🧠 SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY (SIT)
📌 Key terms
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Social Identity Theory (SIT) | A theory developed by Tajfel & Turner (1979) proposing that an individual’s self-concept is derived from perceived membership in social groups. |
| Social Categorization | The process of classifying individuals (including oneself) into groups based on shared characteristics. |
| Social Identification | Adopting the identity, norms, and values of the group one belongs to. |
| Social Comparison | Comparing one’s group (in-group) to others (out-groups) to maintain positive self-esteem. |
| Positive Distinctiveness | The motivation to show that the in-group is better or more valuable than the out-group, to enhance self-image. |
| In-group Bias | Favoring one’s own group over others, often leading to discrimination. |
| Out-group Discrimination | Negative treatment or attitudes towards those not belonging to one’s group. |
| Minimal Group Paradigm | A method of studying intergroup bias where participants are divided into meaningless groups to test minimal conditions for discrimination. |
📌 Notes
Social Identity Theory (SIT) explains how belonging to groups shapes our thinking, emotions, and behaviour.
According to Tajfel & Turner (1979), humans are motivated to achieve a positive self-concept, and much of that self-concept comes from group identity.
To maintain self-esteem, people tend to view their own groups (in-groups) as superior to others (out-groups), even when group membership is arbitrary or meaningless.
This phenomenon can explain prejudice, discrimination, nationalism, sports rivalry, and social cohesion.
Mechanisms of SIT
- Social Categorization
- We categorize people (and ourselves) into groups based on perceived similarities.
- Examples: nationality, school house, gender, religion, ethnicity.
- Social Identification
- We adopt the identity of the group we belong to, including shared values and norms.
- This strengthens belonging and emotional connection to the group.
- Social Comparison
- We compare our group (in-group) to others (out-groups).
- If our group is perceived as better, our self-esteem rises.
- If not, we may derogate other groups or change group membership to maintain self-esteem.
- Positive Distinctiveness
- We strive to make our group positively distinct — unique, successful, or superior — to protect social identity.
📌 Key Studies
🔬 Key Study 1: Tajfel et al. (1971)
“Minimal Group Paradigm”
Aim:
To investigate whether minimal conditions are sufficient to cause in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination.
Procedure:
- 64 British schoolboys (aged 14–15) were randomly divided into two groups (Klee vs Kandinsky) based on preference for abstract paintings.
- Participants allocated money to anonymous in-group and out-group members using matrices that represented reward trade-offs.
Findings:
- Boys consistently gave more rewards to members of their own group.
- They even sacrificed absolute gains to ensure their group was better off (maximizing difference).
Conclusion:
- In-group bias occurs even with arbitrary group distinctions.
- Supports SIT: group categorization alone is enough to produce discrimination.
Evaluation:
✅ High control → strong internal validity.
⚠️ Lacks ecological validity (artificial task).
⚠️ All-male, Western sample → limited generalizability.
✅ Groundbreaking paradigm → influenced decades of intergroup research.
🔬 Key Study 2: Cialdini et al. (1976)
“Basking in Reflected Glory (BIRG)”
Aim:
To examine how group success influences self-esteem and identity.
Procedure:
- Observed U.S. university students after football matches.
- Recorded frequency of wearing university apparel and pronoun use (“we won” vs “they lost”).
Findings:
- After victories, students used “we” more often and wore university symbols more.
- After losses, they distanced themselves (“they lost”).
Conclusion:
- People associate with successful groups to enhance social identity and self-esteem (BIRGing).
- Supports SIT’s idea of maintaining positive distinctiveness.
Evaluation:
✅ High ecological validity.
✅ Demonstrates SIT in natural contexts.
⚠️ Correlational → cannot prove causation.
⚠️ Limited to Western sports culture.
🔍Tok link
SIT raises questions about how knowledge of identity is constructed:
- Is group identity a social construct or a biological predisposition?
- How do language and shared narratives shape “us vs them” distinctions?
TOK discussion: To what extent do we need groups to define ourselves?
SIT also links to Ethics in knowledge: when does social categorization become stereotyping or discrimination?
🌐 Real-World Connection
Explains nationalism, sports rivalry, workplace hierarchies, and ethnic conflict.
Used in programs promoting diversity and inclusion, anti-bullying campaigns, and peace education.
Also informs marketing (brand loyalty) and politics (group polarization).
❤️ CAS Link
- Design a school event encouraging intergroup cooperation (e.g., mixed-group sports tournaments).
- Volunteer in community integration projects promoting empathy and cultural awareness.
- Reflect on group belonging in CAS journals to connect SIT to personal identity formation.
🧠 IA Guidance
SIT can inspire IAs testing ingroup bias or conformity.
Example: experiment testing whether people allocate more points to members of their own class group vs. another class.
Use ethical procedures—ensure anonymity, avoid real conflict, and debrief participants.
🧠 Examiner Tips
- Always define social identity theory clearly and mention three mechanisms (categorization, identification, comparison).
- In essays, refer to at least two studies (Tajfel & Cialdini recommended).
- For top marks, evaluate cultural bias, ecological validity, and SIT’s reductionism.
- Connect SIT to real-world discrimination or group behaviour examples in conclusions.