Social Identity Theory

Belonging

Being part of a group can instill feelings of connection and unity, giving individuals the sense they are not alone in their experiences 

Purpose

Group affiliations come with shared goals or missions, providing direction and purpose to members

What is SIT

• Social Identity Theory explains how individuals define themselves based on their group memberships, like nationality, religion and social class

• It suggests people want to enhance their self-esteem by identifying with in-groups and differentiation from out-groups

• This leads to people:

• Categorising themselves and others into social groups

• Identifying with certain groups that positively contribute to their self-concept

• Comparing their in-groups favourable against out-groups

• This leads to group favourites, prejudice, and stereotyping as people favour those in their own group

Stages of SIT

• Categorisation

• Social indemnification

• Comparison

Categorisation

• We sort ourselves into social groups based on our attributes like race, gender and religion

• This helps us understand the social environment 

• This also helps individuals simplify the environment but can lead to stereotyping 

Social indemnification

• Once individuals categories themselves as a member of a group, they adopt the identity of that group 

• They begin to see themselves in terms of group characteristics and adopt its norms, values and behaviours 

• There will be an emotional significance to your identification with the group, and your self-esteem will become bound with group membership 

Comparison

• After categorising and identifying with a group, we compare their group to others

• This is critical to understanding prejudice 

• Once 2 groups identify as rivals, they are forced to compete in order for the members to maintain their self-esteem

• Competition between groups is the result of competing identities 

SIT Study name

Sherif

Sherif Aim

To investigate how intergroup conflict arises between two similar groups, and whether this conflict can be reduced through certain interventions, specifically the introduction of shared goals

Sherif Procedure

• 22 white, middle-class, 12-year-old boys, unknown to each other prior to the study

• Randomly divided into two groups

• Phase 1: Group Formation (5–6 days):

• Each group was transported separately to Robbers Cave State Park

• Kept apart and encouraged to bond through cooperative tasks.

• Developed group names

• Formed distinct group identities, flags, and norms.

• Phase 2: Intergroup Competition (4–6 days):

• Groups introduced to one another.

• Competed in activities like baseball and tug-of-war.

• Prizes awarded only to the winners

• Conflict escalated from verbal taunts to physical aggression

• Hostility became so intense that researchers intervene

• Phase 3: Conflict Resolution:

• Initial attempts at reconciliation were unsuccessful.

• Introduced tasks requiring both groups to work together:

• These cooperative efforts led to reduced hostility and mixed-group seating at meal

Sherif Results

• Competition created intense hostility, stereotyping, and in-group bias.

• Contact alone did not reduce conflict.

• Only cooperative efforts toward superordinate goals significantly reduced intergroup tensions.

Sherif Conclusion

Intergroup conflict can arise quickly even between similar individuals when competition is introduced.

Sherif Generalisability

• The sample consisted of only 22 white, 12-year-old, middle-class boys 

• This limits how well the results can be applied to other genders, age groups, cultures, or social classes

• The boys were randomly allocated to groups, increasing internal validity and making the findings somewhat generalisable to similar peer groups under similar conditions.

Sherif Reliability

• The study followed a clear, structured, multi-phase design, making it replicable 

• Because it was conducted in a naturalistic field setting, extraneous variables reduce control and reliability.

Sherif Applicability

• The study offers strong real-world applications:

• Informs intervention programs (e.g., in schools) to reduce group-based conflict.

Sherif Validity

• High ecological validity: Conducted in a real summer camp setting with natural group behaviors.

• Mundane realism: The tasks (sports, cooperation) reflected real-life group interactions.

• Possible demand characteristics – boys may have conformed to perceived roles of competition.

Sherif Ethics

• Informed consent was not obtained from the children; deception was involved.

• Boys were exposed to conflict, aggression, and manipulation without full understanding.

Sherif supporting study

Abrams

Abrams Aim

To investigate the role of social identity on conformity, particularly whether people are more likely to conform to the judgments of in-group members than out-group members.

Abrams Procedure

• 50 undergraduate psychology students were used as participants

• They were told the study was about visual perception.

• Participants had to match a stimulus line to one of three comparison lines

• There were 18 trials, and on 9 of them the confederates gave incorrect answers

• The participant was always seated in the last position and responded last

• The confederates were introduced either as fellow psychology students (in-group) or as ancient history students (out-group).

• The researchers measured the number of times the participant conformed to the incorrect group response

Abrams Results

• Participants conformed more often when they believed the confederates were in the same in-group (psychology students)

• Conformity rates were significantly higher in the in-group condition than the out-group condition.

Abrams Conclusion

People are more likely to conform to the views of members of their own group due to the desire to maintain a positive social identity and group cohesion.

Abrams Generalisability

• The sample consisted of only undergraduate psychology students, limiting generalisability across ages, educational backgrounds, and cultures.

• All participants had similar academic knowledge, which could have influenced their awareness of the experiment’s aim.

Abrams Reliability

The study used a standardised procedure (e.g., same trials, line comparison task, confederate responses), making it replicable

Abrams Reliability

• Supports Social Identity Theory by demonstrating that people conform more when they identify with a group.

• Can be applied to group dynamics, peer pressure, and social cohesion in educational, workplace, or team settings.

Abrams Validity

• Controlled lab environment enhances internal validity

• Low ecological validity: The task is artificial and may not reflect real-world situations of conformity.

• Participants may have experienced demand characteristics since psychology students might guess the study’s aim.

Abrams Ethics

• Use of deception – participants were misled about the purpose of the study and the identity of the confederates.

• Potential for psychological stress when participants had to go against their own judgment.