psychology experiments social identity theory

History & Society
Science & Tech
Biographies
Animals & Nature
Geography & Travel
Arts & Culture
Games & Quizzes
On This Day
One Good Fact
New Articles
Lifestyles & Social Issues
Philosophy & Religion
Politics, Law & Government
World History
Health & Medicine
Browse Biographies
Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
Environment
Fossils & Geologic Time
Entertainment & Pop Culture
Sports & Recreation
Visual Arts
Demystified
Image Galleries
Infographics
Top Questions
Britannica Kids
Saving Earth
Space Next 50
Student Center
Introduction

Cognitive processes

Strategies for status improvement.

Identity threat

When did science begin?
Where was science invented?

Group of Women Happiness Cheerful Concept

social identity theory

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

Frontiers - Scrutinizing Social Identity Theory in Corporate Social Responsibility: An Experimental Investigation
Verywell Mind - Social Identity Theory—are we the company we keep?
Age-of-the-Sage.org - Social Identity Theory
National Center for Biotechnology Information - PubMed Central - A Social Identity Approach to Understanding and Promoting Physical Activity
Simply Psychology - Social Identity Theory
BCcampus Publishing - Reconciling Divided Nations - Social Identity Theory
Table Of Contents

social identity theory , in social psychology , the study of the interplay between personal and social identities. Social identity theory aims to specify and predict the circumstances under which individuals think of themselves as individuals or as group members. The theory also considers the consequences of personal and social identities for individual perceptions and group behaviour .

Social identity theory developed from a series of studies, frequently called minimal-group studies, conducted by the British social psychologist Henri Tajfel and his colleagues in the early 1970s. Participants were assigned to groups that were designed to be as arbitrary and meaningless as possible. Nevertheless, when people were asked to assign points to other research participants, they systematically awarded more points to in-group members than to out-group members.

The minimal-group studies were interpreted as showing that the mere act of categorizing individuals into groups can be sufficient to make them think of themselves and others in terms of group membership instead of as separate individuals. That finding deviated from a common view at the time, namely, that an objective conflict of interest is a central factor in the emergence of intergroup conflict.

Thus, social identity theory originated from the conviction that group membership can help people to instill meaning in social situations. Group membership helps people to define who they are and to determine how they relate to others. Social identity theory was developed as an integrative theory, as it aimed to connect cognitive processes and behavioral motivation . Initially, its main focus was on intergroup conflict and intergroup relations more broadly. For that reason, the theory was originally referred to as the social identity theory of intergroup relations.

Later elaborations by Tajfel’s student John Turner and his colleagues on the cognitive factors relevant to social identification further specified how people interpret their own position in different social contexts and how that affects their perceptions of others (e.g., stereotyping ), as well as their own behaviour in groups (e.g., social influence). Those elaborations constitute self-categorization theory, or the social identity theory of the group. Together, self-categorization theory and social identity theory can be referred to as the social identity approach.

Social identity theory was developed to explain how individuals create and define their place in society. According to the theory, three psychological processes are central in that regard: social categorization, social comparison, and social identification.

psychology experiments social identity theory

Social categorization refers to the tendency of people to perceive themselves and others in terms of particular social categories—that is, as relatively interchangeable group members instead of as separate and unique individuals. For example, one can think of a certain person, Jane, as a feminist, a lawyer, or a football fan.

Social comparison is the process by which people determine the relative value or social standing of a particular group and its members. For instance, schoolteachers may be seen as having higher social standing than garbage collectors. Compared with university professors, however, schoolteachers can be seen as having lower social standing.

Social identification reflects the notion that people generally do not perceive social situations as detached observers. Instead, their own sense of who they are and how they relate to others is typically implicated in the way they view other individuals and groups around them.

Someone’s social identity is then seen as the outcome of those three processes (social categorization, social comparison, and social identification). Social identity can be defined as an individual’s knowledge of belonging to certain social groups, together with some emotional and valuational significance of that group membership. Thus, while one’s personal identity refers to self-knowledge associated with unique individual attributes, people’s social identity indicates who they are in terms of the groups to which they belong.

According to social identity theory, social behaviour is determined by the character and motivations of the person as an individual (interpersonal behaviour) as well as by the person’s group membership (i.e., intergroup behaviour).

People generally prefer to maintain a positive image of the groups to which they belong. As a result of social identity processes, people are inclined to seek out positively valued traits, attitudes, and behaviours that can be seen as characteristic of their in-groups.

That inclination may also cause them to focus on less favourable characteristics of out-groups or to downplay the importance of positive out-group characteristics. The tendency to favour one’s in-groups over relevant out-groups can affect the distribution of material resources or outcomes between in-group and out-group members, the evaluation of in-group versus out-group products, assessments of in-group versus out-group performance and achievement, and communications about the behaviour of in-group versus out-group members.

The motivation to establish a positive social identity is thought to lie at the root of intergroup conflict, as members of disadvantaged groups strive for improvement of their group’s position and social standing and members of advantaged groups aim to protect and maintain their privileged position.

According to the individual-mobility belief system, individuals are free agents who are capable of moving from one group to another. The defining feature of the system is the notion that group boundaries are permeable, such that individuals are not bound or restricted by their group memberships in pursuing position improvement. Thus, individuals’ opportunities and outcomes are viewed as dependent on their talents, life choices, and achievements rather than on their ethnic origin or social groups.

A very different belief system, known as the social change belief system, holds that changes in social relations depend on groups modifying their positions relative to each other. Status security depends on the perceived stability and legitimacy of existing status differences between groups. Stability and legitimacy tend to mutually influence each other: when positions are subject to change, existing intergroup differences in status appear less legitimate . Conversely, when the legitimacy of existing status differences between groups is questioned, the perceived stability of such relations is likely to be undermined.

The two belief systems, in turn, determine what people are most likely to do when they pursue a more positive social identity. Social identity theory distinguishes between three types of strategies for status improvement: individual mobility, social competition, and social creativity.

Individual mobility allows people to pursue individual position improvement irrespective of the group. It can also be an individual-level solution for overcoming group devaluation.

Social competition is a group-level strategy that requires group members to draw together and combine forces to help each other improve their joint performance or outcomes.

Finally, social creativity implies that people modify their perceptions of the in-group’s standing. That can be achieved by introducing alternative dimensions of comparison in order to emphasize ways in which the in-group is positively distinct from relevant out-groups. A second possibility is to reevaluate existing group characteristics to enhance in-group perceptions. A third possibility is to compare one’s group with another reference group in order to make the current standing of the in-group appear more positive.

Social creativity strategies are generally characterized as cognitive strategies because they alter people’s perceptions of their group’s current standing instead of altering objective outcomes. Nevertheless, it has been demonstrated that these strategies can constitute a first step toward the achievement of social change . Because social creativity strategies help preserve identification with and positive regard for the in-group, even when it has low status, over time those strategies can empower group members to seek actual position improvement for their group

10 September 2024: Due to technical disruption, we are experiencing some delays to publication. We are working to restore services and apologise for the inconvenience. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .

Login Alert

> The Cambridge Handbook of Identity
> Experimentation within the Social Identity Approach: History, Highlights, and Hurdles

Book contents

The Cambridge Handbook of Identity
Copyright page
Contributors
1 Identity: With or Without You?
Part I The Origin and Development of the Concept of Identity
Part II New Perspectives and Challenges
Part III Methodological Approaches
11 A Narrative Practice Approach to Identities: Small Stories and Positioning Analysis in Digital Contexts
12 Conversation Analysis and Ethnomethodology: Identity at Stake in a Kinship Carers’ Support Group
13 Foucauldian-Informed Discourse Analysis
14 A Methodology to Examine Identity: Multimodal (Inter)action Analysis
15 Autoethnography
16 A Sociocultural Approach to Identity through Diary Studies
17 Positioning Microanalysis: A Method For the Study of Dynamics in the Dialogical Self and Identity
18 Synthesized or Confused Field? A Critical Analysis of the State-of-the-Art in Identity Status Research Methods
19 Criminals’ Narrative Identity
20 Experimentation within the Social Identity Approach: History, Highlights, and Hurdles
Part IV Current Domains
Part V Where Is Identity?
Author Index
Subject Index

20 - Experimentation within the Social Identity Approach: History, Highlights, and Hurdles

from Part III - Methodological Approaches

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 October 2021

This chapter examines the role of experimentation within the social identity approach to the study of identity. The main question of interest concerns the ways in which experimental methods give particular shape to how identity is understood within this tradition. We will examine the historical, theoretical, and practical development of the social identity approach and of experimentation in psychology, and then show how the two have converged so as to create an insightful, and yet simultaneously limited and at times even problematic, understanding of identity. This particular constellation of theoretical assumptions and practical methods has produced an impressive body of important research. It has also led to the establishment and entrenchment of theoretical and methodological biases of which researchers often seem to be unaware, but which nevertheless considerably influence the study of identity within the social identity tradition. Thus, in light of the rich output of the social identity approach, the chapter examines some of the limitations of that tradition and attempts to draw researchers’ attention to the theoretical and methods-based biases of which they may not be aware. In this way, the chapter is an attempt to explore how experimental methods and theory have interacted within the social identity tradition to both the benefit and detriment of our understanding of identity.

Access options

Save book to kindle.

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service .

Experimentation within the Social Identity Approach: History, Highlights, and Hurdles
By Lucas B. Mazur
Edited by Michael Bamberg , Clark University, Massachusetts , Carolin Demuth , Aalborg University, Denmark , Meike Watzlawik
Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Identity
Online publication: 29 October 2021
Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108755146.023

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox .

Save book to Google Drive

Tools and Resources
Customer Services
Affective Science
Biological Foundations of Psychology
Clinical Psychology: Disorders and Therapies
Cognitive Psychology/Neuroscience
Developmental Psychology
Educational/School Psychology
Forensic Psychology
Health Psychology
History and Systems of Psychology
Individual Differences
Methods and Approaches in Psychology
Neuropsychology
Organizational and Institutional Psychology
Personality
Psychology and Other Disciplines
Social Psychology
Sports Psychology
Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Social identity theory.

Amber M. Gaffney Amber M. Gaffney Department of Psychology, California Polytechnic University Humboldt
, and Michael A. Hogg Michael A. Hogg Department of Psychology, Claremont Graduate University
https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.681
Published online: 19 July 2023

The self-concept provides people with a fundamental frame of reference for navigating their social world. People understand and interpret social interactions using knowledge of their personal self (e.g., How do I as an individual usually respond in this or a similar situation?), their relational self, in which the focus of interaction is their role defined by attachment bonds with specific significant other people, and their collective self in which interactions are fully defined by their membership in a distinct social group or category. Social context is the determinant of which level of self is the dominating feature driving interaction and relevant contextual knowledge of the self. The social identity perspective focuses on the part of the self-concept that people derive from their important group memberships—their social identities— and how group memberships can become a compass for an individual’s interactions within specific groups and how self and social categorization processes set the normative boundaries for intergroup relationships.

optimal distinctiveness
self-categorization
self-enhancement
social identity
uncertainty

You do not currently have access to this article

Please login to access the full content.

Access to the full content requires a subscription

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Psychology. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 12 September 2024

Cookie Policy
Privacy Policy
Legal Notice
Accessibility
[185.148.24.167]
185.148.24.167

Character limit 500 /500

Social Identity Theory

First Online: 02 July 2019

Cite this chapter

Daan Scheepers 3 , 4 &
Naomi Ellemers 4

188k Accesses

97 Citations

3 Altmetric

According to social identity theory, people derive part of their identity – their social identity – from the groups to which they belong (e.g., an identity as “student,” “woman,” “left-hander,” or “Barcelona supporter”). Social identities differ in strength and content. The strength component is conceptualized in terms of social identification (e.g., “I identity strongly with Europeans”), while the content of social identity is determined by the group’s features (e.g., colors associated with a soccer team) and norms (e.g., “real men don’t cry”). Social identity determines emotions (e.g., depression after a team loss) and behavior (e.g., discrimination against out-groups or effort on behalf of one’s in-group). In this chapter we outline the basic features of social identity theory – from social categorization to coping with a negative social identity – and then discuss two important domains of application: health and organizations. We conclude by describing a social identity-based intervention for improving intergroup relations in an educational setting.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

Get 10 units per month
Download Article/Chapter or eBook
1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
Cancel anytime
Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Available as EPUB and PDF
Compact, lightweight edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info
Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Towards a Clearer Understanding of Social Identity Theory’s Self-Esteem Hypothesis

The Role of Autonomy in Intergroup Processes: Toward an Integration of Self-Determination Theory and Intergroup Approaches

Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1988). Comments on the motivational status of self-esteem in social identity and intergroup discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18 , 317–334. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420180403

Article Google Scholar

Ashforth, B. E., & Kreiner, G. E. (1999). “How can you do it?”: Dirty work and the challenge of constructing a positive identity. Academy of Management Review, 24 , 413–434. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.2202129

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 17 , 20–39. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4278999

Boezeman, E., & Ellemers, N. (2008). Volunteer recruitment: The role of organizational support and anticipated respect in non-volunteers’ attraction to charitable volunteer organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93 , 1013–1026. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.1013

Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Harvey, R. D. (1999). Perceiving pervasive discrimination among African-Americans: Implications for group identification and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77 , 135–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.1.135

Braveman, P., Egerter, S., & Williams, D. R. (2011). The social determinants of health: Coming of age. Annual Review of Public Health, 32 , 381–398. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031210-101218

Danaher, K., & Branscombe, N. R. (2010). Maintaining the system with tokenism: Bolstering individual mobility beliefs and identification with a discriminatory organization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49 , 343–362. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466609X457530

Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Saguy, T. (2007). Another view of “we”: Majority and minority group perspectives on a common ingroup identity. European Review of Social Psychology, 18 , 296–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280701726132

Ellemers, N. (1993). The influence of socio-structural variables on identity management strategies. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.). European Review of Social Psychology, 4 , 27–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779343000013b

Ellemers, N., De Gilder, D., & Haslam, S. A. (2004). Motivating individuals and groups at work: A social identity perspective on leadership and group performance. Academy of Management Review, 29 , 459–478. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2004.13670967

Ellemers, N., De Gilder, D., & Van den Heuvel, H. (1998). Career-oriented versus team-oriented commitment and behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83 , 717–730. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.5.717

Ellemers, N., Kingma, L., Van de Burgt, J., & Barreto, M. (2011). Corporate social responsibility as a source of organizational morality, employee commitment and satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Moral Psychology, 1 , 97–124.

Google Scholar

Ellemers, N., Kortekaas, P., & Ouwerkerk, J. (1999). Self-categorization, commitment to the group and social self-esteem as related but distinct aspects of social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29 , 371–389. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199903/05)29:2/3<371::AID-EJSP932>3.0.CO;2-U

Ellemers, N., & Rink, F. (2016). Diversity in work groups. Current Opinion in Psychology, 11 , 49–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.06.001

Ellemers, N., Sleebos, E., Stam, D., & de Gilder, D. (2013). Feeling included and valued: How perceived respect affects positive team identity and willingness to invest in the team. British Journal of Management, 24 , 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00784.x

Faniko, K., Ellemers, N., Derks, B., & Lorenzi-Cioldi, F. (2017). Nothing changes, really: Why women who break through the glass ceiling end up reinforcing it. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43 , 638–651. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217695551

Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model . Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

Haslam, A., Van Knippenberg, D., Platow, M., & Ellemers, N. (Eds.). (2003). Social identity at work: Developing theory for organizational practice . Psychology Press, Philadelphia, PA.

Haslam, S. A., & Ellemers, N. (2005). Social identity in industrial and organisational psychology. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 20 , 39–118. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470029307.ch2

Haslam, S. A., Jetten, J., Postmes, T. & and Haslam, C. (2009). Social identity, health and well-being: An emerging agenda for applied psychology. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 58 (1), 1–23.

Haslam, S. A., O’Brien, A., Jetten, J., Vormedal, K., & Penna, S. (2005). Taking the strain: Social identity, social support and the experience of stress. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44 , 355–370. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466605X37468

Haslam, S. A., & Platow, M. J. (2001). The link between leadership and followership: How affirming social identity translates vision into action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27 , 1469–1479. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672012711008

Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & Platow, M. J. (2011). The new psychology of leadership . London, UK: Psychology Press.

Ho, K. (2009). Liquidated: An ethnography of Wall Street . Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Book Google Scholar

Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25 , 121–140. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.2791606

Leach, C., Ellemers, N., & Barreto, M. (2007). Group virtue: The importance of morality vs. competence and sociability in the evaluation of in-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93 , 234–249. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.2.234

Leach, C. W., van Zomeren, M., Zebel, S., Vliek, M. L. W., Pennekamp, S. F., Doosje, B., … Spears, R. (2008). Group-level self-definition and self-investment: A hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95 , 144–165. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.144

Malone, C., & Fiske, S. T. (2013). The human brand . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Martin, K. D., & Cullen, J. B. (2006). Continuities and extensions of ethical climate theory: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Business Ethics, 69 , 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9084-7

Moran, M. S., & Sussman, S. (2014). Translating the link between social identity and health behavior into effective health communication strategies: An experimental application using antismoking advertisements. Health Communication, 29 , 1057–1066. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2013.832830

Ouwerkerk, J., Ellemers, N., & De Gilder, D. (1999). Group commitment and individual effort in experimental and organizational contexts. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 184–204). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.

Oyserman, D., Fryberg, S. A., & Yoder, N. (2007). Identity-based motivation and health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93 , 1011–1027. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.6.1011

Postmes, T., Tanis, M., & De Wit, B. (2001). Communication and commitment in organizations: A social identity approach. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 4 , 227–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430201004003004

Scheepers, D. (2009). Turning social identity threat into challenge: Status stability and cardiovascular reactivity during intergroup competition. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45 , 228–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.09.011

Scheepers, D., Spears, R., Doosje, B., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2006). The social functions of ingroup bias: Creating, confirming or changing social reality. European Review of Social Psychology, 17 , 359–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280601088773

Schmitt, M. T., Branscombe, N. R., Kobrynowicz, D., & Owen, S. (2002). Perceiving discrimination against one’s gender group has different implications for well-being in women and men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28 , 197–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202282006

Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (1969). Social psychology . New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Simha, A., & Cullen, J. B. (2012). Ethical climates and their effects on organizational outcomes: Implications from the past and prophecies for the future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26 , 20–34. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2011.0156

Smidts, A., Pruyn, A. T. H., & van Riel, C. B. (2001). The impact of employee communication and perceived external prestige on organizational identification. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (5), 1051–1062. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069448

Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223 , 96–102.

Tajfel, H. (1978). Social categorization, social identity and social comparisons. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups (pp. 61–76). London, UK: Academic Press.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Terry, D. J., Carey, C. J., & Callan, V. J. (2001). Employee adjustment to an organizational merger: An intergroup perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27 , 267–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201273001

Turner, J. C., & Brown, R. (1978). Social status, cognitive alternatives, and intergroup relations. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups (pp. 201–234). London, UK: Academic Press.

Van Prooijen, A. M., & Ellemers, N. (2015). Does it pay to be moral? How indicators or morality and competence enhance organizational and work team attractiveness. British Journal of Management, 26 , 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12055

Veenstra, K., & Haslam, S. A. (2000). Willingness to participate in industrial protest: Exploring social identification in context. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39 (2), 153–172. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466600164390

Vezzali, L., Stathi, S., Crisp, R. J., Giovannini, D., Capozza, D., & Gaertner, S. L. (2015). Imagined intergroup contact and common ingroup identity: An integrative approach. Social Psychology, 46 , 265–276. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000242

Victor, V., & Cullen, J. B. (1988). The organizational bases of ethical work climates. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33 , 101–125. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392857

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

Daan Scheepers

Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Daan Scheepers & Naomi Ellemers

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daan Scheepers .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien/Knowledge Research Center and University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany

Kai Sassenberg

Department of Psychology, Social Psychology program group, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Michael L. W. Vliek

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Scheepers, D., Ellemers, N. (2019). Social Identity Theory. In: Sassenberg, K., Vliek, M.L.W. (eds) Social Psychology in Action. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13788-5_9

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13788-5_9

Published : 02 July 2019

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-13787-8

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-13788-5

eBook Packages : Behavioral Science and Psychology Behavioral Science and Psychology (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

Social Identity Theory

How do you identify? What groups do you belong to? I’m not just talking about Facebook groups. I’m talking about the groups that you interact with every day - the groups that you feel you belong to. You may identify as a student of Temple University. Or you may identify as a member of your immediate family. Or as a Catholic.

The Social Identity Theory looks closer into how we come to belong to these groups and how it affects the way we socialize with others.

What Is Social Identity Theory?

In the late 1970s, Henri Tajfel and his team conducted a series of studies that would lead to the creation of the Social Identity Theory. The theory looks at why we are so loyal to groups that we belong to and why identification with one group inevitably causes conflict with others.

About Ingroups and Outgroups

For every “group” or " ingroup " that you belong to, there is another group. These are people that don’t identify in the same way. The “others.” The students who go to other colleges, who come from different families, or practice different religions.

These groups, and the conflicts between them, have shaped human history. Fighting over land or in the name of religion has created the countries, borders, and policies that we abide by today. Conflict between different racial, ethnic, and religious groups still dominates our headlines and affects the lives of people all around the world.

Social identity theory not only attempts to explain this "us vs. them" mentality, but also the symptoms of that mentality: prejudice, stereotyping , etc.

What Are The Three Stages of Social Identity Theory?

mental processes of social identity theory

As individuals go through three stages and enter into groups, they potentially develop the us vs. them mentality that has shaped the story of human history.

Those three stages are:

Categorization

Identification.

The first stage of the Social Identity Theory is categorization. You cannot belong to a group unless you know what groups exist.

We do this through observation of the world around us. It doesn’t take long to see that people are divided into different groups. All it takes is walking into a school cafeteria (like that iconic scene in Mean Girls) or listening to the news. Groups are labeled by their religion, nationality, physical abilities, so on and so forth.

Once you can categorize the world into different groups, it’s time to look at yourself. How do you identify?

Understanding your identity does more than continue to simplify how you look at the world and the different groups within it. It can also give you a sense of belonging.

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs has remained a crucial model for understanding human behavior and what motivates us to make decisions. At the bottom of this hierarchy is basic needs. Before we can explore the world at large, we need to feel safe and know where our next meal is coming from. Once these needs are satisfied, we seek love and belonging.

We can get this love and belonging from identifying with certain groups. This desire for belonging may also influence the ways in which we mold ourselves to fit more into that group. Maybe you join a fraternity and start wearing that fraternity’s letters around campus. Or you become a young professional and jazz up your wardrobe to look more like the professionals at your work. Hairstyles, fashion trends, and even decisions on where to live may all be influenced by a person’s desire to fit in with a certain group.

Examples of Identification in Social Identity Theory

There are many ways to answer this question. You can identify yourself as a man, woman, or non-binary person. In addition to this, you can identify as a Catholic, Muslim, or Scientologist. You can also identify as straight, lesbian, or pansexual. Or you can choose to identify as none of these things! Just as you might identify someone as a man, a feminist, and a member of the football team, you may also take on multiple identities and feel that you belong to different groups.

The style of our hair or the car we drive makes it more obvious that we belong to a certain group. When we communicate this identity to people in that group, we are validated and feel that necessary sense of love and belonging.

Why do we get this type of validation from making our identities more “obvious?”

It’s because the last stage of the Social Identity Theory is comparison. This is where the Us vs. Them mentality starts to come into play.

Is Social Identity Theory Testable?

One of Henri Tajfel’s experiments regarding the Social Identity Theory asked participants to compare and assess people in different groups. The participants were given a group to identify with. (This group was meaningless outside of the experiment.) Throughout the experiment, Tajfel’s team asked participants to give points to other participants.

Even though the groups were arbitrary, participants were more likely to give points to people in their group. This is a clear reflection of how we compare ourselves and people in our group to “outsiders.” Although other factors like race, age, or gender may have influenced their decisions, the categorization by Tajfel alone was enough to influence the participants.

Henri Tajfel Quotes

Henri Tajfel was a Polish-born social psychologist best known for his work with the social identity theory. He has written a handful of books on the subject. Below are some of his most notable quotes.

From a Publication in Psychological Review

" Thus, it may well be that an accentuation of differences in size will hardly occur between two paintings, one liked and one indifferent or disliked. But when skin color, or height, or some facial traits of social ‘value’ are concerned, there will be marked sharpening of differences in the degree of these characteristics perceived as belonging to individuals who are assigned to different categories."

From an Essay in the Journal of Social Issues

" The etiology of intergroup relations cannot be properly understood without the help of an analysis of their cognitive aspects, and also that this analysis cannot be derived from statements about motivation and about instinctive behaviour."

Books by Henri Tajfel include:

Human Groups and Social Categories
Social Identity and Intergroup Relations
Differentiation Between Social Groups
The Social Psychology of Minorities

Examples of Social Identity Theory

It’s in our nature to make these categorizations and comparisons. Yuval Noel Harari, the author of Sapiens , says “Homo sapiens evolved to think of people as divided into us and them. ‘Us’ was the group immediately around you, whoever you were, and ‘them’ was everyone else. In fact, no social animal is ever guided by the interests of the entire species to which it belongs. No chimpanzee cares about the interests of the chimpanzee species, no snail will lift a tentacle for the global snail community.”

