Social Identity Theory
Social identity theory posits that individuals derive a portion of their self-concept from their membership in social groups. Tajfel and Turner (1979) proposed that the groups people belonged to were important sources of pride and self esteem.
Social identity groups can give you a sense of:
Belonging: being part of a group can instilling feelings of connection and unity, giving individuals the comforting sense that they’re not alone in their experiences or perspectives.
Purpose: group affiliations often come with shared goals or missions, which can provide direction and purpose to individual members.
Self-worth: Affiliating with a group can boost self esteem as individuals derive pride from group achievements and a positive group image.
Identity: groups provide a framework to understand oneself in the context of a larger community. They can help define who you are based on shared attributes, values, or goals.
SOCIAL CATEGORISATION → SOCIAL IDENTIFICATION → SOCIAL COMPARISON
Social categorisation: this refers to the tendency of people to classify themselves and others into various social groups based on attributes like race, gender, nationality or religion. We categorise objects to understand them and identify them. We also categorise people to understand the social environment. Such as black, white, Australian, Christian etc. Categorisation helps individuals simplify the social environment but can also lead to stereotyping. If we can assign people to a category, that tells us things about those people.
Social identification: once individuals categorise themselves as members of a particular group, they adopt the identity of that group. Meaning they begin to see themselves in terms of group characteristics and adopts its norms, values and behaviours. There will be an emotional significance to your identification with a group and your self esteem will become bound up with group membership.
Social comparison: after categorising and identifying with a group, individuals compare their group to others. This comparison is often biased in favour of one’s own group, leading to in-group favouritism . This is critical to understanding prejudice, because once two groups idetify themselves as rivals, they are forced to compete for members to maintain their self esteem.
In-group and out-group: within the context of SIT, the ‘in-group’ refers to the group with which an individual identifies, while ‘out-group’ pertains to groups they don’t indemnify with. The theory asserts that people have a natural inclination to perceive their in-group in a positive light while being neutral or even negative towards out-groups, thus enhancing their self image.
Positive distinctiveness: the desire for positive self esteem will motivate one’s in-group to be perceived as positively different or distinct from relevant out-groups. Prejudiced views between cultures may result in racism or in extreme forms can lead to genocide.
Tajfel (1970)
Social categorisation and intergroup behaviour
Aim: see if the group people are in impact acts the number of points the group has
RM: Lab
Ethics: Confidentiality and debrief met. Deception broken.
Method: 48 schoolboys (14-15 years) from Bristol shown 12 slides portraying different paintings one half by Kandinsky and other by Klee. All the boys viewed the paintings without signatures of the painter and afterwards they were asked to express their preferences for which painting they prefferered.
After this initial stage of the experiment, the boys were allocated to two separate groups. They were given the impression
Individual and the Group: Social Identity Theory — Study
Tajfel (1970)
Topic: Social categorization and intergroup behavior
Aim:
To see if people, when randomly allocated to a condition, would see themselves as part of their in-group and show in-group favoritism and discrimination against the out-group.
Variables
IV: Group they are in (Klee or Kandinsky)
DV: Number of points the group received
Research Method: Lab experiment
Ethical Considerations
Deception
Confidentiality
Debriefing
Method
Participants: Schoolboys (14–15 years old) from Bristol.
Shown 12 slides of different paintings — some by Klee and some by Kandinsky.
After viewing, they were told they had been assigned to groups based on which painter they preferred (though in reality, the assignment was random).
The boys did not know each other or who was in which group.
After grouping, boys completed a point allocation task.
Each boy was asked to award 15 points to two other boys — one from his in-group and one from the out-group.
Choices were structured with paired options (e.g., 14–15, 10–5, 7–8).
They were told that the total points awarded would determine the boys’ rewards.
The boys never met each other, and all allocation was done anonymously.
Results
Boys maximized differences between groups (category accentuation effect), even when this was disadvantageous to their own group.
In the first system of point awarding, the boys generally gave more points to members of their in-group, showing in-group favoritism.
In the second system of point awarding, the boys tended to maximize the difference between the two groups — favoring their in-group’s relative advantage, even if it reduced total profit.
Conclusion
Tajfel’s study demonstrated that in-group favoritism can occur even under minimal conditions.
Merely being categorized into a group is enough to trigger discriminatory behavior toward the out-group.
Supports Social Identity Theory — group identity influences behavior and perceptions of others.
Tajfel demonstrates Social Identity Theory — for example, the boys gave their in-group more points than the out-group. This is important because it shows how group memberships are applied. Through social identification and social comparison from social categorization, the boys started to separate themselves by favoring their in-group and creating positive distinctiveness. Therefore, Social Identity Theory can be used to explain human behavior.