Explain Social Identity Theory, making use of one study.

Explain one study of Social Identity Theory.

Describe social identity theory, referring to one relevant study.

Social Identity Theory (SIT) was proposed by Taijfel and Turner (1979) and attempted to explain intergroup
behaviours and how an individual’s sense of social identity is derived on the basis of group membership. This
identity is shared by other members of the same group. An individual’s membership to a group is salient,
meaning that it has an effect on behaviour. Social Identity Theory is based on 4 interrelated cognitive
processes; social categorisation, social identification, social comparison and positive distinctiveness.Firstly,
group identity is formed through social categorisation. This is the process by which there is a division of
social groups into in-groups and out-groups. These groups contain individuals with similar shared beliefs,
religion and attitudes. An in-group is a group which an individual identifies as due to having shared
characteristics and goals. An outgroup is a group which a person does not identify as a member. Social
identification is the process by which an individual identifies strongly with an in-group and internalises
norms, values, behaviour and attitudes of other members within that group. Ingroups will often favourably
compare themselves to an outgroup through a process known as social comparison in order to show that their
social identity is superior to others. Positive distinctiveness is an individual’s motivation to show that their
ingroup is preferable to an outgroup.This is to make individuals feel better and to boost their self-esteem and
self image, however this may lead to prejudice, discrimination and stereotypes. An example of a study which
demonstrates the social identity theory is Tajfel’s minimal paradigm study (1970).
The aim of Tajfel’s study was to investigate if categorising people into groups would be sufficient to
discriminate in favour of their own group (ingroup) and against members of other groups (outgroup).The
sample consisted of 48 schoolboys from a Bristol comprehensive school, aged 14-15. The students were
shown 12 slides - 6 paintings by Klee and 6 paintings by Kandinsky and the students were told that they were
either in the “Klee group” or the “Kandinsky group, based on which artist they said they preferred. However,
they were actually split randomly into two even groups. They were then given a reward allocation task. The
matrix was then shown which had a different combination of points ie. 19-25, 7-1 and 13-13. The researchers
were interested to see whether the boys would choose the matrix that gave both the ingroup and outgroup the
greatest possible reward (maximum joint profit), the matrix that gave the in-group the greatest reward
possible regardless of what it meant for the outgroup (maximum ingroup profit) or whether the boys chose
the matrix that created the biggest difference between the ingroup and outgroup (maximum difference). From
analysing the results, it was found that the boys typically awarded more points to members of their in-group,
by choosing the combination which had the biggest difference in favour of the ingroup (7-1). Participants
tended not to pick 19-25 despite giving the ingroup the most amount of points possible. Therefore, it is
concluded that this study supports social identity theory. Categorising the students into meaningless groups
caused them to have this social identification within their in-group and also generate a positive social identity,
as they give their ingroup more points. They felt a belonging to their ingroup due to them believing that they
all shared the same preferences of a painting. As participants did not choose 19-25, positive distinctiveness
occurred when both groups chose to give each other as few points as possible to the out group (7-1). This
ensured that the ingroup could boost their self esteem and made the individuals feel better being part of that
social group.

Overall, this study therefore supports the Social Identity Theory, and shows that individuals will favour their
ingroup through social comparison and choosing options that will benefit and boost their self-image.