Early Homo Sapiens weren’t motivated by identity politics. They were motivated by limited resources, including food, water, and shelter. They could trust that people in their own group would share the wealth and provide for people within their group. But “them?” Letting “them” have access to these limited resources could threaten the livelihood of the group they belonged to.

This could explain why people in Tajfel’s experiment were more likely to give points to people in their group.

This story is all too familiar. Have you ever heard someone say that they are worried that immigrants are taking jobs away from citizens? Or that the country is “overrun” by people of a different faith or identity? These are the same fears that early Homo sapiens when they lived as hunter-gatherers. They motivate politicians to make laws banning people from having certain rights or putting “others” into internment camps.

Criticisms of Social Identity Theory

No theory is perfect. Social Identity Theory, like many theories in social psychology, may conflict with other theories or fail to explain everything. Take, for example, this question from Reddit:

"Is it fair to argue that social identity theory is limited in terms of understanding internalised oppression and identifying with out-groups?"

They follow up with this question by saying, " I ask this question because of theory’s emphasis on pride and self esteem gained through in-group identification. However, as we know, this is not always the case. Throughout history, marginalised groups have identified with oppressive narratives against their own groups. In such instances, I feel that other theory’s , such as symbolic Interactionism, particularly Cooley’s theory of the looking glass self, may better capture such dynamics. However, I am not sure if I am missing something."

Users responded with additional resources and ideas within social identity theory that we have not explained on this page.

u/browneyes3190 said:

" There is a part of SIT that explains how people with stigmatized identities manage their identities and strive to achieve positive distinctiveness. There are three main strategies. The one you describe is called individual mobility and is when people de-identify with their stigmatized group and seek to join a higher status group instead. Socio-structural conditions influence people’s ability to follow the different strategies (e.g., permeability of group boundaries)."

u/soggyagain said:

"I think there are extensions to SIT which address socio-structural conditions like the stability and permeability of identities and it is within the scope of SIT for people to hold multiple identities which have conflicting interactions. It might be that a minority individual thinks, rightly or wrongly, that there is some permeability in the majority group and can cross over by identifying with it in some way. I don't know enough about SIT to say it definitely doesn't cover internalised oppression. But seems like you do have to draw on a concept about how the self is seen by others to explain these phenomena - the one that came to mind was W.E.B. DuBois explanation of Black American experience as double-consciousness - that has obvious similarities with the mirror-self though!

u/no_mango said:

" Look up self categorization theory and the concept of depersonalization."

The comments on this Reddit post helped the user gain clarity on what this theory had to say about certain behaviors and thought patterns. If you have any questions about what you are learning online or in your basic psychology classes, just ask!

This Is Just An Introduction to Social Identity Theory

There is a lot more to learn and explore within the Social Identity Theory. As the Reddit user mentioned earlier said, not everyone who is “part of a group” wants to be identified within that group. Other factors also impact ingroups and outgroups. Threats to the group may result in the group disbanding. And within these groups, people can move “up the ranks” or be categorized into smaller groups.

So keep learning, keep listening, and keep exploring different areas of psychology that might provide further insight into the ideas of identity and belonging!

Identity Achievement (in Psychology)
Identity Crisis (Definition + Examples)
Social Groups in Psychology
Identity vs Confusion: Psychosocial Stage 5
Ingroup Bias (Definition + Examples)

Reference this article:

About The Author

PracticalPie.com is a participant in the Amazon Associates Program. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Youtube Facebook Instagram X/Twitter

Psychology Resources

Developmental

Personality

Relationships

Psychologists

Serial Killers

Psychology Tests

Personality Quiz

Memory Test

Depression test

Type A/B Personality Test

Understanding Social Identity Theory and Its Impact on Behavior

Gary Waters / Getty Images

Archaeology

Ph.D., Psychology, Fielding Graduate University
M.A., Psychology, Fielding Graduate University
B.A., Film Studies, Cornell University

Social identity is the part of the self that is defined by one’s group memberships. Social identity theory, which was formulated by social psychologist Henri Tajfel and John Turner in the 1970s, describes the conditions under which social identity becomes more important than one’s identity as an individual. The theory also specifies how social identity can influence intergroup behavior.

Key Takeaways: Social Identity Theory

Social identity theory, introduced by social psychologists Henri Tajfel and John Turner in the 1970s, describes the cognitive processes related to social identity and how social identity impacts intergroup behavior.
Social identity theory is built on three key cognitive components: social categorization, social identification, and social comparison.
Generally, individuals wish to maintain a positive social identity by maintaining their group’s favorable social standing over that of relevant out-groups.
In-group favoritism can result in negative and discriminatory outcomes, but research demonstrates that in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination are distinct phenomena, and one does not necessarily predict the other.

Origins: Studies of In-Group Favoritism

Social identity theory arose from Henri Tajfel’s early work, which examined the way perceptual processes resulted in social stereotypes and prejudice. This led to a series of studies that Tajfel and his colleagues conducted in the early 1970s that are referred to as minimal-group studies.

In these studies, participants were arbitrarily assigned to different groups . Despite the fact that their group membership was meaningless, the research showed that participants favored the group they were assigned to—their in-group—over the out-group, even if they received no personal benefits from their group membership and had no history with members of either group.

The studies demonstrated that group membership was so powerful that simply classifying people into groups is enough to make people think of themselves in terms of that group membership. Furthermore, this categorization led to in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination, indicating that intergroup conflict could exist in the absence of any direct competition between groups.

Based on this research, Tajfel first defined the concept of social identity in 1972. The concept of social identity was created as a means to consider the way one conceptualizes the self , based on the social groups to which one belongs.

Then, Tajfel and his student John Turner introduced social identity theory in 1979. The theory aimed to illuminate both the cognitive processes that lead people to define their group memberships and the motivational processes that enable people to maintain positive social identity by favorably comparing their social group to other groups.

Cognitive Processes of Social Identity

Social identity theory specifies three mental processes individuals go through to make in-group/out-group classifications.

The first process, social categorization , is the process by which we organize individuals into social groups in order to understand our social world. This process enables us to define people, including ourselves, based on the groups to which we belong. We tend to define people based on their social categories more often than their individual characteristics.

Social categorization generally results in an emphasis on the similarities of people in the same group and the differences between people in separate groups. One can belong to a variety of social categories, but different categories will be more or less important depending on social circumstances. For example, a person can define themselves as a business executive, an animal lover, and a devoted aunt, but those identities will only come up if they are relevant to the social situation.

The second process, social identification , is the process of identifying as a group member. Socially identifying with a group leads individuals to behave in the way that they believe members of that group should behave. For instance, if an individual defines herself as an environmentalist, she may try to conserve water, recycle whenever possible, and march in rallies for climate change awareness. Through this process, people become emotionally invested in their group memberships. Consequently, their self-esteem is impacted by the status of their groups.

The third process, social comparison , is the process by which people compare their group with other groups in terms of prestige and social standing. To maintain self-esteem, one must perceive their in-group as having a higher social standing than an out-group. For example, a movie star might judge himself favorably in comparison to a reality TV show star. Yet, he may see himself as having a lower social standing in comparison to a famous classically-trained Shakespearean actor. It’s important to remember that per social identity theory, an in-group member won’t compare themselves with just any out-group—the comparison must be pertinent to the situation.

Maintenance of Positive Social Identity

As a general rule of social identity theory, people are motivated to feel positive about themselves and maintain their self-esteem . The emotional investments people make in their group memberships result in their self-esteem being tied to the social standing of their in-groups. Consequently, a positive evaluation of one's in-group in comparison to relevant out-groups results in a positive social identity. If a positive evaluation of one's in-group isn’t possible, however, individuals will generally employ one of three strategies:

Individual mobility . When an individual does not view her group favorably, she can attempt to leave the current group and join one with a higher social standing. Of course, this won’t alter the status of the group, but it can alter the status of the individual.
Social creativity . In-group members can enhance the social standing of their existing group by adjusting some element of the between-group comparison. This can be accomplished by choosing a different dimension on which to compare the two groups, or by adjusting value judgments so that what was once thought to be negative is now considered positive. Another option is to compare the in-group to a different out-group—specifically, an out-group that has a lower social status.
Social competition . In-group members can attempt to enhance the group's social status by collectively working to improve their situation. In this case, the in-group competes directly with an out-group with the objective of reversing the group's social positions on one or more dimensions.

Discrimination Against Out-Groups

In-group favoritism and out-group discrimination are often viewed as two sides of the same coin. However, social identity theory research has shown that this is not necessarily the case. There is not a systematic relationship between the positive perception of one’s in-group and the negative perception of out-groups. Helping in-group members while withholding such help from out-group members differs significantly from actively working to harm out-group members.

In-group favoritism can result in negative outcomes, from prejudice and stereotypes to institutional racism and sexism . However, such favoritism does not always lead to hostility towards out-groups. Social identity theory research demonstrates that in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination are distinct phenomena, and one does not necessarily predict the other.

Brewer, Marilynn B. “Intergroup Relations.” Advanced Social Psychology: The State of the Science , edited by Roy F. Baumeister and Eli J. Finkel, Oxford University Press, 2010, pp. 535-571.
Ellemers, Naomi. “ Social Identity Theory .” Encyclopedia Britannica, 2017.
McLeod, Saul. “ Social Identity Theory .” Simply Psychology , 2008.
Hogg, Michael A., and Kipling D. Williams. “ From I to We: Social Identity and the Collective Self .” Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice , vol. 4, no. 1, 2000, pp. 81-97.
Tajfel, Henri, and John Turner. “ An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict. ” The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations , edited by William G. August and Stephen Worchel, Brooks/Cole, 1979, pp. 33-47.
Social Constructionism Definition and Examples
What Is Self-Concept in Psychology?
What Is a Schema in Psychology? Definition and Examples
What Was the Robbers Cave Experiment in Psychology?
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Explained
Information Processing Theory: Definition and Examples
What Is Deindividuation in Psychology? Definition and Examples
Psychodynamic Theory: Approaches and Proponents
What Is Attachment Theory? Definition and Stages
Social Cognitive Theory: How We Learn From the Behavior of Others
What Is Gender Socialization? Definition and Examples
Emerging Adulthood: The "In-Between" Developmental Stage
What Is Survivor's Guilt? Definition and Examples
Cultivation Theory
What Is Identity Diffusion? Definition and Examples
An Introduction to Erikson’s Stages of Psychosocial Development

Social Identity Theory

Introduction to Social Identity Theory

In the grand theater of human interaction, where every individual is both actor and audience, there exists a powerful director—social identity. It is the invisible force that shapes our perceptions, guides our actions, and scripts the narratives of our communal existence. Social Identity Theory, a beacon in the vast sea of social psychology, illuminates the profound ways in which we, as social beings, define ourselves in relation to the groups we belong to. This theory invites us to delve into the depths of our collective psyche. Through the theory, we explore the intricate dance between self-conception and group affiliation. Group identity leaves indelible marks both through beauty and ugliness upon the canvas of society.

Key Definition:

Social Identity Theory is a psychological theory developed by Henri Tajfel and John Turner in the 1970s. It explores how individuals’ self-concept and identity are influenced by their membership in social groups. According to this theory, people categorize themselves and others into social groups, which can lead to in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination. Social Identity Theory suggests that individuals strive to maintain a positive social identity by enhancing the status of their groups. This can impact behavior, perception, and intergroup relations.

Historical Development

Social identity theory was pioneered by Henri Tajfel and John Turner in the 1970s. It emerged from previous work on intergroup relations and has since become a cornerstone of social psychology.

Social Identity Theory is a significant concept in social psychology that explains how individuals form a self-concept from social groups. British social psychologist Henri Tajfel and his colleagues created the early foundations of Social Identity Theory in the early 1970s.

Tajfel originally developed the theory from a series of studies known as the minimal-group studies. These studies demonstrated that merely categorizing individuals into arbitrary groups was sufficient to lead them to favor their own group. Ingroup identification motivated bias and discrimination against outgroup individuals. This finding was contrary to the prevailing thought, which suggested that objective conflict of interest was necessary for intergroup conflict to arise.

Basics of Social Identity Theory

Peter J. Burke, a Distinguished Professor of Sociology at University of California, Riverside, explains that “Social identity theory defines group cognitively— in terms of people’s self-conception as group members.” He continues, “a group exists psychologically if three or more people construe and evaluate themselves in terms of shared attributes that distinguish them collectively from other people” ( Burke, 2006, p. 111 ).

An important aspect of this theory is that “simply placing people in a category on an arbitrary basis appears to cause discrimination against the other category, even despite a total lack of objective competition” ( Leyens, 1994, p. 56 ).

This theory addresses a wide range of phenomena that emerges from group identities. These include attitudes such as prejudice, discrimination, ethnocentrism, stereotyping, intergroup conflict, conformity, normative behavior, group polarization, crowd behavior, organizational behavior, leadership, deviance, and group cohesiveness.

Tied to the chain link fence, on an overpass of a main freeway, in a major metropolitan area, on the side of town that is heavily populated with immigrants, hangs a bright yellow sign, “Believe in Jesus or go to hell!”

The message is a stark example of group identity (Christian) and its prejudice against outside group individuals. Ervin Staub explains that “antagonism to another group intensifies feelings of belonging.” He continues, “shared enmity strengthens group identity especially when the ingroup is not greatly endangered by the outgroup” ( Staub, 1992, p. 49 ).

Evolution of Social Identity Theory

Social Identity Theory was initially focused on intergroup conflict and relations, aiming to connect cognitive processes with behavioral motivation.

The theory has evolved over time and has been expanded upon by various researchers, including Tajfel’s student John Turner, who further specified the cognitive factors relevant to social identification. This has led to a more comprehensive understanding of how people interpret their own position in different social contexts and how that affects their perceptions of others, as well as their behavior in groups. Social Identity Theory continues to be a foundational theory in social psychology, providing insights into the cognitive processes and social conditions underlying intergroup behaviors.

Key Concepts

The theory posits that individuals strive to maintain a positive social identity by favoring their in-group over out-groups, leading to intergroup bias and discrimination. This phenomenon is influenced by factors such as categorization, social comparison, and distinctiveness.

Social Identity Theory, developed by Henri Tajfel and John Turner, revolves around several key concepts that explain how individuals perceive themselves within social contexts and how this perception influences their behavior. Here are the central concepts:

Social Categorization : This is the process of classifying oneself and others into groups based on shared characteristics such as race, gender, nationality, or religion. It simplifies the social environment but can lead to stereotyping.
Social Identification : Once individuals categorize themselves as part of a group, they adopt the identity of that group, including its norms, values, and behaviors. This identification influences how they think, feel, and act.
Social Comparison : Individuals compare their groups with other groups, seeking a positive distinctiveness for their own group. This comparison can contribute to a sense of pride and self-esteem based on group membership.
Group Dynamics : The theory examines how being part of a group affects individual behavior and attitudes, including conformity to group norms and intergroup conflict.
Self-Esteem : Group affiliations can boost self-esteem as individuals derive pride from group achievements and a positive group image.

These concepts collectively explain why and how individuals identify with certain groups and the impact of this identification on their interactions with members of their own and other groups

Applications in Social Psychology

Sociologists have applied Social identity theory to various real-world contexts. These applications include prejudice, stereotyping, intergroup conflict, and organizational behavior. It has provided valuable insights into understanding human behavior within social groups.

An Example of Social Identity Theory

Imagine two individuals, Alice and Bob, who live in a society where political parties play a significant role in shaping public opinion and policy. Alice identifies strongly with the Green Party, a political group that emphasizes environmental protection and social justice. Bob, on the other hand, feels a deep connection to the Blue Party, known for its focus on economic growth and national security.

According to Social Identity Theory, Alice and Bob’s partially derive their sense of self from their respective party affiliations. They both experience a boost in self-esteem when their party succeeds and feel a sense of belonging when interacting with fellow party members. During election campaigns, Alice might wear Green Party badges and attend rallies to express her affiliation and support. Bob might place a Blue Party sign in his yard and argue in favor of the party’s policies on social media.

When discussing politics, Alice tends to view Green Party policies favorably, emphasizing their benefits and downplaying any shortcomings. Bob does the same for the Blue Party. This is an example of in-group favoritism. They also engage in out-group derogation; Alice might criticize the Blue Party for neglecting environmental issues, while Bob might accuse the Green Party of hindering economic progress.

Their political party affiliation influences not only how they see themselves but also how they interpret information and interact with others. Alice and Bob are more likely to trust and agree with statements made by their party leaders and less likely to be open to opposing viewpoints. This can lead to a polarized view of political issues, where the party’s stance becomes a significant part of their social identity.

This example illustrates how we can apply Social Identity Theory to political party affiliation and its impact on individual behavior and intergroup relations.

The Good, Bad, and Ugly

We need groups. They provide security. Historically, they contributed to survival. It’s no wonder they are so ingrained into our being. However, history shows that groups also have a long history of ugliness. Mahzarin R. Banaji and Anthony G. Greenwald wrote, “but as our long, bloody history of violence against others of our species shows, we seem to be quite willing to pay a high price for the right to group-based warfare, with group boundaries constructed along arbitrary demarcations of religion, race, and geography and requiring little more than distinctive stigmata and status as cues. We plot, scheme, and plan intergroup violence, all of which suggest highly conscious and reflective acts of hostility” ( Banaji & Greenwald, 2016, p. 124 ).

Group identity has several positive impacts on both the individual and society. Here are some key benefits:

Sense of Belonging : Social identity can provide individuals with a sense of belonging, purpose, self-worth, and identity. Being part of a group helps individuals feel connected and unified.
Shared Goals and Meaning : Groups often have shared goals and meaning, which can create a framework for individuals to understand themselves within the context of society, defining values, attributes, and beliefs.
Social Support : Group identification can ‘buffer’ individuals from everyday stresses by providing a sense of meaning and security, as well as increasing the likelihood of receiving useful social support from fellow group members.
Cultural Pride and Participation : Having a strong sense of identity allows individuals to understand, appreciate, and take pride in their cultural heritage. This can empower them to participate actively in society, express their unique perspective, and contribute to positive societal change.

These impacts highlight the importance of group identity in fostering a sense of community, support, and shared purpose among individuals, which can lead to a more cohesive and resilient society.

Group identity, while fostering a sense of belonging and shared purpose, can also have negative impacts on both individuals and society:

Ingroup Bias : Strong group identity can lead to favoritism towards one’s own group and discrimination against those not in the group, which can manifest as prejudice, stereotyping, and even conflict.
Conformity Pressure : Individuals may feel pressured to conform to group norms and values, sometimes at the expense of their own beliefs and well-being.
Loss of Individuality : In some cases, group identity can overshadow personal identity, leading individuals to suppress their unique traits and opinions to align with the group ( Staub, 1992, p. 49 ).
Inter-Group Conflict : Group identity can intensify rivalries and create discord between different groups within society, potentially leading to social unrest or violence.
Ethnocentrism and Discrimination : By defining others as “not like us” and inferior, groups can practice ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, ageism, and heterosexism—judging others negatively based on their culture, race, sex, age, or sexuality.
Systems of Oppression : Group identities can contribute to systems of oppression. When certain groups have more power and privilege over others, the inequality causes suffering and oppression.

These negative impacts highlight the importance of balancing group affiliation with individual autonomy and promoting intergroup understanding to mitigate potential harms.

Ingroup bias is an ugly part of human history, often with devastating consequences. Here are several historical examples:

Tribalism in Early Societies : We can trace the earliest forms of ingroup bias back to tribalism in ancient human societies. In these societies fierce loyalty to one’s tribe often motivated conflict with others.
Racial Segregation : The history of racial segregation in the United States is a stark example of ingroup bias, where laws and social norms favored white Americans over African Americans, leading to systemic discrimination and inequality.
Religious Wars : Ingroup bias fueled the Crusades, a series of religious wars in the medieval period.. Christians and Muslims fought over holy sites and power, each side viewing the other as the outgroup.
Ethnic Cleansing : The genocide in Rwanda in 1994, where Hutus targeted Tutsis, is a tragic example of ingroup bias escalating to extreme violence and mass murder.
Nazi Germany in World War II : One of the most extreme and horrific examples of ingroup bias leading to atrocity was the Nazi regime, under Adolf Hitler. This group promoted an ideology of Aryan supremacy. The ingroup ideology led to the systematic persecution and extermination of Jews, Romani people, disabled individuals, and many other groups deemed “inferior” or outside the Aryan ingroup. This bias was used to justify the genocide known as the Holocaust, where millions of people were murdered in concentration camps. It stands as a stark reminder of the potential for ingroup bias to fuel prejudice, dehumanization, and violence on a massive scale.

Psychology Experiments Displaying the Ugly:

The Robbers Cave Experiment : In the 1950s, psychologist Muzafer Sherif’s Robbers Cave experiment demonstrated how easily ingroup bias can be created. And how ingroup bias can lead to conflict. He observed that even arbitrary group distinctions could lead to hostility between groups.
The Stanford Prison Experiment : Philip Zimbardo conducted this study in 1971. It is another profound example of ingroup bias and its potential for harm. In this study, Zimbardo assigned college students to roles of either guards or prisoners in a simulated prison environment. The experiment quickly spiraled out of control. The individuals assigned to be guards began to exhibit abusive behaviors towards the “prisoners.” These behaviors occurred despite the arbitrary nature of assigned roles. Zimbardo intended the experiment to last two weeks. However, he terminated it after only six days due to the extreme and distressing changes in behavior of the participants. The guards became increasingly cruel and authoritarian, while the prisoners became passive and depressed. The Stanford Prison Experiment demonstrated how quickly and easily people could adopt roles that led to inhumane treatment of others. The experiment showcases the dark side of ingroup bias when individuals identify strongly with a powerful group.

These examples show how ingroup bias can lead to prejudice, discrimination, and even violence, underscoring the importance of fostering understanding and cooperation between different groups to prevent such outcomes. Unscrupulous politicians and leaders understand the power of group identity. They create unity by creating an enemy. They joyful create divisions and hate to solidate unquestioning support. Accordingly, we must wisely watch, and critically examine in-group dynamics of hate and segregation. Our efforts may prevent another ugly episode that further stains the history of humanity.

Criticisms and Future Directions

Social Identity Theory, while influential in the field of social psychology, has faced several criticisms over the years. Here are some of the main critiques:

Minimizing Individualism : Critics argue that the theory may overly emphasize social identity at the expense of individual identity. It has been suggested that individuality plays a central role in fostering group identity and purpose. This is especially true in groups characterized by interpersonal relations.
Culture and History : Some critics from political science believe that Social Identity Theory overlooks the importance of history and culture. They argue that identity formation is not just the product of group designation. They suggest that subjective factors are also influenced by cultural and historical contexts.
Self-Esteem : Authorities have criticized the theory’s posited correlation between high self-esteem and in-group bias for oversimplifying a complex relationship. Research suggests that collective self-esteem also plays a crucial role in moderating social identity and group boundaries.
In-Group Bias : Some authorities have challenged the hypothesis that high levels of group identification correlate with in-group bias. Critics argue that group identification may not be the most important variable and that the theory assumes that characteristics of group identity are stable rather than dynamic.

These criticisms highlight the ongoing debate and refinement of Social Identity Theory. We should continue research, exploring the complexities of social identity and intergroup relations.

A Few Words by Psychology Fanatic

As we draw the final strokes on the canvas of our exploration into Social Identity Theory, we stand back to admire a picture that is as complex as it is captivating. This theory has taken us on a profound journey through the landscape of the self. Social Identity Theory travels over the terrains where individuality and group affiliation intersect and often collide. We have seen how the banners of our social groups can be both a source of pride and a cause for division. Groups can lead us to acts of great solidarity and, at times, to the barricades of conflict.

Yet, in this intricate dance of identity, there lies a powerful opportunity for growth and understanding. Social Identity Theory does not just explain the mechanics of our group affiliations; it also offers a lens through which we can examine the very fabric of society. It challenges us to look beyond the surface.

Protecting Against the Ugly

We can critically question the roots of biases. We can harness the power of our collective identities for the greater good. Philip Zimbardo encourages that we can “combat mind control tactics used to compromise our freedom of choice to the tyranny of conformity, compliance, obedience, and self-doubting fears.” Unfortunately, groups and group leaders often manipulate members, stealing individual freedoms. Groups glorify loyalty over autonomy. Their call is “stop thinking, just follow!”

Zimbardo explains that “by understanding how social influence operates and by realizing that any of us can be vulnerable to its subtle and pervasive powers, we can become wise and wily consumers instead of being easily influenced by authorities, group dynamics, persuasive appeals, and compliance strategies” ( Zimbardo, 2007. Kindle location: 653 ).

In the end, the true value of Social Identity Theory may lie in its call to action—a call to recognize the diversity within us and around us, to embrace the multitude of identities that make up our world, and to build bridges where walls once stood. May this knowledge empower us to forge a future where social identity is not a barrier but a bond. Let’s create groups that are not a source of division but a wellspring of unity.

Last Update: April 24, 2024

Type your email…

References:

Banaji, Mahzarin R.; Greenwald, Anthony G. ( 2016 ). Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People. Bantam ; Reprint edition.

Burke, Peter J. (2006/ 2018 ) Contemporary Social Psychological Theories. ‎ Stanford University Press; 1st edition.

Leyens, Jacques Philippe (1994). Stereotypes and Social Cognition. ‎SAGE Publications Ltd; 1st edition

Staub, Ervin ( 1992 ). The Roots of Evil: The Origins of Genocide and Other Group Violence. ‎Cambridge University Press; Revised ed. edition.

