Social Identity Theory

http://www.simplypsychology.org/social-identity-theory.html
Henri Tajfel's greatest contribution to psychology was social identity theory.

Social identity is a person’s sense of who they are based on their group membership(s).

Tajfel (1979) proposed that the groups (e.g. social class, family, football team etc.) which people
belonged to were an important source of pride and self-esteem. Groups give us a sense of social
identity: a sense of belonging to the social world.

In order to increase our self-image we enhance the status of the group to which we belong. For
example, England is the best country in the world!  We can also increase our self-image by
discriminating and holding prejudice views against the out group (the group we don’t belong to).
For example, the Americans, French etc. are a bunch of losers!

Therefore, we divided the world into “them” and “us” based through a process of social
categorization (i.e. we put people into social groups).

This is known as in-group (us) and out-group (them).  Social identity theory states that the in-
group will discriminate against the out-group to enhance their self-image.

The central hypothesis of social identity theory is that group members of an in-group will seek to
find negative aspects of an out-group, thus enhancing their self-image.

Prejudiced views between cultures may result in racism; in its extreme forms, racism may result
in genocide, such as occurred in Germany with the Jews, in Rwanda between the Hutus and
Tutsis and, more recently, in the former Yugoslavia between the Bosnians and Serbs.

Henri Tajfel proposed that stereotyping (i.e. putting people into groups and categories) is based
on a normal cognitive process: the tendency to group things together. In doing so we tend to
exaggerate:

1. the differences between groups

2. the similarities of things in the same group.

We categorize people in the same way. We see the group to which we belong (the in-group) as
being different from the others (the out-group), and members of the same group as being more
similar than they are. Social categorization is one explanation for prejudice attitudes (i.e. “them”
and “us” mentality) which leads to in-groups and out-groups.

Examples of In-groups – Out-groups

 Northern Ireland: Catholics – Protestants
 Rwanda: Hutus and Tutsis
 Yugoslavia: the Bosnians and Serbs
 Germany: Jews and the Nazis
 Politics: Labor and the Conservatives
 Football: Liverpool and Man Utd
 Gender: Males and Females
 Social Class: Middle and Working Classes

Social Identity Theory Outline

Tajfel and Turner (1979) proposed that there are three mental processes involved in evaluating
others as “us” or “them” (i.e. “in-group” and “out-group”. These take place in a particular order.

The first is categorization. We categorize objects in order to understand them and identify them.
In a very similar way we categorize people (including ourselves) in order to understand the
social environment.  We use social categories like black, white, Australian, Christian, Muslim,
student, and bus driver because they are useful.

If we can assign people to a category then that tells us things about those people, and as we saw
with the bus driver example, we couldn't function in a normal manner without using these
categories; i.e. in the context of the bus. 
Similarly, we find out things about ourselves by knowing what categories we belong to.  We
define appropriate behavior by reference to the norms of groups we belong to, but you can only
do this if you can tell who belongs to your group. An individual can belong to many different
groups.

In the second stage, social identification, we adopt the identity of the group we have categorized
ourselves as belonging to.  If for example you have categorized yourself as a student, the chances
are you will adopt the identity of a student and begin to act in the ways you believe students act
(and conform to the norms of the group).  There will be an emotional significance to your
identification with a group, and your self-esteem will become bound up with group membership.

The final stage is social comparison.  Once we have categorized ourselves as part of a group and
have identified with that group we then tend to compare that group with other groups. If our self-
esteem is to be maintained our group needs to compare favorably with other groups.

This is critical to understanding prejudice, because once two groups identify themselves as
rivals, they are forced to compete in order for the members to maintain their self-esteem.
Competition and hostility between groups is thus not only a matter of competing for resources
(like in Sherif’s Robbers Cave) like jobs but also the result of competing identities.

Conclusion
Just to reiterate, in social identity theory the group membership is not something foreign or
artificial which is attached onto the person, it is a real, true and vital part of the person. 

Again, it is crucial to remember in-groups are groups you identify with, and out-groups are ones
that we don't identify with, and may discriminate against.

References
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The social
psychology of intergroup relations?, 33, 47.
HTTP://WWW.UTWENTE.NL/CW/THEORIEENOVERZICHT/THEORY
%20CLUSTERS/INTERPERSONAL%20COMMUNICATION%20AND
%20RELATIONS/SOCIAL_IDENTITY_THEORY/

SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY

Cognitive and motivational basis of intergroup differentiation.
History and Orientation
Social Identity Theory was developed by Tajfel and Turner in 1979. The theory was originally
developed to understand the psychological basis of intergroup discrimination. Tajfel et al (1971)
attempted to identify the minimal conditions that would lead members of one group to
discriminate in favor of the ingroup to which they belonged and against another outgroup.
Core Assumptions and Statements
In the Social Identity Theory, a person has not one, “personal self”, but rather several selves that
correspond to widening circles of group membership. Different social contexts may trigger an
individual to think, feel and act on basis of his personal, family or national “level of self” (Turner
et al, 1987). Apart from the “level of self”, an individual has multiple “social identities”. Social
identity is the individual’s self-concept derived from perceived membership of social groups
(Hogg & Vaughan, 2002). In other words, it is an individual-based perception of what defines
the “us” associated with any internalized group membership. This can be distinguished from the
notion of personal identity which refers to self-knowledge that derives from the individual’s
unique attributes.
Social Identity Theory asserts that group membership creates ingroup/ self-categorization and
enhancement in ways that favor the in-group at the expense of the out-group. The examples
(minimal group studies) of Turner and Tajfel (1986) showed that the mere act of
individuals categorizing themselves as group members was sufficient to lead them to display
ingroup favoritism. After being categorized of a group membership, individuals seek to achieve
positive self-esteem by positively differentiating their ingroup from a comparison outgroup on
some valued dimension. This quest forpositive distinctiveness means that people’s sense of who
they are is defined in terms of ‘we’ rather than ‘I’.
Tajfel and Turner (1979) identify three variables whose contribution to the emergence of ingroup
favoritism is particularly important. A) the extent to which individuals identify with an ingroup
to internalize that group membership as an aspect of their self-concept. B) the extent to which the
prevailing context provides ground for comparison between groups. C) the perceived relevance
of the comparison group, which itself will be shaped by the relative and absolute status of the
ingroup. Individuals are likely to display favoritism when an ingroup is central to their self-
definition and a given comparison is meaningful or the outcome is contestable.
Conceptual Model
Haslam, Alexander S. (2001), Psychology in Organizations - The Social Identitty Approach,
Sage Publications Ltd, London. Chapter 2: The Social Identity Approach, pp. 26-57
Favorite Methods
Experiments.
Scope and Application
Social Identity Theory has a considerable impact on social psychology. It is tested in a wide
range of fields and settings and includes prejudice, stereotyping, negotiation and language use.
The theory has also implications on the way people deal with social and organizational change.
Example
In further research this example is referred to minimal group studies. Schoolboys were assigned
to groups, which were intended as meaningless as possible. They were assigned randomly,
excluding roles of interpersonal discrimination such as history of conflict, personal animosity or
interdependence. The schoolboys assigned points to anonymous members of both their own
group and the other group. Conclusions were that even the most minimal conditions were
sufficient to encourage ingroup-favoring responses. Participants picked a reward pair that
awarded more points to people who were identified as ingroup members. In other words, they
displayed ingroup favoritism.