SOCIAL

IDENTITY THEORY
Patricia George IB SL Psychology The Core: SCLOA

(1919-1982) Born in Poland Bri7sh Social Psychologist Tajfel - created the SIT, which is basically states that all individuals are striving to improve their SELF-IMAGE based on the percep%ons of others People can do this through two major ways:
Personal achievement Joining social groups to gain a sense of belonging

Henri Tajfel

What is the concept of SELF?

A cogni7ve representa7on of the self, which coordinates an individuals percep7on of themselves (self percep7on). People categorize and evaluate themselves based on physical characteris7cs and skills as well as social categories (e.g. gender, and ethnicity) Self-esteem: based on evalua7on of self along a posi7ve-nega7ve con7nuum (posi7ve and nega7ve self-concept).

Self-concept: SOCIAL IDENTITY

Part of an individuals self-concept comes from knowledge of his or her membership of a social group including the value and emo%onal signicance related to that group membership.

Turner (1982) self-categoriza7on theory

Turner distinguished between ones personal identity and ones social identity. Identity is the result of categorization for example, gender, ethnicity, or nationality.

Tajfel and Turner (1977) Social Iden7ty Theory

Social categorizaNon into in-group (the groups you belong to) and out- groups (the groups you dont belong to) is a cogni7ve process. The more important and meaningful the category membership, the more it forms the basis of an individuals social idenNty. Individuals strive for a posi%ve self-concept and therefore also a posi%ve social iden%ty. Social comparison between ones own group and other groups (e.g. on status and power) contributes to a posi7ve or nega7ve social iden7ty. Social comparison may contribute to posi%ve dis%nc%veness (feeling beWer than the out-groups) or the opposite (nega%ve dis%nc%veness). DiscriminaNon can be seen as a way of establishing posi%ve in-group dis%nc%veness.

Categoriza7on and social comparison

People are categorized based upon shared characteristics. This determines our group memberships. Social comparison helps to obtain positive distinctiveness of an in-group Ingroup: group members are seen as individuals with positive traits in-group favouritism Outgroup: group members are seen as similar with negative traits discrimination

Tajfel (1970) minimal group paradigm

Aim: To inves7gate if intergroup discrimina7on could take place based on being randomly allocated to dierent groups based on arbitrary categories. Procedure: Two experiments with UK schoolboys who were randomly placed in groups based on results of an ini7al task. In the second experiment they were categorized based on their ar7s7c preferences. Then they were asked to give small amounts of money to the other boys. Results: The majority of the boys gave more money to boys in their own group (in-group favouri7sm). In the second experiment the boys also tried to maximize the dierence between the in-group and the out- group (discrimina7on) Evalua7on: The lab experiment suers from ar7ciality and demand characteris7cs. The theory is rather reduc7onist.

Howarth (2002)
Aim: inves7gate how social representa7ons of being from Brixton aected the social iden7ty of adolescent girls. Procedure: Qualita7ve focus-group interview to inves7gate social representa7ons in the ingroup (people from Brixton). Results: The girls from Brixton did not share the nega7ve representa7on of being from Brixton that people outside the city held (stereotype/ prejudice). People from Brixton had a posi7ve social iden7ty, seeing themselves as diverse, crea7ve, and vibrant. Evalua7on: The study lends support to social iden7ty theory (posi7ve social iden7ty). The qualita7ve approach provides in-depth understanding of the par7cipants self-percep7on, which could not have been obtained under experimental condi7ons. The study has high ecological validity.

Evalua7on of sit
Strengths Can explain some of the mechanisms involved in establishing posi7ve dis7nc7veness. Shows that intergroup conict is not required for discrimina7on to occur (e.g. Tajfel, 1970) SIT can be applied to understand ingroup favouriNsm and conformity Limita7ons Minimal group experiments have been cri7cized for arNciality so ques7oned whether the results can be generalized. Social groups in real life are normally not of a minimal nature. Group members use more informaNon about the social context than mere categoriza7on

Video Material
Here is a video on "in- group vs out-group forma7on in a public school.
hWp://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=ga4Zr7P25o0

Here is a very interes7ng documentary on football hooliganism.

hWp://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=1tBps0GUITM

What does this have to do with Social Iden;ty Theory?

Extension Work: Reading

Hornsey, M.J. (2008) Social Iden7ty Theory and Self-categoriza7on Theory: A Historical Review hWp://www.sozialpsychologie.uni- frankfurt.de/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/ Hornsey-20082.pdf