Zimbardo, Philip ( 2007 ). The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. ‎Random House; 1st edition.

Resources and Articles

Please visit Psychology Fanatic’s vast selection of articles , definitions and database of referenced books .

* Many of the quotes from books come books I have read cover to cover. I created an extensive library of notes from these books. I make reference to these books when using them to support or add to an article topic. Most of these books I read on a kindle reader. The Kindle location references seen through Psychology Fanatic is how kindle notes saves my highlights.

The peer reviewed article references mostly come from Deepdyve . This is the periodical database that I have subscribe to for nearly a decade. Over the last couple of years, I have added a DOI reference to cited articles for the reader’s convenience and reference.

Thank-you for visiting Psychology Fanatic. Psychology Fanatic represents nearly two decades of work, research, and passion.

Topic Specific Databases:

PSYCHOLOGY – EMOTIONS – RELATIONSHIPS – WELLNESS – PSYCHOLOGY TOPICS

T. Franklin Murphy

Self-Presentation Theory

Self-Presentation Theory explores how individuals intentionally shape others' perceptions of them. It delves into strategies like self-promotion, ingratiation, and authenticity.

Relativistic Thinking

Relativistic thinking challenges rigid beliefs by recognizing the subjective nature of truth. Radical relativism can paradoxically lead to absolutism. Embracing relativism involves exploring associated concepts…

Search for Truth

We believe we are autonomous in our search for truth but often settle for what others proclaim without further investigation.

Social Neuroscience

Social neuroscience explores the neural basis of social behavior, integrating psychology, neuroscience, and sociology for insights into human social interaction and behavior. It delves into…

OverSimplified Meanings

In our quest for meaning, we oversimplify explanations, ignoring complexity. This cognitive bias can lead to misunderstandings, flawed conclusions, and missed learning opportunities. Embracing complexity…

Harmful Implicit Bias. Psychology Fanatic article feature image

Harmful Implicit Biases

The human mind conserves energy naturally, using implicit biases to make quick judgments. These biases, influenced by culture and experience, can lead to harmful stereotypes,…

Tajfel's Social Identity Theory

Henri Tajfel was a British psychologist who lost his family in a concentration camp. Fortunately, he attended a French school to exit the concentration camp. After this, Tajfel was interested in how individuals develop their identities in groups or societies. According to Tajfel, groups make individuals perceive a sense of belonging, which is crucial for social beings.

Tajfel (1979) proposed that individuals tend to group things based on certain criteria. This is a common cognitive process that is called stereotyping. And when engaging in stereotyping, individuals tend to overemphasise the differences between groups and the similarities within a group. This way, the theory detects two groups: the in-group (us) and the out-group (them).

According to the Social Identity Theory (1979), individuals within a group tend to enhance other groups' negative characteristics to boost their image.

There are plenty of examples of in-group and out-group tightness. In football, for example, there are significant differences between team supporters such as Liverpool and Manchester United. In politics, labour and conservatives also tend to remark on their differences. The same can be seen in social class, in the differences between the middle and working class, for example.

Tajfel (1979) described three cognitive processes when establishing whether other individuals belong to a person's out - or in-group.

Categorization refers to the process by which individuals are put into social categories. Examples of categorisation are social categories based on nationality, such as English, Scottish, Irish, German, Spanish, Italian, etc.
Social Identification refers to the cognitive process in which individuals assess which category they feel identified with. For example, an individual may be Welsh and therefore present emotional significance to such category over other categories.
Social comparison is the last cognitive process individuals engage in. It refers to the comparison individuals make of the other categories they do not belong to. In line with the example, the social comparison would be comparing French and Welsh and finding characteristics that encourage the favourable perception of the in-group and diminish the out-group.

The theory has been used to explain discrimination. Discrimination is the manifestation of prejudice towards certain people or groups of people. Discrimination usually involves treating individuals differently because they belong to another religious, ethnic, or nationality group, for example. Discrimination usually manifests as favouritism to the in-group and negative bias toward the out-group.

Basic psychology, Social Influence, Photo depicting one the application of the social identity theory, StudySmarter.

Tajfel’s Social Identity Theory Experiment

Tajfel ran two different experiments testing the Social Identity Theory. The studies had the aim of finding out what causes prejudice . To assess this, Tajfel tested whether categorisation was sufficient for discrimination against the out-group.

Experiment on Social Categorisation (1971)

This experiment included a sample of 64 teenage boys from a comprehensive school in Bristol. The study showed a between-group comparison with two conditions. Each condition presented 4 groups of 8 individuals.

Participants walked into the room to perform a visual judgement task. Clusters containing a given amount of dots were flashed on a screen. Participants had to estimate the number of dots they had seen per screen. They kept a written record of their answers in a booklet.

Two experimental conditions emerge based on what participants were told after this phase. The researchers told participants in condition one (neutral condition) that certain individuals tend to overestimate the number of dots on the screen in such types of experiments. In contrast, others tend to underestimate such numbers. Further, researchers specified that such over/underestimations were unrelated to accuracy.

Condition two (value condition) is different in that the teenage participants were told that in such experiments, some participants perform consistently more accurately than others.

Reward Allocation Task

After this first phase of the experiment, participants were told they would be put into different groups based on the criteria described above. In reality, participants were randomly assigned to the groups. This reflects the process of categorisation.

To assess the effects of categorisation, participants were told which group they were in. The groups were the following:

Group including boys who estimated high.

Group including boys who estimated low.

Group including boys who guessed accurately.

Group including boys who guessed less accurately.

Participants' task in this second part of the experiment was to assess the answer booklets and to offer monetary rewards and penalties for the scores. The booklets were anonymised, so participants did not know whose booklets they were reviewing.

Tajfel compared the results from the two conditions: neutral and value condition. Although there was no significant difference between neural and value conditions in the assessment of the booklets, there was a tendency to favour the in-group and a negative bias towards the out-group.

Building on such results, Tajfel conducted a second experiment.

‘Klee and Kandinsky’ Experiment (1971)

The second experiment aimed to test whether participants would favour and give more points to the in-group members than to the out-group.

Forty-eight students aged 14 to 15 from the same school in Bristol participated in this study. Researchers divided participants into two groups and told them that the experimenters would explore their art preferences.

During the experimental part, participants were shown twelve pictures of Klee or Kandinsky and told to indicate which they liked better. Participants were unaware of which artist had created pictures since the names were covered. After this, participants were told they would be divided into two groups based on their preferences, but again, the group allocation was random.

In the second part of the experiment, participants were asked to assign points to other participants which would later be converted into prizes. Although participants did not know the exact person whose answer they were reviewing, they did know whether the person was in their group to not.

In this second experiment, the scoring was different. Participants were given pairs of teenagers (one from their group and one from the other group). Scores had to be split between the two pair members. For example, a pair would be given a score of 14, which needed to be divided in two. The participant could then decide how to split sich scoring. He may give 7 points to each participant, 10 points to one and 4 to the other, or 2 to one and 12 to the other, and so on.

This type of scoring allowed researchers to test three different variables :

Maximum joint profit: this meant that teenagers could give the largest rewards to either a member of their group or to a member of the other group.
Largest rewards to ingroup: boys could choose the largest possible reward for the member of their own group regardless of the rewards given to a boy in an outgroup.
Maximum difference: boys could decide what the maximum difference between the scores of the two groups was.

The results suggested that participants gave higher scores to members of their own group as compared to the out-group (maximum joint profit). T his was in their best interest since they were told they would receive a prize for the points.

Furthermore, participants chose to assign points to other boys in their in-group and did so consistently, ignoring the fair alternative, i.e., they favoured their in-group.

The boys even failed to maximise their gains only to disadvantage the out-group (negative out-group bias).

Taken together, these findings provide evidence of inter-group discrimination. Tajfel demonstrated that categorisation leads to group discrimination. This was concluded from the fact that in both experiments more money was assigned to those individuals in the in-group than in the out-group. Furthermore, the second experiment also provided evidence that individuals find value in maximising group differences.

Social Identity Theory Evaluation

When it comes to the evaluation of a theory there are always strengths and weaknesses

The theory has been widely used not only in explaining prejudice but also in explaining individual differences in prejudice. Some individuals, for example, have stronger needs for social acceptance than others.
Another strength of the theory is that it does not assume that intergroup conflict needs to take place for discrimination to occur. General knowledge would make it tempting for some to argue that conflict is required for discrimination, but the theory successfully proved this statement wrong.
Among the weaknesses of the theory, there is the fact that although social identity theory explains how discrimination occurs, it fails to predict behaviour.
Secondly, the theory fails to consider factors that may be crucial when groups engage in discrimination such as the cultural expectations of the social constraints.

Social identity Theory and Politics of Identity

Identity politics refers to the political approach that includes movements to stop the discrimination of certain social groups due to their race, nationality, religion or sexual preferences. The field of politics has greatly benefited from the application of the social identity theory. There is evidence that the social identity theory is not only used to explain in-group and our-group conflict but that it can explain social actions and change 1 . This, in turn, makes the theory especially relevant for identity politics and for discrimination policies.

Social Identity Theory Examples

One of the examples with which almost all humans can see themselves in line with the theory of social identity is race and ethnicity. Differences in race and ethnicity are to an extent biological, but differences can also be social. In multi-racial societies, those individuals of the same race usually feel an affinity towards those who share the same race, and therefore perspectives and traditions as them. This exemplifies the in-group similarities. On the other hand, out-group differences can be extensive when it comes to race. In some Islamic countries, the catholic religion is strongly undesired. Similarly, certain Islamic characteristics are disliked by western countries. This is how social identity theory can be applied to race and ethnicity.

Social Identity Theory - Key takeaways

Tajfel proposed a theory to explain stereotyping and discrimination.
The social identity theory (1971) explained that individuals establish whether they belong to a group or not through three different cognitive processes: categorization, social identification and social comparison.
The theory was tested by Tajfel in two different experiments which provided evince of inter-group discrimination.
The social identity theory has been widely used in politics and although it explains prejudice but fails to predict behaviour.
Raskovic, M. (Matt). 2020. (Social) Identity Theory in an Era of Identity Politics: Theory and Practice. AIB Insights, 21(2). https://doi.org/10.46697/001c.13616.

Flashcards in Social Identity Theory 6

Tajfel (1979).

Identity politics.

Participants did not know which person they were assigning money to, but they knew if the person was in their group or not.

Learn with 6 Social Identity Theory flashcards in the free StudySmarter app

We have 14,000 flashcards about Dynamic Landscapes.

Already have an account? Log in

Frequently Asked Questions about Social Identity Theory

What is Tajfel's social identity theory?

Tajfel and Turner (1979) suggested that the formation of groups causes prejudice.

First, belonging to a social group leads to in-group self-categorisation.
Self-categorisation leads to favouritism for one’s in-group ( preferring it over out-groups).
Favouritism leads to hostility toward the out-group.
The in-group begins to feel superior to the out-group.
Individuals’ self-esteem increases due to belonging to the ‘superior’ in-group.
Individual status increases.

This process explains prejudice against out-groups.

Where did Tajfel go wrong in his social identity theory?

The weaknesses of Tajfel’s study were that it had reduced validity because it claimed to have measured grouping effects without the history of the competition. In contrast, it may have created competition by introducing winning prizes with the points. Demand characteristics may also have affected validity.

There were problems with population validity because the sample consisted only of high school students.

is social identity theory a useful framework to understand groups?

Yes, it is a valuable framework for understanding groups because it shows how being in a group can cause favouritism to one’s in-group and cause negative out-group bias, hence, explaining how prejudice forms.

How does social identity theory explain group relationships?

Social identity theory explains that when a person belongs to a group, they develop favouritism to that in-group and a negative bias towards the out-group. This is how prejudice forms.

Test your knowledge with multiple choice flashcards

Join the StudySmarter App and learn efficiently with millions of flashcards and more!

Keep learning, you are doing great.

Discover learning materials with the free StudySmarter app

About StudySmarter

StudySmarter is a globally recognized educational technology company, offering a holistic learning platform designed for students of all ages and educational levels. Our platform provides learning support for a wide range of subjects, including STEM, Social Sciences, and Languages and also helps students to successfully master various tests and exams worldwide, such as GCSE, A Level, SAT, ACT, Abitur, and more. We offer an extensive library of learning materials, including interactive flashcards, comprehensive textbook solutions, and detailed explanations. The cutting-edge technology and tools we provide help students create their own learning materials. StudySmarter’s content is not only expert-verified but also regularly updated to ensure accuracy and relevance.

StudySmarter Editorial Team

Team Psychology Teachers

11 minutes reading time
Checked by StudySmarter Editorial Team

Study anywhere. Anytime.Across all devices.

Create a free account to save this explanation..

Save explanations to your personalised space and access them anytime, anywhere!

By signing up, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and the Privacy Policy of StudySmarter.

Join over 22 million students in learning with our StudySmarter App

The first learning app that truly has everything you need to ace your exams in one place

Flashcards & Quizzes
AI Study Assistant
Study Planner
Smart Note-Taking

Join over 22 million students in learning with our StudySmarter App

Abnormal Psychology
Assessment (IB)
Biological Psychology
Cognitive Psychology
Criminology
Developmental Psychology
Extended Essay
General Interest
Health Psychology
Human Relationships
IB Psychology
IB Psychology HL Extensions
Internal Assessment (IB)
Love and Marriage
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
Prejudice and Discrimination
Qualitative Research Methods
Research Methodology
Revision and Exam Preparation
Social and Cultural Psychology
Studies and Theories
Teaching Ideas

Tajfel and Turner’s Social Identity Theory

Travis Dixon February 16, 2017 Key Studies , Social and Cultural Psychology , Studies and Theories

Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

Why does my blog have three different posts explaining social identity theory? Because for the first few years teaching this theory I had to write it out for myself to fully comprehend it. It’s difficult to understand at first. My best advice is to always remember that its’ a theory of intergroup conflict (e.g. prejudice and discrimination) , so think of real life examples of this and try to apply it.

Background Information

Tajfel was a Polish Jew and fought in the French Army against the Nazis in WWII. His war-time experiences inspired his research on intergroup conflict.

Henri Tajfel and John Turner devised their Social Identity Theory (SIT) in the 1970s to “supplement” Sherif’s Realistic Conflict Theory (RCT), which was developed in the 1950s and ‘60s. Both of these theories attempt to explain intergroup behaviour, and in particular conflict between groups. Intergroup behaviour is between two or more individuals and their “…interactions…are fully determined by their respective memberships in various social groups…” This is opposed to interpersonal behaviour , whereby one’s interactions with others are determined by personal traits and qualities.

To use an extreme example of intergroup conflict , during the holocaust a Nazi officer might have behaved horrendously towards a Jewish person, not because of who that Jewish person was, but simply because they were Jewish (i.e. they belonged to the “out-group”).

One of the main claims of Sherif’s RCT is that conflict between groups exists when there is direct competition for resources. SIT does not contradict this, but goes further to explain how conflict can exist even when there is no direct competition for resources. Through the four interrelated concepts of social categorization, social identity, social comparison and positive distinctiveness, SIT attempts to explain why intergroup conflicts can exist even in circumstances with no direct conflict and/or competition between groups.

Key Study: Stereotypes, Social Identity Theory and the Out-group Homogeneity Effect (Park and Rothbart, 1982)
Social Identity Theory: A Brief Summary for Students
Key Studies: Minimal Group Paradigm (SIT – Tajfel et al)

Social Categorization

Social Categorization is merely the cognitive process of thinking of groups as in-groups or out-groups.

Social Identity

Political divisions of “us” vs. “them” like those seen in America is a good example of social identity theory in action.

According to Tajfel and Turner, social identity means “aspects of an individual’s self-image that derive from the social categories to which (they) perceive (themselves) as belonging”. In other words, each of us belongs to numerous groups (e.g. social, family, sport, musical, religious, etc.) Our membership in each of these groups adds to our understanding of who we are as individuals . We form a personal identity based on our individual goals, achievements, etc. and we form a social identity based on the goals, achievements of groups we belong to. This sense of developing our sense of self through belonging to groups is important to understand and explain SIT.

Social Comparison

Initial research conducted by Tajfel and Turner revealed that the mere presence of an “out-group” can significantly influence the behaviour of individuals within their “in-group”. Social comparison is basically the process of comparing one’s “in-group” with other “out-groups”. SIT posits that this occurs through a desire to increase one’s self-esteem. As stated above, part of forming our sense of self, or our “identity” comes through the belonging to particular groups. It is only natural that humans want to improve their self-esteem and so this can happen when we compare our “in-group” favourably to the “out-group”. As a result, “in-group” bias naturally occurs. Moreover, it occurs even when groups have been formed in unnatural settings using arbitrary criteria.

Tajfel and Turner base the concepts of social comparison and social identity on three assumptions:

Individual’s naturally try to increase their self-esteem and want to develop positive self-images;
Belonging to particular groups can be viewed as a positive or a negative thing; this means belong to a group can influence our social identity in either a positive or negative way;
we evaluate if it’s positive or negative by comparing in-groups and out-groups;

Based on this, the theory goes further to posit that:

“Individuals will strive to achieve or maintain their positive social identity,”
We can base our positive social identity by favorably comparing our in-group with out-groups.

This leads to the final aspect of SIT, which is…

Positive Distinctiveness

Positive distinctiveness basically means that through the process of social comparison, we attempt to make our in-group distinct from the out-groups. The in-group also attempts to make that difference favorable (i.e. positive) for the in-group. This is essentially in-group bias. Positive distinctiveness can be demonstrated in the minimal group experiments and even in real life examples from field research.

Supporting Research

Originally, the researchers hypothesized that they would have to gradually increase the similarities between group members before they would observe in-group bias (e.g. positive distinctiveness). They were surprised to learn that even when groups were formed using complete arbitrary criteria, such as flipping a coin, they demonstrated in-group bias. Even when they were directly informed that the groups were meaningless, they still were biased to their in-group. This initial discovery is what lead to further development and elaboration of the SIT; they concluded that the mere existence of an out-group was enough for social comparison and in-group bias to occur.

The minimal group paradigm is the typical design used in experiments that inspired and support SIT. The basic idea is that participants (adults and children have been used in studies) are randomly divided into groups. They are then asked to award rewards, prizes or even money to other participants in specially designed booklets . The recipients are anonymous, except for a number and which group they are in (e.g. Member #28, Group X; Member #3, Group Y).

The findings, from numerous studies, show that the in-group will act favorably towards members of their own in-group. Moreover, they will even sacrifice rewards for themselves to increase the difference in rewards given between the in-group members and the out-group members.

Critical Thinking Questions

How can SIT be used to explain intergroup conflict? ( Application )
How can the minimal group experiments be used to support SIT? ( Application )
How are the concepts of SIT interrelated? ( Analysis )
What are the strengths and limitations of SIT? ( Evaluation )

Turner, John C. Tajfel, Henri. Chapter 1, “The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behaviour”. P7-24. Accessed from: ( Link )

Travis Dixon is an IB Psychology teacher, author, workshop leader, examiner and IA moderator.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
HHS Author Manuscripts

Social status and the pursuit of positive social identity: Systematic domains of intergroup differentiation and discrimination for high- and low- status groups

Julian a. oldmeadow.

Department of Psychology, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, UK

Susan T. Fiske

Princeton University

Research on intergroup discrimination has focused on the cognitive and motivational mechanisms involved, but the role of stereotype content has been neglected. Drawing on social identity theory and stereotype content research, the current studies investigated the role of stereotype content in intergroup differentiation and discrimination. Across two studies, students from high- and low-status groups differentiated themselves positively on stereotypes of competence and warmth respectively, and in allocations of resources in domains relevant to competence (academics, research) and warmth (sports, community outreach). Furthermore, there was evidence that discrimination by high- and low-status groups was driven by their respective stereotypes of competence and warmth. It is argued that stereotypes of competence and warmth, derived from status and power relations between groups, define the domains in which groups pursue positively distinct identities.

Since its earliest formulation, research on social identity theory (SIT) ( Tajfel & Turner, 1979 , 1986 ) has focused on the cognitive and motivational mechanisms underlying intergroup discrimination, but the role of stereotype content has been less central. SIT argues that discrimination is motivated by a need for positive and distinctive social identity, but that it is constrained by objective status relations between groups. Consistent with this, it has been established that high-status groups show ingroup favouritism particularly in status-relevant domains, while low-status groups show ingroup favouritism in status-irrelevant domains ( Bettencourt, Dorr, Charlton, & Hume, 2001 ; Brewer, 1979 ; Mullen, Brown, & Smith, 1992 ; Reichl, 1997 ; Sachdev & Bourhis, 1985 , 1987 , 1991 ). However, existing research does not define these domains in terms of content, assuming it depends entirely on the specific nature of the status relation. Drawing on stereotype content research ( Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2008 ; Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002 ; Fiske, Xu, Cuddy, & Glick, 1999 ), we propose that the domains in which high- and low-status groups pursue positive distinctiveness can be broadly defined: high-status groups in domains related to competence, and low-status groups in domains related to warmth. In this paper we develop these links between SIT and the stereotype content model and present two studies testing derived hypotheses.

Social identity theory and intergroup discrimination

Since the minimal group studies ( Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, & Flament, 1971 ), research in SIT has focused on the cognitive and motivational processes underlying intergroup discrimination. SIT argues that discrimination is driven by a fundamental motivation to maintain a positive and distinctive social identity ( Tajfel & Turner, 1979 , 1986 ). This motive often leads to discrimination because favoring ingroup members in various ways enhances the apparent value and distinctiveness of the ingroup, leading to positive social identity. Since successful discrimination enhances the positive distinctiveness of the ingroup, the importance of the ingroup to one’s self-concept (i.e., strength of identification) has been hypothesized to predict dis- crimination ( Abrams & Hogg, 1988 ). However, identification does not consistently predict discrimination empirically ( Hinkle & Brown, 1990 ; Kelly, 1993 ) and groups often show outgroup favouritism, particularly towards higher status groups on status-related dimensions ( Bettencourt et al., 2001 ; Mullen et al., 1992 ; Reichl, 1997 ; Sachdev & Bourhis, 1985 , 1987 , 1991 ). Social identity theorists have been careful to stress that identification per se is not sufficient to predict discrimination, and that the broader social context, including status relations between groups, needs to be taken into account (e.g., Turner, 1999 ).

Building on the original minimal group studies, Sachdev and Bourhis (1985 , 1987 , 1991 ) conducted a series of studies investigating how status and power relations affect the allocation of points to members of experimental ingroups and out- groups. They found that members of groups high in status or power showed ingroup favouritism while members of groups low in status or power showed outgroup favouritism. In a separate study, Reichl (1997) showed that members of low-status experimental groups showed outgroup favouritism in status-related domains, but ingroup favouritism in status-unrelated domains. Thus, high-status groups are often particularly discriminatory, and low-status groups often show out- group favouritism, in status-related domains. Low-status groups tend to show ingroup favouritism only in domains unrelated to status. This general pattern has been confirmed in a number of reviews and meta-analyses ( Bettencourt et al., 2001 ; Brewer, 1979 ; Mullen et al., 1992 ).

Clearly, high- and low-status groups show ingroup favouritism in separate domains (see also Lemaine, 1974 ). However, existing research has not attempted to define these domains in terms of content, assuming it depends on the specific nature of the status relation. Widely cited studies have tended to use experimental laboratory groups and create status relations in terms of some specific dimension, such as performance at a task, and then measure discrimination in domains directly related or unrelated to that dimension. For example, Sachdev and Bourhis (1987 , 1991 ) used a bogus creativity test to manipulate group status and assessed discrimination in terms of evaluations of the creativity of group products. Similary, Reichl (1997) used a bogus “Creative Intelligence Test” to manipulate status between groups, and then assessed discrimination through point allocations that were either based on test scores (relevant) or part of a separate study (irrelevant).

While informative, operationalizing status in such a specific way does not tell us which domains are relevant to social groups that share more diffuse and enduring status relations. Between real groups in society, status differences often cannot be reduced to differences on specific evaluative dimensions (see Berger, Cohen, & Zelditch, 1972 ). Rather, status differences often carry evaluative differences on a wide range of dimensions that are not clearly prescribed or truncated. For example, the generally higher status of males over females in many societies not only manifests in evaluative differences in specific domains (e.g., maths ability), but in a wide and loosely defined range of domains (e.g., management, law, medicine, engineering, etc.). In addition, there is often an equally wide and loosely defined range of domains in which lower-status groups are positively evaluated (e.g., women in nursing, primary-school teaching, home-keeping, etc.) ( Eagly, 1987 ).

The domains in which high- and low-status groups are positively and negatively evaluated are diverse, but they map onto two broad dimensions that have been variously described as agency, autonomy, or competence on the one hand, and communion, expressiveness, or warmth on the other. Different theorists have employed different terms, but they boil down to two fundamental dimensions in terms of which self and other tend to be perceived and evaluated—competence and warmth (see Cuddy et al., 2008 ; Fiske, Cuddy, & Glick, 2007 for reviews). These dimensions have long been linked to gender stereotypes (e.g., Eagly & Steffen, 1984 ) and sex differences ( Buss, 1981 ), but more recent research shows they underpin stereo- types of a much wider range of groups, and that they derive from structural relations (status and interdependence) between them ( Cuddy et al., 2008 , 2009 ). This suggests there are general evaluative dimensions in terms of which high- and low-status groups are perceived and evaluated, and that as stereotypes, they may play an important role in constraining and directing groups’ pursuit of positive distinctiveness.

