly assigned the
group to the Klee group or the Kandinsky group. Then the boys had to distribute award points to
in-group and out-group members (not being allowed to reward points to themselves). Once this
was done it was shown that the boys were more likely to give higher awards to members of
their own group compared to the boys in the out-group. This study is significant in supporting
the social identity theory as it demonstrates how the three elements of the theory are executed.
Thus the social identity theory is a theory which is based on thee assumptions and explains how
ones social identity comes to be.

2. Describe the social cognitive theory.

The social cognitive theory (SCT) is a learning theory that attempts to explain how people learn
and adapt new behaviours. This theory suggests that behaviour is acquired through observing
others or imitation others. The theory also proposes that when a person observes someone
else’s behaviour and sees the concequences of that behaviour, they remember and use this
information with respect to their own behaviour. It is affected by personal, behavioural and
environmental factors. Personal factors consider the extent to which the learner has low or high
self-efficiacy. Self-efficiacy is their personal and individual belief that they will succeed.
Behavioural factors is the extent to which the learner is rewarded after performing the
behaviour correctly. They can also learn from vicarious reinforcement or indirect consequence
experienced by the model which will affect the person’s tendency to imitate. Environmental
factors are external barriers or supports that will affect the learner’s ability to reproduce the
behaviour.

The study which supports this theory is the study done by Bandura et al in 1961. This study was
a laboratory experiment as the environment was highly controlled and there was a direct cause
and relation relationship observed. The aim of the study was to find out why and when children
display aggressive behaviours. The participants were 72 children, 36 boys, 36 girls, ages 3-6. The
participants played with books and stickers and then an aggressive adult model played with
them briefly. But shortly afterwards, the adult spent the rest of the time behaving aggressively,
both physically and mentally towards the Bobo doll. At the same time another adult model
played in a subdued and non-aggressive way. After this the children were taken to another room
and played with toys for 2 minutes. Then the children were taken individually into another room
that contained both aggressive and non-aggressive toys. Results of observation showed that the
children who were exposed to the aggressive adult model, the boys showed an average of 38.2
physically aggressive acts and the girls showed 12.7 physically aggressive acts. Based on the
results of the study it was concluded that children learn behaviour from observing an adult’s
behaviour. Boys are more likely to mimic the behaviour of men and girls more likely to mimic
the behaviour of women. The reason why boys were more physically aggressive compared to
the girls is because men tend to be generally more aggressive compared to women. This study is
significant in describing the social cognitive theory as it showcases how people learn behaviour
from models.

3. Explain the formation of stereotype.

A stereotype is a social perception of an individual in terms of group membership or physical
attributes. Generalisations are made about a group and then attributed to members of that
group. Stereotypes are formed through intergroup relationships. With intergroup relationships,
group members are motivated to strengthen their perceived similarities with their in-group and
strengthen their perceived differences with the out-group so that their bond is more cohesive.
Generally stereotypes are based on race and gender. Once a set of characteristics is attributed
to a group of people, those characteristics are then often associated with all members of the
group. Other than that, social categorisation and social comparison lead to in-group bias which
leads to the formation of stereotypes. Social categorisation is the process of categorising people
into groups based on similar characteristics. Social comparison is the act of comparing the in-
group to the out-group where the in-group is perceived as better.

The study relevant to the formation of stereotypes is the study done by Park and Rothbart in
1982. The study was done using a questionnaire and the aim of the study was to investigate how
members of the sororities would demonstrate the out-group homogeneity effect. The
participants of this study were 90 students from the University of Oregon. These 90 students
were taken from 3 different sororities, approximately 30 students per sorority. In this study all
participants were given questionnaires and the girls were asked to rank their own sorority and
an out-group sorority on ten dimensions. In this questionnaire, the girls were asked to rank their
own sorority and the others in terms of those 10 dimensions on a 0-7 point scale. They were
also asked to rank how similar to one-another the girls in each of the sororities were. It was
found that the girls would recognise the out-group to be more similar to one another as the in-
group recognized them to be inferior and they proceeded to create a stereotype about the out-
group. Thus, it can be said that social categorisation and social comparison can lead to in-group
bias which leads to the in-group creating stereotypes for the out-group. With that it can be said
that through social categorisation and social comparison which leads to the out-group
homogeneity effect which leads to the formation of stereotypes.

Answer one essay question below.

1. Evaluate social identity theory.
This essay will attempt to make an appraisal by weighing up the strengths and weaknesses of
the social identity theory (SIT) supported with studies. The SIT was created and developed by
Tajfel in order to understand intergroup relations and group processes. The theory is based on
the assumption that individuals seek to improve their self-image by increasing their self-esteem,
either based on personal identity or through various social identities. The SIT is derived from
three concepts: social categorisation, social identification and social comparison. These three
concepts will be further discussed in the essay.

