On This Page:
Social Identity Theory, proposed by Henri Tajfel and John Turner in the 1970s, posits that individuals derive a portion of their self-concept from their membership in social groups.
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.
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.
Similarly, we find out things about ourselves by knowing what categories we belong to. We define appropriate behavior by referencing the norms of groups we belong to, but you can only do this if you can tell who belongs to your group. An individual can belong to many different groups.
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 in Sherif’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 their self-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.
-
Ethnicity & Race:
- Ingroup: Someone of Chinese descent might identify with other Chinese individuals.
- Outgroup: The same individual might see people of Japanese or Indian descent as an outgroup.
-
Religion:
- Ingroup: A Christian might identify with other Christians.
- Outgroup: Muslims, Hindus, or Buddhists might be perceived as outgroups to Christians.
-
Nationality:
- Ingroup: An American might feel a kinship with fellow Americans.
- Outgroup: Canadians, Mexicans, or Britons might be seen as outgroups.
-
Professional Affiliation:
- Ingroup: Teachers might see other teachers as part of their ingroup.
- Outgroup: They might see administrators, policymakers, or even other professions like lawyers or doctors as outgroups.
-
Sports Teams:
- Ingroup: A fan of the New York Yankees might identify with fellow Yankees fans.
- Outgroup: Boston Red Sox fans could be perceived as the outgroup.
-
Political Affiliation:
- Ingroup: A Republican might feel aligned with fellow Republicans.
- Outgroup: Democrats, Libertarians, or members of other political parties might be seen as outgroups.
-
Age:
- Ingroup: Teenagers might feel that other teens understand their experiences and challenges best.
- Outgroup: They might see adults, especially older adults, as an outgroup.
-
Musical Preference:
- Ingroup: Fans of heavy metal music might identify with fellow metalheads.
- Outgroup: Fans of pop, country, or classical music might be perceived as outgroups.
-
Educational Institutions:
- Ingroup: Alumni of a particular university might feel a sense of camaraderie with fellow alumni.
- Outgroup: Alumni from rival universities might be seen as the outgroup.
-
Gender and Sexual Orientation:
- Ingroup: LGBTQ+ individuals might feel a sense of belonging with others who identify similarly.
- Outgroup: Heterosexual individuals or those who aren’t supportive might be perceived as outgroups.
Implications
- In-group Favoritism: Because individuals seek positive self-esteem, they are inclined to favor and promote their in-group at the expense of out-groups. This can manifest in various ways, from simple preference to allocating more resources to in-group members.
- Stereotyping and Prejudice: By categorizing people into groups, there’s a risk of overemphasizing similarities within groups and differences between them, leading to stereotyping. Coupled with the natural bias towards one’s own group, this can foster prejudice against out-groups.
- Intergroup Conflict: When competition or perceived threats exist between groups, or when resources are scarce, the dynamics described by SIT can intensify, leading to intergroup hostility and conflict.
- Shifts in Group Membership: SIT suggests that if individuals feel their current group membership is not providing positive self-esteem, they may either seek to elevate the status of their current group or abandon it in favor of another group that offers a more positive identity.
- 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.
Applications
- Reducing Prejudice: By recognizing the mechanisms that lead to in-group bias and out-group prejudice, interventions can be designed to foster intergroup understanding and cooperation.
- Organizational Behavior: Within organizations, understanding group dynamics can be instrumental in team formation, conflict resolution, and promoting corporate identity.
- Political and Social Movements: SIT can provide insights into the formation and mobilization of social or political groups, including understanding factors that lead to radicalization. Social identity theory is useful for political psychologists because it addresses intergroup relations, but it has limitations in explaining real-world political identities.
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.
Social Identity Theory, proposed by Henri Tajfel and John Turner in the 1970s, posits that individuals derive a portion of their self-concept from their membership in social groups.
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.
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.
Similarly, we find out things about ourselves by knowing what categories we belong to. We define appropriate behavior by referencing the norms of groups we belong to, but you can only do this if you can tell who belongs to your group. An individual can belong to many different groups.
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 in Sherif’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 their self-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.
-
Ethnicity & Race:
- Ingroup: Someone of Chinese descent might identify with other Chinese individuals.
- Outgroup: The same individual might see people of Japanese or Indian descent as an outgroup.
-
Religion:
- Ingroup: A Christian might identify with other Christians.
- Outgroup: Muslims, Hindus, or Buddhists might be perceived as outgroups to Christians.
-
Nationality:
- Ingroup: An American might feel a kinship with fellow Americans.
- Outgroup: Canadians, Mexicans, or Britons might be seen as outgroups.