Stereotypical traits of high- and low-status groups: The stereotype content model

The stereotype content model ( Cuddy et al., 2008 ; Fiske et al., 1999 , 2002 ) argues that these two fundamental dimensions—competence and warmth—underpin stereotypes of most groups, and that they derive from status and power relations between them. Considerable evidence shows that high-status groups are consistently stereotyped as more competent than low-status groups, who in turn are often stereotyped as warmer than high-status groups (see Cuddy et al., 2008 , for a review). For example, Fiske et al. (2002) examined stereotypes of 23 social groups in the United States and found that of these, 20 were consistently seen as either significantly more competent than warm, which tended to be the higher status groups, or significantly more warm than competent, which tended to be the lower status groups. In experimental research, ratings on one dimension are often negatively correlated with ratings on the other ( Judd, James-Hawkins, Yzerbyt, & Kashima, 2005 ; Kervyn, Yzerbyt, Demoulin, & Judd, 2008 ).

The relationship between perceived status and perceived competence is remarkably strong and robust ( Cuddy et al., 2009 ), but the basis of warmth judgements is less clear. Fiske and colleagues argue that warmth is more related to competition between groups than status per se ( Fiske et al., 1999 , 2002 ), and so may derive from the degree of threat or imposition an outgroup is perceived to represent to the ingroup. Others argue that warmth is meant to compensate low-status groups for their perceived lack of competence and thus maintain the status quo ( Jost & Banaji, 1994 ; Kay & Jost, 2003 ; Kay, Jost, & Young, 2005 ). Warmth is also an important aspect of group identity for both high- and low-status groups ( Leach, Ellemers, & Barreto, 2007 ) and is relatively less confirmable than competence ( Tausch, Kenworthy, & Hewstone, 2007 ). The implications of this are that, while competence is stereotypical of high-status groups and warmth is stereotypical of low-status groups, competence judgements are closely tied to objective indicators whereas warmth judgements are more subjective

Stereotype content and positive distinctiveness

The links between relative group status and stereotype contents suggest high-status groups are likely to see themselves and be seen as more competent than warm, while low-status groups are likely to see themselves and be seen as more warm than competent. Since both dimensions are arguably positive, it is also likely that high- and low-status groups pursue positive social identity primarily along the dimensions of competence and warmth respectively. This may be achieved in a number of ways. Firstly, high- and low-status groups may differ in the relative value they attach to competence and warmth, and/or the importance or centrality of these two dimensions to their group identity ( Leach et al., 2007 ). Secondly, they may self-stereotype in ways that positively differentiate themselves from comparison out- groups on their preferred dimension, emphasizing differences on the dimension on which they are stereotypically superior while minimizing differences in the domain in which they stereotypically fall short. Another way group members may pursue positive distinctiveness is through differential discrimination in domains related to competence and warmth. Just as status has been shown to constrain and direct discrimination in status-related domains ( Reichl, 1997 ), stereotypes of competence and warmth may constrain and direct discrimination in domains related to or requiring these traits. That is, high-status groups may show more discrimination in domains related to competence, while low-status groups may show more discrimination in domains related to warmth.

Of course, it is also evident that groups pursue positive distinctiveness in the other or both domains. Low-status groups, in particular, may seek to be positively evaluated in domains of competence, since competence is prescriptive of social status. One need look no further than the American civil rights movement, the race and intelligence debate, or the feminist movement for instances in which low-status groups seek to be positively evaluated in the competence domain. However, we suggest this situation is characteristic of unstable and/or illegitimate status relations, as it represents a form of social competition. While the legitimacy and stability of status relations are likely to have important implications for the relationships between status, stereotypes, and discrimination, for the purposes of the current studies we restrict our analysis to status relations that are relatively stable and legitimate. In such systems, we argue, high-status groups are likely to seek positive distinctiveness primarily in relation to competence, while low-status groups are likely to seek positive distinctiveness primarily in relation to warmth.

The current research

To examine these ideas we conducted two studies with members of high- and low-status groups to assess the effects of relative status, group identification, and stereotypes on intergroup differentiation and discrimination. In this research, we assessed participants’ ratings of the competence and warmth of the ingroup and outgroup, and related these to discrimination operationalized as resource allocations. In terms of our hypotheses, we expected high-status groups to emphasize their superiority on competence and minimize differences on warmth, and low-status groups to do the reverse (Hypothesis 1). Secondly, we expected high-status groups to show ingroup favouritism particularly in domains related to competence, and low-status groups to show ingroup favouritism in domains related to warmth (Hypothesis 2). Thirdly, we expected discrimination by high-status groups to be more related to competence than warmth stereotypes, and discrimination by low- status groups to be more related to warmth than competence stereotypes (Hypothesis 3).

Study 1 was carried out with students from two similar sixth-form colleges located within the same town in the UK, which were clearly differentiated in status. This difference was reflected in objective measures of each college’s average student performance, 1 and in stricter entry criteria for the higher status college in most subjects. In other respects, the two colleges were highly comparable. Both colleges were roughly the same size (approximately 1,700 students each) and students were generally between 16 and 19 years of age. Furthermore, most students had made an active choice to attend one of the two colleges after completing their GCSEs (General Certificate of Secondary Education) at local high schools, so were very aware of the presence and reputations of the two colleges. These groups will be referred to hereafter as the high-status (HS) and low-status (LS) groups.

In order to examine the role of stereotypes in discrimination, we asked participants to allocate resources to anonymous ingroup and outgroup members using point allocation, or Tajfel matrices ( Tajfel et al., 1971 ). Furthermore, we examined dis- crimination in two separate domains that differed in their relevance to the stereotypes—academia and sports. We reasoned that if the HS group is stereotypically more competent (intelligent) than the LS group, they should be particularly discriminatory in the academic domain. In contrast, if low- status groups seek positive distinctiveness primarily in the warmth domain, they should be less discriminatory in the academic domain and more discriminatory in the sports domain. We reasoned that the sports domain incorporates sportsmanship and cooperation, and was sufficiently distinct from academic ability to serve as a separate domain in which to pursue positive distinctiveness.

Participants

Sixty-nine students (77% female) from the HS group and 100 (68% female) from the LS group participated in the study. All were between 16 and 18 years old (median = 17) and participated as part of a class exercise in groups of three to 20. Data from the HS group were collected over three consecutive days, while data for the LS group was collected in a single day, approximately three months later (due to access issues).

Materials and procedure

Sessions were carried out in standard classrooms at each college. A male experimenter conducted each session, explaining that the study was investigating opinions and beliefs about students at the participants’ college and the other college. The study consisted of a series of questionnaires and point-allocation matrices. Each questionnaire was completed sequentially, with the next handed out when all participants had finished the previous questionnaire.

The first questionnaire contained a 5-item scale to measure participants’ identification with their college (alphas > .79), adapted from Doosje, Ellemers, and Spears (1995) . The second questionnaire measured stereotypes of competence and warmth by asking participants to rate students from each college on a set of traits using 7-point scales (1 = not at all ; 7 = extremely ). Four traits related to competence: smart, capable, intelligent, and efficient; and four related to warmth: sincere, friendly, trustworthy, and like- able. Principal components factor analyses with oblique rotation were performed on all eight items for each group within each sample. In all cases two factors emerged with eigenvalues greater than 1, explaining between 53.3 and 63.4 percent of the variance. The four warmth and four competence items generally loaded onto separate factors, though “sincere” and “capable” often had weaker loadings than other items. Reliabilities of the four warmth and four competence items for each group and each sample ranged from .61 to .82, with six of the eight scales exceeding .7. All four items were retained in each scale.

Following the second questionnaire, the experimenter introduced the point allocation, or Tajfel matrices (see Tajfel et al., 1971 ). These matrices each involve 13 pairs of points that represent resources to be allocated to anonymous ingroup and outgroup members (see Bourhis, Sachdev, & Gagnon, 1994 ). For each matrix, participants choose one pair of points to allocate, with one number representing points allocated to an ingroup member and the other to an outgroup member. In completing the matrices, participants can adopt a range of strategies, which can later be deciphered through analyses of their choices. For example, they may adopt a strategy of allocating equal points to both recipients (i.e., parity), disregarding options with higher but unequal payoffs; they may choose the option with the highest total payoff, regardless of whether one recipient gets more than the other (i.e., maximum joint profit); or they may choose the option that allocates the highest amount to the ingroup member regardless of the amount allocated to the outgroup member (i.e., maximum ingroup profit). In minimal group studies it has been found that participants often choose a strategy that allocates more points to the ingroup recipient than the outgroup recipient even at the expense of a higher but equal payoff. For example, participants may choose to allocate 11 points to the ingroup member and nine to the outgroup member rather than give 13 points to each. This strategy suggests the allocator’s primary goal is to differentiate the groups as much as possible (i.e., maximum differentiation), even at the expense of ingroup profit. Using simple algorithms it is possible to quantify the influence or “pull” of these different strategies and thus to infer the allocator’s motives. These matrices operate successfully in a wide range of intergroup research, involving minimal and real groups ( Bourhis & Sachdev, 1986 ), providing a valid and sensitive measure of discrimination in intergroup research (for further information on the use of these strategies, see Bourhis et al., 1994 ).

Using these matrices, participants were asked to allocate points to an anonymous student (identified by a code number) from their college and another from the other college for two separate abilities—sports and academia. There were 12 matrices in total, six for each ability. The matrices appeared in a booklet with one matrix per page. The order of the matrices in each booklet was randomized. The explanation of the matrices was accompanied by an overhead projection of one page of a matrix booklet. The experimenter explained that the numbers in the matrices should be considered as points, like course credits, and that they could allocate the points any way they chose, provided they chose points from only one box in each matrix. After answering any questions, the experimenter distributed the booklets for completion.

The final questionnaire measured participants’ beliefs about the relative status of the two colleges and how competitive they were towards each other. Three items measured status: “Students at [HS group] are more likely than students from [LS group] to come from upper class families,” “[HS group] students are generally higher in socioeconomic status than [LS group] students,” and “[HS group] students are more likely to come from wealthy families than students from [LS group].” Responses were made on 7-point Likert- type scales (1 = disagree completely , 7 = agree completely ). Competition was measured with three items: “To what extent do you think [HS group] and [LS group] students compete with each other in academics?,” “To what extent do you think [HS group] and [LS group] students compete with each other in sports?” and “How likely do you think it is that you will have to compete with [LS group] students in the future, for things like university places or jobs?” (1 = not at all , 7 = very ). Afterwards, the experimenter explained the rationale for the study and the procedures used, instigated a discussion about the relations between the two colleges, and answered any questions participants had.

Identification, status and competition between the groups

To ensure our empirical context matched our theoretical context, we examined group identification and perceived status and competition between the groups. Both samples identified highly with their ingroup, but the LS sample identified more strongly ( M = 5.20, SD = .97) than the HS sample ( M = 4.85, SD = 1.24), t (167) = 2.05, p = .042. Both samples perceived the HS group to be higher in status than the LS group ( M high = 5.05, SD = 1.22; M low = 4.89, SD = 1.54) , t <1, ns , and perceived substantial competition between them in terms of sports. ( M = 5.61, SD = 1.07; M low = 5.27, SD = 1.29), academics ( M high = 4.65, SD = 1.43; M low = 5.57, SD = 1.17), and anticipated competition for jobs and university places in the future ( M = 4.91, SD = 1.29; M low = 5.66, SD = 1.53). All single items, and the combined scales, were significantly above the midpoint of the scale, t s > 3.78, p s < .001.

H1: Differentiation through stereotypes

Hypothesis 1 predicted that the HS group would emphasize their superiority on competence and minimize differences on warmth, while the LS group would do the reverse. It is important to note, first, that the patterns of stereotype ratings revealed the expected target group by trait interaction, F (1, 167) = 274.45, p < .001, η 2 = .62, with the HS group rated higher in competence ( M = 5.96, SD = .61) than warmth ( M = 4.74, S D = .93), and the LS group rated higher in warmth ( M = 5.18, S D = .83) than competence ( M = 4.89, S D = .71). All pairwise comparisons were significant, F s > 17, p s < .001. More importantly for H1, this interaction was qualified by a three-way interaction involving participant group, F (1, 167) = 13.19, p < .001, η 2 = .07, suggesting stereotype ratings differed between the samples (see Figure 1 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms528541f1.jpg

Ratings of the competence and warmth of HS and LS groups.

As can be seen in Figure 1 , the HS sample emphasized their competence advantage and minimized differences in warmth, whereas the LS sample did the reverse. As expected, the HS sample rated the groups more different on competence ( M difference = 1.36, S D = .75) than the LS sample ( M difference = .86, S D = .76), and the LS sample rated the groups more different on warmth ( M difference = .90, S D = 1.09) than the HS sample ( M difference = .23, S D = .93). These differences in relative competence and warmth were both significant ( t competence [167] = 4.82, p < .001; t warmth [167] = 7.05, p < .001). Furthermore, the degree of positive differentiation on competence and warmth was correlated with identification among both the HS sample ( r competence = .22, p = .071; .23, p = .023; r warmth = .27, p < .006). This means that high identifiers in the HS group emphasized their competence advantage and conceded less warmth to the outgroup, while high identifiers in the LS group emphasized their warmth advantage and conceded less competence to the outgroup.

H2: Intergroup discrimination across domains

To examine whether the HS and LS samples showed ingroup favouritism in academic and sports domains respectively, we analysed pull scores following the recommendations of Bourhis et al. (1994) . 2 Of the six possible pull scores (representing six allocation strategies) the three indicating ingroup favouritism are most important for our analysis: (a) preference for maximum differentiation over maximum ingroup profit and joint profit (MD on MIP + MJP); (b) preference for ingroup favouritism over maximum joint profit (FAV on MJP); and (c) preference for ingroup favouritism over parity (FAV on P). These pull scores indicate the extent to which the associated strategy influenced participants’ allocations. According to Hypothesis 2, the three ingroup-favouring strategies should exert stronger pulls on HS participants’ allocations in the academic than the sports domain, and on the LS participants’ allocations, more in the sports than academic domain. In other words, Hypothesis 2 predicts a group by domain interaction.

To test this, we conducted a two (group: HS vs. LS) by two (domain: academia vs. sports) by three (allocation strategy) ANOVA with repeated measures on the second and third factors. This revealed the hypothesized group by domain interaction, F (1, 152) = 72.46, p < .001, η 2 = .32, with the HS sample using the ingroup favouring strategies more in the academic domain than the sports domain, and the LS group using the ingroup favouring strategies more in the sports domain than the academic domain (see Figure 2 ). There was also a significant though less strong three-way interaction between group, domain, and strategy, F (2, 304) = 14.08, p < .001, η 2 = .09, indicating the three ingroup-favouring strategies were not used equally by both groups. As shown in Figure 2 , however, the overall pattern is very clear: the HS sample used the three ingroup-favouring strategies more in the academic domain, while the LS sample used them more in the sports domain.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms528541f2.jpg

Pull scores of the three ingroup favouring-allocation strategies within each domain by participants in the HS and LS groups.

While pull scores provide insight into the strategies used to make allocations, they don’t translate directly into absolute differences in point allocations. To illustrate discrimination in an absolute sense, we analysed the total number of points allocated to each group in each domain. The difference in the total number of points allocated to the ingroup and outgroup for sporting and academic ability by each sample are shown in Figure 3 . As illustrated, and further confirming Hypothesis 2, the two samples showed stronger ingroup favouritism in separate domains: the HS sample discriminated most in the academic domain, F (1, 167) = 45.27, p < .001, η 2 = .21, while the LS sample discriminated most in the sports domain, F (1, 167) = 85.19, p < .001, η 2 = .34. This was reflected in a significant target group by domain interaction, F (1, 167) = 74.05, p < .001, η 2 = .31.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms528541f3.jpg

Ingroup favouritism in point allocations (ingroup minus outgroup) by each sample within each domain.

Overall there was clear support for Hypothesis 2. The HS sample showed strong ingroup favouritism in the academic domain but not in the sports domain. In contrast, the LS samples showed strong ingroup favouritism in the sports domain but not in the academic domain.

H3: Relationships between stereotypes and discrimination

Hypothesis 3 predicted that discrimination by high-status groups would be more related to competence than warmth, and discrimination by low-status groups would be more related to warmth than competence. This was examined with a series of hierarchical regression analyses. First, we computed difference scores for allocations in each domain so that higher scores indicated stronger ingroup favouritism within each sample. Since this outcome measure represents relative resource allocations we felt it appropriate to use relative competence and warmth as predictors. Accordingly, we used the difference scores computed to test H1 as predictors rather than mean ratings of each group on each stereotype. Identification, status, and competition were entered in Step 1, and stereotype difference scores in Step 2, with ingroup favouritism in sports and academia as outcome variables in separate regressions. For each domain, we first removed outliers that were more than 1.96 standard residuals away from the regression line. This resulted in the removal of five participants from the HS sample and four from the LS sample for academia, and four from the HS sample and five from the LS sample for sports. Results of the regression analyses are summarized in Table 1 .

Summary of regression analyses showing proportions of explained variance in ingroup favouritism at Steps 1 and 2, and beta weights of significant predictors (Study 1)

Sample	Domain of discrimination	at Step 1 (Status, identification, competition)	change at Step 2 (Stereotypes)	Total	Significant predictors in final model and their beta weights in Steps 1 and 2
Sample	Domain of discrimination	at Step 1 (Status, identification, competition)	change at Step 2 (Stereotypes)	Total		Step 1 β	Step 2 β
HS Sample	Academia ( = 64)	.286	.112	.398	Identification	.335	.221
					Competition	−.379	−.350
					Competence	—	.303
	Sports ( = 65)	.127	.045	.172	Identification	.324	.244
LS Sample	Academia ( = 96)	.049	.103	.152	Competition	−.194	−.200
					Warmth	—	.333
	Sports ( = 95)	.056	.137	.193	Competition	−.185	−.196
					Warmth	—	.389

Amongst the HS sample, the full model accounted for 39.8% of the variance in ingroup favouritism in the academic domain, F (5, 58) = 7.68, p < .001. Identification and competition were both significant in Step 1, explaining 28.6% of the variance. Adding the stereotypes in Step 2 explained a further 11.2% of the variance, F change (2, 58) = 5.42, p = .007. In the final model, competence (β = .303, t = 2.73, p = .008) but not warmth (β = −.105, t < 1, ns ) was a significant predictor and identification was no longer significant (β = .221, t = 1.92, p = .060). In the sports domain, the full model accounted for 17.2% of the variance in ingroup favouritism, F (5, 59) = 2.45, p = .044. Only identification was a significant predictor at Step 1 (β = .324, t = 2.70, p = .009) and adding the stereotypes in Step 2 did not significantly improve the model, R 2 change = .05, F (2, 59) = 1.61, p = .209.

Amongst the LS sample, the full model accounted for 15.2% of the variance in ingroup favouritism in the academic domain, F (5, 90) = 3.23, p = .010. Competition was marginally significant in Step 1 (β = −.194, t = −1.88, p = .063). Adding the stereotypes explained a further 10.3% of the variance, F change (2, 90) = 5.46, p = .006. In the final model, warmth (β = −.333, t = −3.26, p = .002) but not competence (β = −.050, t < 1, ns ) was a significant predictor. In the sports domain, the full model accounted for 19.3% of the variance in ingroup favouritism, F (5, 89) = 4.25, p = .002. None of the predictors in Step 1 were significant, and adding the stereotypes in Step 2 explained a further 13.7% of variance, F change (2, 89) = 7.56, p = .001. In the final model, warmth (β = −.389, t −3.88, p < .001) but not competence (β = .035, t < 1, ns ) was a significant predictor.

Thus, consistent with Hypothesis 3, ingroup favouritism by the HS sample in the academic domain was significantly related to competence but not warmth stereotypes, whereas ingroup favouritism by the LS sample in both domains was significantly related to warmth but not competence stereotypes. Identification was a significant predictor in Step 1 amongst the HS sample, but was only marginally significant in Step 2. Identification was not significant amongst the LS sample in either domain. Competition had an independent effect on ingroup favouritism for both groups—the more competitive the groups were seen to be, the less ingroup domain was significantly related to competence favouritism the groups showed.

Since identification was a significant predictor of ingroup favouritism amongst the HS sample, but was reduced to nonsignificance when the stereotypes were added, it is possible that any effects of identification on ingroup favouritism operated indirectly through stereotypes. To test this, we used a bootstrapping method ( Preacher & Hayes, 2008 ) to estimate the significance of the indirect pathways from identification to ingroup favouritism via stereotypes for both groups. 3 In these tests, we considered the indirect effects significant if the bias corrected and accelerated confidence intervals did not contain zero. Amongst the HS sample, the indirect pathway through competence was not significant in either domain (CI 95-academia : −.25, 2.54; CI 95-sports : −.18, 1.77). Although competence predicted ingroup favouritism in the academic domain (β = .303, t = 2.73, p = .008), identification did not significantly predict competence (β = .133, t = 1.76, p = .083). The pathway through warmth was not significant in either domain (CI 95-academia : −.01, 3.81; CI 95-sports : −.38, 2.24). Amongst the LS sample, the indirect pathway through warmth was significant in both the academic (CI 95 : −5.86, −.70) and sports (CI: −4.50, −.67) domains, but the pathway through competence was not significant in either domain (CI 95-academia : −.59, 2.59; CI 95-sports : −1.49, .86). These results provide mixed support for a mediational model.

We argued that high- and low-status groups pursue positive distinctiveness primarily in separate domains of competence and warmth, respectively. Study 1 provides good support for this on a number of levels, broadly confirming all three hypotheses. Firstly, the HS sample differentiated the groups more strongly on competence than did the LS sample, while the LS sample differentiated the groups more on warmth, and the degree of differentiation on each dimension was correlated with identification. Thus, high identifiers emphasized differences on their stereotypical or preferred dimension, and minimized differences on their nonstereotypical dimension. Using this strategy, both high- and low-status groups could positively differentiate themselves from the other on respective dimensions of competence and warmth. Secondly, the HS and LS samples showed strong ingroup favouritism in separate domains of academic and sporting ability, respectively, as predicted (H2). Amongst HS participants, all three ingroup-favouring strategies exerted significantly stronger pulls in the academic domain than the sports domain. The reverse was found amongst LS participants, who discriminated more in the sports domain. Notably, the maximum differentiation strategy was significant in the academic domain but not in the sports domain amongst the HS sample, and the reverse was obtained amongst the LS sample. This is clear evidence that HS participants sought to positively differentiate themselves in the academic domain, while LS participants sought to positively differentiate themselves in the sports domain.

The regression analyses confirmed Hypothesis 3, showing discrimination by HS participants (primarily in the academic domain) was more related to their stereotypes about the groups’ competence than warmth, whereas discrimination by the LS sample was more related to their warmth serotypes. An unexpected finding was that competition had an independent effect such that the more competitive the groups were seen to be, the less ingroup favouritism was shown. This is somewhat counterintuitive and inconsistent with previous theory and research ( Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, & Sherif, 1961 ). It is difficult to interpret this effect but we suspect it may relate to the way competition was measured and the meaning given to it by participants. For instance, perhaps being competitive for these participants meant being equivalent or comparable in sports and/or academia.

Overall, Study 1 provided good support for our hypotheses. There were, however, a number of limitations. One was that the two domains we chose for assessing discrimination were not equally relevant to the two stereotype dimensions. That is, while the academic domain seemed clearly relevant to competence stereotypes, the sports domain was not clearly relevant to warmth. Therefore, it is not clear whether the LS group discriminated strongly in this domain because it was relevant to their warmth stereotype, or simply because it was a nonacademic domain. A second limitation was that the method used to measure discrimination was rather artificial and complicated. Participants were asked to perform a task that was unfamiliar and not particularly meaningful to them, and it was clear to us that many of them struggled with it. While this method has been used successfully in many studies, and revealed clear and interpretable effects here, it is important to examine these processes using a more meaningful discrimination task. Finally, although we limited our theoretical analysis to status relations that are stable and legitimate, we did not confirm that our empirical context met these conditions. With these issues in mind we con- ducted a second study in an attempt to replicate and extend the results of Study 1. For this we chose a different intergroup context involving students at relatively high- and low-status universities from the same town in the UK (although a different town to the groups in Study 1). Being located in the same town, students at each university are well informed about each other, and there is a clear status difference between them, evidenced in official league tables and widely shared reputations. Within this context, we used a different measure of discrimination and two different domains. Rather than using point-allocation matrices we asked participants to allocate two pots of government funding to the universities, one for “research capacity” and one for “community outreach.” We felt that allocating funds to the two universities would be both relevant and meaningful to our participants. Furthermore, we reasoned that research capacity would be closely associated with competence, while community outreach would be closely associated with warmth. Finally, in addition to measuring perceived status and com- petition between groups, we included measures of the perceived legitimacy and stability of the status relation. Our hypotheses for Study 2 were the same as for Study 1.

University student participants were recruited through an email sent to all under- graduate psychology students at the HS university, and through emails sent to students at the LS university via subject organizers in a range of departments. Sixty-four responses from students at the HS university and 47 from the LS university ( N = 111) were received over a period of two weeks. Twenty percent of each sample was male. All participants in the HS sample were under- graduates in psychology. The LS sample included a range of subject areas and 33% was postgraduate. Consequently, the LS sample was significantly older with a mean age of 25.1 years compared to 19.7 in the HS sample, t (107) = 5.67, p < .001.