As mentioned before, the SIT is based on three concepts being; social categorisation, social
identification and social comparison. Social categorisation is the process of categorising people
into groups based on their similar characteristics. This creates the concept of in-groups and out-
groups. In-groups are the group that we identify ourselves with and the out-groups is anyone
who doesn’t have the similar characteristic that you share with your in-group. Social
identification is the process where people assimilate into their group by behaving in certain
ways as how the group behaves and through this they take on the group’s identity. Social
comparison is the act of comparing the in-group to the out-group where the in-group is
perceived as better. This is often used as a source of developing self-esteem whereby you see
yourself as better than the out-group.

Studies relevant to evaluating the social identity theory is the study done by Tajfel et al. The aim
of this study was to investigate the effect of in-group and out-group bias. They recruited 48
British school boys ages 14-15 from Bristol. These boys were shown slides of paintings by two
different artists, Paul Klee and Wassily Kandinsky without their signatures on the paintings. The
boys were asked to express their preferences, then the researchers randomly assigned the
group to the Klee group or the Kandinsky group. Then the boys had to distribute award points to
in-group and out-group members (not being allowed to reward points to themselves). Once this
was done it was shown that the boys were more likely to give higher awards to members of
their own group compared to the boys in the out-group.

The limitations of this study is that it is artificial and there is sampling bias. The experiment was
done in a laboratory and thus it lacks ecological validity as the task itself usually doesn’t occur in
a real life setting making the task of the study very artificial. Other than that, the participants
were only boys making it difficult to generalise the findings as the participants for this study do
not represent girls or those from other countries. An ethical issue which is found in this study is
that the boys, the participants, were deceived. The boys were deceived being told that the
grouping was based on the artwork of their preference. This deception might be justified to
ensure that the boys display natural behaviour and do not show any demand
characteristics. This study supports SIT because the participants showed in-group preference,
which is a concept of SIT.

The second study that works to support this theory is the study done by Drury et al. This study
was a laboratory experiment in which the environment is highly controlled by the researchers.
The aim of this study was to investigate how social identity influences ones tendency to
assist/help others in a situation of need. For this study researchers used a VR simulation of a fire
in the London Underground. Participants either had the choice to push others out of their way
for their safety or they could help others. There were two different conditions for this study, the
first condition was that participants didn’t share the same social identity and the second
condition was that participants shared the same social identity. In order to give participants the
same social identity, they mentioned ‘All Customers’ or ‘Real Madrid Fans.’ The results from the
study showed that the team who was given the same social identity were more likely to help
one another even if they had to risk their own safety to help another member of their assigned
social identity. Thus, it can be said that when a social identity is given to a group they will see
others around them as their in-group and are more likely to help them out.

With this study the limitations are that it is reductionist and that it has low ecological validity.
The reason why it is a limitation that the study is reductionist is that reductionist approaches do
not necessarily allow the identification as to why behaviours happen. It can also be said that
reductionist views lack validity as it attempts to look at a phenomenon/behaviour by breaking it
down. The act of breaking it down and individually performing studies on it would not show the
reason why the phenomenon/behaviour occurs. The study also has low ecological validity
meaning that it can’t be easily generalised to real-world settings as the culture and the social
norms in the UK are very different. Other than that, there is also an ethical issue with this study.
There is the possibility of mental harm to the participants as well as the high stress situations
can cause mental distress and could lead to the extremes of PTSD. In order to refrain from the
mental harm being too severe, all participants should be debriefed after the experiment. This
study supports SIT because the participants showed that by giving a singular identity to a group
of people allowed them to accept that identity and behave differently as they considered those
around them as their in-group.

As for the social identity theory, it is supported by high amounts of empirical evidence. It also
demonstrates the role of social categorisation on intergroup behaviour. Other than that, the
theory is also useful to predict and understand group favouritism and stereotypes. The
weaknesses of the theory are that it does not consider the cultural differences in special
identification to an individual level. Nor does it consider ones individual value and personality in
adopting a social identity. SIT often has low ecological validity, the samples are unrepresentative
and the reductionist approaches are weaknesses of SIT. Thus, it can be said that the social
identity theory is not perfect but it is useful in various situations.

Considering all the statements above, the social identity theory mentions that the in-group will
see themselves as better than the out-group in order to increase their self esteem. The SIT is
made up of 3 main concepts: social categorisation, social identity and social comparison. This
theory is supported by the studies done by Tajfel et al. and Drury et al. The strengths of this
theory include that is it supported by a lot of research and that it is very useful in understanding
other psychological phenomenon such as stereotypes and group favouritism. The weaknesses of
this theory are that it lacks ecological validity and that it does not consider many cultural
differences. Therefore, the social identity theory can be used to identify and explain how we
form our social identities in terms of in-groups and out-groups.