On This Page:ToggleStagesExamplesImplicationsApplicationsStagesExamplesImplicationsApplicationsCritical Evaluation
On This Page:Toggle
On This Page:
The theory seeks to explain the cognitive processes and social conditions underlying intergroup behaviors, especially those related to prejudice, bias, and discrimination.
Social identity is a person’s sense of who they are based on their group membership(s).
Tajfel and Turner (1979) proposed that the groups (e.g., social class, family, football team, etc.) 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 instill 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.
Tajfel and Turner (1979) proposed that the groups (e.g., social class, family, football team, etc.) people belonged to were important sources of pride and self-esteem.
Stages
1. Social Categorization
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 categorize objects to understand them and identify them. In a very similar way, we categorize people (including ourselves) to understand the social environment. We use social categories like black, white, Australian, Christian, Muslim, student, and bus driver because they are useful.
Categorization 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.
For example, you have categorized yourself as a student, chances are you will adopt the identity of a student and begin to act the ways you believe student act.
2. Social Identification
Once individuals categorize themselves as members of a particular group, they adopt the identity of that group. This means they begin to see themselves in terms of group characteristics and adopt its norms, values, and behaviors.
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.
3. Social Comparison
After categorizing and identifying with a group, individuals compare their group to others. This comparison is often biased in favor of one’s own group, leading to in-group favoritism.
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 inSherif’s Robbers Cave) like jobs but also the result of competing identities.
4. In-group (us) and Out-group (them)
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 identify 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 theirself-image.
5. 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; 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.
Examples of In-groups and Out-groups
It’s important to note that ingroups and outgroups are fluid concepts. The group an individual identifies with can change based on context, environment, or over time.
Moreover, everyone belongs to multiple ingroups across different facets of their identity. The categorization into ingroups and outgroups also plays a significant role in intergroup dynamics, biases, and conflicts.
Implications
Applications
Key issues limiting social identity theory’s application to politics are: 1) Choice in acquiring identities versus assigned identities; 2) Subjective meaning of identities rather than just boundaries; 3) Gradual strength of identification rather than just its existence; 4) Stability of identities over time rather than high fluidity.
Research priorities include:studying real-world political identities varying in strength; examining identity formation/development, not just consequences; understanding individual differences in adopting identities; and investigating the meaning of identities based on values, prototypes, valence for members, and contrast with outgroups.Critical EvaluationThe social identity approach explains group phenomena based on social context, categorization, identity, norms, and status. It shed new light on old topics like crowd behavior, stereotyping, social influence, cohesion, and polarization with its emphasis on collective psychology.The approach is one of the only broad meta-theories in social psychology that integrates concepts across an impressive range of domains.The theory revolutionized the field of social psychology and had a major influence on research into prejudice, stereotyping, social influence, and intergroup conflict (Hornsey, 2008).It has extensive empirical support. The minimal group paradigm remains a widely-used tool.Yet theorists debate whether the original formulation oversimplified the complex relationship between personal and collective identity.Depersonalization may also be overstated, as group members accept diverse opinions. The theory’s breadth and multifaceted nature make it hard to falsify.Critics argue it focuses more on ingroup favoritism than outgroup negativity. And its meta-theoretical scope sometimes comes at the cost of precise, testable hypotheses.Recent evolutions in the social identity approach sought to address some limitations. Theorists now embrace a more nuanced perspective, acknowledging the interplay between personal and social identity. The self-concept is seen as fluid, with individuals shaping group norms as well as vice-versa.Distinctiveness and belonging are recognized as concurrent human needs. This fueled research on subgroups, deviance, and the motivational significance of inclusion versus differentiation.New research also expanded the outcomes examined to cover emotions and historical memory. It delved into the most inclusive level of human identity. Applications proliferated in justice, leadership, communication, politics, and especially organizational psychology.The approach is increasingly prominent in understanding responses to stigmatized identities, collective action, political conflicts, and intergroup contact.Ingroups are studied not as monoliths but as complex entities with dissenting voices. Overall, social identity theory remains vibrant and influential, broad-reaching across psychology.
