This is a compulsory theory so everyone learns it and the Examiner will expect you to know it in detail. While the Exam could ask general questions about the theory's ideas or evaluation, it could also ask specific questions, like, How does Social Identity explain genocide? or, What explanations does Social Identity give of gangs? or, What makes Social Identity credible (or flawed) as a theory of prejudice? Make sure you can explain the STRENGTHS of this theory as well as the weaknesses.

TAJFEL & TURNER (1979)
SOCIAL IDENTITY EXPLAINS PREJUDICE

This theory was developed by Henri Tajfel (pronounced TIE-FELL) and John Turner, two British psychologists. Tajfel (caption right) was a Polish Jew whose family were killed in Nazi death camps. He settled in Britain but devoted himself to researching prejudice and discrimination. Social Identity Theory (SIT) says we get our self-esteem from the groups we belong to. It opposes “Realist” theories because it suggests that group membership by itself is sufficient to create prejudice, without any need for competition over resources.

This theory is significant for students in other ways:

• It opposes Realistic Conflict Theory, which suggests conflict based on irrational needs for identity rather than rational competition for scarce resources. SIT proposes that people might make choices that cost them what they need, in order to defeat out-groups.
• It illustrates features of the Social Approach, since it shows how decisions that people think are personal to them are actually expressions of their group identity and their group needs
• It ties in to your Key Question in Social Psychology, since it helps explain prejudice and how to reduce it
  

WHAT IS SOCIAL IDENTITY?

It’s widely recognised that people tend to identify with their groups. They also tend to have negative views about some other groups – “outgroups”. But why do some outgroups attract hostility and discrimination? Tajfel wondered what made the Nazis (powerful and rich) want to destroy his Jewish family and neighbours (who were weak and very poor). It didn’t seem to Tajfel there was any “realistic conflict” going on, because the Polish Jews weren’t in competition with the Nazis and didn’t have anything the Nazis needed. So he looked for a different explanation.

Social Identity Theory proposes that group formation goes through three stages:

1. Social Categorisation: this is seeing yourself as part of a group. As well as a personal identity (who you see yourself as) everyone has a social identity (the groups they see themselves as being a part of). Social identity may involve belonging to groups based on your gender, social class, religion, school or friends.
2. Social Identification: once you have a social identity, you automatically perceive everyone else you meet as either part of your ingroup (the ones who share the same social identity as you) or the outgroup. You pay particular attention to ingroup members and adopt their values, attitudes, appearance and behaviour.
3. Social Comparison: this is viewing your social identity as superior to others; it comes from regarding the products of your ingroup (the things your ingroup does, their attitudes or utterances) as better than the products of an outgroup. This leads to prejudice and, if you have the power to influence the outgroup, it will lead to discrimination too.

Tajfel & Turner argue that self-esteem is at the core of social identity. We need to feel good about ourselves so we need to feel good about the groups we belong to.

• Not everyone identifies with their ingroup to the same extent. Personality may be a variable here, such as Adorno’s Authoritarian Personality Type: people who get their self-esteem from social identity rather than personal identity.
• There needs to be grounds for making comparisons with other groups. Social Comparison doesn’t happen with respect to outgroups you never meet or who aren’t relevant to your life. Football fans tend to compare themselves to supporters of a rival club, but not to teams in much higher or lower leagues.

RESEARCH INTO SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY
THE FINDINGS OF STUDIES

The most famous research into SIT was carried out by Tajfel et al. (1970). These experiments were known as “Minimal Groups” studies, because Tajfel was looking at groups that people had the minimal possible reason to feel loyal to.

Tajfel recruited Bristol schoolboys aged 14-15 and divided them into minimal groups. In one study, this was done by showing them dots on a screen and telling some boys they had over-estimated and others they had under-estimated the number of dots; in another Tajfel showed the boys paintings by the artists Paul Klee and Wassily Kandinsky, then telling some boys they had shown preference for one, some boys the other. (Can you imagine anything a 14-year-old boy could care less about?)

In fact, the boys were assigned to groups randomly but they were not told this.

The boys were given the task of assigning points from a book of tables (Tajfel called them “matrices”).

