tajfel social identity experiment

Social Identity Theory Explained: Key Concepts And Applications

Discover the principles of social identity theory, including social categorisation, comparison, and identification, and real-world examples.

Social identity theory explores how people define themselves based on their group memberships and how these identities influence behaviour, relationships, and societal structures.

What is social identity theory?

Social identity theory, developed by Henri Tajfel and John Turner in 1979, is a framework that explains how individuals derive a sense of self from their group memberships.

These groups may include categories like nationality, ethnicity, gender, social class, political affiliation, or professional identity.

The theory posits that our social identities complement our personal identities, shaping how we perceive ourselves and interact with the world.

A significant premise of the theory is that individuals strive to achieve a positive self-concept.

This is often achieved by favourably comparing the groups to which they belong (in-groups) with those they do not (out-groups).

The core principles of social identity theory

Social categorisation.

Social categorisation is the process of dividing people into groups based on shared characteristics.

This mental shortcut helps us organise social environments but can also lead to stereotyping and overgeneralisation.

By categorising, we simplify complex interpersonal dynamics, but we also risk creating rigid in-group and out-group distinctions.

Social identification

Once categorised, individuals adopt the identity of the group they belong to.

This means that their self-concept aligns with the group’s values, norms, and behaviours.

For example, identifying as a feminist might lead someone to support policies promoting gender equality actively.

Social identification often fosters a sense of belonging and emotional attachment to the group.

Social comparison

Social comparison involves evaluating one’s group against others to enhance self-esteem.

If the in-group is perceived as superior to out-groups, members gain a positive sense of self.

However, when out-groups are seen as a threat or inferior, it can lead to prejudice, discrimination, or even conflict.

This process explains phenomena like nationalism or rivalry between sports teams.

Applications of social identity theory

In-group favouritism and out-group bias.

In-group favouritism occurs when people preferentially treat members of their group over those in out-groups.

This behaviour can manifest in many ways, from hiring decisions to resource allocation.

Out-group bias, on the other hand, often leads to stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination.

Conflict and cooperation

Social identity theory has been instrumental in explaining intergroup conflicts, such as ethnic tensions, political divisions, or workplace competition.

It also highlights how shared identities can foster cooperation, as seen in movements advocating for climate change or social justice.

Case studies and real-world examples

Minimal-group studies.

One of the foundational experiments in social identity theory was Tajfel’s minimal-group paradigm ( Tajfel et al., 1971 ).

Participants were assigned to groups based on arbitrary criteria, such as a preference for a painting.

Despite the lack of meaningful connection, individuals showed a strong tendency to favour their group, allocating more resources to in-group members.

This demonstrated that even minimal conditions are sufficient for in-group bias to emerge.

Social identity in the workplace

In professional settings, employees often identify with their organisations, departments, or teams.

Strong social identity within a group can enhance collaboration and morale.

However, it may also lead to intergroup conflicts, such as rivalry between departments, if boundaries are too rigid.

Political and social movements

Social identity theory explains why individuals rally around political ideologies or social causes.

By identifying with a group advocating specific values or goals, individuals find purpose and belonging.

This has been evident in movements like Black Lives Matter or the fight for LGBTQ+ rights.

Challenges and criticisms of social identity theory

Social identity theory is not without its limitations.

Critics argue that it oversimplifies the complex nature of individual and group interactions.

For example, the theory often assumes that group boundaries are static, ignoring how identities can be fluid and situational.

Others suggest that the theory does not fully account for personal factors, such as individual agency, that influence behaviour beyond group affiliations.

Moreover, some research questions whether in-group bias is as universal as the theory suggests, pointing to cultural variations in how social identity is expressed.

Expanding the theory: Intersectionality and beyond

Intersectionality.

Intersectionality adds depth to social identity theory by recognising that individuals belong to multiple groups simultaneously.

A person might identify as a woman, an ethnic minority, and a member of the LGBTQ+ community, each contributing to their unique experiences.

This concept, introduced by Kimberlé Crenshaw, highlights how overlapping identities create unique forms of privilege or oppression.

The digital age

In the era of social media, social identity has taken on new dimensions.

