Social Identity theory
What is social identity theory?
- Social identity theory (SIT) refers to the identity an individual forms of themselves based on their group memberships
- An individual’s social identity is a combination of the various different ingroups to which they belong e.g. family, college, psychology class, rugby team etc.
- An individual is likely to have a range of different social identities based on each specific group to which they belong - e.g. within a family group an individual can have the social identity of mother/daughter/sister/aunt/cousin/niece
- An individual may choose their ingroups (joining a drama club, supporting a football team) but there are many ingroups over which an individual has no control - e.g. nationality, given sex at birth, ethnicity, age group
- Groups to which an individual does not belong are known as outgroups
- Negative attitudes towards outgroups can lead to prejudice and discrimination
What are the processes of social identity theory?
- Social categorisation is the process by which people arrange others into groups according to specific group characteristics e.g. Millennials, Boomers, Americans, Italians, punks, hippies etc.
- Social categorisation can be a starting point by which stereotypes form e.g.
- Americans are all loud, burger-eating patriots; Boomers are smug and self-satisfied; hippies are all lazy, unwashed layabouts
- Social categorisation occurs as an easy way of understanding others as it requires little cognitive energy
- Social comparison is the process by which an individual or group compares themselves either favourably (downward comparison) or unfavourably (upward comparison) to other groups
- An example of downward comparison would be a businessperson looking down on someone who is unemployed; upward comparison would be a businessperson looking up to someone who is a highly successful entrepreneur billionaire
- Social comparison can lead to individuals and groups feeling either superior or inferior to outgroups, depending on which group is being considered at the time
- e.g. staff at a school which gets the best exam results in one town will feel superior to all of the other schools in the town but inferior to the highest-achieving schools in the country
- Homogeneity of the outgroup and positive distinctiveness of the ingroup (also known as ingroup favouritism) are processes by which the ingroup appears as a collection of distinct, varied individuals whereas the outgroup is viewed as a ‘mass’ of identical, indistinct members with no individuality
- Favouring the ingroup can mean that the outgroup is easier to dismiss and, more worryingly, to demonise e.g. Jewish people in pre-war Germany were reduced to a set of unpleasant, negative characteristics by anti-semitic propaganda to the extent that they simply became ‘them’ as opposed to ‘us’ (i.e. the German people)
Rooting for your team is an example of ingroup favouritism.
Which research studies investigate social identity theory?
- Tajfel et al. (1971) – being randomly assigned to a group is enough to produce ingroup favouritism
- Howarth (2002) – social identity can be negatively affected by the prejudicial attitudes
Tajfel et al. (1971) and Howarth (2002) are available as separate Key Studies – just navigate the Individual & the Group section of this topic to find them (Two Key Studies of Social Identity Theory)
Examiner Tip
Although SIT may be a basis whereby stereotypes are formed it is advisable NOT to use it to answer questions on the formation or effect of stereotypes
Questions on stereotypes are looking for you to use theories of stereotyping rather than SIT, although you could cite SIT as a factor in stereotype formation/effect in a longer ERQ. Just don’t be tempted to use it as the focus of your whole response on stereotypes
Worked example
SHORT ANSWER QUESTION (SAQ) - 9 marks
Explain social identity theory with use of one relevant study. [9]
This question requires you to go into some detail as to features of the theory. Here is an example of how to do this:
Social identity theory was proposed by Tajfel et al. (1971) after conducting his research into the minimal groups paradigm. This paradigm revolves around the idea that groups will form under the most meaningless (i.e. minimal conditions) such as mere random allocation to groups. In other words, each group does not have to necessarily share any common characteristics; their overarching shared identity is that they are all members of the same group. Tajfel wanted to find the minimal level necessary for some kind of group identification and the subsequent prejudice and discrimination that was likely to be directed towards the outgroup. He found that merely being put in a group was enough to instil loyalty to the group and some discrimination towards those outside the group. The crucial aspect of this situation was that it involved a totally meaningless and random categorisation of people into ingroups and outgroups.