-
Professional Affiliation:
- Ingroup: Teachers might see other teachers as part of their ingroup.
- Outgroup: They might see administrators, policymakers, or even other professions like lawyers or doctors as outgroups.
-
Sports Teams:
- Ingroup: A fan of the New York Yankees might identify with fellow Yankees fans.
- Outgroup: Boston Red Sox fans could be perceived as the outgroup.
-
Political Affiliation:
- Ingroup: A Republican might feel aligned with fellow Republicans.
- Outgroup: Democrats, Libertarians, or members of other political parties might be seen as outgroups.
-
Age:
- Ingroup: Teenagers might feel that other teens understand their experiences and challenges best.
- Outgroup: They might see adults, especially older adults, as an outgroup.
-
Musical Preference:
- Ingroup: Fans of heavy metal music might identify with fellow metalheads.
- Outgroup: Fans of pop, country, or classical music might be perceived as outgroups.
-
Educational Institutions:
- Ingroup: Alumni of a particular university might feel a sense of camaraderie with fellow alumni.
- Outgroup: Alumni from rival universities might be seen as the outgroup.
-
Gender and Sexual Orientation:
- Ingroup: LGBTQ+ individuals might feel a sense of belonging with others who identify similarly.
- Outgroup: Heterosexual individuals or those who aren’t supportive might be perceived as outgroups.
Implications
- In-group Favoritism: Because individuals seek positive self-esteem, they are inclined to favor and promote their in-group at the expense of out-groups. This can manifest in various ways, from simple preference to allocating more resources to in-group members.
- Stereotyping and Prejudice: By categorizing people into groups, there’s a risk of overemphasizing similarities within groups and differences between them, leading to stereotyping. Coupled with the natural bias towards one’s own group, this can foster prejudice against out-groups.
- Intergroup Conflict: When competition or perceived threats exist between groups, or when resources are scarce, the dynamics described by SIT can intensify, leading to intergroup hostility and conflict.
- Shifts in Group Membership: SIT suggests that if individuals feel their current group membership is not providing positive self-esteem, they may either seek to elevate the status of their current group or abandon it in favor of another group that offers a more positive identity.
- 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.
Applications
- Reducing Prejudice: By recognizing the mechanisms that lead to in-group bias and out-group prejudice, interventions can be designed to foster intergroup understanding and cooperation.
- Organizational Behavior: Within organizations, understanding group dynamics can be instrumental in team formation, conflict resolution, and promoting corporate identity.
- Political and Social Movements: SIT can provide insights into the formation and mobilization of social or political groups, including understanding factors that lead to radicalization. Social identity theory is useful for political psychologists because it addresses intergroup relations, but it has limitations in explaining real-world political identities.
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 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.
- 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.
Keep Learning
- If your identity is a definition of who you are, then how does your affiliation with multiple groups affect it?
- Can one truly understand the experiences of an outgroup without having been a part of it?
- How do experiences of discrimination or privilege, based on social identities, shape an individual’s understanding of societal structures?
- In what ways does social identity contribute to societal cohesion, and conversely, societal division?
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.
Keep Learning
- If your identity is a definition of who you are, then how does your affiliation with multiple groups affect it?
- Can one truly understand the experiences of an outgroup without having been a part of it?
- How do experiences of discrimination or privilege, based on social identities, shape an individual’s understanding of societal structures?
- In what ways does social identity contribute to societal cohesion, and conversely, societal division?
Sources:
Billig, M., & Tajfel, H. (1973). Social categorization and similarity in inter-group behavior. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 27–52.
Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal inter-group situation: A cognitive motivational
analysis. 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: Maintaining
identification and responding to threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67,
243–251.
Huddy, L. (2001). From social to political identity: A critical examination of social identity theory. Political Psychology, 22(1), 127-156.
Flippen, A. R., Hornstein, H. A., Siegal, W. E., & Weitzman, E. A. (1996). A comparison of similarity
and interdependence as triggers for in-group formation. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 22, 882–893.
Hogg, M. A., Terry, D. J., & White, K. M. (1995). A tale of two theories: A critical comparison of
identity theory with social learning theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58, 255–269.
Huddy, L. (2001). From social to political identity: A critical examination of social identity theory. Political Psychology, 22(1), 127-156.
Jackson, J. W., & Smith, E. R. (1999). Conceptualizing social identity: A new framework and evidence
for 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 identification
and 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 some
hidden 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 public
negativity toward outgroups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 127–137.
Tajfel, H., Turner, J. C., Austin, W. G., & Worchel, S. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. Organizational identity: A reader, 56-65.
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.