Online communities allow people to form identities beyond physical boundaries, fostering connections across the globe.

However, the anonymity of the internet can also amplify polarisation and group conflict.

Practical strategies for navigating social identities

• Encourage dialogue : Open conversations between groups can reduce stereotypes and foster understanding.
• Promote shared goals : Identifying common objectives can mitigate conflict and build collaboration.
• Cultivate self-awareness : Recognising one’s biases and assumptions is the first step in overcoming them.
• Celebrate diversity : Emphasising the value of multiple perspectives can enhance creativity and innovation.

Social identity theory provides a robust framework for understanding how group memberships shape individual behaviour and societal dynamics.

From explaining prejudice and discrimination to fostering belonging and purpose, its applications are far-reaching.

By appreciating the nuances of social identity, we can better navigate the complexities of modern, interconnected societies.

Author: Dr Jeremy Dean

Psychologist, Jeremy Dean, PhD is the founder and author of PsyBlog. He holds a doctorate in psychology from University College London and two other advanced degrees in psychology. He has been writing about scientific research on PsyBlog since 2004. View all posts by Dr Jeremy Dean

Join the free PsyBlog mailing list. No spam, ever.

Learning Materials

• Business Studies
• Combined Science
• Computer Science
• Engineering
• English Literature
• Environmental Science
• Human Geography
• Macroeconomics
• Microeconomics
• Social Identity Theory

Did you ever feel instantly connected with someone because you shared a hobby? Or maybe because you had the same favourite music style? Maybe you felt the opposite. Perhaps you and another person never got along because of discrepancies in your views of religion or politics, for example. This phenomenon in which humans engage is what the social identity theory explains. Why do people perceive similarities with some groups and discrepancies with others, and how does this influence  prejudice ? 

Millions of flashcards designed to help you ace your studies

• Cell Biology

Who came up with the social identity theory?

What is one of the applications of the social identity theory (1970)?

Is the following statement true or false: Social identity theory is especially relevant for identity politics and for discrimination policies.

Is the following statement true or false?: There was a significant difference between the neutral condition and value condition in Tajfel's social categorisation study.

In the second experiment conducted by Tajfel, did assigning fewer points to their own group mean that the out-group would suffer a greater loss?

In regards with the the second experiment from Tajfel (1971), which of the following statements it true?

