SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY (SIT)
Henry Tajfel
SIT
• Social identity is a theory expounded by Henri Tajfel
and John Turner to understand the socialpsychological basis of intergroup discrimination and
conflict.
• Social Identity is seen as the process that changes
interpersonal to inter-group behavior.
• Social Identity is seen as the process that changes
interpersonal to inter-group behavior.
• "Emphasizes group process and intergroup
relations." (Andreassi, Desrochers & Thompson)
• "A social psychological theory of identity formulation
that privileges the role of large group identities in
forming individuals' concepts of self." (Calhoun, 2003).
• Group in individual (Gogg & Abraham, 1988)
SIT
• The basic idea is that a social category (e.g.,
nationality, political affiliation, sports team) into
which one falls, and to which one feels one
belongs, provides a definition of who one is in
terms of the defining characteristics of the
category-a self-definition that is a part of the
self-concept" (p. 259). (Desrochers)
SIT
• It stresses the psychological basis of group
formation.
• The need for self-esteem is seen as the basis for
identification with groups and therefore person’s
need to see the groups s/he belongs to as
positively distinctive.
• Social identity theory contrasts with some other
theories of the process of group formation and
intergroup conflict.
SIT
• It asserts that Individual identity is different
from Social idenity so is individual self and social
self.
SIT
SIT is composed of following elements:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Categorization
Identification
Comparison
Psychological Distinctiveness
Positive Self-esteem
SIT
CATEGORIZATION:
people often put others (and ourselves) into
categories. Labeling someone a Muslim, a Ethnic
group, a Hindu or a Dalit are ways of saying
other things about these people.
SIT
IDENTIFICATION:
People also associate with certain groups (ingroup and out-group), which serves to bolster
the self-esteem.
Internalization of the group norms and values,
accepting other members as ‘us’ is important
SIT
COMPARISON:
People compare in-groups with other groups, seeing
a favorable bias toward the in-group to which we
belong.
Each people belongs to several and identify with
group that resembles with them most and compare
with other group.
SIT
PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTINCTIVENESS:
A desire to have an identity to be both distinct
from and positively compared with other
groups.
Salient characteristics are accentuated that show
distinctiveness and emotionally bind the group.
Self Concept is a multi-dimentional construct that refers
to an individual’s perception of “self” in relation to any
number of characteristics such as academic/nonacademic, etc.
Self-Image s the mental picture (resistant to change) that
include physical as well as personal experiences.
Self-Esteem:
A concept of psychology that refers to someone's personal
assessment of self worth.
It reflects a person’s overall evaluation or appraisal of his or
her own worth. Self-esteem encompasses beliefs (e.g., "I am
competent" or "I am incompetent") and emotions such as
triumph, despair, pride and shame. A person's self-esteem
may be reflected in their behaviour, such as in assertiveness,
shyness, confidence or caution.
SIT PRINCIPLES
1. Group in individual (Gogg & Abraham, 1988)
2. Basic assumption begins with social group not
with individual as in most of the psychological
sciences
3. It has cognitive and behavioral component.
Group behavior begins with solidarity within a
group and discrimination with out-group.
SIT PRINCIPLES
4. Maximizes out-group differences and minimize
the in-group differences increases group
favoritism which ultimately leads to selfenhancement.
SIT PRINCIPLES
• Social group is perceived as having three major
components and evaluated accordingly
1. Cognitive component (knowing the group member)
2. Evaluation component (positive or negative
evaluation of the group member)
3. Emotional component (positive or negative
emotion associated with group member)
SIT CENTRAL HYPOTHESIS
1. Seeks to find negative aspects of an out-group
member to enhance the self-image
2. Seeks to find intergroup differences (tendency to
see all out-group member possessing the same
characteristics and guided by similar norms and
values)
3. Seeks to find similarities in intra-group (tendency
to see similarities within the group to generate
‘weness’ feeling)
SIT CENTRAL HYPOTHESIS
4. Personal and social identity represent different
levels of self categorization ie., individual
difference and collective similarities
• Individual define themselves in terms of their social group
membership and try to seek a positive social identity
• Social identity consist of those aspects of an individual's
self image derived from social categories to which the
person perceives himself to belong to & to value and
emotional significance ascribed to membership
• Thus they define themselves in terms of group membership
• A positive social identity is achieved by comparing with
others to establish a positively valued psychological
distinctiveness.
SIT : MOTIVATIONAL/COGNITIVE FACTORS
• A need for intergroup differences is must
• Positive comparison in favor of in-group is made that provide a
satisfactory social identity
• When negative comparison is made dissatisfaction occurs
• SIT differs from earlier group theory on Two key respect… earlier
notion…
• Sumner's claim differs…ethnocentrism is rampant
• Social group differentiate on dimension that provide favorable
view…superior
• Intergroup discrimination driven by in-group favoritism (not outgroup
derogation /Brewer 1979)
• Sherif's claim that goal causes conflict…not correct (wrong)…social
categorization cause group discrimination.