Each matrix offered different allocations of points to a pair of anonymous boys. The points converted into money – 10 points became 1 pence – but the boys didn’t know which people they were giving points to.

The boys would be fair if they were allocating points to two outgroup members or two ingroup members.

However, if allocating to an ingroup AND an outgroup member, they awarded more points/money to boys in their own group – ingroup favouritism.

If the boys had to choose beween maximum joint profit (an arrangement which awarded the most possible points/money to the two anonymous boys) and maximum difference (an arrangement that awarded more points/money to their ingroup), they would choose maximum difference.

They would do this even if it meant awarding their ingroup less than the maximum ingroup profit would have done. In other words, they would shortchange their ingroup, so long as it gave them an opportunity to do better than the outgroup.

• Tajfel concludes that outgroup discrimination is easily triggered – just perceiving someone else to be in an outgroup is enough to do it.
• There was no need for the boys to be in competition – they chose competitive options even when the matrices gave them fair options as well.
  

The boys would choose fair splits of points some of the time, but Tajfel suggests this is less likely to happen when the groups are not “minimal groups” – when they are based on something more important than counting dots or liking artists.

APPLYING SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY (AO2)
PREJUDICE IN THE REAL WORLD

Cliques and Football Fans

People often complain about “cliques” – groups of friends who think they are superior to everyone else around them and won’t let other people join their circle. Tajfel explains this because the people in the clique base their self-esteem on the status of their social circle. They over-value the products of the ingroup (how funny their jokes are, how stylishly they dress) and under-value the products of the outgroup (ie everyone else) by looking down on them.

Fans behave in the same way. If you support a football team, your self-esteem is linked to the success of the team. If the team wins, you feel good. Even if it loses, you can feel good by believing fans of other teams are inferior to you. Football fans show Social Identification by wearing their team colours, singing team chants, or talking incessantly about the new striker or the old manager.

Ideally, people should develop a sense of personal identity separate from social identity and base their self-esteem on that. Then they wouldn’t have to look down on anyone.

Challenging Perceptions

It’s important to remember that social identity is a perception, not a fact. You only belong to the groups you believe you belong to. Many strategies to tackle discrimination and prejudice work by getting people to expand their sense of social identity. If people see themselves and their neighbours as all members of a bigger ingroup, then social comparison will stop.

For example, in the 1980s an American charity single for African famine relief was entitled “We Are The World”. The lyrics challenge the idea that starving Africans are an outgroup that comfortable Americans can look down on.

Of course, sometimes members of two groups can put their differences aside and unite against another outgroup – terrorists, an enemy country, immigrants, etc. Unscrupulous leaders may whip up this sort of social identity. The way the Nazis united Germans by presenting Jews as a hated outgroup may be an example of this.

EVALUATING SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY (AO3)
CODA

Credibility

SIT is supported by Tajfel et al.’s 1970 study into minimal groups. The research showed how boys will discriminate against an outgroup (even an outgroup that contains their own friends) and show favouritism to an ingroup (even an ingroup made up of strangers) and that this will happen when the group identity is based on something as flimsy as “being an over-estimator” or “preferring the art of Paul Klee”.

SIT also provides an explanation for why discrimination occurs even when the outgroup is no threat to the ingroup and there is no competition over resources. If self-esteem is based on social identity, then some people need to put down outgroups in order to feel good about themselves.

Objections

The “Minimal Groups” studies that support SIT have been criticised for using artificial tasks that lack ecological validity. However, Tajfel would contend that, if boys will be discriminatory over trivial and pointless tasks like this, how much more likely are they to discriminate when something important is at stake!

Another criticism of the studies is that adolescent boys are naturally competitive and the matrices looked like a competition of some sort. The boys may have assumed Tajfel wanted them to “win” at this game. When participants spoil an experiment by acting in the way they think (rightly or wrongly) that the researcher wants, this is called demand characteristics.

There are gaps in the theory, such as why some people cling to social identity for their self-esteem more than others. A theory of personality like Adorno’s Authoritarian Personality might explain this better.

