4.4 Evaluate social identity theory.

4.4 Evaluate social identity theory.

Social identity theory (SIT)

SIT s a theoretical framework developed by Tajfel and Turner (1979) for the analysis of intergroups relations. SIT is linked to the idea of self-categorization theory (Turner 1991).

Social identity can be defined as the part of one’s self-concept based on the knowledge of membership in social group(s) in combination with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership. Individuals strive to maintain a positive self-concept as well as a positive social identity. People make comparisons between ingroup and outgroup on valued dimensions to establish, maintain, and defend positive ingroup distinctiveness (social comparison). When a social comparison results in a positive outcome for the ingroup, the need for a positive social identity is satisfied but the opposite may also happen (e.g. for low-status minority groups). Intergroup discrimination can be one way to uphold a positive social identity for the ingroup (for example when women earn less than men for the same work or when whites think they are superior and discriminate against other ethnic groups.

		Ingroup: group members seen as individuals + positive traits (→ ingroup favouritism)
	↗	↕
Categorization: people are categorized based on shared characteristics (group membership) → ingroups and outgroups		Social comparison to obtain positive distinctness of ingroup
	↘	↕
		Outgroup: Group members seen as similar + negative traits (→discrimination)

Tajfel (1970)

Aim: To investigate if boys placed in random groups based on an arbitrary task (minimal group) would display ingroup favouritism and intergroup discrimination.

Procedure: The participants were 64 schoolboys (age 14-15) from a state school in the UK. They came to a psychology laboratory in groups of eight. They all knew each other well before the experiment. The boys were shown clusters of varying numbers of dots, flashed onto a screen and had to estimate the number of dots in each cluster. The experimenters assigned the boys to groups at random categorizes as ‘over-estimator, ‘under-estimator’, etc. Subsequently, the boys had to allocate small amounts of money to the other boys in the experiment. The only thing they knew of the boys was if they belonged to the same or a different category.

In a second experiment, boys were randomly allocated to groups based on their supposed artistic preferences for two painters. Then they had to award money to the other boys.

Results: A large majority of the boys gave more money to members of their own category (ingroup) than to members of the other categories (outgroup).

In the second experiment, the boys tried to maximize the difference between the two groups. The results of both experiments indicate that the boys adopted a strategy of ingroup favouritism. This supports the predictions of social identity theory.

Evaluation: The experiments contributed to the development of social identity theory, which states that the social groups and categories to which we belong are an important part of our self-concept. Tajfel demonstrated that a “minimal group” is all that is necessary for individuals to exhibit discrimination against outgroups. The experiments has been criticized for artificiality and demand characteristics. The boys may have interpreted the task as a sort of competitive game and therefore reacted the way they did.

Howarth (2002) performed focus group interviews with adolescent girls in Brixton to study how the girls described and evaluated themselves. She found that the girls had a positive view of “being from Brixton” which contrasted with how people living outside Brixton perceived people from Brixton. This can be seen as an example of creating a positive “social identity” based on group belongings.

Strengths of Social Identity Theory	Limitations of Social Identity Theory
SIT assumes that intergroup conflict is not required for discrimination to occur. This is supported by empirical research, e.g. Tajfel (1970).	Minimal group research has been criticized for artificiality. The experimental setup is so far from natural behaviour that it can be questioned whether it reflects how people would react in real life. This could limit the predictive value of the theory.
SIT can explain some of the mechanisms involved in establishing “positive distinctiveness” to the ingroup by maximizing differences to the outgroup.	SIT cannot fully explain how ingroup favouritism may result in violent behaviour towards outgroups.
SIT has been applied to understanding behaviours such as ethnocentrism, ingroup favouritism, conformity to ingroup norms, and stereotyping.	SIT cannot explain why social constraints such as poverty could play a bigger role in behaviour than social theory.