MINIMAL GROUP PARADIGM RESEARCH
•
•
•
Divided group on trivial criteria eg. Abstract painting
Division of group was random
Participants have to distribute rewards between pairs (not
themselves)
• It is minimal, because of the selection of group on minimal
criteria…the reasons are
–
–
–
–
–
Categorization was based on trivial criteria
No explicit conflict of interest
No previous hostility
Participants not engaged in face to face social interaction
No rational link between economic self-interest and the strategy of
favoring one's own group.
Findings
• Though made some effort to be fair but showed persistent
tendency to give higher rewrds to another unknown ingroup
• Participant keen to ensure that their fellow in-group
member receive a higher reward than other G
• Did not maximize the in-group or maximize joint gain
• According to SIT, only way for participant to obtain a
positive social identity by identifying with group into which
they are categorized so they ensure their group comes off
best in the only available comparison between the group
(giving more rewared).
IS IT MINIMAL?
• They constitute maximal group (Tajfel (1978)
• Small beginning can grow large conflict
• It is difficult to overestimate the importance of social
categorization and its link via social comparison to
social identity and the need for psychological
distinctiveness.
• This SIT claim is supported by many other Lab studies
• It has become the dominant explanatory framework
for the study of intergroup relation
OUTSIDE LABORATORY
• In reality group in conflict often differ in status and changing status
relations and perceived legitimacy are crucial determining characteristics
in intergroup relations
• When Minority group perceives dominant group's position as illegimate
and unstable it may use strategies to obtain positive identity
• May redefine characteristics of in-group previously seen as negative
• May find new dimension for making comparison
• May find a new group for comparison
• When comparison are made directly on dimension as power and
status…minority demands equality.
• This may threaten the identity of the dominant group leading to backlash
off minority.
SIT HELPS TO UNDERSTAND THE BEHAVIOR
OF THOSE WHOSE IDENTITY IS PERCEIVED TO
BE THREATENED AND WHOSE BEHAVIOR
MIGHT OTHERWISE SEEM QUITE IRRATIONAL
AND POINTLESS.
WHAT HAPPENS IF GROUP FAILS TO SATISFY…
• Try to change the social structure (social
change)
• Seek a new way of comparison that favors the
group and reinforce social identity (social
creativity)
• Leave/abandon the group to join the better on
(social mobility)
• Marching of ethnic group/women/protestant/
etc. has taken a character of ethnic/sex/religious
consolation…
• In SIT terms it can be understood feeling their
identity is threatened and such opportunities
must be taken to stand up to Majority community
and show its identity is still important and valued.
WHAT IS THE SPECIAL OF INTERGROUP
BEHAVIOR?
Interpersonal and intergroup
behavior…differences
• Interpersonal behavior is completely determined
by interpersonal characteristics of those involved
• Intergroup behavior concerned relationship that
is defined totally in terms of person's
membership is social group or categories
(e.g., killing a out-group innocent, unknown
member in conflict simply because he is the
member of out-group)
DISTINCT CRITERIA FOR INTERGROUP BEHAVIOR
• At least 2 identifiable groups should be in the situation
(Hutu/Tutsi, Catholic/Protestant/ Serb/Croat/
Hindu/Muslim)
• Little variability of behavior and attitude in each group,
• Behavior appears uniform (e.g., we agree about them)
Interpersonal behavior shows individual differences
• Member show little variability in his perception or
treatment of out-group member (they are all alike). Tajfel:
"treated as undifferentiated item in unified social category"
GROUP BEHAVIOR IS QUALITATIVE DIFFERENT
IN IN-GROUP SETTING
• When group membership is salient (in conflict) person tend
to be depersonalized.
• This is not a loss of identity (de-individuation) but a shift
from personal to social identity.
• Concern of ingroup takes over from concern of self, ingroup favoritism replaces self-favoritism, self is stereotyped
as an ingroup member, ingroup is viewed as coherent and
homogenous
• Group is more competitive and aggressive thqan
individuals (schopler & Insko, 1992)
Brewer (1997) suggested in/out group schema consisting 3
principles that likely to operate in any social situation in which
a particular in/out group categorization is made salient:
• Intergroup accentuation principle: assimilation within
category boundaries and contrast between (with out) group.
All in group are seen similar than...
• In-group favoritism principle: selective genealiation of
positive affect (trust/liking) to fellow in-group but not to outgroup
• Social competition principle: intergroup social comparison is
typically perceived in terms of competition rather than
comparison.
