SC 3 The 3 C’s C’los, Ciri, and Contrel

What is Social Identity Theory?!

Social Identity Theory was developed by Tajfel and Turner in 1979 to understand intergroup relations and group processes -particularly negative or hostile ones.

Social identity theory is based on the assumption that individuals have a basic need for positive self-esteem, and that self- esteem is wrapped in both personal and social identities. We all have various social identities, based on the groups to which we belong and with which we identify. These social identities may include racial group, nationality, social group and sports club.

According to Tajfel (1981) social identity is “that part of the individual’s self- concept which derives from their knowledge of membership of a social group, together with the value and emotional significance of that membership”

Our social identity contributes to how we feel about ourselves so we seek positive social identities to maintain and enhance our self- esteem. One way of achieving a positive social identity is to compare our group (in-group) with other groups (out-groups). Therefore we develop in-group bias or favoritism. Social identity theory predicts that this bias towards one’s own group can lead to hostility and prejudice towards another.

There are three fundamental cognitive processes underlying social identity theory…

Categorization : The first is our tendency to categorize individuals, including ourselves into groups. This leads to categorization of the social world into ‘them’ and ‘us’. Categorizing or grouping ourselves can take place with incredible ease as demonstrated in Tajfel’s minimal group studies.

Identification: We also adopt the identity of the group we have categorized ourselves as belonging to which means we may adopt some of the values and behaviors of that group. Having this social identity enhances our self-esteem.

Comparison: We also enhance the sense of identity by making comparisons with other groups ( known as out- groups). Having a positive social identity or positive distinctiveness means drawing favorable comparisons with other relevant groups. This can be seen in a study by Cialdini (1976). They observed college football supporters on the days immediately following inter- college games. If their team won college scarves and insignia were much more in evidence around the college campus than if their team lost. The victory gave a sense of positive-distinctiveness for the group and therefore enhanced self esteem.

According to social identity theory we have a strong need to form social identities. The fact that individuals form a social identity with minimum in common can be seen on the Tajfel et al ( 1971) ‘Minimal Group studies’. They conducted a study in which Bristol schoolboys were assigned at random to one of two meaningless groups. They believed they had been assigned on the basis they had either over- estimated or underestimated dots shown on a screen.

Tajfel found that individual members would not allocate more points to their own group but would often maximize the difference between the two groups – even if it meant their own group receiving fewer points overall. However in an artificial lab experiment allegiance to the group may be very short lived, or unrealistic. The study may have had demand characteristics and the sample wasn’t representative of the general population.

Social identity theory has been successfully applied to numerous phenomena within social psychology including stereotyping, prejudice and hostility.

Reicher ( 1984) studied the riots in the mainly Afro-Carribean area of St Paul’s in Bristol in The riots were triggered by a police raid on a local business in an area of increasing racial tension.

Reicher focused mainly on the targets of the rioting. The targets of the violence were very specific, for example banks, local authority (government) buildings and police cars were attacked, whilst nearby houses, community buildings and local shops were not.

The notion that individuals are motivated to identify with groups to enhance self – esteem may apply more to individualist than collectivist societies.

Individualist societies are considered more autonomous and priority is on personal achievement rather than group achievements. Self-esteem is linked to personal achievement. In contrast collectivist societies are more inter- dependent, and emphasis is on group achievement rather than individual. There is no strong link between individual success and self-esteem.

One way to test this is by looking at and comparing self-serving biases.

The tendency to take credit for success (and not accept blame for failure) is known as the self-serving bias. Recall the main explanation for the SSB is the enhancement of self esteem.

Research has found cultural differences in the self – serving bias. Kashima & Triandis (1986) asked American and Japanese participants to remember slides of scenes from unfamiliar countries. When asked to explain their performance the Americans tended to attribute their success in remembering accurate details to ability, ◦while the Japanese in contrast, tended to attribute their failures to lack of ability. This challenges the universality of the idea that social identity serves to enhance self-esteem.

om/2011/02/05-evaluate-social-identity- theory-making-reference-to-relevant- studies.pdf om/2011/02/05-evaluate-social-identity- theory-making-reference-to-relevant- studies.pdf