See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281208338

Social Identity Theory

Chapter · July 2014

CITATIONS READS

0 25,847

1 author:

Gazi Islam
Grenoble École de Management
89 PUBLICATIONS 641 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Alternative mindsets at work View project

Big Worm View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Gazi Islam on 24 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Social Identity Theory 1781 S
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, Keywords
741–763.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An
intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Intergroup relations; out-group discrimination;
New York: Cambridge University Press. social psychology of groups; group dynamics
Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Mitchell, M. (1994). Ingroup
identification, social dominance orientation, and
differential intergroup social allocation. Journal of
Social Psychology, 134, 151–167. Traditional Debates

Online Resources SIT grew out of Henri Tajfel’s early work, which
http://scholar.harvard.edu/sidanius/ attempted to apply cognitive grouping and gestalt
http://www.psychology.uconn.edu/people/Faculty/Pratto/ phenomena to social groups (Hogg & Williams,
Pratto.html 2000). Cognitive grouping involves “judgmental
accentuation” where cognitive categories lead to
the increased salience of distinguishing features
between categories, exaggerating category
Social Identity Theory differences. Applied to social groups, this
principle could be used to explain biased and
Gazi Islam exaggerated perceptions of difference between
Grenoble Ecole de Management and Insper groups. Tajfel (Tajfel 1970; Tajfel, Flament,
Institute for Education and Research, Grenoble, Billig, & Bundy, 1971; Tajfel & Turner, 1979)
France used a minimal group paradigm to test this effect.
They divided people into two groups based on
arbitrary criteria and showed that even this “min-
imal” group basis led people to form psycholog-
Introduction ical groups, exaggerating the positive qualities of
one’s own group while exaggerating the negative
Social Identity Theory (SIT; Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel qualities of the out-group. Subsequent studies
& Turner, 1979) begins with the premise that have attempted to demonstrate the wide range
individuals define their own identities with regard of socially important phenomena that result
to social groups and that such identifications from such categorization, such as negative eval-
work to protect and bolster self-identity. The uations of the out-group (Dovidio, Gaertner, &
creation of group identities involves both the Validzic, 1998), stereotyping (Smith, 1999), and
categorization of one’s “in-group” with regard failure to allocate resources to out-group mem-
to an “out-group” and the tendency to view bers (Sidanius, Pratto, & Mitchell, 1994). How-
one’s own group with a positive bias vis-a-vis ever, more recent research has called into S
the out-group. The result is an identification question whether social identification leads to
with a collective, depersonalized identity based out-group degradation and tends to emphasize
on group membership and imbued with positive positive in-group regard more than out-group
aspects (e.g., Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & degradation (e.g., Reynolds, Turner, & Haslam,
Wetherell, 1987). 2000).
Positive in-group bias can be explained
because the in-group comes to take on a self-
relevant role, where the person defines him/her-
Definition self through the group. Thus, comparisons
between groups are emotionally laden and equiv-
SIT is a classic social psychological theory that alent to self-other comparisons, with group
attempts to explain intergroup conflict as threats interpreted as threats to the self
a function of group-based self-definitions. (Smith, 1999). Turner (1975, p. 10) describe the
S 1782 Social Identity Theory

in-group-out-group relationship as entailing In addition, the question of social identifica-