Achieve better grades quicker with Premium

Geld-zurück-Garantie, wenn du durch die Prüfung fällst

Review generated flashcards

to start learning or create your own AI flashcards

Start learning or create your own AI flashcards

StudySmarter Editorial Team

Team Social Identity Theory Teachers

• 11 minutes reading time
• Checked by StudySmarter Editorial Team
• Approaches in Psychology
• Basic Psychology
• Ainsworth's Strange Situation
• Alternatives To The Medical Model
• Animal Studies of Attachment
• Attachment Figures
• Attachment and Later Relationships
• Auditory Attention
• BBC Prison Study
• Behaviour Strategies For Autism
• Biological Explanations for Autism
• Bowlby Theory of Maternal Deprivation
• Bowlby’s Monotropic Theory
• Caregiver Infant Interactions
• Categorising Mental Disorders
• Classic and Contemporary Research into Memory
• Classic and Contemporary Research into Obedience
• Cognitive Approach to Depression
• Cognitive Interview
• Conformity to Social Roles
• Contemporary Research Language Of Psychopaths
• Context-Dependent Memory
• Cross-Cultural Altruism
• Cue-Dependent Forgetting
• Cultural Variations in Attachment
• Definitions of Abnormality
• Deprivation Privation and Separation
• Developmental Pattern of Digit Span
• Developmental Psychology in Memory
• Developmental Psychology in Obedience/Prejudice
• Disobedience and Whistle-Blowing
• Dispositional Factors Social Influence
• Explanations for Prejudice
• Explanations of Attachment
• Eyewitness Identification under Stress
• Eyewitness Testimony
• Features of Memory
• Forgetting in Psychology
• Gould Bias in IQ Testing
• Hazan and Shaver
• History of Mental Health
• Inattentional Blindness
• Individual Differences In Autism
• Individual Differences In Ideological Attitudes And Prejudice
• Individual Differences In Memory
• Informational Social Influence
• Issues and Debates in the Context of Obedience/Prejudice
• Learning Theory
• Long-Term Memory
• Measuring Individual Differences
• Medical Model
• Milgram Experiment
• Milgram’s Variation Studies
• Minority Influence and Social Change
• Multi-Store Model of Memory
• Normative Social Influence
• Phobia Treatment
• Piliavin Subway Study
• Prosocial Behaviour And Altruism
• Psychopathology
• Realistic Conflict Theory
• Reconstruction From Memory In Naturalistic Environments
• Reconstructive Memory
• Resistance to Social Influence
• Rethinking the Psychology of Tyranny
• Romanian Orphan Studies
• Schema Theory
• Semantic Knowledge in Patient HM
• Short-Term Memory
• Situational Influence
• Social Impact Theory
• Social Influence
• Stages of Attachment
• Stanford Prison Experiment
• Studies on Interference
• The Robbers Cave Experiment
• Theories of Autism
• Working Memory Model
• Biological Bases of Behavior
• Biopsychology
• Careers in Psychology
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognition and Development
• Cognitive Psychology
• Data Handling and Analysis
• Developmental Psychology
• Eating Behaviour
• Emotion and Motivation
• Famous Psychologists
• Forensic Psychology
• Health Psychology
• Individual Differences Psychology
• Issues and Debates in Psychology
• Personality in Psychology
• Psychological Treatment
• Psychology and Environment
• Relationships
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Schizophrenia
• Scientific Foundations of Psychology
• Scientific Investigation
• Sensation and Perception
• Social Context of Behaviour
• Social Psychology

Jump to a key chapter

• This explanation will start by introducing Tajfel's social identity theory.
• Then, the social identity theory experiments will be reviewed.
• Moving on from this, the explanation will evaluate the social identity theory.
• The social identity theory and the politics of identity will be explored.
• Last, an example of the social identity theory is presented.

Tajfel's Social Identity Theory

Henri Tajfel was a British psychologist who lost his family in a concentration camp. Fortunately, he attended a French school to exit the concentration camp. After this, Tajfel was interested in how individuals develop their identities in groups or societies. According to Tajfel, groups make individuals perceive a sense of belonging, which is crucial for social beings.

Tajfel (1979) proposed that individuals tend to group things based on certain criteria. This is a common cognitive process that is called stereotyping. And when engaging in stereotyping, individuals tend to overemphasise the differences between groups and the similarities within a group. This way, the theory detects two groups: the in-group (us) and the out-group (them).

According to the Social Identity Theory (1979), individuals within a group tend to enhance other groups' negative characteristics to boost their image.

There are plenty of examples of in-group and out-group tightness. In football, for example, there are significant differences between team supporters such as Liverpool and Manchester United. In politics, labour and conservatives also tend to remark on their differences. The same can be seen in social class, in the differences between the middle and working class, for example.

Tajfel (1979) described three cognitive processes when establishing whether other individuals belong to a person's out - or in-group.

• Categorization refers to the process by which individuals are put into social categories. Examples of categorisation are social categories based on nationality, such as English, Scottish, Irish, German, Spanish, Italian, etc.
• Social Identification refers to the cognitive process in which individuals assess which category they feel identified with. For example, an individual may be Welsh and therefore present emotional significance to such category over other categories.
• Social comparison is the last cognitive process individuals engage in. It refers to the comparison individuals make of the other categories they do not belong to. In line with the example, the social comparison would be comparing French and Welsh and finding characteristics that encourage the favourable perception of the in-group and diminish the out-group.

The theory has been used to explain discrimination. Discrimination is the manifestation of prejudice towards certain people or groups of people. Discrimination usually involves treating individuals differently because they belong to another religious, ethnic, or nationality group, for example. Discrimination usually manifests as favouritism to the in-group and negative bias toward the out-group.

Tajfel’s Social Identity Theory Experiment

Tajfel ran two different experiments testing the Social Identity Theory. The studies had the aim of finding out what causes prejudice . To assess this, Tajfel tested whether categorisation was sufficient for discrimination against the out-group.