Research priorities include:studying real-world political identities varying in strength; examining identity formation/development, not just consequences; understanding individual differences in adopting identities; and investigating the meaning of identities based on values, prototypes, valence for members, and contrast with outgroups.
Critical Evaluation
The social identity approach explains group phenomena based on social context, categorization, identity, norms, and status. It shed new light on old topics like crowd behavior, stereotyping, social influence, cohesion, and polarization with its emphasis on collective psychology.
Yet theorists debate whether the original formulation oversimplified the complex relationship between personal and collective identity.
Depersonalization may also be overstated, as group members accept diverse opinions. The theory’s breadth and multifaceted nature make it hard to falsify.
Critics argue it focuses more on ingroup favoritism than outgroup negativity. And its meta-theoretical scope sometimes comes at the cost of precise, testable hypotheses.
Recent evolutions in the social identity approach sought to address some limitations. Theorists now embrace a more nuanced perspective, acknowledging the interplay between personal and social identity. The self-concept is seen as fluid, with individuals shaping group norms as well as vice-versa.
Distinctiveness and belonging are recognized as concurrent human needs. This fueled research on subgroups, deviance, and the motivational significance of inclusion versus differentiation.
New research also expanded the outcomes examined to cover emotions and historical memory. It delved into the most inclusive level of human identity. Applications proliferated in justice, leadership, communication, politics, and especially organizational psychology.
The approach is increasingly prominent in understanding responses to stigmatized identities, collective action, political conflicts, and intergroup contact.
Ingroups are studied not as monoliths but as complex entities with dissenting voices. Overall, social identity theory remains vibrant and influential, broad-reaching across psychology.
Keep Learning
References
Huddy, L. (2001). From social to political identity: A critical examination of social identity theory.Political Psychology,22(1), 127-156.
Tajfel, H., Turner, J. C., Austin, W. G., & Worchel, S. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict.Organizational identity: A reader, 56-65.
Sources:
Billig, M., & Tajfel, H. (1973). Social categorization and similarity in inter-group behavior.EuropeanJournal of Social Psychology, 3,27–52.
Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal inter-group situation: A cognitive motivationalanalysis.Psychological Bulletin, 86,307–324.
Brown, R. (2000). Social identity theory: Past achievements, current problems and future challenges.European journal of social psychology,30(6), 745-778.
Deaux, K. (1993). Reconstructing social identity.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 4–12.
Ethier, K. A., & Deaux, K. (1994). Negotiating social identity when contexts change: Maintainingidentification and responding to threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67,243–251.
Flippen, A. R., Hornstein, H. A., Siegal, W. E., & Weitzman, E. A. (1996). A comparison of similarityand interdependence as triggers for in-group formation.Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 22, 882–893.
Hogg, M. A., Terry, D. J., & White, K. M. (1995). A tale of two theories: A critical comparison ofidentity theory with social learning theory.Social Psychology Quarterly, 58, 255–269.
Jackson, J. W., & Smith, E. R. (1999). Conceptualizing social identity: A new framework and evidencefor the impact of different dimensions.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 120–135.
Karasawa, M. (1991). Toward an assessment of social identity: The structure of group identificationand its effects on in-group evaluations.British Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 293–307.
Mummendey, A., & Schreiber, H. J. (1984). “Different” just means “better”: Some obvious and somehidden pathways to in-group favouritism.British Journal of Social Psychology, 23,363–368.
Noel, J. G., Wann, D. L., & Branscombe, N. R. (1995). Peripheral ingroup membership status and publicnegativity toward outgroups.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 127–137.
Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., & Bundy, R. P. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behavior.European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149–178.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S.Worchel (Eds.),The social psychology of intergroup relations(pp. 33–48). Monterey, CA:Brooks/Cole.
Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education
Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.
Saul McLeod, PhD
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester
Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.