Differences

Sherif’s Realistic Conflict Theory (1966) stands in contrast to SIT. RCT claims that prejudice is produced by competition and happens when there is (or seems to be) a scarcity of resources like food, money, jobs or status.

RCT is backed up by Sherif’s “Robbers Cave” study (1954) where boys showed outgroup discrimination when a tournament was arranged between them. This started with name-calling and food fights but became increasingly violent.

As with “Minimal Groups”, this is a study of schoolboys that may not generalise to adult behaviour. Unlike “Minimal Groups”, boys squabbling at a summer camp possessed much more ecological validity than ticking books of matrices.

Applications

Strategies that increase people’s sense of personal identity may reduce prejudice, especially if they raise self-esteem at the same time. Counseling (especially using Cognitive Therapy) may be one way of doing this. Religion sometimes gives people a sense of self-worth, but it can also create a very powerful sense of social identity and lead to some of the worst discrimination.

Encouraging people to see themselves as part of a larger social identity can combat outgroup discrimination. Some people think teaching “Britishness” in schools may reduce conflict between groups, if they all see themselves as British citizens. However, this may backfire if it leads to more conflict with people who are seen as “un-British”.

Again, religion can bring together people of many nationalities and backgrounds. As St Paul says: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3: 28). Other religions make similar appeals, but they can also create discrimination against non-believers.

EXEMPLAR ESSAY
How to write a 8-mark answer

Evaluate the Social Identity Theory of prejudice. (8 marks)

• A 8-mark “evaluate” question awards 4 marks for AO1 (Describe) and 4 marks for AO3 (Evaluate). You must include a conclusion.

Description
Social Identity Theory (SIT) was developed by Tajfel & Turner. It says that between groups is based on the need for self-esteem and happens even when there is no conflict over resources.
Social categorisation is when you see yourself as part of a group which becomes your ingroup. Tajfel thinks your self-esteem is linked to how successful your ingroup is.
Social identification is when you take on the attitudes, behaviours and values of your ingroup. It might include dressing or acting like other ingroup members.
Social comparison is when you see your ingroup as better than the outgroups you meet. You over-value the products of the ingroup and under-value the products of outgroups, leading to prejudice.

Evaluation
SIT is supported by Tajfel’s “Minimal Group” studies which showed how boys will discriminate about outgroups even when social identity is based on something as irrelevant to them as modern art.
However, these studies are artificial because the boys had to assign points from books of matrices to strangers, which is not like real-life racism or sexism which normally involves treating actual people badly.
On the other hand, Tajfel would say if the boys were prepared to discriminate against anonymous boys on over pennies on the basis of differences in art, how much more likely they would be to discriminate when there are important things at stake.
Personality is a variable SIT doesn’t take into account. Adorno suggests that Authoritarian Personalities are much more likely to discriminate because their self-esteem is more strongly linked to their social identity.

Conclusion
SIT suggests that intergroup conflict comes from an irrational side of human nature that will always be with us. It is depressing to think that, even if we can abolish hunger and poverty, prejudice will still exist so long as there are groups.

Apply Social Identity Theory.

• A 4-mark “apply” question awards 4 marks for AO2 (Application) and gives you a piece of stimulus material.

After the release of a popular vampire film some teenagers have split into two groups. One group loves vampires (‘The Vamps’) whilst the other group loves werewolves (‘The Howlers’). This situation is causing tension and college staff are concerned about the amount of name-calling and hostility between the groups.

Using your knowledge of psychology, explain the conflict between the students and what the college staff can do about it. (4 marks)

Social Identity Theory (SIT) would explain that the teenagers have different social identities and view each other as belonging to outgroups.
Because of Social Comparison they discriminate against outgroups, which explains the name-calling. They do this because their self-esteem is tied in with their group being best.
The college staff could get the teenagers to focus on how they all love the same film so really they all belong to the same ingroup. Then the werewolf-fans wouldn’t threaten the vampire-fans self-esteem.
The staff could give the teenagers a different outgroup to focus on, like a competition against another college. Then the other college would be the outgroup and the teenagers would “pull together” and see themselves as one big ingroup.