Experiment on Social Categorisation (1971)

This experiment included a sample of 64 teenage boys from a comprehensive school in Bristol. The study showed a between-group comparison with two conditions. Each condition presented 4 groups of 8 individuals.

Participants walked into the room to perform a visual judgement task. Clusters containing a given amount of dots were flashed on a screen. Participants had to estimate the number of dots they had seen per screen. They kept a written record of their answers in a booklet.

Two experimental conditions emerge based on what participants were told after this phase. The researchers told participants in condition one (neutral condition) that certain individuals tend to overestimate the number of dots on the screen in such types of experiments. In contrast, others tend to underestimate such numbers. Further, researchers specified that such over/underestimations were unrelated to accuracy.

Condition two (value condition) is different in that the teenage participants were told that in such experiments, some participants perform consistently more accurately than others.

Reward Allocation Task

After this first phase of the experiment, participants were told they would be put into different groups based on the criteria described above. In reality, participants were randomly assigned to the groups. This reflects the process of categorisation.

To assess the effects of categorisation, participants were told which group they were in. The groups were the following:

Group including boys who estimated high.

Group including boys who estimated low.

Group including boys who guessed accurately.

Group including boys who guessed less accurately.

Participants' task in this second part of the experiment was to assess the answer booklets and to offer monetary rewards and penalties for the scores. The booklets were anonymised, so participants did not know whose booklets they were reviewing.

Tajfel compared the results from the two conditions: neutral and value condition. Although there was no significant difference between neural and value conditions in the assessment of the booklets, there was a tendency to favour the in-group and a negative bias towards the out-group.

Building on such results, Tajfel conducted a second experiment.

‘Klee and Kandinsky’ Experiment (1971)

The second experiment aimed to test whether participants would favour and give more points to the in-group members than to the out-group.

Forty-eight students aged 14 to 15 from the same school in Bristol participated in this study. Researchers divided participants into two groups and told them that the experimenters would explore their art preferences.

During the experimental part, participants were shown twelve pictures of Klee or Kandinsky and told to indicate which they liked better. Participants were unaware of which artist had created pictures since the names were covered. After this, participants were told they would be divided into two groups based on their preferences, but again, the group allocation was random.

In the second part of the experiment, participants were asked to assign points to other participants which would later be converted into prizes. Although participants did not know the exact person whose answer they were reviewing, they did know whether the person was in their group to not.

In this second experiment, the scoring was different. Participants were given pairs of teenagers (one from their group and one from the other group). Scores had to be split between the two pair members. For example, a pair would be given a score of 14, which needed to be divided in two. The participant could then decide how to split sich scoring. He may give 7 points to each participant, 10 points to one and 4 to the other, or 2 to one and 12 to the other, and so on.

This type of scoring allowed researchers to test three different variables :

• Maximum joint profit: this meant that teenagers could give the largest rewards to either a member of their group or to a member of the other group.
• Largest rewards to ingroup: boys could choose the largest possible reward for the member of their own group regardless of the rewards given to a boy in an outgroup.
• Maximum difference: boys could decide what the maximum difference between the scores of the two groups was.

The results suggested that participants gave higher scores to members of their own group as compared to the out-group (maximum joint profit). T his was in their best interest since they were told they would receive a prize for the points.

Furthermore, participants chose to assign points to other boys in their in-group and did so consistently, ignoring the fair alternative, i.e., they favoured their in-group.

The boys even failed to maximise their gains only to disadvantage the out-group (negative out-group bias).

Taken together, these findings provide evidence of inter-group discrimination. Tajfel demonstrated that categorisation leads to group discrimination. This was concluded from the fact that in both experiments more money was assigned to those individuals in the in-group than in the out-group. Furthermore, the second experiment also provided evidence that individuals find value in maximising group differences.

