3 Social Identity Theory
Tajfel & Turner (1979)
What is Social Identity Theory?
So far, Ethnocentrism and RGCT assume the importance of group identity (without two groups, how could there be conflict?). Beyond this, neither of these theories describe the role that social identity plays in intergroup behaviour, nor do these theories describe the process of group identification. Moreover, both Ethnocentrism and RGCT assume that competition over resources is necessary for prejudiced attitudes and conflict to arise. Is this really the case? The cartoon at the beginning of the reading implies the answer is no.
Indeed, we seem to form groups easily and quickly. But we also carry our own individual identities with us. The social psychologists behind Social Identity Theory (SIT), Henri Tajfel and John Turner contend that we exist on a continuum shifting between the relative importance of our individual identity and our group identity.
Think about yourself quickly. What are your likes and dislikes? Are you an extrovert or an introvert? How would you describe yourself to someone in three words? Answers to these questions help describe your personal identity – who you are as an individual. When we fully function within these individual identities, our personality predicts perfectly how we behave, react, and feel. When we function within our individual identities, we use personal pronouns like “I”, “me”, and “you” rather than personal pronouns like “we”, “us”, and “them”.
Now, think about some of the groups that you belong to. These can include a sports team, your gender, your ethnicity, your nationality, the type of music you listen to, even this class constitutes a group that you can belong to. It is very likely that when you are with other members of your social group, the group norms influence how you behave, the thoughts and feelings of the group become your own thoughts and feelings. In short, our social identity (or identities) is an internalized group membership(s) (Haslan et al., 2020). When we function within our social identities, people use personal pronouns like “we”, “us” and “them” instead of personal pronouns like “I”, “me”, and “you”.
From this short little thought exercise, we see that we exist on a continuum that goes from our personal identities on one end to our group identities on the other. When We very rarely every function completely as individuals (i.e., only in terms of our individual identity). Similarly, we very rarely function completely as group members (i.e., only in terms of our group identity). The figure below graphically represents this continuum.
Real-world Example of SIT
Those of you in your second year and above, do you own some clothing with the UBC logo on? Chances are, you do. Those of you in your first year, when you arrive on campus, take a look around at how many people are wearing clothing with some UBC branding on it. Chances you will see them everywhere. This is, in part, people identifying with the group, UBC. You can still chat to them about their individual interests, likes, dislikes, what courses they are taking, what sports the play, what music they listen to and and and…. This should hopefully illustrate how we can have one foot planted in the “individual identity” part of the continuum with the other foot planted in the “social identity” part of the continuum
What function does “identity” serve?
Given our ability to shift between our personal and group identities, they must both serve a function. Tajfel and Turner (1979) hypothesized that, in part, our individual self-esteem is based on our group identities. Let’s think back to the hoodie example above. What do you think will happen when you put on your UBC hoodie and go to watch the Thunderbirds play against an away team? Which side of the continuum will you move towards? You will probably place much more towards the “group identity” side of the continuum. If UBC wins, you’ll very likely feel good. If UBC loses, you’ll probably feel bad. Here, we see one of the central motivations that drive intergroup behaviour – the need for positive self-esteem. When we we see ourselves as group members (e.g., “I am a UBC Thunderbird”) we derive a significant part of our individual self-esteem from the positive things that the group does. So, that is why you feel good when your team wins. That is, when you group is successful in some endeavour or seen in a positive light, the group achieves positive distinctiveness.
It is important here to note that being part of a social group, from which we try and achieve positive distinctiveness, means that we are not part of other groups. Here is an important distinction between ingroups and outgroups. In its simplest form, ingroups are groups that we belong to – they are groups that we would use the personal pronouns “us” and “we” for, as discussed above. By contrast, there are groups that we do not belong to, and we call these outgroups are groups that we do not belong to. For outgroups, we generally use the personal pronouns “them” and “they”. So, one way to feel good about our ingroup (and thus, ourselves) is to compare ourselves to relevant outgroups. To see how, when, and the strategies we use to achieve positive group and self-esteem, carry on reading.
How do we achieve positive distinctiveness?
One way in which we achieve positive distinctiveness is through ingroup favouritism (which is also referred to as ingroup bias)- behaviour that is positively biased towards the ingroup. Tajfel and Turner created one of the most iconic experimental paradigms, called the minimal group paradigm. This minimal group paradigm investigated what the minimal conditions were for intergroup bias to occur.
We’ll discuss the minimal group paradigm in class. I will update this section after we cover it in class.
The role of perceived legitimacy, permeability, and stability in intergroup relations.
What happens when your group’s status is threatened or not seen in a positive light? We must engage in behaviours that increases the group’s status. SIT proposes several strategies that can be used. These include:
— Social Mobility
— Social Creativity
— Competition
Which of these strategies is used depends on certain social-contextual factors. These social-contextual factors include:
| Social Contextual Factor | Brief Description |
| Perceived legitimacy | is it valid (or legitimate) that my group has a higher / lower social status? |
| Perceived permeability | is it possible to move from a lower social status group to a higher status group? |
| Perceived stability | is my group’s high / low status stable or is it likely to change soon? |
Watch the videos below to see what group members can do when their group status is perceived to be legitimate and stable with group boundaries being non-permeable.
We have not yet discussed what will happen if:
- Group status is seen as legitimate, stable, but group boundaries are seen as permeable.
- Group status is seen as illegitimate, stable, and group boundaries are impermeable.
Be sure to attend class or watch the class recording to find out what happens in these two cases.
Does ingroup bias enhance self-esteem or does threatened self-esteem motivate ingroup bias?
Tajfel and Turner posited that ingroup bias enhances self-esteem. There is, indeed, a significant amount of research that supports this claim (see Aberson et al., 2000; Rubin & Hewstone, 1998). There is, however, a corollary: does depressed or threatened self-esteem motivate intergroup bias (Hogg & Abrams, 1990)? There is indeed some evidence for this corollary that we will discuss in class.
