SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY
Prejudice
Henri Tajfel believed that there was a cognitive
basis for prejudice rooted in people’s need to
make sense of the world. During the 50s, the
dominant approach in psychology was that
prejudice was caused by an abnormal,
authoritarian personality. He suggested 3 basic
processes:
• Categorization: human thinking by which
objects, people and events are
identified; differences between
categories are exaggerated while within
minimized; so called stereotyping.
• Assimilation: process of learning the
norms, values and beliefs of a culture;
we see the world through our own
culture’s lens.
• Search for coherence: people wish to
make sense of a world that constantly
changes; they draw on the attitudes and
outlook of their own group to provide a
coherent understanding of the world.
Even though this explains some aspects of
prejudice, it doesn’t explain its development and
in order to explain the origin of prejudice, Henri
Tajfel proposed social identity theory.
Social Identity Theory
According to the social identity theory, prejudice
and discrimination are only possible if people are
categorized into groups. This leads them to
identify with certain groups and from this they
develop a sense of in-groups and out-groups.
Group identification provides people with their
social identity. Tajfel defines this as individual’s
self-image, which is basically where an
individual puts himself in terms of a social
category. These categories can be absolutely
anything, for example:
• Social class
• Ethnicity, religion, nationality, region
• Sexual orientation
• Gender
• Occupation
Social Identity Theory assumes that people
would like themselves to be seen in a positive
light, which is explained by their strive for a
positive self-image. Since people tend to be in
favour of the groups they belong in, this will
cause in-group favouritism and they will develop
negative views towards their out-groups, so
called negative out-group bias.
Tajfel (experiment 1)
Aim: demonstrate prejudice and SIT
Method: 64 boys, aged 14-15 from Bristol who
knew each other well, were separated into
groups of 8. In the first part of the experiment,
forty clusters containing varying numbers of dots
were flashed on the screen and boys had to
write the estimates. After this task, boys were
separated into groups of over-estimators and
under-estimators. In the second part of the
experiment, boys were given an 18-page-booklet
with a matrix containing 14 columns and 2 rows.
Each boy had to choose one column each, so
that he would earn points for his own team and
penalty for the other team. In the end, boys got a
penny for each 10 points. The rows were:
• In-group choices: boys in both rows
were members of the participant’s own
group.
• Out-group choices: boys in both rows
were members of the out-group.
• Intergroup choices: one boy was in-
group, the other boy was out-group.
Results: the experiment sample is biased
because of age and gender. The experimenters
didn’t want to see the real behaviour, so they
randomly assigned the boys to random groups,
over-estimators and under-estimators. The
independent variable of the experiment is
division, while dependent is giving points. Each
boy got 50p and when boys had to make an
entirely in-group choice, they tended towards the
point of maximum fairness. Discrimination
occurred and choices were not made to
maximize everyone’s winnings (as joint
maximum profit would be higher than the
maximum of group profit).
Tajfel (experiment 2) Advantages and disadvantages

Aim: demonstrate prejudice and SIT
Method: in the second experiment, there were
48 boys in 3 groups of 16, which were divided
based on their aesthetic preference. They were
shown 12 slides of paintings: 6 of Kandinsky, 6
of Klee. The paintings were not signed so that
boys could be assigned at random. Different
matrices were used this time. Tajfel wanted to
assess three things:
• Maximum joint profit (MJP): the largest
possible award for 2 people.
• Maximum in-group profit (MIP): the
largest possible award to member of the
in-group.
• Maximum difference (MD): largest
possible difference in gain between in-
group and out-group member, in favour
of the former.
Social Identity Theory combines all explanations
for stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination and
all are seen to result from a need of a positive
identity. However a disadvantage for it is that
there is a lot this theory does not explain. The
relationships between groups are not simply
based on a need for people to see their own
group in a positive light. They are also based on
a struggle for scarce resources (money, material
goods, power) and this struggle can generate
the prejudice and discrimination. It also finds
difficult to explain extreme forms of prejudice,
such as systematic slaughter of millions in Nazi
concentration camps.

Results: as a result Tajfel concluded that the

boys didn’t make their choices based on their
best joint deal. As for MIP & MD, the participants
always tried to maximize the profit of their own
group. The participants decided to be less fair
with out-group members. In-group identity is
powerful and inevitable. This study supports the
social identity theory as the boys were split into
groups (categorized) and discriminated against
the other group to feel superior.

Jane Elliot

A schoolteacher from all-white community in

Iowa wanted to make children feel what it felt
like to be discriminated. Two groups were
created: blue eyed and brown eyed. One day
she treated the blue eyed people more
favourably and gave them privileges and took
every opportunity to criticize brown-eyed
children. The relationships between groups were
quickly becoming progressively worse (e.g.
fights between ex-friends). Within a day the
“inferior” group saw itself as inferior and the
children performed worse than they did before
(when they were told that their group is actually
superior) and also they described themselves as
“stupid” and “bad” and “mean”.