Social Identity Theory Evaluation

When it comes to the evaluation of a theory there are always strengths and weaknesses

• The theory has been widely used not only in explaining prejudice but also in explaining individual differences in prejudice. Some individuals, for example, have stronger needs for social acceptance than others.
• Another strength of the theory is that it does not assume that intergroup conflict needs to take place for discrimination to occur. General knowledge would make it tempting for some to argue that conflict is required for discrimination, but the theory successfully proved this statement wrong.
• Among the weaknesses of the theory, there is the fact that although social identity theory explains how discrimination occurs, it fails to predict behaviour.
• Secondly, the theory fails to consider factors that may be crucial when groups engage in discrimination such as the cultural expectations of the social constraints.

Social identity Theory and Politics of Identity

Identity politics refers to the political approach that includes movements to stop the discrimination of certain social groups due to their race, nationality, religion or sexual preferences. The field of politics has greatly benefited from the application of the social identity theory. There is evidence that the social identity theory is not only used to explain in-group and our-group conflict but that it can explain social actions and change 1 . This, in turn, makes the theory especially relevant for identity politics and for discrimination policies.

Social Identity Theory Examples

One of the examples with which almost all humans can see themselves in line with the theory of social identity is race and ethnicity. Differences in race and ethnicity are to an extent biological, but differences can also be social. In multi-racial societies, those individuals of the same race usually feel an affinity towards those who share the same race, and therefore perspectives and traditions as them. This exemplifies the in-group similarities. On the other hand, out-group differences can be extensive when it comes to race. In some Islamic countries, the catholic religion is strongly undesired. Similarly, certain Islamic characteristics are disliked by western countries. This is how social identity theory can be applied to race and ethnicity.

Social Identity Theory - Key takeaways

• Tajfel proposed a theory to explain stereotyping and discrimination.
• The social identity theory (1971) explained that individuals establish whether they belong to a group or not through three different cognitive processes: categorization, social identification and social comparison.
• The theory was tested by Tajfel in two different experiments which provided evince of inter-group discrimination.
• The social identity theory has been widely used in politics and although it explains prejudice but fails to predict behaviour.
• Raskovic, M. (Matt). 2020. (Social) Identity Theory in an Era of Identity Politics: Theory and Practice. AIB Insights, 21(2). https://doi.org/10.46697/001c.13616.

Flashcards in Social Identity Theory 6

Tajfel (1979).

Identity politics.

Participants did not know which person they were assigning money to, but they knew if the person was in their group or not.

Learn faster with the 6 flashcards about Social Identity Theory

Sign up for free to gain access to all our flashcards.

Already have an account? Log in

Frequently Asked Questions about Social Identity Theory

What is Tajfel's social identity theory?

Tajfel and Turner (1979) suggested that the formation of groups causes prejudice.

• First, belonging to a social group leads to in-group self-categorisation.
• Self-categorisation leads to favouritism for one’s in-group ( preferring it over out-groups).
• Favouritism leads to hostility toward the out-group.
• The in-group begins to feel superior to the out-group.
• Individuals’ self-esteem increases due to belonging to the ‘superior’ in-group.
• Individual status increases.

This process explains prejudice against out-groups.

Where did Tajfel go wrong in his social identity theory?

The weaknesses of Tajfel’s study were that it had reduced validity because it claimed to have measured grouping effects without the history of the competition. In contrast, it may have created competition by introducing winning prizes with the points. Demand characteristics may also have affected validity.

There were problems with population validity because the sample consisted only of high school students.

is social identity theory a useful framework to understand groups?

Yes, it is a valuable framework for understanding groups because it shows how being in a group can cause favouritism to one’s in-group and cause negative out-group bias, hence, explaining how prejudice forms.

How does social identity theory explain group relationships?

Social identity theory explains that when a person belongs to a group, they develop favouritism to that in-group and a negative bias towards the out-group. This is how prejudice forms.

Test your knowledge with multiple choice flashcards

That was a fantastic start, you can do better, sign up to create your own flashcards.

Access over 700 million learning materials

Study more efficiently with flashcards

Get better grades with AI

Already have an account? Log in  

Keep learning, you are doing great.