The study was conducted via an online questionnaire, which participants accessed via a link sent with the invitation email. The first page introduced the study as investigating the attitudes, knowledge, and opinions of students at the HS and LS universities (university names were used). The page briefly outlined what was involved in completing the questionnaire and dealt with issues of informed consent. The questionnaire was titled “University Student Survey” and the official logos of each university were displayed across the top of the first page.

On the next two pages, participants provided demographic information including age, gender, degree programme and year of study, and responded to a 6-item scale measuring identification with their university (alphas > .87). Two separate pages asked about participants’ knowledge and impressions of students at each university. The order of presentation of these pages was randomized, and the relevant university logo was displayed at the top of the page. First, participants were invited to write freely about any stereotypes they were aware of in relation to students from the university, and to list the main characteristics of students at the university. Following this, they were asked to rate students at the university on traits related to competence and warmth (7-point scales). Four items measured competence (competent, capable, intelligent, efficient) and four measured warmth (warm, friendly, sincere, trustworthy) (all alphas > .82).

Intergroup discrimination was measured by asking participants to allocate two pots of government funding to the LS and HS universities. One pot was for “research capacity” and one was for “community outreach.” The research capacity funds were described as “intended to support and develop high-level research projects, particularly those that build links between research and technology, develop new research methods, and explore new research areas.” In contrast, community outreach funds were described as “intended to support and develop projects that provide services to the community, particularly those that are beneficial to minority groups, disadvantaged groups, and groups of lower socio-economic status.” For each pot, participants were asked to allocate a percentage to each university, with the total percentage adding to 100, using adjustable bars positioned next to the name of each university. Thus, allocations within each pot were constrained to sum to 100, but between-pot allocations were independent (e.g., a participant could allocate 100% of each pot to one university). Below the bars for each pot was a text box with the instruction: “Please provide a brief justification or rationale for your decision.”

Finally, participants responded to a set of questions designed to measure perceived competition between universities (e.g., “How likely is it that you will have to compete with students from the other university for jobs in the future?”), the relative status of each (e.g., “In the context of all UK universities, how prestigious would you say [University X] is?”), and the perceived legitimacy and stability of status relations (e.g., “To what extent do you think the higher prestige of [University X] is justified?”; “How likely is it that [University Y] will become equally or more prestigious than [University X] in the foreseeable future?”). These latter questions were asked only if participants had previously indicated that the HS university was indeed higher status than the LS university. All questions were answered using 7-point scales anchored with “not at all” (1) and “very much” (7).

Social identification and perceptions of status relations

Both groups identified relatively strongly with their respective ingroups; however, the HS sample identified more strongly with their ingroup ( M = 5.73, SD = .91) than the LS sample did with theirs ( M = 4.85, SD = 1.62), t (109) = 3.63, p < .001. Both samples rated the HS group as significantly more prestigious than the LS group, F (1, 109) = 265.31, p < .001, η 2 = .71. However, the LS sample rated the LS group more prestigious ( M = 3.64, SD = 1.67) than did the HS sample ( M = 2.69, SD = 1.08), F(1, 109) = 16.35, p < .001, η 2 = .13. The HS sample generally perceived the higher status of the HS group was justified ( M = 5.53, SD = .91) and based on good reasons ( M = 5.70, SD = .79), and that the LS university was unlikely to become equally or more prestigious in the foreseeable future ( M = 3.08, SD = 1.33). The LS sample was more ambivalent with means of 4.05, 4.12, and 3.52 respectively, and larger standard deviations ( SD s = 1.80, 1.64, 1.81 respectively). Overall, there was a clear status difference between the groups, which was generally perceived to be stable and legitimate.

Ratings of the perceived competence and warmth of the two universities were subjected to a 2 (group: HS vs. LS) by 2 (trait: competence vs. warmth) by 2 (sample: HS vs. LS) mixed ANOVA with repeated measures on the first two factors. This returned the expected group by trait interaction, F (1, 109) = 44.20, p < .001, η 2 = .29, as well as a significant group by sample interaction, F (1, 109) = 31.16, p < .001, η 2 = .22, and a trait by sample interaction, F (1, 109) = 6.75, p = .011, η 2 = .06. The three-way interaction was not significant, F < 1. Simple main effects confirmed H1— the HS sample differentiated the groups on competence, F (1, 109) = 64.91, p < .001, η 2 = .37, but not on warmth, F < 1, whereas the LS sample differentiated the groups on warmth, F (1, 109) = 20.50, p = .001, η 2 = .16, but not on competence, F < 1 (see Figure 4 for means). Amongst the LS sample, identification was correlated with positive differentiation on competence ( r = .37, p = .006) and warmth ( r = .55, p < .001). Amongst the HS sample, identification was correlated with positive differentiation on warmth ( r = .28, p = .019) and uncorrelated with differentiation on competence ( r = .06, p = .627).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms528541f4.jpg

Ingroup favouritism scores were computed by subtracting allocations to the outgroup from allocations to the ingroup for each sample and each fund. These scores were analysed using a 2 (sample: HS vs. LS) by 2 (fund: research vs. outreach) mixed ANOVA with repeated measures on the second factor. This returned a significant main effect of sample, F (1, 109) = 19.09, p < .001, η 2 = .15, and a significant sample by fund interaction, F (1, 109) = 50.50, p < .001, η 2 = .31. The HS sample showed more ingroup favouritism in the research domain ( M = 25.63, SD = 26.75) than the outreach domain ( M = −2.78, SD = 16.85), F (1, 109) = 43.48, p < .001, whereas the LS sample showed more ingroup favouritism in the outreach domain ( M = 6.94, SD = 24.59) than the research domain ( M = −11.14, SD = 26.19), F (1, 109) = 13.49, p < .001. Indeed, the HS sample showed some outgroup favouritism in the outreach domain, and the LS sample showed outgroup favouritism in the research domain. Figure 5 shows ingroup favouritism in locations of each fund by each sample.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms528541f5.jpg

Ingroup favouritism in resource allocations (ingroup minus outgroup) by each sample within each domain.

Regression analyses to predict ingroup favouritism were conducted in the same manner as for Study 1. Before conducting each regression, we removed cases that were more than 1.96 standard residuals away from the regression line. This excluded four cases from the HS sample and four cases from the LS sample from the first analysis (research funds), and six cases from the HS sample and five from the LS sample from the second analysis (outreach funds). The four regression analyses are summarized in Table 2 .

Summary of regression analyses showing proportions of explained variance in ingroup favouritism at Steps 1 and 2, and beta weights of significant predictors (Study 2)

Sample	Domain of discrimination	at Step 1 (Status, identification, competition)	change at Step 2 (Stereotypes)	Total	Significant predictors in final model and their beta weights in Steps 1 and 2
Sample	Domain of discrimination	at Step 1 (Status, identification, competition)	change at Step 2 (Stereotypes)	Total		Step 1 β	Step 2 β
HS Sample	Research Funds ( = 60)	.108	.106	.214	Status	.293	.214
					Competence	—	.316
					Status	.204	.239
	Outreach funds ( = 58)	.059	.014	.073
LS Sample	Research funds ( = 43)	.425	.048	.473	Identification	.351	.174
					Status	−.506	−.588
					Warmth	—	.285
	Outreach funds ( = 42)	.009	.127	.136	Warmth	—	.402

As shown in Table 2 , the results were almost identical to those in Study 1 with regard to the relationships between stereotypes and ingroup favouritism. Amongst the HS sample, competence but not warmth stereotypes were significantly related to ingroup favouritism, which occurred primarily in allocations of research funds. Amongst the LS sample, warmth but not competence stereotypes were related to ingroup favouritism. As in Study 1, we conducted tests of the indirect effects of identification on ingroup favouritism via stereotypes using bootstrapping. Amongst the HS sample, neither pathways were significant in either domain. Amongst the LS sample, the indirect pathway through warmth was significant in the outreach domain (CI 95 : .10, 4.20) but the pathway through competence was not (CI 95 : −3.54, .14). Neither path was significant in the research domain. Amongst the LS sample, identification predicted warmth (β = −.612, t = −4.67, p < .001) but not competence (β = −.160, t = −1.04, p = .306). Amongst the HS sample, identification did not predict either warmth or competence. As in Study 1, these results provide mixed support for a mediation model. There was a significant path linking identification, warmth, and ingroup favouritism amongst the LS group, but not a corresponding path linking identification, competence, and ingroup favouritism amongst the HS sample.

Study 2 closely replicated Study 1, using a different intergroup context and different domains and measures of intergroup discrimination. As in Study 1, HS participants differentiated the ingroup and outgroup on competence but not on warmth, while LS participants differentiated the groups on warmth but not on competence. Again, differentiation in the respective domains was related to identification, with high identifiers emphasizing differences on their preferred dimension while minimizing differences on their “off” dimension. In terms of resource allocations, HS participants showed strong ingroup favouritism in allocating research funds but generally did not discriminate in allocations of out- reach funds. Again, their ingroup favouritism was related to competence but not warmth stereo- types. The LS participants showed outgroup favouritism in allocating research funds, and some ingroup favouritism in allocations of out- reach funds (though small and not statistically significant), and this was related to warmth but not competence stereotypes. Overall, then, Study 2 yielded virtually identical results to Study 1, except that the LS sample showed clear outgroup favouritism in the research domain and relatively weak ingroup favouritism in the outreach domain. Given the relevance of warmth to community outreach activities, we had expected the LS group to show strong ingroup favouritism in this domain, and for the HS group to perhaps show outgroup favouritism. However, there was relatively little discrimination by either group in the outreach domain. This was surprising given previous research (including Study 1) suggesting that low-status groups show ingroup favouritism in domains unrelated to status ( Reichl, 1997 ). Despite this important difference between Studies 1 and 2, which we discuss further below, it was clear that HS and LS samples differentiated themselves positively on competence and warmth, respectively, and that resource allocations by HS participants were related to competence stereotypes, while those by LS participants were related to warmth. Thus, on the whole, Study 2 was consistent with the argument that high- and low-status groups pursue positive distinctiveness in separate domains of competence and warmth, respectively.

General discussion

We have argued that high- and low-status groups pursue positive distinctiveness in separate domains of competence and warmth—high-status groups pursue positive distinctiveness primarily through competence, and low-status groups primarily through warmth, because these are the domains typically associated with high- and low-status groups. To our knowledge, this is the first attempt to directly link social identity processes underlying intergroup discrimination with stereotype content processes, and to map out the broad domains in which high- and low-status groups pursue positive distinctiveness. The results of both studies provide clear support for our hypotheses, showing that (a) high- and low- status groups positively differentiate themselves primarily in terms of competence and warmth stereo- types respectively, (b) high- and low-status groups show ingroup favouritism in separate domains differentially related to competence and warmth stereotypes, and (c) ingroup favouritism is related to competence stereotypes amongst high-status groups, and warmth stereotypes amongst low- status groups.

A number of theoretical implications follow from this formulation. The first is that these stereotypes, being widely shared and closely linked to objective status indicators, can be understood as cultural resources that constrain high- and low-status groups’ pursuit of positive social identity. They play a role in defining the social spaces— social roles, identities, and relationships—that high- and low-status groups can adopt, and since both dimensions are evaluatively positive, they attract group members into these spaces in their pursuit of positive social identities ( Eagly, 1987 ; Glick & Fiske, 2001b ). This is consistent with the idea, shared by a number of contemporary theories ( Eagly, 1987 ; Glick & Fiske, 2001a ; Jost & Banaji, 1994 ; Kay & Jost, 2003 ; Kay et al., 2005 ; Tajfel, 1981 ), that stereotypes function to maintain and legitimize existing social arrangements. However, it also highlights the role of social identity in leading members of low-status groups to adopt particular roles and identities. The perpetuation of existing status and power relations is not driven entirely by implicit or explicit sanctions and rewards ( Eagly, 1987 ; Glick & Fiske, 2001b ), but also by low-status groups being drawn to these roles and identities because they provide a source of positive social identity.

Although both competence and warmth can provide a source of positive social identity, they are not equivalent stereotype dimensions. They differ at least in that competence is strongly tied to objective status relations and is thus relatively confirmable. Warmth, on the other hand, is less tied to objective indicators and is thus less (dis)confirmable ( Tausch et al., 2007 ). What this means is that high-status groups have a double advantage. First, they are able to claim both competence and warmth, while low-status groups can only claim warmth. To the extent that these dimensions form the basis for group evaluations and intergroup dis- crimination, this places high-status groups at a distinct advantage. Second, the link between competence and objective status may mean that competence is perceived as a more valid basis for discrimination than warmth. In our studies, the high-status groups could presumably justify ingroup favouritism through their stereotypical competence, particularly in competence-relevant domains, whereas the low-status groups could not. In fact, they even showed outgroup favouritism in Study 2. On the other hand, when we used a domain we thought was closely linked to warmth (community outreach), there was little ingroup favouritism on the part of the low-status group. We interpret this as indicating that warmth does not provide a basis for strong ingroup favouritism on a material level. Indeed, the very nature of warmth as a component of identity may work against discrimination as it may be seen to contradict what it means to be friendly, sincere, and sociable. It has been argued that this is one reason why stereotyping low-status groups as warm works to maintain existing social inequalities ( Glick & Fiske, 2001a ; Jost & Banaji, 1994 ). Thus, even if warmth provides a sense of positive social identity, it may not provide a basis for changing material realities.

Of course, this does not explain the strong ingroup favouritism displayed by the low-status group in the sports domain in Study 1. It could be that this was a particularly important aspect of that group’s identity, and that they actually were objectively superior to the high-status group in sports. Unfortunately we did not check this. Another difference between Studies 1 and 2 is that the point-allocation task in Study 1 was purely symbolic and explicitly associated with performance in each domain, whereas the allocation-task in Study 2 was more realistic and meaningful. Even though participants’ allocations were non- consequential, the task itself resembled very real decisions often made at the government level, which have real consequences for universities. For this reason, we would be more confident in generalizing the findings of Study 2 to realistic contexts in which important material resources are at stake.

Beyond these broad implications, the current studies inform the mechanisms underlying inter- group discrimination. SIT argues that discrimination is motivated by a need for positive and distinctive social identity. We found some evidence for this, but stereotypes were consistently stronger predictors of ingroup favouritism than identification. These data point towards a moderated mediation model ( Muller, Judd, & Yzerbyt, 2005 ), in which the effect of identification on intergroup discrimination is mediated by competence stereo- types amongst high-status groups, but warmth stereotypes amongst low-status groups. We probed this possibility with indirect effects analyses, but results were mixed. Identification did not consistently predict ingroup favouritism, and there was no evidence for an indirect effect of identification on ingroup favouritism via competence stereotypes. Further research should aim to clarify the relationships between identification, stereotypes, and ingroup favouritism in legitimate status systems.

How, then, should we understand the relationships between status, identification, stereotypes, and discrimination found in our studies? We think that intergroup discrimination is motivated by a need for positive social identity but that it needs to be justified. Stereotypes, particularly of competence, can be used to justify discrimination, but since they are tied to objective status indicators, only high- status groups can claim competence, and thus dis- criminate, in stable and legitimate status systems. Low-status groups can claim warmth, but this is less (dis)confirmable and does not seem to provide a strong basis for discrimination in resource allocations. Warmth may provide low-status groups with a sense of positive social identity but it may not pro- vide a good basis for changing material realities.

These studies provided clear evidence that high- and low-status groups pursue positive distinctive- ness in separate domains of competence and warmth, respectively. This is consistent with earlier work in social identity theory showing that high-status groups show ingroup favouritism in status-relevant domains and low-status groups in status-irrelevant domains ( Bettencourt et al., 2001 ; Brewer, 1979 ; Mullen et al., 1992 ; Reichl, 1997 ; Sachdev & Bourhis, 1985 , 1987 , 1991 ). However, this previous work has not attempted to systematically define the domains that are status-relevant and status-irrelevant, and thus the general domains in which high- and low-status groups pursue positive distinctiveness. The stereotype content model identifies these domains as competence and warmth, and thus suggests that these are domains in which high- and low-status groups generally pursue positive social identity. At least in stable and legitimate status systems, these stereotypes in effect define the dimensions on which groups can seek positive distinctiveness, constraining and justifying dis- crimination for high- and low-status groups. Identification may provide the motivation for intergroup discrimination, but stereotypes channel and direct such motives. At the same time, this research highlights a double-edged sword that places low-status groups at a distinct disadvantage—while they may derive a sense of positive identity from stereotypes of warmth, these stereotypes don’t seem to enable them to act on the material realities that often define status relations.

1 League tables are published each year in a leading newspaper in which each college is ranked in terms of its academic performance.

2 In each matrix, two strategies are pitted against each other as poles of the distribution matrix. Across the six matrices, favouritism (FAV) is pitted against maximum joint profit (MJP), maximum differentiation (MD) against maximum ingroup profit plus maximum joint profit (MIP + MJP), and parity (P) against FAV. Pull scores are calculated to represent the relative pull of each strategy on the other, yielding six pull scores in total. The analysis assesses whether each strategy exerted a significant pull on its alternative strategy. For example, whether FAV exerted a pull on MJP, and whether MJP exerted a pull on FAV.

3 Indirect effects are traditionally tested only in the context of a significant direct effect of a predictor (e.g., identification) on an outcome variable (e.g., ingroup favouritism). However, Hayes (2009) argues that this criteria is too conservative and that indirect effects can exist in the absence of significant direct effects. Hence, we also examined indirect effects within the LS sample.

Contributor Information

Julian A. Oldmeadow, Department of Psychology, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, UK.

Susan T. Fiske, Princeton University.

Abrams D, Hogg MA. Comments on the motivational status of self-esteem in social identity and intergroup discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychology. 1988; 18 :317–334. [ Google Scholar ]
Berger J, Cohen BP, Zelditch M. Status characteristics and social interaction. American Sociological Review. 1972; 37 :241–255. [ Google Scholar ]
Bettencourt BA, Dorr N, Charlton K, Hume DL. Status differences and in-group bias: A meta-analytic examination of the effects of status stability, status legitimacy, and group permeability. Psychological Bulletin. 2001; 127 :520–542. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bourhis RY, Sachdev I. The Tajfel matrices as an instrument for conducting intergroup research. Mimeo, McMaster University; Hamilton, Ontario: 1986. [ Google Scholar ]
Bourhis RY, Sachdev I, Gagnon A. Intergroup research with the Tajfel matrices: Methodological notes. In: Zanna MP, Olson JM, editors. The psychology of prejudice: The Ontario symposium. Vol. 7. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1994. pp. 209–232. [ Google Scholar ]
Brewer MB. In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin. 1979; 86 :307–324. [ Google Scholar ]
Buss DM. Sex differences in the evaluation and performance of dominant acts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1981; 40 :147–154. [ Google Scholar ]
Cuddy AJC, Fiske ST, Glick P. Competence and warmth as universal trait dimensions of interpersonal and intergroup perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. In: Zanna MP, editor. Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 40. New York: Academic Press; 2008. pp. 61–149. [ Google Scholar ]
Cuddy AJC, Fiske ST, Kwan VSY, Glick P, Demoulin S, Leyens JP, et al. Is the stereotype content model culture-bound? A cross- cultural comparison reveals systematic similarities and differences. British Journal of Social Psychology. 2009; 48 :1–33. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Doosje B, Ellemers N, Spears R. Perceived intragroup variability as a function of group status and identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 1995; 31 :410–436. [ Google Scholar ]
Eagly AH. Sex differences in social behaviour: A social role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1987. [ Google Scholar ]
Eagly AH, Steffen VJ. Gender stereo- types stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1984; 46 :735–754. [ Google Scholar ]
Fiske ST, Cuddy AJC, Glick P. Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2007; 11 :77–83. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Fiske ST, Cuddy AJC, Glick P, Xu J. A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2002; 82 :878–902. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Fiske ST, Xu J, Cuddy AC, Glick P. (Dis)respecting versus (dis)liking: Status and inter- dependence predict ambivalent stereotypes of competence and warmth. Journal of Social Issues. 1999; 55 :473–489. [ Google Scholar ]
Glick P, Fiske ST. Ambivalent stereo- types as legitimizing ideologies: Differentiating paternalistic and envious prejudice. In: Jost JT, Major B, editors. The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001a. pp. 278–306. [ Google Scholar ]
Glick P, Fiske ST. An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist. 2001b; 56 :109–118. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hayes AF. Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millenium. Communication Monographs. 2009; 76 :408–420. [ Google Scholar ]
Hinkle S, Brown R. Inter-group comparisons and social identity: Some links and lacunae. In: Abrams D, Hogg M, editors. Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf; 1990. pp. 48–70. [ Google Scholar ]
Jost JT, Banaji MR. The role of stereo- typing in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology. 1994; 33 :1–27. [ Google Scholar ]
Judd CM, James-Hawkins L, Yzerbyt V, Kashima Y. Fundamental dimensions of social judgment: Understanding the relations between judgments of competence and warmth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2005; 89 :899–913. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kay AC, Jost JT. Complementary justice: Effects of “poor but happy” and “poor but honest” stereotype exemplars on system justification and implicit activation of the justice motive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2003; 85 :823–837. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kay AC, Jost JT, Young S. Victim derogation and victim enhancement as alternative routes to system justification. Psychological Science. 2005; 16 :240–246. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kelly C. Group identification, intergroup perceptions and collective action. European Review of Social Psychology. 1993; 4 :59–83. [ Google Scholar ]
Kervyn N, Yzerbyt VY, Demoulin S, Judd CM. Competence and warmth in context: The compensatory nature of stereotypic views of national groups. European Journal of Social Psychology. 2008; 38 :1175–1183. [ Google Scholar ]
Leach CW, Ellemers N, Barreto M. Group virtue: The importance of morality (vs. competence and sociability) in the positive evaluation of in-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2007; 93 :234–249. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lemaine G. Social differentiation and social originality. European Journal of Social Psychology. 1974; 4 :17–52. [ Google Scholar ]
Mullen B, Brown RJ, Smith C. Ingroup bias as a function of salience, relevance and status: An integration. European Journal of Social Psychology. 1992; 22 :103–122. [ Google Scholar ]
Muller D, Judd CM, Yzerbyt VY. When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2005; 89 :852–863. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Preacher KJ, Hayes AF. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in simple and multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers. 2008; 40 :879–891. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Reichl AJ. Ingroup favouritism and out- group favouritism in low status minimal groups: Differential responses to status-related and status- unrelated measures. European Journal of Social Psychology. 1997; 27 :617–633. [ Google Scholar ]
Sachdev I, Bourhis RY. Social categorization and power differentials in group relations. European Journal of Social Psychology. 1985; 15 :415–434. [ Google Scholar ]
Sachdev I, Bourhis RY. Status differentials and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology. 1987; 17 :277–293. [ Google Scholar ]
Sachdev I, Bourhis RY. Power and status differentials in minority and majority group relations. European Journal of Social Psychology. 1991; 21 :1–24. [ Google Scholar ]
Sherif M, Harvey OJ, White BJ, Hood WR, Sherif CW. Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The robbers’ cave experiment. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press; 1961. [ Google Scholar ]
Tajfel H. Social stereotypes and social groups. In: Turner JC, Giles H, editors. Intergroup behavior. Oxford: Blackwell; 1981. pp. 144–167. [ Google Scholar ]
Tajfel H, Billig MG, Bundy RP, Flament C. Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology. 1971; 1 :149–178. [ Google Scholar ]
Tajfel H, Turner JC. An integrative theory of social conflict. In: Austin WG, Worchel S, editors. The social psychology of intergroup relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole; 1979. pp. 33–47. [ Google Scholar ]
Tajfel H, Turner JC. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In: Worchel S, Austin WG, editors. Psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago: Nelson Hall; 1986. pp. 7–24. [ Google Scholar ]
Tausch N, Kenworthy JB, Hewstone M. The confirmability and disconfirmability of trait concepts revisited: Does content matter? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2007; 92 :542–556. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Turner JC. Some current issues in research on social identity and self-categorization theories. In: Ellemers N, Spears R, Doosje B, editors. Social identity: Context, commitment, content. Oxford: Blackwell; 1999. pp. 6–34. [ Google Scholar ]

Social Identity Theory: I, You, Us & We. Why Groups Matter

Cooley (1902/2022) discussed the concept of our social selves as a looking-glass self-concept:

“Each to each a looking-glass Reflects the other that doth pass.”

Our personal identities are shaped from the moment we are born. Our family, upbringing, environment, genetic makeup (psychological and physical), and social interactions all play a role in identity formation.

Research on individuals and groups contributed to the social identity theory, which has provided information and insight into this concept of identity. Let’s investigate the basis of this theory below.

Before you continue, we thought you might like to download our three Self-Compassion Exercises for free . These detailed, science-based exercises will help you increase the compassion and kindness you show yourself and give you the tools to help your clients, students, or employees show more compassion to themselves.

This Article Contains

What is social identity a definition, understanding social identity theory, social identity theory in life, understanding in-group vs. out-group, what are threats to social identities, 3 fascinating research findings on social identity theory, the intersectionality of social identity theory, how social identity shapes personal behavior, 4 interesting books on the topic, resources from positivepsychology.com, a take-home message, frequently asked questions.

