Social identity

Social identity is a theory formed by Henri Tajfel and John Turner[1] to

understand the psychological basis of intergroup discrimination. It is
composed of four elements:
• Categorization: We often put others (and ourselves) into categories. Labeling
someone a Muslim, a Turk, a Gimp or a soccer player are ways of saying
other things about these people.

• Identification: We also associate with certain groups (our ingroups), which

serves to bolster our self-esteem.

• Comparison: We compare our groups with other groups, seeing a favorable

bias toward the group to which we belong.

• Psychological Distinctiveness: We desire our identity to be both distinct from

and positively compared with other groups[2].

As developed by Tajfel, social identity theory is a diffuse but interrelated

group of social psychological theories concerned with when and why
individuals identify with, and behave as part of, social groups, adopting
shared attitudes to outsiders. It is also concerned with what difference it
makes when encounters between individuals are perceived as encounters
between group members. Social identity theory is thus concerned both with
the psychological and sociological aspects of group behaviour.

Reacting against individualistic explanations of group behaviour (e.g. Floyd

Allport) on one hand, and tendencies to reify the group on the other, Tajfel
sought an account of group identity that held together both society and
individual. Tajfel first sought to differentiate between those elements of self-
identity derived from individual personality traits and interpersonal
relationships (personal identity) and those elements derived from belonging
to a particular group (social identity). Each individual is seen to have a
repertoire of identities open to them (social and personal), each identity
informing the individual of who he is and what this identity entails. Which of
these many identities is most salient for an individual at any time will vary
according to the social context. Tajfel then postulated that social behaviour
exists on a spectrum from the purely interpersonal to the purely intergroup.
Where personal identity is salient, the individual will relate to others in an
interpersonal manner, dependent on their character traits and any personal
relationship existing between the individuals. However, under certain
conditions "social identity is more salient than personal identity in self-
conception and that when this is the case behaviour is qualitatively different:
it is group behaviour."

"Social identities... are associated with normative rights, obligations and

sanctions which, within specific collectivities, form roles. The use of
standardized markers, especially to do with the bodily attributes of age and
gender, is fundamental in all societies, notwithstanding large cross-cultural
variations which can be noted." by Giddens

In the sphere of economics, two separate papers by Akerlof and Kranton[3][4]

incorporate social identity factor to principal-agent model. The main
conclusion is that when the agents consider themselves insiders, they will
maximize their identity utility by exerting the high effort level comparing
with the prescription behavior. On the other hand, if they consider
themselves outsiders, they will require a higher wage to compensate their
lose for behavior difference with prescription behaviors. While this macro-
economic theory deals exclusively with already well established categories of
social identity, Laszlo Garai when applied the concept of social identity in the
economic psychology[5] takes into consideration identities in statu nascendi[6].
This theory that is referred to the macro-processes based on a large-scale
production later gets applied to the individual creativity's psychology: Garai
derived it from the principal's and, resp., agent's identity elaboration.

Chen and Li[7] test the social identity effect in the lab using strategic method
and find that when people are matched with ingroup members, they will be
more likely to have “charity” concern[8] and less likely to have “envy”
concern. Another experiment conducted by Oxoby[9] has the same results
with Chen and Li in the aspect of positive reciprocity, but in the negative
reciprocity, evidences from Oxoby show that people will be more likely to
take revenge when they get negative reciprocity from in-group members in
sequential games, which leaves it as an open question in both experimental
economics and social identity theory.

History and Orientation

Social Identity Theory was developed by Tajfel and Turner in 1979. The theory
was originally developed to understand the psychological basis of intergroup
discrimination. Tajfel et al (1971) attempted to identify the minimal
conditions that would lead members of one group to discriminate in favor of
the ingroup to which they belonged and against another outgroup.

Core Assumptions and Statements

In the Social Identity Theory, a person has not one, “personal self”, but
rather several selves that correspond to widening circles of group
membership. Different social contexts may trigger an individual to think, feel
and act on basis of his personal, family or national “level of self” (Turner et
al, 1987). Apart from the “level of self”, an individual has multiple “social
identities”. Social identity is the individual’s self-concept derived from
perceived membership of social groups (Hogg & Vaughan, 2002). In other
words, it is an individual-based perception of what defines the “us”
associated with any internalized group membership. This can be
distinguished from the notion of personal identity which refers to self-
knowledge that derives from the individual’s unique attributes.

Social Identity Theory asserts that group membership creates ingroup/ self-
categorization and enhancement in ways that favor the in-group at the
expense of the out-group. The examples (minimal group studies) of Turner
and Tajfel (1986) showed that the mere act of individuals categorizing
themselves as group members was sufficient to lead them to display ingroup
favoritism. After being categorized of a group membership, individuals seek
to achieve positive self-esteem by positively differentiating their ingroup
from a comparison outgroup on some valued dimension. This quest for
positive distinctiveness means that people’s sense of who they are is defined
in terms of ‘we’ rather than ‘I’.

Tajfel and Turner (1979) identify three variables whose contribution to the
emergence of ingroup favoritism is particularly important. A) the extent to
which individuals identify with an ingroup to internalize that group
membership as an aspect of their self-concept. B) the extent to which the
prevailing context provides ground for comparison between groups. C) the
perceived relevance of the comparison group, which itself will be shaped by
the relative and absolute status of the ingroup. Individuals are likely to
display favoritism when an ingroup is central to their self-definition and a
given comparison is meaningful or the outcome is contestable.

Conceptual Model

Haslam, Alexander S. (2001), Psychology in Organizations - The Social

Identitty Approach, Sage Publications Ltd, London. Chapter 2: The Social
Identity Approach, pp. 26-57

Favorite Methods

Experiments.

Scope and Application

Social Identity Theory has a considerable impact on social psychology. It is

tested in a wide range of fields and settings and includes prejudice,
stereotyping, negotiation and language use. The theory has also implications
on the way people deal with social and organizational change.

Example

In further research this example is referred to minimal group studies.

Schoolboys were assigned to groups, which were intended as meaningless as
possible. They were assigned randomly, excluding roles of interpersonal
discrimination such as history of conflict, personal animosity or
interdependence. The schoolboys assigned points to anonymous members of
both their own group and the other group. Conclusions were that even the
most minimal conditions were sufficient to encourage ingroup-favoring
responses. Participants picked a reward pair that awarded more points to
people who were identified as ingroup members. In other words, they
displayed ingroup favoritism.