a “competition for positive identity,” out-group tion opened up important research into which
categorizations strategically framed to maximize groups people identify with, when they identify
self-evaluations. Thus, treatment of out-group with one group versus another, and how consis-
members is directly related to the motive to tent and enduring are such identifications.
protect or enhance the self (Tajfel & Turner, Because a person can be a member of a family,
1979). a neighborhood, a city, a country, etc., simulta-
Because social identity effects are based on neously, the groups a person belongs to must be
protection and enhancement of self-concepts, supplemented with information regarding which
threat to the self-concept would intuitively be of these groups is cognitively salient at a given
related to the strongest identity effects. Several moment and why. A large body of research (e.g.,
laboratory and field studies have empirically con- Brewer & Gardner, 1996) has attempted to deal
firmed that when groups pose a threat to one with the multiple social identities that people
another, the effects of identification increase. inhabit and how they psychologically organize
For example, negative out-group characteriza- these identities.
tions can result from perceptions of out-groups
as competing for resources (e.g., Cooper & Fazio,
1986) and when groups view the out-group as Critical Debates
having a history of tense relations (e.g., Duckitt
& Mphuthing, 1998), a factor which has made From a critical psychology perspective, SIT
SIT useful in political psychology. offers important insights regarding the social
SIT opened up a wide variety of areas for identity bases of discrimination, prejudice, and
research, regarding the structure of social identi- intergroup conflict, by locating these phenomena
ties, the motivations behind identification, the as resulting from group-based categorization and
fluidity between different social identities, and self-enhancement motives. However, the histori-
identity’s effects on individuals, groups, organi- cal evolution of the theory itself also offers an
zations, and wider social collectives. As these interesting case in which intergroup conflicts
research areas grew, they branched into become redefined as aspects of individual
a variety of theoretical perspectives, including identity. As SIT became more focused on self-
self-categorization theory, self-enhancement the- verification as an epistemic need (e.g., Hogg &
ory, and self-verification theory, among others. Williams, 2000), rather than self-enhancement as
These perspectives do not always agree; for a motivational driver of identification, the
example, self-verification theory (Swann, 1983) conflictual bases of social identity became less
argues that epistemic motives for self-uncertainty central to the identity literature than the forma-
reduction are a primary motive for identification tion of a stable self-concept. While both of these
such that people will sustain even negative social bases were apparent in the original theory, critical
identities if these identities provide epistemic scholars may question whether such
stability. On the other hand, self-enhancement a development leaves SIT less able to unpack
theory (e.g., Jones, 1973) holds that individuals the psychological bases of conflict and more
strive for positive selves and will thus discount or focused on an individual psychology of concept
underplay negative self-information. Both of formation. In this respect, SIT may have devel-
these theories, although contradictory, can be oped increasingly in the direction of an individu-
interpreted in the light of SIT perspectives, in alist cognitive approach at the cost of its
which social identity contains both an epistemic sociological origins. Yet, the diversity of current
and a positive self-regard component. Subse- approaches using the term “social identity” belies
quent research has attempted to tease apart simply diagnoses, and the story of the theoretical
relative effects of self-enhancement and self- evolution of the social identity concept is far from
verification. over. This evolution reflects wider concerns over
 Social Justice, Overview 1783 S
the role of the “social” in social psychology more (Eds.), The social psychology of inter-group relations
generally, a question which is central to critical (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Tajfel, H., Flament, C., Billig, M., & Bundy, R. (1971).
psychologists’ concern to link issues of cogni- Social categorization and intergorup behavior.
tion, attitude, and emotion with larger social European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149–178.
phenomena. Turner, J. C. (1975). Social comparison and social iden-
tity: Some prospects for intergroup behaviour.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 5–34.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M., Oakes, P., Reicher, S., &
Wetherell, M. (1987). Rediscovering the social
References group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, England:
Basil Blackwell.
Brewer, M., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “we”?
Levels of collective identity and self representations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71,
83–93. Online Resources
Cooper, J., & Fazio, R. H. (1986). The formation and http://www.bbcprisonstudy.org/resources.php?p¼59
persistence of attitudes that support intergroup con- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v¼Bgarc9vSj5I
flict. In S. Worchel & W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology
of intergroup relations (pp. 183–195). Chicago: Nel-
son-Hall.
Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Validzic, A. (1998).
Intergroup bias: Status, differentiation, and
a common in-group identity. Journal of Personality Social Justice, Overview
and Social Psychology, 75(1), 109–120.
Duckitt, J., & Mphuthing, T. (1998). Group identification Michael Arfken
and intergroup attitudes: A longitudinal analysis in
South Africa. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
Department of Psychology, University of Prince
chology, 74(1), 80–85. Edward Island, Charlottetown, PEI, Canada
Hogg, M. A., & Williams, K. D. (2000). From I to We:
social identity and the collective self. Group Dynam-
ics: Theory, Research and Practice, 4(1), 81–97.
Jones, S. C. (1973). Self- and interpersonal evaluations:
Introduction
Esteem theories versus consistency theories. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 79, 185–199. Human history bears witness to a wide range of
Reynolds, K. J., Turner, J. C., & Haslam, S. A. (2000). social institutions that have been established in
When are we better than them and they worse than us?
the name of social justice. One striking feature of
A closer look at social discrimination in positive and
negative domains. Journal of Personality and Social these different institutions is the extent to which
Psychology, 78(1), 64–80. they often diverge from one another. For exam-
Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Mitchell, M. (1994). Ingroup ple, while some argue that the cause of social
identification, social dominance orientation, and dif-
ferential intergroup social allocation. Journal of Social
justice is advanced by ensuring that individuals
Psychology, 134, 151–167. are able to engage in unfettered economic S
Smith, E. R. (1999). Affective and cognitive implications exchange, others view the rise of the calculating
of a group becoming part of the self: New models of economic agent as the very embodiment of social
prejudice and of the self-concept. In D. Abrams &
injustice. This suggests that the struggle for social
M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity and social cognition
(pp. 183–196). Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell. justice ultimately begins in a struggle over the
Swann, W. B., Jr. (1983). Self-verification: Bringing meaning of justice itself.
social reality into harmony with the self. In J. Suls &
A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Psychological perspectives
on the self (Vol. 2, pp. 33–66). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimina- Definition
tion. Scientific American, 223, 96–102.
Tajfel, H. (1978). The achievement of inter-group differ- At the most basic level, the idea of social justice
entiation. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between
social groups (pp. 77–100). London: Academic Press.
highlights the social, political, legal, and institu-
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of tional arrangements that characterize particular
inter-group conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel forms of social organization. One reason why

View publication stats