Social identity is the aspect of an individual’s self-concept that comes from membership in a specific social group (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). It is the “we” categorization that can either be something someone is born into, such as gender and ethnic identity, or something assigned, such as a sports team.

A range of identity categorizations have been proposed. Some scholars argue there are six, and some have listed up to 12. To provide an example of these identification categories, Elon University has identified “ the big eight ” (Zeno, 2023), which include:

Religious affiliation
Socioeconomic status
Sexual orientation

Social identity can provide a sense of belonging, purpose, self-worth , and identity (Turner & Reynolds, 2010). Being part of a group can help individuals feel connected and unified. Groups also tend to have shared goals and meaning. They create a framework to understand ourselves within the context of society, defining values, attributes, and beliefs.

Social identity theory was created to explore intergroup behavior and the phenomenon of an in-group and an out-group (Turner & Oakes, 1986).

Individuals change their own behavior to conform to the norms of a group, feel accepted, and find a sense of belonging. This includes modifying self-identity, or the part of self-concept that is psychologically and emotionally attached to the group.

Historical background

Henri Tajfel (1970) and colleagues conducted a series of studies known as minimal-group studies (more on that below) that gave rise to social identity theory. After World War II, psychologists wanted to understand intergroup relationships and how the horrors of the Holocaust could have happened.

Minimal-group studies assigned participants into groups designed to be arbitrary and meaningless and then asked them to assign points to each other. Participants systematically awarded more points to in-group members than to out-group members.

This demonstrates that the simple act of arbitrarily categorizing people into groups can be enough to create a sense of group membership rather than as individuals. Social identity theory was developed based on the conviction that group membership provides people with meaning in social situations (Tajfel, 1970).

In other words, group membership helps people define who they are and how they relate to others.

Building on these foundational ideas, a student of Tajfel, John Turner, explored cognitive factors involved in social identification. Turner looked at how people interpret their position in different social contexts and how it affects perception and behavior (Turner & Oakes, 1986). Stereotyping and ideas of social influence create self-categorization theory, or the social identity theory of a group (Turner & Oakes, 1986).

Cognitive processes

According to social identity theory, there are three cognitive processes central to creating and defining an individual’s place in society.

These include (Tajfel, 1981):

social categorization,
social comparison and
social identification.

Social categorization is how people perceive themselves and others in terms of particular social categories (Tajfel, 1981). It is a way of labeling group members rather than thinking of them as unique individuals. For example, categorizing John as a football coach and father.

Social comparison is how people determine their social standing or value based on a particular group (Festinger, 1954). This can be seen in career fields and socioeconomic circles in society today. For example, doctors may be given a higher social standing than fast food workers.

Social identification is the idea that people perceive social situations based on who they are and how they relate to others (Tajfel, 1981). How people view a situation is influenced by the groups around them and how they view other people inside and outside of these groups.

These three cognitive processes are grounded in an individual’s knowledge of what social group they belong to. Social identity gains power through this knowledge, and the level of emotional attachment and value membership in the group holds.

Download 3 Free Self-Compassion Exercises (PDF)

These detailed, science-based exercises will equip you to help others create a kinder and more nurturing relationship with themselves.

Download 3 Free Self-Compassion Tools Pack (PDF)

By filling out your name and email address below.

Social identity theory determines much of a person’s behavior as it plays out in everyday life.

Identification with a specific group is heavily influenced by social media, social contacts or members of your social network, television, and life experiences on a daily basis. Once an individual finds ideas, beliefs, and other people they relate to or feel they can offer status or power to, they begin to align their identity with that particular group (Turner, 1975).

Individuals are motivated to improve their social status, both within these groups and the group as a whole. Motivation to improve social status can be organized into three strategies demonstrated in day-to-day life (Van Bezouw, van der Toorn, & Becker, 2018). These include individual mobility, social competition, and social creativity.

Individual mobility

Bullying in school is an example of an attempt at individual mobility. In order to improve social status within a group, members will often bully, demean, or put down “lesser” members in order to feel more powerful.

Hazing in fraternity is another example. Incoming members generally must go through an “initiation” phase to prove their worth and membership in the group.

Social competition

Team sports offer a great example of the social competition aspect of social identity theory, for example, claiming to be the most devoted follower of the best football team.

Social competition is a group-level strategy where members come together to improve performance and succeed at a common goal. Teams share training sessions and tactical plans and work in harmony to win a game or achieve a championship. Teams show unity through uniforms, team chants, team songs, mascots, and other rituals that help them bond for a more successful outcome.

Political parties also demonstrate social competition during election cycles by promoting their own belief systems publicly and attacking opposing viewpoints in order to win favor and votes.

Social creativity

Social creativity is the component of social identity theory that suggests people modify their perceptions of the group in order to create distinctiveness from other groups (Van Bezouw, van der Toorn, & Becker, 2018).

An example would be if rich people declared how “friendly” people in the working class are. People in this economic group might adopt the characteristics of “we are not rich, but we are friendly” in order to maintain a positive social identity.

When an individual decides which group(s) could be considered the “in-group,” they tend to define themselves less as an individual and more as a member of a shared category (Turner, 1975).

Identifying with a group creates emotional significance that leads to comparisons between the “in-group” and the “out-group.” This helps build self-esteem and self-image and has important consequences for both individuals and the groups they belong to.

In-groups are a critical source of pride and self-esteem, and therefore beliefs, behaviors, actions, and characteristics of the in-group are favored, while out-group members are negatively judged (Turner, 1975). In many cases, “in-group” favoritism is followed by negative “out-group” derogation, bias, hostility, stereotypes, and prejudice.

World’s Largest Positive Psychology Resource

The Positive Psychology Toolkit© is a groundbreaking practitioner resource containing over 500 science-based exercises , activities, interventions, questionnaires, and assessments created by experts using the latest positive psychology research.

Updated monthly. 100% Science-based.

“The best positive psychology resource out there!” — Emiliya Zhivotovskaya , Flourishing Center CEO

Social identity theory posits that group members may receive threats to their identity. These occur anytime a group’s status is devalued or their perceived competence and ability is questioned (Hackel et al., 2017).

Types of threats may include:

Questioning moral values (often seen in political groups and different cultures)
Being treated or labeled as a member of a different group (such as a woman addressed by her gender rather than her profession as a pilot)
Threats to group distinctiveness (workers in a small organization taken over by a larger company and losing their small business identity)

Individuals will respond differently to threats based on how strongly they identify with the group and how the threat was personally perceived.

Minimal-group studies

Tajfel (1970) assigned 14–15-year-old boys into two random groups and asked them to assign points (or “money”) to other groups.

The assumption was that it would be fair to assign points evenly to groups, but the participants allocated more points to members of their own group than to others. This study was one of the first to demonstrate in-group favoritism.

COVID-19 and discrimination

More recently, a study examined personal and group discrimination as it relates to identity and social support among Chinese Canadians during COVID-19 (Mantou et al., 2023).

The study found that Chinese Canadians who identified more strongly as Chinese experienced less adverse group discrimination than those who identified more strongly as Canadians. The long-lasting racism that continued after the pandemic among these Chinese Canadians can be attributed to the same in-group and out-group mentality that social identity theory is based upon (Mantou et al., 2023).

Long-term health and wellness identification

A longitudinal study on the role of social identity and mental health examined Australian workers who transitioned into retirement (Haslam et al., 2023).

Researchers looked at preretirement group membership and postretirement membership, as well as measures of health and wellbeing. Social group memberships before retirement, which valued physical health and wellbeing, led to retirees maintaining these values after retirement.

This demonstrates the adoption and maintenance of shared values based on group membership.

Part of social identity theory includes the concept of intersectionality. As individuals identify with specific groups as part of social identity theory, some of these identities intersect and influence how life is experienced (Crenshaw, 1991).

Intersectionality was first conceptualized by Kimberlé Crenshaw (1991), a social theorist, civil rights activist, and scholar of critical race theory. Intersectionality is a framework to understand a person, group of people, or social problem affected by multiple discriminations and disadvantages. It helps account for overlapping identities and experiences to paint a more accurate picture of the complexity of prejudices and privileges faced.

For example, an individual may identify as a woman, Black, an academic, and a mother. These multiple group memberships and identities create conflicting experiences that cause challenges that a single group membership or identity would miss. It may be more difficult for a Black woman in academia than a white man, or to balance being a mother with work.

All people identify with more than one group, and throughout their lifespan, they will experience multiple identities.

This video further explains the concept of intersectionality:

Social identity shapes personal values, beliefs, and behaviors. Some of the main ways this happens are through in-group favoritism, stereotypes and prejudice, intergroup conflict, and a sense of belonging (Hackel et al., 2017).

In-group favoritism occurs when individuals seek positive self-esteem and therefore promote their own groups rather than members of other groups. This may manifest in making choices that benefit one particular group over another, such as providing resources (time, money, and energy) to one’s own group at the expense of others.

As individuals categorize people into groups, they are more likely to overemphasize similarities within groups and differences between them, which leads to stereotypes and prejudice.

Personal behavior can become hostile, aggressive, and violent when competition or perceived threats exist between groups. Intergroup conflict can also occur when resources are scarce, leading to behavior that is manipulative or harsh.

17 Exercises To Foster Self-Acceptance and Compassion

Help your clients develop a kinder, more accepting relationship with themselves using these 17 Self-Compassion Exercises [PDF] that promote self-care and self-compassion.

Created by Experts. 100% Science-based.

Books discussing social identity provide a deeper understanding of the theory, its applications, and the importance it has for individuals, groups, and society at large.

1. Social Identity and Intergroup Relations – Henri Tajfel

Based on empirical research and theoretical guidance, it provides readers with insight into the psychological processes of group affiliation and how conflicts arise from them.

Find the book on Amazon .

2. Identity Theory – Peter J. Burke and Jan E. Stets

The book helps the reader understand the emotional, behavioral, and psychological processes that work together to form identity and how being members of groups can shape these identities.

With a wealth of information, it is written in a way that all readers can understand and relate to.

3. The Impact of Identity: The Power of Knowing Who You Are – Irina Nevzlin

Understanding identity and who we are can help individuals as they examine their relationship to others in society, including membership in organizations and groups.

4. After Identity: Rethinking Race, Sex and Gender – Georgia Warnke

It expands to political theories that discuss the implications of getting stuck in social identity and focusing only on group membership.

PositivePsychology.com offers several resources for examining identity and self-concept.

Our self-concept article further explores self-concept and the labels, categories, and groups that people may identify with. Looking at self-concept is another avenue for exploring social identity theory.

The Who Am I worksheet explores internal and external self-awareness to help clients gain a better understanding of who they are. Through a series of questions, clients are encouraged to reflect, journal, and share their thoughts, beliefs, desires, passions, and values while exploring their identity.

Core beliefs are central to personal identity and how we relate to the world. This Core Beliefs worksheet examines the deeply held beliefs that clients have about themselves and how they relate to others in the world. These foundational beliefs play a large role in the groups that individuals identify with.

If you’re looking for more science-based ways to help others develop self-compassion, check out this collection of 17 validated self-compassion tools for practitioners. Use them to help others create a kinder and more nurturing relationship with the self.

Social identity theory helps to explain much of human behavior. Group membership and affiliation can play a role in defining personal identity and have both positive and negative consequences.

While many characteristics and traits shape our social identity, they are not fixed, and our identity has the capacity to change with time and experience.

Knowing that values, beliefs, and behaviors are shaped by the social groups we align ourselves with can help each of us make more informed choices about who we connect with.

Group membership matters and has a lasting impact on both individuals and society at large.

We hope you enjoyed reading this article. Don’t forget to download our three Self Compassion Exercises for free .

By recognizing the role of social identities in shaping behavior, interventions can be designed to reduce intergroup biases, promoting inclusivity and understanding between different groups.

Social identity influences behavior by encouraging individuals to conform to the norms and values of their in-group, often leading to favoritism toward the in-group and prejudice against out-groups.

The key components of social identity theory include categorization, identification, and comparison, which collectively explain how people define themselves through group affiliations and how this impacts intergroup relations.

Cooley, C. H. (2022). Looking glass self. In J. O’Brien (Ed.), The production of reality: Essays and readings on social interaction (vol. 7). Sage. (Original work published 1902)
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review , 43 (6), 1241–1299.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations , 7 , 117–140.
Hackel, J., Zaki, B., & Bavel, S. (2017). Social identity shapes social valuation: Evidence from prosocial behavior and vicarious reward. Social Cognitive Affective Neuroscience , 12 (8), 1219–1228.
Haslam, C., Lam, B., Ghafoori, E., Steffens, N., Haslam, A., Bently, S., Cruwys, T., & La Rue, C. (2023). A longitudinal examination of the role of social identity in supporting health and well-being in retirement. Psychology and Aging , 38 (7), 615–626.
Mantou, L., Kimberly, N., Shachi, K., Doris, Z., & Young, H. (2023). COVID discrimination experience: Chinese Canadians social identities moderate the effect of personal and group discrimination on well-being. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology , 29 (2), 132–144.
Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American , 223 (5), 93–103.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology . Cambridge University Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.
Turner, J. (1975). Social comparison and social identity: Some prospects for intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology , 5 , 5–34.
Turner, J., & Oakes, P. (1986). The significance of the social identity concept for social psychology with reference to individualism, interactionism and social influence. British Journal of Social Psychology , 25 (3), 237–252.
Turner, J. C., & Reynolds, K. J. (2010). The story of social identity. In T. Postmes & N. R. Branscombe (Eds), Rediscovering social identity: Core sources (pp. 13–32). Psychology Press.
Van Bezouw, M. J., van der Toorn, J., & Becker, J. C. (2018). Social creativity: Reviving a social identity approach to social stability. European Journal of Social Psychology , 51 , 409–422.
Zeno, M. (2023, September 27). Big 8 identities workshops offer an introduction to social identities . Elon University. https://www.elon.edu/u/news/2023/09/27/big-8-identities-workshops-offer-an-introduction-to-social-identities/

Share this article:

Article feedback

Let us know your thoughts cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Discovering Self-Empowerment: 13 Methods to Foster It

In a world where external circumstances often dictate our sense of control and agency, the concept of self-empowerment emerges as a beacon of hope and [...]

How to Improve Your Client’s Self-Esteem in Therapy: 7 Tips

When children first master the expectations set by their parents, the experience provides them with a source of pride and self-esteem. As children get older, [...]

How to Boost Self-Esteem: 12 Simple Exercises & CBT Tools

Self-judgment and self-rejection can be extremely damaging. We may find ourselves taking fewer career risks, withdrawing from social engagements, and even avoiding making new friends [...]

3 Self-Compassion Tools (PDF)

Search this journal
Search all journals
View access options
View profile
Create profile

Add email alerts

You are adding the following journal to your email alerts

	New content
Social Science Information

Social identity and intergroup behaviour

Cite article, share options, information, rights and permissions, metrics and citations.

Get full access to this article

View all access and purchase options for this article.

Download to reference manager

If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice

Share this article

Share with email, share on social media, share access to this article.

Sharing links are not relevant where the article is open access and not available if you do not have a subscription.

For more information view the Sage Journals article sharing page.

Information

Published in.

Rights and permissions

Affiliations, journals metrics.

This article was published in Social Science Information .

Article usage *

Total views and downloads: 37120

* Article usage tracking started in December 2016

See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score. Learn more about the Altmetric Scores

Figures and tables

Figures & media, view options, access options.

If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:

I am signed in as:

I can access personal subscriptions, purchases, paired institutional access and free tools such as favourite journals, email alerts and saved searches.

Access personal subscriptions, purchases, paired institutional or society access and free tools such as email alerts and saved searches.

loading institutional access options

Click the button below for the full-text content

Alternatively, view purchase options below:

Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.

Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.

View options

You currently have no access to this content. Visit the access options page to authenticate.

Also from Sage

CQ Library Elevating debate opens in new tab
Sage Data Uncovering insight opens in new tab
Sage Business Cases Shaping futures opens in new tab
Sage Campus Unleashing potential opens in new tab
Sage Knowledge Multimedia learning resources opens in new tab
Sage Research Methods Supercharging research opens in new tab
Sage Video Streaming knowledge opens in new tab
Technology from Sage Library digital services opens in new tab

Social Psychology: Definition, Theories, Scope, & Examples

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Social psychology is the scientific study of how people’s thoughts, feelings, beliefs, intentions, and goals are constructed within a social context by the actual or imagined interactions with others.

It, therefore, looks at human behavior as influenced by other people and the conditions under which social behavior and feelings occur.

Baron, Byrne, and Suls (1989) define social psychology as “the scientific field that seeks to understand the nature and causes of individual behavior in social situations” (p. 6).

Topics examined in social psychology include the self-concept , social cognition, attribution theory , social influence, group processes, prejudice and discrimination , interpersonal processes, aggression, attitudes , and stereotypes .

Social psychology operates on several foundational assumptions. These fundamental beliefs provide a framework for theories, research, and interpretations.

Individual and Society Interplay : Social psychologists assume an interplay exists between individual minds and the broader social context. An individual’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are continuously shaped by social interactions, and in turn, individuals influence the societies they are a part of.
Behavior is Contextual : One core assumption is that behavior can vary significantly based on the situation or context. While personal traits and dispositions matter, the circumstances or social environment often play a decisive role in determining behavior.
Objective Reality is Difficult to Attain : Our perceptions of reality are influenced by personal beliefs, societal norms, and past experiences. Therefore, our understanding of “reality” is subjective and can be biased or distorted.
Social Reality is Constructed : Social psychologists believe that individuals actively construct their social world . Through processes like social categorization, attribution, and cognitive biases, people create their understanding of others and societal norms.
People are Social Beings with a Need to Belong : A fundamental assumption is the inherent social nature of humans. People have an innate need to connect with others, form relationships, and belong to groups. This need influences a wide range of behaviors and emotions.
Attitudes Influence Behavior : While this might seem straightforward, it’s a foundational belief that our attitudes (combinations of beliefs and feelings) can and often do drive our actions. However, it’s also understood that this relationship can be complex and bidirectional.
People Desire Cognitive Consistency : This is the belief that people are motivated to maintain consistency in their beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. Cognitive dissonance theory , which posits that people feel discomfort when holding conflicting beliefs and are motivated to resolve this, is based on this assumption.
People are Motivated to See Themselves in a Positive Light : The self plays a central role in social psychology. It’s assumed that individuals are generally motivated to maintain and enhance a positive self-view.
Behavior Can be Predicted and Understood : An underlying assumption of any science, including social psychology, is that phenomena (in this case, human behavior in social contexts) can be studied, understood, predicted, and potentially influenced.
Cultural and Biological Factors are Integral : Though earlier social psychology might have been criticized for neglecting these factors, contemporary social psychology acknowledges the roles of both biology (genes, hormones, brain processes) and culture (norms, values, traditions) in shaping social behavior.

Early Influences

Aristotle believed that humans were naturally sociable, a necessity that allows us to live together (an individual-centered approach), whilst Plato felt that the state controlled the individual and encouraged social responsibility through social context (a socio-centered approach).

Hegel (1770–1831) introduced the concept that society has inevitable links with the development of the social mind. This led to the idea of a group mind, which is important in the study of social psychology.

Lazarus & Steinthal wrote about Anglo-European influences in 1860. “Volkerpsychologie” emerged, which focused on the idea of a collective mind.

It emphasized the notion that personality develops because of cultural and community influences, especially through language, which is both a social product of the community as well as a means of encouraging particular social thought in the individual. Therefore Wundt (1900–1920) encouraged the methodological study of language and its influence on the social being.

Early Texts

Texts focusing on social psychology first emerged in the 20th century. McDougall published the first notable book in English in 1908 (An Introduction to Social Psychology), which included chapters on emotion and sentiment, morality, character, and religion, quite different from those incorporated in the field today.

He believed social behavior was innate/instinctive and, therefore, individual, hence his choice of topics. This belief is not the principle upheld in modern social psychology, however.

Allport’s work (1924) underpins current thinking to a greater degree, as he acknowledged that social behavior results from interactions between people.

He also took a methodological approach, discussing actual research and emphasizing that the field was a “science … which studies the behavior of the individual in so far as his behavior stimulates other individuals, or is itself a reaction to this behavior” (1942: p. 12).

His book also dealt with topics still evident today, such as emotion, conformity, and the effects of an audience on others.

Murchison (1935) published The first handbook on social psychology was published by Murchison in 1935. Murphy & Murphy (1931/37) produced a book summarizing the findings of 1,000 studies in social psychology. A text by Klineberg (1940) looked at the interaction between social context and personality development. By the 1950s, several texts were available on the subject.

Journal Development

• 1950s – Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology

• 1963 – Journal of Personality, British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology

• 1965 – Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

• 1971 – Journal of Applied Social Psychology, European Journal of Social Psychology

• 1975 – Social Psychology Quarterly, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

• 1982 – Social Cognition

• 1984 – Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

Early Experiments

There is some disagreement about the first true experiment, but the following are certainly among some of the most important.

Triplett (1898) applied the experimental method to investigate the performance of cyclists and schoolchildren on how the presence of others influences overall performance – thus, how individuals are affected and behave in the social context.

By 1935, the study of social norms had developed, looking at how individuals behave according to the rules of society. This was conducted by Sherif (1935).

Lewin et al. then began experimental research into leadership and group processes by 1939, looking at effective work ethics under different leadership styles.

Later Developments

Much of the key research in social psychology developed following World War II, when people became interested in the behavior of individuals when grouped together and in social situations. Key studies were carried out in several areas.

Some studies focused on how attitudes are formed, changed by the social context, and measured to ascertain whether a change has occurred.

Amongst some of the most famous works in social psychology is that on obedience conducted by Milgram in his “electric shock” study, which looked at the role an authority figure plays in shaping behavior. Similarly, Zimbardo’s prison simulation notably demonstrated conformity to given roles in the social world.

Wider topics then began to emerge, such as social perception, aggression, relationships, decision-making, pro-social behavior, and attribution, many of which are central to today’s topics and will be discussed throughout this website.

Thus, the growth years of social psychology occurred during the decades following the 1940s.

The scope of social psychology is vast, reflecting the myriad ways social factors intertwine with individual cognition and behavior.

Its principles and findings resonate in virtually every area of human interaction, making it a vital field for understanding and improving the human experience.

Interpersonal Relationships : This covers attraction, love, jealousy, friendship, and group dynamics. Understanding how and why relationships form and the factors that contribute to their maintenance or dissolution is central to this domain.
Attitude Formation and Change : How do individuals form opinions and attitudes? What methods can effectively change them? This scope includes the study of persuasion, propaganda, and cognitive dissonance.
Social Cognition : This examines how people process, store, and apply information about others. Areas include social perception, heuristics, stereotypes, and attribution theories.
Social Influence : The study of conformity, compliance, obedience, and the myriad ways individuals influence one another falls within this domain.
Group Dynamics : This entails studying group behavior, intergroup relations, group decision-making processes, leadership, and more. Concepts like groupthink and group polarization emerge from this area.
Prejudice and Discrimination : Understanding the roots of bias, racism, sexism, and other forms of prejudice, as well as exploring interventions to reduce them, is a significant focus.
Self and Identity : Investigating self-concept, self-esteem, self-presentation, and the social construction of identity are all part of this realm.
Prosocial Behavior and Altruism : Why do individuals sometimes help others, even at a cost to themselves? This area delves into the motivations and conditions that foster cooperative and altruistic behavior.
Aggression : From understanding the underlying causes of aggressive behavior to studying societal factors that exacerbate or mitigate aggression, this topic seeks to dissect the nature of hostile actions.
Cultural and Cross-cultural Dimensions : As societies become more interconnected, understanding cultural influences on behavior, cognition, and emotion is crucial. This area compares and contrasts behaviors across different cultures and societal groups.
Environmental and Applied Settings : Social psychology principles find application in health psychology, environmental behavior, organizational behavior, consumer behavior, and more.
Social Issues : Social psychologists might study the impact of societal structures on individual behavior, exploring topics like poverty, urban stress, and crime.
Education : Principles of social psychology enhance teaching methods, address issues of classroom dynamics, and promote effective learning.
Media and Technology : In the digital age, understanding the effects of media consumption, the dynamics of online communication, and the formation of online communities is increasingly relevant.
Law : Insights from social psychology inform areas such as jury decision-making, eyewitness testimony, and legal procedures.
Health : Concepts from social psychology are employed to promote health behaviors, understand doctor-patient dynamics, and tackle issues like addiction.

Example Theories

Allport (1920) – social facilitation.

Allport introduced the notion that the presence of others (the social group) can facilitate certain behavior.

It was found that an audience would improve an actor’s performance in well-learned/easy tasks but leads to a decrease in performance on newly learned/difficult tasks due to social inhibition.

Bandura (1963) Social Learning Theory

Bandura introduced the notion that behavior in the social world could be modeled. Three groups of children watched a video where an adult was aggressive towards a ‘bobo doll,’ and the adult was either just seen to be doing this, was rewarded by another adult for their behavior, or was punished for it.

Children who had seen the adult rewarded were found to be more likely to copy such behavior.

Festinger (1950) – Cognitive Dissonance

Festinger, Schacter, and Black brought up the idea that when we hold beliefs, attitudes, or cognitions which are different, then we experience dissonance – this is an inconsistency that causes discomfort.

We are motivated to reduce this by either changing one of our thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes or selectively attending to information that supports one of our beliefs and ignores the other (selective exposure hypothesis).