Discover learning materials with the free StudySmarter app

About StudySmarter

StudySmarter is a globally recognized educational technology company, offering a holistic learning platform designed for students of all ages and educational levels. Our platform provides learning support for a wide range of subjects, including STEM, Social Sciences, and Languages and also helps students to successfully master various tests and exams worldwide, such as GCSE, A Level, SAT, ACT, Abitur, and more. We offer an extensive library of learning materials, including interactive flashcards, comprehensive textbook solutions, and detailed explanations. The cutting-edge technology and tools we provide help students create their own learning materials. StudySmarter’s content is not only expert-verified but also regularly updated to ensure accuracy and relevance.

Team Psychology Teachers

Study anywhere. Anytime.Across all devices.

Create a free account to save this explanation..

Save explanations to your personalised space and access them anytime, anywhere!

By signing up, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and the Privacy Policy of StudySmarter.

Sign up to highlight and take notes. It’s 100% free.

Join over 22 million students in learning with our StudySmarter App

The first learning app that truly has everything you need to ace your exams in one place

• Flashcards & Quizzes
• AI Study Assistant
• Study Planner
• Smart Note-Taking

Social Identity Theory

Henri tajfel and john turner, 1979.

• Chinese Terracotta Warriors
• Otzi the Iceman
• The Antikythera Mechanism
• More Archaeology pages ...
• Stanley Milgram : Obedience to Authority Experiments
• Conformity under Social Pressure : Solomon Asch
• The Nature vs Nurture Debate
• More Social Psychology pages ...
• Stephen Fry quotations and quotes on God and Religion
• Stephen Fry's controversial interview on Irish TV
• Stephen Hawking : God & Religion quotes
• 'God is dead' - Nietzsche
• More Quotations & Quotes pages ...
• Maximilien Robespierre : Reign of Terror
• Otto von Bismarck
• More Historical Biography pages ...
• The European Revolutions of 1848
• Cavour & Italian Unification
• Bismarck & German Unification
• More History pages ...
• The Faith vs. Reason Debate
• World Religions Populations Statistics
• Central spiritual insights
• Other spiritual wisdoms
• More Spirituality pages ...
• Buddha's teachings
• Buddhist Philosophy
• Buddhism vs. Christianity
• More Buddhism pages ...
• Our Downloads page ...

• Abnormal Psychology
• Assessment (IB)
• Biological Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Criminology
• Developmental Psychology
• Extended Essay
• General Interest
• Health Psychology
• Human Relationships
• IB Psychology
• IB Psychology HL Extensions
• Internal Assessment (IB)
• Love and Marriage
• Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
• Prejudice and Discrimination
• Qualitative Research Methods
• Research Methodology
• Revision and Exam Preparation
• Social and Cultural Psychology
• Studies and Theories
• Teaching Ideas

Tajfel and Turner’s Social Identity Theory

Travis Dixon February 16, 2017 Key Studies , Social and Cultural Psychology , Studies and Theories

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

Why does my blog have three different posts explaining social identity theory? Because for the first few years teaching this theory I had to write it out for myself to fully comprehend it. It’s difficult to understand at first. My best advice is to always remember that its’ a  theory of intergroup conflict (e.g. prejudice and discrimination) , so think of real life examples of this and try to apply it.

Background Information

Tajfel was a Polish Jew and fought in the French Army against the Nazis in WWII. His war-time experiences inspired his research on intergroup conflict.

Henri Tajfel and John Turner devised their Social Identity Theory (SIT) in the 1970s to “supplement” Sherif’s Realistic Conflict Theory (RCT), which was developed in the 1950s and ‘60s. Both of these theories attempt to explain intergroup behaviour, and in particular conflict between groups. Intergroup behaviour is between two or more individuals and their “…interactions…are fully determined by their respective memberships in various social groups…” This is opposed to interpersonal behaviour , whereby one’s interactions with others are determined by personal traits and qualities.

To use an extreme example of intergroup conflict , during the holocaust a Nazi officer might have behaved horrendously towards a Jewish person, not because of who that Jewish person was, but simply because they were Jewish (i.e. they belonged to the “out-group”).

One of the main claims of Sherif’s RCT is that conflict between groups exists when there is direct competition for resources. SIT does not contradict this, but goes further to explain how conflict can exist even when there is no direct competition for resources. Through the four interrelated concepts of social categorization, social identity, social comparison and positive distinctiveness, SIT attempts to explain why intergroup conflicts can exist even in circumstances with no direct conflict and/or competition between groups.