THEORETICAL IMPLICATION ON DISTINCTION
BETWEEN INTERPERSONAL AND
INTERGROUP BEHAVIOR:
Theoretical implication
• First, intergroup phenomenon is very unpredictive if
explained from interpersonal relation
• Second, Individual if depersonalized, group has its effect,
intergroup behavior is influenced by intergroup relations of
status, power etc. not by interpersonal relations. (e.g., Friend
but Boss)
• Third, some variables that may have effect on interpersonal
relations may have a different effect on intergroup relations.
E.g., similarity may have attractive properties at an
interpersonal level but it may threaten group distinctiveness
and may lead to intergroup discrimination (BROWN, 1984)
Tajfel (1979): intergroup behavior requires a
different level of analysis from intra-group or
interpersonal behavior.
TYPES OF CONFLICTS
• Objective conflict
• Subjective conflict
OBJECTIVE & SUBJECTIVE CONFLICT
• Conflict over power, wealth, or territory
• Outside the realm of psy…require an analysis in terms
of social, economic, political and historical structures.
• Distinct from psychological, symbolic/subjective
conflict, such as attempts to establish positively valued
distinctiveness.
• Distinct but both are interwoven & subjective conflict
can exist long afer objective disparities disappear
(Deutsch, 1973…destructive conflicts)
EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT CONFLICT
EXPLICIT CONFLICT
• Explicit conflict is legitimized and
institutionalized by rules or norms (Sherif's
study)
• According to Tajfel & Turner (1979) behavior
toward out-group can be classified into 2
categories:
• Instrumental behavior: action aimed at
causing the in-group to win the competition
Non-instrumental behavior
•
Non-instrumental behavior: behavior is more interesting
psychologically, because it is gratuitous (without cause)
discrimination against out-groups and has no sense outside the
context of intergroup relations…negative stereotypes to members
of out-group & to a group as a whole.
– Generally a set of traits is attribute to all members of category
– Individuals belonging to this category are assumed to be similar to
each other…different from in-group on particular traits.
– Treting out-group in this way makes them more predictable, can be
used to justify discriminatory behavior.
– Helps members to differentiate the in-group positively from the out
group.
Implicit conflict
• This conflict exist in the absence of explicit
institutionalization) no conflict of interest yet
it remains.Differentiations are made yet no
reasons for these differentiations to occur
(e.g., Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda).
•
EXAMPLE
Hutu & Tutsi are not ethnic or tribal groups…same
language, religion, and culture, history of extensive
intermarriage and even exchange identities. Essentially
the same people. Difference were emphasized by
colonialists leading to exaggeration of quite small
differences in physical attributes such as height and
skin color….social differenctiation concluded with a
deliberate genocide…causes complex but include a
psychological component (Tajfel experiment…no
conflict of interest…simply categorization)
Social psychological significance:
• Most evident in the case of implicit conflict
• When objective and subjective conflicts become
inseparable…and where a contemporary subjective
conflict has outlived a more ancient objective one.
• Many pointless conflicts becomes more
understandable when viewed as, at least in part,
attempts to establish, maintain, or defend cherished
social identities.
Final words…
IS IT POSSIBLE TO INCREASE SELF ESTEEM BY
minorities?
• Exhibit high level of self-hatred and they try to confront it:
• Legitimate n stable social system has no visible alternatives to the status
que…out-group (if minority) accept the inferiority
• If (social system) seen as illegitimate soon alternative is searched (e.g.,
equality). System loses stability, oppression and terror begins
• If majority-minority relations perceived as illegitimate…system no longer
stable, rejection follows…redefine the group's characteristics and try to
transform social identity into a positive one.
• When minority reject their status, when there is unstable intergroup
boundaries, they prefer assimilation.
• Social wall penetrated or prevented.
• If economic and political interests are there between group…interethnic
violence and bloodshed erupts.
One way
• If the social system is perceived as legitimate and
stable, and there are no visible alternatives to the
status quo, or there is no conceivable prospect of
any change in the nature of the system (such as in
a feudal society ), they just accept their
inferiority; they acquiesce (they agree or express
agreement) .
Second way
• If the system is perceived as illegitimate by the
minority, very soon alternatives begin to be
envisioned. The system loses its stability, and
oppression and terror by the majoritycontrolled state becomes the only way to
maintain it (e.g., South Africa during the late
apartheid era) (Hutnik, 1991).
Third way
• If the majority-minority relations are
perceived as illegitimate and the system is no
longer stable, the minority group members
will tend towards a rejection of their inferior
status. They then may reinterpret and
redefine their group's characteristics and,
thus, try to transform their social identity into
a positive one.
Social walls are created both by majorities and
minorities
One tries to penetrate, the other resists.
This situation, combined with tangible
differences of economic and political interests
between the two groups, leads to minoritymajority conflict, which, if not managed at an
early stage may result in interethnic violence
and bloodshed.