Dissonance occurs when there are difficult choices or decisions or when people participate in behavior that is contrary to their attitude. Dissonance is thus brought about by effort justification (when aiming to reach a modest goal), induced compliance (when people are forced to comply contrary to their attitude), and free choice (when weighing up decisions).

Tajfel (1971) – Social Identity Theory

When divided into artificial (minimal) groups, prejudice results simply from the awareness that there is an “out-group” (the other group).

When the boys were asked to allocate points to others (which might be converted into rewards) who were either part of their own group or the out-group, they displayed a strong in-group preference. That is, they allocated more points on the set task to boys who they believed to be in the same group as themselves.

This can be accounted for by Tajfel & Turner’s social identity theory, which states that individuals need to maintain a positive sense of personal and social identity: this is partly achieved by emphasizing the desirability of one’s own group, focusing on distinctions between other “lesser” groups.

Weiner (1986) – Attribution Theory

Weiner was interested in the attributions made for experiences of success and failure and introduced the idea that we look for explanations of behavior in the social world.

He believed that these were made based on three areas: locus, which could be internal or external; stability, which is whether the cause is stable or changes over time: and controllability.

Milgram (1963) – Shock Experiment

Participants were told that they were taking part in a study on learning but always acted as the teacher when they were then responsible for going over paired associate learning tasks.

When the learner (a stooge) got the answer wrong, they were told by a scientist that they had to deliver an electric shock. This did not actually happen, although the participant was unaware of this as they had themselves a sample (real!) shock at the start of the experiment.

They were encouraged to increase the voltage given after each incorrect answer up to a maximum voltage, and it was found that all participants gave shocks up to 300v, with 65 percent reaching the highest level of 450v.

It seems that obedience is most likely to occur in an unfamiliar environment and in the presence of an authority figure, especially when covert pressure is put upon people to obey. It is also possible that it occurs because the participant felt that someone other than themselves was responsible for their actions.

Haney, Banks, Zimbardo (1973) – Stanford Prison Experiment

Volunteers took part in a simulation where they were randomly assigned the role of a prisoner or guard and taken to a converted university basement resembling a prison environment. There was some basic loss of rights for the prisoners, who were unexpectedly arrested, and given a uniform and an identification number (they were therefore deindividuated).

The study showed that conformity to social roles occurred as part of the social interaction, as both groups displayed more negative emotions, and hostility and dehumanization became apparent.

Prisoners became passive, whilst the guards assumed an active, brutal, and dominant role. Although normative and informational social influence played a role here, deindividuation/the loss of a sense of identity seemed most likely to lead to conformity.

Both this and Milgram’s study introduced the notion of social influence and the ways in which this could be observed/tested.

Provides Clear Predictions

As a scientific discipline, social psychology prioritizes formulating clear and testable hypotheses. This clarity facilitates empirical testing, ensuring the field’s findings are based on observable and quantifiable phenomena.

The Asch conformity experiments hypothesized that individuals would conform to a group’s incorrect judgment.

The clear prediction allowed for controlled experimentation to determine the extent and conditions of such conformity.

Emphasizes Objective Measurement

Social psychology leans heavily on empirical methods, emphasizing objectivity. This means that results are less influenced by biases or subjective interpretations.

Double-blind procedures , controlled settings, and standardized measures in many social psychology experiments ensure that results are replicable and less prone to experimenter bias.

Empirical Evidence

Over the years, a multitude of experiments in social psychology have bolstered the credibility of its theories. This experimental validation lends weight to its findings and claims.

The robust body of experimental evidence supporting cognitive dissonance theory, from Festinger’s initial studies to more recent replications, showcases the theory’s enduring strength and relevance.

Limitations

Underestimates individual differences.

While social psychology often looks at broad trends and general behaviors, it can sometimes gloss over individual differences.

Not everyone conforms, obeys, or reacts in the same way, and these nuanced differences can be critical.

While Milgram’s obedience experiments showcased a startling rate of compliance to authority, there were still participants who resisted, and their reasons and characteristics are equally important to understand.

Ignores Biology

While social psychology focuses on the social environment’s impact on behavior, early theories sometimes neglect the biological underpinnings that play a role.

Hormones, genetics, and neurological factors can influence behavior and might intersect with social factors in complex ways.

The role of testosterone in aggressive behavior is a clear instance where biology intersects with the social. Ignoring such biological components can lead to an incomplete understanding.

Superficial Snapshots of Social Processes

Social psychology sometimes offers a narrow view, capturing only a momentary slice of a broader, evolving process. This might mean that the field fails to capture the depth, evolution, or intricacies of social processes over time.

A study might capture attitudes towards a social issue at a single point in time, but not account for the historical evolution, future shifts, or deeper societal underpinnings of those attitudes.

Allport, F. H. (1920). The influence of the group upon association and thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology , 3(3), 159.

Allport, F. H. (1924). Response to social stimulation in the group. Social psychology , 260-291.

Allport, F. H. (1942). Methods in the study of collective action phenomena. The Journal of Social Psychology , 15(1), 165-185.

Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1963). Vicarious reinforcement and imitative learning. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 67(6), 601.

Baron, R. A., Byrne, D., & Suls, J. (1989). Attitudes: Evaluating the social world. Baron et al, Social Psychology . 3rd edn. MA: Allyn and Bacon, 79-101.

Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social processes in informal groups .

Haney, C., Banks, W. C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). Study of prisoners and guards in a simulated prison. Naval Research Reviews , 9(1-17).

Klineberg, O. (1940). The problem of personality .

Krewer, B., & Jahoda, G. (1860). On the scope of Lazarus and Steinthals “Völkerpsychologie” as reflected in the. Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft, 1890, 4-12.

Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created “social climates”. The Journal of Social Psychology , 10(2), 269-299.

Mcdougall, W. (1908). An introduction to social psychology . Londres: Methuen.

Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 67(4), 371.

Murchison, C. (1935). A handbook of social psychology .

Murphy, G., & Murphy, L. B. (1931). Experimental social psychology .

Sherif, M. (1935). A study of some social factors in perception. Archives of Psychology (Columbia University).

Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behavior. European journal of social psychology , 1(2), 149-178.

Triplett, N. (1898). The dynamogenic factors in pacemaking and competition. American journal of Psychology , 9(4), 507-533.

Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion . New York: Springer-Verlag.

Social Identity Theory And The Minimal Group Paradigm

Social identity theory and the minimal group paradigm shows why people need little excuse to start forming into groups and discriminating.

Social identity theory helps to explain why people’s behaviour in groups is fascinating and sometimes disturbing.

People gain part of their self from the groups they belong to and that is at the heart of social identity theory.

It explains why as soon as humans are bunched together in groups we start to do odd things: copy other members of our group, favour members of own group over others, look for a leader to worship and fight other groups.

Just glance at Sherif’s Robbers Cave experiment for proof of how easy it is to provoke war between groups.

In-groups and out-groups in social identity theory

But think about the types of groups you belong to, or ‘in-group’ as social identify theory has it, and you’ll realise they differ dramatically.

Some groups are more like soldiers in the same unit or friends who have known each other from childhood.

Long-standing, tight-knit, protecting each other.

Perhaps it’s not surprising people in these groups radically change their behaviour, preferring members of their own group over others, referred to in social identity theory as an ‘out-group’, in many ways.

Other groups, though, are much looser.

Supporters of a large sports club, for example, or work colleagues only together on a project for a few months or even a group of people in an art gallery appreciating a painting.

Minimal group paradigm and social identity theory

It seems impossible that people stood together for only 30 seconds to look at a painting can be said to form a group in any measurable way.

Surely it’s too fleeting, too ephemeral?

This is exactly the type of question social psychologist Henry Tajfel and colleagues set out to answer in the development of social identity theory ( Tajfel et al., 1971 ).

They believed it was possible for a group, along with its attendant prejudices, to form at the drop of a hat.

In fact they thought a group could form even when there was no face-to-face contact between members, none of the people knew each other and their ‘group’ behaviour had no practical consequences.

In other words, they had absolutely nothing to gain (or lose) from this barely existent group (although social identity theory shows this statement is not quite right).

Forming a ‘minimal group’

Tajfel and colleagues came up with a neat solution for testing their idea, which is referred to as the minimal group paradigm.

From this experiment and others like it Henry Tajfel developed social identity theory.

Participants, who were 14 and 15 year-old boys, were brought into the lab and shown slides of paintings by Klee and Kandinsky.

They were told their preferences for the paintings would determine which of two groups they would join.

Of course, this was a lie designed to set up the idea of ‘us’ and ‘them’ in their minds.

The experimenters wanted two groups of boys with not the faintest idea who was also in their own group or what the grouping meant or what they had to lose or gain.

After this setup, the boys were taken to a cubicle, one at a time.

Each was then asked to distribute virtual money to the other members of both groups.

The only information they had about who they were giving it to was a code number for each boy and that boy’s group membership.

There were a series of rules for the distribution of the money that were designed to tease out who the boys favoured: their own group or the other group.

The rules were changed slightly in different trials so that it was possible to test a number of theories.

Did the boys distribute the money:

To obtain maximum joint profit?
For maximum ingroup (own group) profit?
For maximum difference between groups?
Using favouritism? This involves a combination of maximum ingroup profit and maximum difference?

Findings from the minimal group paradigm

From the way the virtual money was distributed, the boys did indeed demonstrate the classic behavioural markers of group membership predicted by social identity theory: they favoured their own in-group over the other out-group.

And this pattern developed consistently over many, many trials and has subsequently been replicated in other experiments in which groups were, if you can believe it, even more minimal .

When I first came across this experiment, my first reaction was to find it startling.

Remember, the boys had no idea who was in their group ‘with them’ or who was in the other group.

But, the most puzzling aspect of this experiment is that the boys had nothing whatsoever to gain from favouring their own group – there didn’t seem to be anything riding on their decisions.

Out in the real world there’s a good reason to favour your own group – normally it is also advantageous to yourself.

You protect yourself by protecting others like you.

Social identity theory

What Tajfel argued, though, was that there was something riding on the decisions the boys made, but it was something very subtle, yet incredibly profound.

Tajfel argued that people build their own identities from their group memberships.

For example, think of each of the groups you belong to: say at work, or within your family.

Part of who you are is probably defined by these groups (an important component of social identity theory).

Putting it the other way around: the nature of your group memberships define your identity.

As our group membership forms our identity, it is only natural for us to want to be part of groups that are both high status and have a positive image.

Crucially though, high status groups only have that high status when compared to other groups.

In other words: knowing your group is superior requires having a worse group to look down upon.

Seen in the light of social identity theory, then, the boys in the experiment do have a reason to be selfish about the allocation of the virtual cash.

It is all about boosting their own identities through making their own group look better.

Criticisms of the minimal group paradigm

No experiment can, or should, be automatically taken at face value.

Questions have to be asked about whether it is really telling us what the authors claim.

There are two criticisms often levelled at this experiment and its interpretation in light of social identity theory:

The participant’s behaviour can be explained by simple economic self-interest. But: in another experiment only symbols were used rather than ‘virtual’ money and the results were the same.
The participants were responding to what they thought the experimenters wanted (psychologists call this ‘demand characteristics’). But: Tajfel argues it is unclear to the participants what the experimenters wanted. Recall that the rules for distributing money frequently changed. Also, the participants were encouraged to think that choosing whose paintings they liked (the ‘first’ experiment) was unrelated to the allocation of virtual money (the ‘second’ experiment).

Despite these criticisms, Tajfel and colleagues’ findings have stood the test of time.

The experiment, or something like it, has been repeated many times with different variations producing much the same results.

Group membership in social identity theory

Social identity theory states that our identities are formed through the groups to which we belong.

As a result we are motivated to improve the image and status of our own group in comparison with others.

Tajfel and colleagues’ experiment shows that group membership in social identity theory is so important to us that we join the most ephemeral of groups with only the slightest prompting.

We will then go out of our way to make our own group look better compared to others.

The simple fact of how important group membership is to us, and how easily we join groups, often without realising it, is both a subtle and profound observation about human nature.

→ This post is part of a series on the best social psychology experiments :

Halo Effect : Definition And How It Affects Our Perception
Cognitive Dissonance : How and Why We Lie to Ourselves
Robbers Cave Experiment : How Group Conflicts Develop
Stanford Prison Experiment : Zimbardo’s Famous Social Psychology Study
Milgram Experiment : Explaining Obedience to Authority
False Consensus Effect : What It Is And Why It Happens
Negotiation : 2 Psychological Strategies That Matter Most
Bystander Effect And The Diffusion Of Responsibility
Asch Conformity Experiment : The Power Of Social Pressure

Author: Dr Jeremy Dean

Psychologist, Jeremy Dean, PhD is the founder and author of PsyBlog. He holds a doctorate in psychology from University College London and two other advanced degrees in psychology. He has been writing about scientific research on PsyBlog since 2004. View all posts by Dr Jeremy Dean

Join the free PsyBlog mailing list. No spam, ever.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

View all journals
Explore content
About the journal
Publish with us
Sign up for alerts
Perspective
Published: 09 September 2024

Social identity processes as a vehicle for therapeutic success in psychedelic treatment

Martha Newson ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7700-9562 1 , 2 ,
S. Alexander Haslam ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9523-7921 3 ,
Catherine Haslam ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0124-9601 3 ,
Tegan Cruwys 4 &
Leor Roseman 5 , 6

Nature Mental Health volume 2 , pages 1010–1017 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

32 Accesses

13 Altmetric

Metrics details

The recent surge in psychedelics research has identified promising therapeutic uses for conditions including anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, anorexia, depression, and addiction. However, medicalized forms often lack a vital ingredient: a social group dimension. By integrating psychedelics into group settings and leveraging their capacity to foster social identities, the effects of psychedelic-assisted therapies could be enhanced, echoing their potency in Indigenous and community contexts. We outline the relevance of the ‘social cure’ model, supported by strong empirical evidence in social identity and health literature, emphasizing the importance of group contexts and social identity-based relationships in the theraputic effects of psychedelics. We present practical implications for therapeutic practice and identify future directions and challenges for social cure research, offering an agenda for theory-informed work to investigate the role of social identities and group connections in psychedelic treatment.

You have full access to this article via your institution.

Decentering as a core component in the psychological treatment and prevention of youth anxiety and depression: a narrative review and insight report

Psychedelic-assisted therapy among sexual and gender minority communities

The effectiveness of nature-based therapy for community psychological distress and well-being during COVID-19: a multi-site trial

There is emerging evidence that psychedelic-assisted therapies perform relatively well compared with placebo trials. Indeed, findings from meta-analysis indicate that effect sizes associated with these therapies are larger than those associated with typical psychopharmacological or psychotherapy interventions for a range of mental health conditions 1 . This is particularly evident in meta-analyses that have looked at the effects of psychedelic-assisted treatment to address (1) anxiety and depression in the context of life-threatening illness, (2) anxiety in autistic adults, and (3) post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and suicidality 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 . These analyses also find little evidence of post-acute adverse effects. In turn, this evidence has stimulated considerable investment in psychedelics from both corporate and non-corporate sectors. For example, in 2021 the Australian Federal Government launched plans to invest AU$15 million in trials of psychedelic treatments for mental illness 8 .

Yet, although there is growing evidence to support psychedelic use and of their robust, relatively low-risk safety profile 9 , as things stand, psychedelics are typically delivered in individualized therapeutic settings. By contrast, other successful therapies increasingly use group-based delivery to accentuate positive outcomes 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 .

The contentious nature of psychedelic therapies appears to be the primary cause of this reluctance 14 , In particular, legal barriers and fears of being seen as ‘radical’ dampen practitioners’, researchers’, and funders’ willingness to embrace innovative psychedelic practice. Psilocybin or ayahuasca-based retreats are therefore legal in only a minority of countries, and national frameworks that support legal psychedelic-assisted therapies rarely incorporate a group approach. In addition, while licensing boards have the power to determine the boundaries of professional practice, it is nevertheless the case that risks of criminal prosecution, litigation for malpractice, and harm to one’s professional reputation all weigh heavily on clinicians’ decisions to engage (or not engage) with psychedelic interventions. These same factors also affect their enthusiasm for group-based delivery of these treatments, as do negative representations of mass psychedelic use in the 1960s 15 , It is also the case that licensing boards can be risk-averse and rule against clinicians in the event of a negative client experience or if there is a perceived risk of reputational harm to the profession. So while there can be ‘safety in numbers’ for more traditional therapies, the opposite tends to be true when it comes to psychedelic treatments.

Other barriers to incorporating a group component into clinical trials relate to the (over)simplification that the biomedical model requires. Psychedelics are researched through the apparatus of randomized controlled trials, which is the gold standard in biological psychiatry. In that paradigm, any contextual elements are often treated as superfluous when it comes to isolating a substance’s ‘pure’ effect and considered additive to the treatment effect rather than bound up with it 16 , Accordingly, a group component might be seen to add ‘noise’ to the data, in ways that make conclusions less clear and less ‘scientific’. Studying treatment effects in groups also increases statistical complexity because the individuals in a trial cannot be treated as independent.

In this Perspective, we argue that there are several reasons why the sociocultural and scientific barriers to researching psychedelic treatment in group settings may be problematic. This is primarily because there is now a large body of research informed by the social identity approach to health (also referred to as the social cure model) that points to—and explains—the potential benefits of delivering therapeutic interventions in groups and that more generally indicates that group and identity processes are implicated in a range of positive health outcomes. As we will explain, the social cure model hinges on the importance of people coming to identify with a group, rather than merely having contact with other people in a group setting. In particular, it argues that it is social identification with a group that allows individuals to access the social and psychological resources that the group provides (for example, support, agency, and meaning) in ways that are beneficial for mental health 17 , It is worth noting that optimizing ways of delivering psychedelic therapies to groups of participants would also provide a cost-effective alternative to the individualized treatment plans that currently predominate in the field. Given the length of time that therapists are required to support participants (for example, 9 hours or more for LSD administration and/or months of psychotherapy for integration), this is a non-trivial consideration. On top of the social and psychological imperatives, there are thus economic reasons for wanting to put the social cure (back) into psychedelic treatments.

At the same time, this body of work alerts us to problems that group delivery can create and how these might be avoided. These insights align with those that emerge from Indigenous cultures and communities where the use of psychedelics is generally rooted in what can be conceptualized as a group-based social cure.

We develop these arguments by first reviewing the status of psychedelics research and therapies. We then draw on the social cure model to account for some of the effects and challenges of these therapies. On this basis, we go on to outline the practical implications of this approach for therapeutic practice and propose how to put the social cure (back) into psychedelic treatments. This includes steps to integrate social cure research into psychedelic practice with a view to increasing therapeutic effectiveness. Importantly, these also provide a framework for a much-needed program of scientific research. We conclude by identifying priorities for this research program and by reflecting more generally on the enormous potential that such research holds, while also considering some of the key challenges that this research confronts.

Psychedelics and the group

Recent research has found that psychedelics can enhance feelings of empathy 18 , 19 , group bonding 20 , connectedness 21 , social cognition 22 , social functioning 23 and even sociality with nature in the form of animism 24 . Furthermore, a recent study showed that psychedelics can enhance metaplasticity and reopen the social learning critical period in adult mice 25 . Critically, however, this research also suggests that these outcomes are heavily dependent on features of both the therapeutic set and setting 26 . More specifically, there is evidence that efficacy varies as a function of where the therapy takes place, who administers it, who receives it, as well as the interactions between these various elements.

In practical terms, this means that positive therapeutic psychedelic experiences are dependent on there being trust and rapport within the therapeutic environment, with the therapist 27 , the facilitator 20 or the ritual group with which the therapy is associated 28 . Trust and rapport have themselves also been shown to be contingent on such things as music 29 , 30 and other identity-related sociocultural factors, including shared heritage and shared beliefs 31 , 32 .

More generally, there is clearly a bidirectional relationship between psychedelic use and psychosocial states. Just as psychedelics can create certain orientations and emotions, so too their impact is contingent on the psychological state of the user 33 . Indeed, so pronounced is this inter-relationship that some have argued that psychedelic consumption during the Paleolithic era may have led to biological adaptation in response to 5-HT 2 mechanisms in areas as diverse as serotonin, stress responses, and visual systems 34 , 35 . Yet despite this, in the context of the resurgence of psychedelic research and treatment, opportunities to increase the efficacy of psychedelic-assisted therapies by attending to their social contextual dimensions have received relatively little attention 36 , 37 , 38 . In particular, there have been very few (if any) attempts to capitalize on the proven capacity for group life and related identity dynamics to deliver a social cure (for reviews, see refs. 39 , 40 ) Given the origins of psychedelic use in the practices of diverse cultural groups and Indigenous communities, this is surprising to say the least 41 .

At the same time, it is important to note that the ritualistic use of psychedelics is not limited to ‘traditional’ or Indigenous cultures. In the Northern Hemisphere, and indeed much of the industrialized world, neo-shamanic or neo-tribal practices abound, whether underground or legally sanctioned 42 , 43 , 44 . Moreover, when psychedelics are used recreationally, this is often in a group setting, and therapeutic gatherings often have a group dimension. In these contexts too, the group bonds and emotional sharing that often accompany psychedelic experiences have been observed to contribute to long-term changes in a person’s sense of social connection and, through this, their mental health 45 , 46 . For example, this pattern has been observed (1) in longitudinal studies of guided retreats and ceremonies where wellbeing is enhanced by the sense of connection that these create 20 , (2) in structural equation model analyses of illegal ‘raves’ in theUK where both psychedelically induced transformative experiences and cooperation are enhanced by a sense of identity fusion such that individuals perceive a sense of oneness with the group 47 , and (3) in multiple field studies of festivals in the UK and the USA where psychedelic consumption improves affect only to the extent that it is accompanied by a sense of personal transformation 48 . A common thread in all this research is that while participants are typically seeking personal healing through their participation in these various activities, they quickly realize that it is the social and relational aspects of their experiences that are the real medicine.

Beyond the ritual sphere, psychedelic group therapy is also common as an underground practice, and it is evident that here, too, group life has a crucial therapeutic role 49 , 50 . Indeed, this was the conclusion of psychedelic group therapists in the 1960s 38 , and mindful of this, modern psychedelic studies sometimes include group therapy sessions between psychedelic sessions 36 , 51 . Although these are rarely integrated into the psychedelic session itself, the addition of such group activities appears to have encouraging results. In particular, advocates point to the capacity for therapy groups to create a positive sense of social cohesion and belonging, which promotes feelings of safety and thereby helps participants to process and deal with trauma 52 .

Perhaps the most promising case of modern psychedelic group therapy comes from a practice in Switzerland where a 3-day course of LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide) and MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine) group-assisted therapy has been found to ameliorate treatment-resistant trauma-related disorders, depression, and anxiety in groups of between 5 and 13 people 53 . Here, treatment is delivered without the eyeshades or headphones that are commonplace in many psychedelic-assisted therapies. In this way, rather than being a socially isolating experience, the treatment is socially immersive in so far as participants share their experiences with others—and indeed openly discuss their experiences together on the third day of treatment. Through this sharing process, participants come to work collectively on their challenges as a group, and this group subsequently becomes a resource for healing 53 . Moreover, because participants in the program have four collective experiences with psychedelics over a 12-month period, there is opportunity for their sense of group connectedness to strengthen over time. Similarly, patients with cancer receiving group-based psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy have been found to have reduced depression 2 and 26 weeks after intervention 54 .

This Swiss treatment is a legal form of psychedelic therapy that is delivered by licensed therapists, but it is permissible only when clients are resistant to standard treatments 37 , 53 . However, the effectiveness of the group elements that it includes has not yet been formally evaluated. Together with the aforementioned caution around psychedelic treatments, the absence of definitive evidence has prevented such practices from being taken up within the medical system. Nevertheless, alongside the renewed interest in psychedelic-assisted group psychotherapy, this case points to the fact that psychedelic treatment can have a group component and that this has the potential to be beneficial. Importantly, however, as with all other work in this area, the extant literature does not offer a framework for understanding the influence of group processes on treatment outcomes. This, however, is something that we can derive from the social cure model and the social identity approach to health more generally.

Social identity and the social cure

The social identity approach to health provides an integrated theoretical framework for understanding precisely how group dynamics and associated social identities can shape the health outcomes of psychedelic use. Social identity refers to the subjective sense of self that people derive from their membership in social groups—whether they be family, community, or treatment groups 39 . To the extent that people identify with a given group (so that the group defines their sense of self in a given context), social identities have been observed to play a critical role in shaping their values, attitudes, and behaviors in different situations 55 , 56 . For example, if a person identifies as a supporter of a particular football club, then their thoughts and emotions will be heavily structured by this group membership so that, among other things, their mood will vary as a function of the changing fortunes of their team 57 , 58 .

At the same time, social identities provide people with tangible psychological resources that they can draw on when experiencing challenge or adversity 39 . In particular, they are the basis for social support and a sense of control, self-esteem, and meaning and purpose in life. For example, the fan who identifies highly with their team can turn to other fans of that team for support if their team is defeated, and their collective struggles give them a sense of control, agency, and purpose (in a way that is not true for those who do not identify with the team 59 .

More generally, the social identity approach to health provides an integrated theoretical framework from which a series of hypotheses can be generated concerning the importance of social identities for people’s physical and mental health 60 , 61 . As observed in ref. 62 , health does not occur in a social vacuum. Where social groups are recognized and embraced as a vehicle for change, this can promote improved mental health and wellbeing in the form of a social cure. Meta-analysis shows that clinical interventions that build social identification have a moderate to strong positive impact on participants’ health 63 . Social connectedness to both relational groups (for example, friends or family) and more extended groups (for example, one’s country or even all of humanity) have also been found to predict better mental health and wellbeing in large, global samples 64 .