• Key Study: Stereotypes, Social Identity Theory and the Out-group Homogeneity Effect (Park and Rothbart, 1982)
• Social Identity Theory: A Brief Summary for Students
• Key Studies: Minimal Group Paradigm (SIT – Tajfel et al)

Social Categorization

Social Categorization is merely the cognitive process of thinking of groups as in-groups or out-groups.

Social Identity

Political divisions of “us” vs. “them” like those seen in America is a good example of social identity theory in action.

According to Tajfel and Turner, social identity means “aspects of an individual’s self-image that derive from the social categories to which (they) perceive (themselves) as belonging”. In other words, each of us belongs to numerous groups (e.g. social, family, sport, musical, religious, etc.) Our membership in each of these groups adds to our understanding of who we are as individuals . We form a personal identity based on our individual goals, achievements, etc. and we form a social identity based on the goals, achievements of groups we belong to. This sense of developing our sense of self through belonging to groups is important to understand and explain SIT.

Social Comparison

Initial research conducted by Tajfel and Turner revealed that the mere presence of an “out-group” can significantly influence the behaviour of individuals within their “in-group”. Social comparison is basically the process of comparing one’s “in-group” with other “out-groups”. SIT posits that this occurs through a desire to increase one’s self-esteem. As stated above, part of forming our sense of self, or our “identity” comes through the belonging to particular groups. It is only natural that humans want to improve their self-esteem and so this can happen when we compare our “in-group” favourably to the “out-group”. As a result, “in-group” bias naturally occurs. Moreover, it occurs even when groups have been formed in unnatural settings using arbitrary criteria.

Tajfel and Turner base the concepts of social comparison and social identity on three assumptions:

• Individual’s naturally try to increase their self-esteem and want to develop positive self-images;
• Belonging to particular groups can be viewed as a positive or a negative thing; this means belong to a group can influence our social identity in either a positive or negative way;
• we evaluate if it’s positive or negative by comparing in-groups and out-groups;

Based on this, the theory goes further to posit that:

• “Individuals will strive to achieve or maintain their positive social identity,”
• We can base our positive social identity by favorably comparing our in-group with out-groups.

This leads to the final aspect of SIT, which is…

Positive Distinctiveness

Positive distinctiveness basically means that through the process of social comparison, we attempt to make our in-group distinct from the out-groups. The in-group also attempts to make that difference favorable (i.e. positive) for the in-group. This is essentially in-group bias. Positive distinctiveness can be demonstrated in the minimal group experiments and even in real life examples from field research.

Supporting Research

Originally, the researchers hypothesized that they would have to gradually increase the similarities between group members before they would observe in-group bias (e.g. positive distinctiveness). They were surprised to learn that even when groups were formed using complete arbitrary criteria, such as flipping a coin, they demonstrated in-group bias. Even when they were directly informed that the groups were meaningless, they still were biased to their in-group. This initial discovery is what lead to further development and elaboration of the SIT; they concluded that the mere existence of an out-group was enough for social comparison and in-group bias to occur.

The minimal group paradigm is the typical design used in experiments that inspired and support SIT. The basic idea is that participants (adults and children have been used in studies) are randomly divided into groups. They are then asked to award rewards, prizes or even money to other participants in specially designed booklets . The recipients are anonymous, except for a number and which group they are in (e.g. Member #28, Group X; Member #3, Group Y).

The findings, from numerous studies, show that the in-group will act favorably towards members of their own in-group. Moreover, they will even sacrifice rewards for themselves to increase the difference in rewards given between the in-group members and the out-group members.

Critical Thinking Questions

• How can SIT be used to explain intergroup conflict? ( Application )
• How can the minimal group experiments be used to support SIT? ( Application )
• How are the concepts of SIT interrelated? ( Analysis )
• What are the strengths and limitations of SIT? ( Evaluation )

Turner, John C. Tajfel, Henri. Chapter 1, “The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behaviour”. P7-24. Accessed from: ( Link )

Travis Dixon is an IB Psychology teacher, author, workshop leader, examiner and IA moderator.