We outline some of the synergetic relations between psychedelics and the social cure that can lead to improved health and wellbeing in Fig. 1 . The key idea is that on the one hand, different elements of the psychedelic experience can support and help to build a sense of shared social identity, such as ego dissolution 65 , 66 , shared experience and associated bonding 20 , 27 , 33 , 47 , 67 , sensitivity to culture and neural plasticity 25 , 34 , and enhanced self-disclosure. On the other hand, different aspects of the social cure provide a platform for a safe and effective psychedelic experience, which is known to be context-dependent 26 —pivoting around, for example, trust and belonging 27 , 28 , meaning and purpose 17 , 60 , and agency or self-efficacy 61 . Overall, then, psychedelics and the social cure are hypothesized to interact with each other to make psychedelic-assisted therapies more effective.

Elements that can support and help to build a sense of shared social identity include ego dissolution and a flexible identity structure, which can lead to a reconfiguration of identities; the emotional intensity of the shared psychedelic mystical and cathartic experiences, which can lead to identity fusion by a similar mechanism to other rituals with intense emotional experience; enhanced connectedness and communitas, which can improve relations and enhance identification between group members; increased sensitivity to cultural elements such as music and ritual, which can enhance sociality and belonging; the opening of a plasticity window, which can lead to social (re-)learning; and enhanced self-disclosure during integration sessions, which can increase belonging, intimacy, and a sense of being seen. In return, different aspects of the social cure provide a platform for a safe and effective psychedelic experience, including a sense of shared social identity that provides a basis for a sense of mutual social support, belonging, and trust; meaning and purpose; and agency and self-efficacy—all of which increase the likelihood of participants having a meaningful and safe psychedelic experience.

The social cure approach differs from other approaches to group therapy in emphasizing the crucial contribution that group-based social identities make to the therapeutic process, and to health more generally. Key here is the difference between simply ‘showing up’ at social activities, making a single friend or having one-on-one contact, and internalizing a given group as part of one’s social identity so that the group is a subjectively meaningful point of self-reference and understanding 17 . Beyond group therapy sessions that merely facilitate group contact, the social cure approach suggests that, above all else, participants must identify with any group they join to realize the benefits of group membership. It is this social identification that is therefore hypothesized to be the active ingredient in any group-based approach to psychedelic-assisted therapy and to be critical for unlocking the potential of that therapy.

In the past two decades, studies around the world have confirmed that social cure processes have a positive impact on such things as depression, physical health, cognitive health, and wellbeing 60 . Indeed, these effects have been reported in over 25 countries and all populated continents 68 . The capacity for social cure research to inform practice has also been confirmed by a range of intervention studies. This is perhaps most clearly evidenced through clinical trials of the Groups 4 Health (G4H) program, in which efforts to build and consolidate social identity among members of vulnerable groups have been shown to ameliorate social anxiety, loneliness, and depression (relative to treatment-as-usual and gold-standard treatments including cognitive–behavior therapy 11 , 53 .

At the same time, there can be challenges associated with giving people access to this social cure—not least because it is at odds with hegemonic medical models that focus on the individual as a preferred unit of treatment 69 . Nevertheless, despite (or perhaps partly because of) this, the social identity model appears well suited to the challenges of improving the efficacy of psychedelic-assisted therapies. With this in mind, in what follows we offer suggestions as to how researchers and practitioners of psychedelic-assisted therapies might draw on the lessons learned from social cure research to increase the efficacy of their psychedelic treatments. We also reflect further on the challenges that a social cure approach to psychedelic-assisted therapies is likely to present.

Future directions for group-based psychedelic treatment

On the basis of the extensive research and applied practice that supports the social identity approach to health, we propose that the social cure can be (re-)injected into psychedelic-assisted therapies, largely via integrating social cure research into psychedelic practices and aligning with future psychedelics research. These are summarized and expanded on in the Supplementary Information . It is perhaps worth noting at the outset that the idea of harnessing groups to build identity in psychedelic therapies may seem counterintuitive since it is at odds with the idea that psychedelically induced states involve the dissolution of identity 70 .

Here, however, we note that the social identity approach is centered on the claim that identity can be, and often is, defined at multiple levels of abstraction 71 . Accordingly, the loss of identity at one level (the individual-based and personal) can be associated with the gain of identity at another (the group-based and social). This idea is captured in Table 1 , and we hope this will be a catalyst for future research that explores these issues in the context of psychedelic treatments. Indeed, we suggest that it is precisely this capacity for the self to be redefined by social context that is at the heart of many people’s experience with psychedelics. This is seen, for example, in Michael Pollan’s reflections: “[I]n order to make sense of the divide that had opened up in my perspective, I would need a whole new first-person pronoun … In fact I hesitate to use the ‘I’ to denote my presiding awareness, it was so different from my usual first person,” 72 .

Pollan’s quote speaks to the fact that there are many examples of psychedelic therapists, researchers, and patients who have informally identified the relevance—and benefits—of group identities and social connections in the context of psychedelic experiences. Our sense, then, is that the social identity approach affords the potential to formalize such insights in ways that ground psychedelic-assisted therapies in evidence-based theory. As the proposed steps demonstrate, this in turn can provide a structured framework to guide both future research and optimal therapeutic practice.

Potential challenges and limitations

Elsewhere, extensive literature has already examined the controversial ethical terrain surrounding medicalized use of psychedelics. This speaks to issues of informed consent (for example, relating to the challenges of opting out of treatment once it has begun, unrealistic expectations due to media coverage, and consequences for high-risk groups) as well as concerns about the ‘underground’ use of psychedelics, commercialization, and regulation/legalization 73 . The use of psychedelics in group settings presents additional challenges, not least because of the need to work with many clients at the same time. Nevertheless, we believe that practitioners’ capacity to navigate these can be enhanced by learning from group treatments that have been informed by the social cure model and have been found to be both practical and effective 63 , 74 .

More specifically, this research suggests that there are three major ethical issues that arise in the context of group-based psychedelic-assisted therapies. The first of these is that under certain circumstances, participants who take part in group-based psychedelic treatments may be adversely affected by group dynamics and internalize others’ negative emotions and experiences 75 . This is particularly likely where the group is divided or where it has (or develops) problematic norms 62 , 76 . Similarly, there are potential dangers in group therapy that may be more pronounced and ethically sensitive in the psychedelic arena, including the risk of certain individuals being excluded from the group’s bond, the enhanced influence of facilitators and ensuing unhealthy power dynamics, and the increased suggestibility of participants, which can be abused by facilitators or other group members either knowingly or subconsciously.

Accordingly, therapists need to be trained to lead such sessions in ways that enable them to manage these dynamics constructively, notably by developing skills of identity leadership that help the group to build and promote a positive sense of shared social identity within a given therapeutic group 77 .

Second, a core premise of the social cure is that if participants identify with a target group and come to trust it, they will be more likely to bond with the group and to benefit from the resources that it provides 78 . However, if the group itself is defined in opposition to, or is at odds with, the world at large—as can sometimes be the case with groups that use psychedelics—this may be a source of ‘social curse’ 79 because the group feels devalued and disparaged by the broader community and hence is unable to benefit from the resources that this larger group might provide. This means, for example, that stigmatizing media portrayals of psychedelic counterculture have the capacity to be harmful for vulnerable participants who strongly identify with a psychedelic treatment group. Under such circumstances, therapists and facilitators need to provide safeguards to minimize this potential for harm, and again they can do this through strategies of identity leadership that are recognized as a basis for collective resilience and growth.

Finally, third, there are challenges associated with cultural adaptations of psychedelic therapies that practitioners need to be sensitive to if they are planning to apply the social cure model globally. In this regard, the lack of cultural sensitivity in adaptations of other psychological therapies is something of an object lesson—showing, as it does, how therapeutic treatments that emerge in the Global North tend still to be tailored (only) to the needs and perspective of white clients. As antidote to this, recent research in which psychedelic doses of ketamine were given to a small group of First Nations people sought first to engage closely with these Indigenous people’s voices and traditions, for example, through a focus on between-participant relationships 36 .

In the case of psychedelic treatments, there is also the reverse problem that the practices of groups and cultures outside the Global North can be appropriated in ways that are both insensitive and problematic. In this regard, we would note that the applications of the social identity approach to health need always to be sensitive to the identity-related concerns of groups who both develop and receive psychedelic treatment. Among other things, this means that practitioners need to be attuned to the potential importance of identities that have been shown to be important by advocates of the ‘Address’ approach (identities associated with age, developmental and acquired disabilities, religion, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, Indigenous heritage, Native origin, and gender) 80 . This is a complex task in all forms of group therapy 81 , but it is also one that can be supported by a process of social identity mapping that seeks both to understand the nature and diversity of the groups and identities that people bring to a therapeutic context and to draw upon these in productive ways 82 .

More generally, however, it is important to recognize that while social groups are a constant across all human cultures, their social identities differ markedly. Accordingly, rather than simply adapting therapies for different cultures, it is important to ensure that clinicians, facilitators, and therapists are well trained in cultural competency and sensitivity so that they can tune into these different identities and work with them rather than against them 36 .

“For working purposes, you might separate the personal, the community, and the planet, but within the vision, the cosmology of Indigenous communities of the Amazon rainforest, you do not separate the individual from the community from the planet, that’s fictitious. Individual health is collective health, collective health includes the territory. We’re talking about one ecosystem which is inseparable and it’s very important to view it as one,” (Miguel Evanjuanoy, human and Indigenous rights leader of the Inga people).

With mental health providers reaching a crisis point in many nations, the need for innovative solutions to support individuals and their families and communities has never been greater. The new wave of psychedelic-assisted therapies may help to meet some of these needs, but unlike most other medical treatments, psychedelics are extensively self-prescribed and used recreationally in diverse ways. Their uses range from micro-dosing to week-long transformative, endurance-like experiences at events such as Burning Man in the Nevada desert. In contrast to the relatively robust safety profile of therapeutic psychedelics, the risks associated with underground use can be considerable, and they are increasing due to an ever-growing population of non-medicalized psychedelic users' psychiatric support to make sense of often intense experiences that can occur in challenging or unsafe environments. These risks relate to such things as unknown or incorrect dosing, contaminated drugs, poorly understood risk factors (for example, history or family history of psychosis), and lack of appropriate medical and psychosocial support.

Against this complex backdrop, the need to find safe ways for researchers and clinicians to explore and harness the benefits of group-based psychedelic therapies and integration practices is clear. Yet it is something of an understatement to observe that this need has not yet been met by clinical research. Indeed, the surface of possibilities has barely been scratched. Our hope, however, is that the strategies and directions that we have proposed here can pave the way to a more unified, theoretically coherent approach to group-focused psychedelic research and practice. This approach should be beneficial not only for researchers and clinicians but also for those who seek therapy to improve their physical and mental health, as well as for their families and wider communities.

In this Perspective, we have made the case that the social cure model is highly applicable to psychedelic therapies. Alongside the general observations we have made on the basis of previous theory and research informed by the social identity approach to health, for us this raises the possibility that without other people to bond with during the experience, psychedelic treatments are selling themselves short. But whether this is the case, and to what extent, is currently unknown. Substantial work is thus needed both to establish an evidence base that would explore this possibility and to test our various claims. In addition, we need to work with relevant professional bodies to inform and train therapists who can contribute to this effort and potentially also leverage the social cure in their own practice.

Despite the ethical and practical challenges it presents, we believe that this work is manifestly practical and worthwhile. By integrating psychology’s well-evidenced social cure model with insights from anthropological and sociological research that has identified important lessons from traditional and Indigenous practices as well as contemporary underground use, there are very good prospects for the substantial advances recently made in psychedelic-assisted therapies to be further amplified via feelings of identity-based belonging. Our confidence in these prospects is increased by the fact that the social cure model has previously worked well as a basis for interventions that have successfully tackled a wide range of health conditions in a wide range of health contexts. However, in line with the observations of Miguel Evanjuanoy, the model would seem to be peculiarly well suited to the task of improving psychedelic treatments—given that opportunities to explore and benefit from the social dimensions of self are a core part of what such treatments offer. In short, there are grounds for believing that, at their best, psychedelic treatments are a social cure. It is time to realize the full meaning and the full potential of this observation.

Luoma, J. B., Chwyl, C., Bathje, G. J., Davis, A. K. & Lancelotta, R. A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials of psychedelic-assisted therapy. J. Psychoact. Drugs 52 , 289–299 (2020).

Article Google Scholar

Galvão-Coelho, N. L. et al. Classic serotonergic psychedelics for mood and depressive symptoms: a meta-analysis of mood disorder patients and healthy participants. Psychopharmacology 238 , 341–354 (2021).

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Goldberg, S. B. et al. Post-acute psychological effects of classical serotonergic psychedelics: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychol. Med. 50 , 2655–2666 (2020).

Ko, K., Kopra, E. I., Cleare, A. J. & Rucker, J. J. Psychedelic therapy for depressive symptoms: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Affect. Disord. 322 , 194–204 (2023).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Leger, R. F. & Unterwald, E. M. Assessing the effects of methodological differences on outcomes in the use of psychedelics in the treatment of anxiety and depressive disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Psychopharmacol. 36 , 20–30 (2022).

Romeo, B., Karila, L., Martelli, C. & Benyamina, A. Efficacy of psychedelic treatments on depressive symptoms: a meta-analysis. J. Psychopharmacol. 34 , 1079–1085 (2020).

Zeifman, R. J. et al. Decreases in suicidality following psychedelic therapy: a meta-analysis of individual patient data across clinical trials. J. Clin. Psychiatry 83 , 39235 (2022).

Google Scholar

Muthukumaraswamy, S., Forsyth, A. & Sumner, R. L. The challenges ahead for psychedelic ‘medicine’. Aust. N. Z. J. Psychiatry 56 , 1378–1383 (2022).

Schlag, A. K., Aday, J., Salam, I., Neill, J. C. & Nutt, D. J. Adverse effects of psychedelics: from anecdotes and misinformation to systematic science. J. Psychopharmacol. 36 , 258–272 (2022).

Cameron, J. E. et al. “In this together”: social identification predicts health outcomes (via self-efficacy) in a chronic disease self-management program. Soc. Sci. Med. 208 , 172–179 (2018).

Cruwys, T. et al. Groups 4 Health versus cognitive–behavioural therapy for depression and loneliness in young people: randomised phase 3 non-inferiority trial with 12-month follow-up. Br. J. Psychiatry 220 , 140–147 (2022).

Haslam, S. A. et al. Social identity makes group-based social connection possible: implications for loneliness and mental health. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 43 , 161–165 (2022).

Meuret, A. E. et al. The desire to belong: social identification as a predictor of treatment outcome in social anxiety disorder. Behav. Res. Ther. 81 , 21–34 (2016).

Gardner, J., Carter, A., O’Brien, K. & Seear, K. Psychedelic-assisted therapies: the past, and the need to move forward responsibly. Int. J. Drug Policy 70 , 94–98 (2019).

Pilecki, B., Luoma, J. B., Bathje, G. J., Rhea, J. & Narloch, V. F. Ethical and legal issues in psychedelic harm reduction and integration therapy. Harm Reduct. J. 18 , 40 (2021).

Pronovost-Morgan, C., Hartogsohn, I. & Ramaekers, J. G. Harnessing placebo: lessons from psychedelic science. J. Psychopharmacol. 37 , 866–875 (2023).

Cruwys, T. et al. Feeling connected again: interventions that increase social identification reduce depression symptoms in community and clinical settings. J. Affect. Disord. 159 , 139–146 (2014).

Dolder, P. C., Schmid, Y., Müller, F., Borgwardt, S. & Liechti, M. E. LSD acutely impairs fear recognition and enhances emotional empathy and sociality. Neuropsychopharmacology 41 , 11 (2016).

Holze, F., Avedisian, I., Varghese, N., Eckert, A. & Liechti, M. E. Role of the 5-HT 2A receptor in acute effects of LSD on empathy and circulating oxytocin. Front. Pharmacol. 12 , 711255 (2021).

Kettner, H. et al. Psychedelic communitas: intersubjective experience during psychedelic group sessions predicts enduring changes in psychological wellbeing and social connectedness. Front. Pharmacol. 12 , 623985 (2021).

Watts, R. et al. The Watts connectedness scale: a new scale for measuring a sense of connectedness to self, others, and world. Psychopharmacology 239 , 3461–3483 (2022).

Preller, K. H. & Vollenweider, F. X. Modulation of social cognition via hallucinogens and “entactogens”. Front. Psychiatry 10 , 881 (2019).

Markopoulos, A., Inserra, A., De Gregorio, D. & Gobbi, G. Evaluating the potential use of serotonergic psychedelics in autism spectrum disorder. Front. Pharmacol. 12 , 749068 (2022).

Letcher, A. Psychedelics, Animism and Spirituality (Routledge, 2013).

Nardou, R. et al. Psychedelics reopen the social reward learning critical period. Nature 618 , 790–798 (2023).

Carhart-Harris, R. L. et al. Psychedelics and the essential importance of context. J. Psychopharmacol. 32 , 725–731 (2018).

Murphy, R. et al. Therapeutic alliance and rapport modulate responses to psilocybin assisted therapy for depression. Front. Pharmacol. 12 , 788155 (2022).

Pontual, A. A. et al. The influence of ceremonial settings on mystical and challenging experiences occasioned by ayahuasca: a survey among ritualistic and religious ayahuasca users. Front. Psychol. 13 , 857372 (2022).

Eisner, B. Set, setting, and matrix. J. Psychoact. Drugs 29 , 213–216 (1997).

Kaelen, M. et al. The hidden therapist: evidence for a central role of music in psychedelic therapy. Psychopharmacology 235 , 505–519 (2018).

Hartogsohn, I. American Trip: Set, Setting, and the Psychedelic Experience in the Twentieth Century (MIT Press, 2020).

Wallace, A. F. C. Cultural determinants of response to hallucinatory experience. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 1 , 58–69 (1959).

Roseman, L., Preller, K. H., Fotiou, E. & Winkelman, M. J. Psychedelic sociality: pharmacological and extrapharmacological perspectives. Front. Pharmacol. 13 , 979764 (2022).

Rodríguez Arce, J. M. & Winkelman, M. J. Psychedelics, sociality, and human evolution. Front. Psychol. 12 , 729425 (2021).

Winkelman, M. J. The evolved psychology of psychedelic set and setting: inferences regarding the roles of shamanism and entheogenic ecopsychology. Front. Pharmacol. 12 , 619890 (2021).

Manson, E. et al. Indigenous voices in psychedelic therapy: experiential learnings from a community-based group psychedelic therapy program. J. Psychoact. Drugs 55 , 539–548 (2023).

Ponomarenko, P., Seragnoli, F., Calder, A., Oehen, P. & Hasler, G. Can psychedelics enhance group psychotherapy? A discussion on the therapeutic factors. J. Psychopharmacol. 37 , 660–678 (2023).

Trope, A. et al. Psychedelic-assisted group therapy: a systematic review. J. Psychoact. Drugs 51 , 174–188 (2019).

Haslam, S. A. et al. Social cure, what social cure? The propensity to underestimate the importance of social factors for health. Soc. Sci. Med. 198 , 14–21 (2018).

Muldoon, O. T. et al. The social psychology of responses to trauma: social identity pathways associated with divergent traumatic responses. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 30 , 311–348 (2019).

Magar, V., Urrutia, J. & Anderson, B. T. Psychedelic research and therapeutic practices: embracing communities, groups, and traditional knowledge. J. Psychoact. Drugs 55 , 519–522 (2023).

John, G. S. The Local Scenes and Global Culture of Psytrance (Routledge, 2010).

Langdon, E. J. New perspectives of shamanism in Brazil. Shamanisms and neo-shamanisms as dialogical categories. Civilisations 61 , 19–35 (2013).

Scuro, J. & Rodd, R. in Encyclopedia of Latin American Religions (ed. Gooren, H.) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08956-0_49-1 (Springer, 2015).

Cowley-Court, T. et al. Life after ayahuasca: a qualitative analysis of the psychedelic integration experiences of 1,630 ayahuasca drinkers from a global survey. Psychoactives 2 , 201–221 (2023).

Ona, G. et al. Tripping to cope: coping strategies and use of hallucinogens during the COVID-19 pandemic in three cultural contexts. Psychoactives 1 , 16–30 (2022).

Newson, M., Khurana, R., Cazorla, F. & van Mulukom, V. ‘I get high with a little help from my friends’—how raves can invoke identity fusion and lasting co-operation via transformative experiences. Front. Psychol. 12 , 719596 (2021).

Forstmann, M., Yudkin, D. A., Prosser, A. M. B., Heller, S. M. & Crockett, M. J. Transformative experience and social connectedness mediate the mood-enhancing effects of psychedelic use in naturalistic settings. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117 , 2338–2346 (2020).

Fischer, F. M. Therapy with Substance: Psycholytic Psychotherapy in the Twenty First Century (Muswell Hill Press, 2015).

Stolaroff, M. The Secret Chief Revealed: Conversations with Leo Zeff, Pioneer in the Underground Psychedelic Therapy Movement (MAPS, 2004).

Anderson, B. T. et al. Psilocybin-assisted group therapy for demoralized older long-term AIDS survivor men: an open-label safety and feasibility pilot study. EClinicalMedicine 27 , 100538 (2020).

Agin-Liebes, G. et al. Participant reports of mindfulness, posttraumatic growth, and social connectedness in psilocybin-assisted group therapy: an interpretive phenomenological analysis. J. Humanist. Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1177/00221678211022949 (2021).

Oehen, P. & Gasser, P. Using a MDMA- and LSD-group therapy model in clinical practice in Switzerland and highlighting the treatment of trauma-related disorders. Front. Psychiatry 13 , 863552 (2022).

Lewis, B. R. et al. HOPE: a pilot study of psilocybin enhanced group psychotherapy in patients with cancer. J. Pain Symptom Manage. 66 , 258–269 (2023).

Haslam, C. et al. GROUPS 4 HEALTH reduces loneliness and social anxiety in adults with psychological distress: findings from a randomized controlled trial. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 87 , 787–801 (2019).

Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. in Political Psychology (eds. Jost, J. T. & Sidanius, J.) 276–293 (Pychology Press, 2004).

Boen, F. et al. in The New Psychology of Sport and Exercise: the Social Identity Approach (eds. Haslam, A. S. et al.) 303–319 (2020).

Newson, M. et al. Devoted fans release more cortisol when watching live soccer matches. Stress Health 36 , 220–227 (2020).

Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D. & Levine, M. in The Social Cure: Identity, Health and Well-being (eds. Jetten, J. et al.) 157–174 (Psychology Press, 2012).

Haslam, C., Jetten, J., Cruwys, T., Dingle, G. & Haslam, S. A. The New Psychology of Health: Unlocking the Social Cure (Routledge, 2018).

Jetten, J. et al. Advancing the social identity approach to health and well-being: progressing the social cure research agenda. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 47 , 789–802 (2017).

Tarrant, M., Hagger, M. & Farrow, C. in The Social Cure: Identity, Health and Well-being (eds Jetten, J. et al.) 39–54 (Psychology Press, 2012).

Steffens, N. K. et al. Social identification-building interventions to improve health: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Psychol. Rev. 15 , 85–112 (2021).

Tunçgenç, B., van Mulukom, V. & Newson, M. Social bonds are related to health behaviors and positive well-being globally. Sci. Adv. 9 , eadd3715 (2023).

Devenot, N. et al. Psychedelic identity shift: a critical approach to set and setting. Kennedy Inst. Ethics J. 32 , 359–399 (2022).

Dupuis, D. The psychedelic ritual as a technique of the self: identity reconfiguration and narrative reframing in the therapeutic efficacy of ayahuasca. HAU 12 , 198–216 (2022).

MacLean, K. A., Leoutsakos, J. M. S., Johnson, M. W. & Griffiths, R. R. Factor analysis of the mystical experience questionnaire: a study of experiences occasioned by the hallucinogen psilocybin. J. Sci. Study Relig. 51 , 721–737 (2012).

van Dick, R. et al. Identity going global: a validation study across cultures. In 19th European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology (Eawop) Congress, Turin, Italy (2019).

Williams, R. et al. Social Scaffolding: Applying the Lessons of Contemporary Social Science to Health and Healthcare (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2019).

Nour, M. M., Evans, L., Nutt, D. & Carhart-Harris, R. L. Ego-dissolution and psychedelics: validation of the Ego-Dissolution Inventory (EDI). Front. Hum. Neurosci. 10 , 269 (2016).

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D. & Wetherell, M. S. Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-categorization Theory (Basil Blackwell, 1987).

Pollan, M. How to Change Your Mind: What the New Science of Psychedelics Teaches Us About Consciousness, Dying. Addiction, Depression, and Transcendence (2018).

Smith, W. R. & Appelbaum, P. S. Novel ethical and policy issues in psychiatric uses of psychedelic substances. Neuropharmacology 216 , 109165 (2022).

Cruwys, T., Haslam, C., Haslam, S. A., Rathbone, J. A. & Donaldson, J. L. Acceptability and feasibility of an intervention to enhance social group belonging: evidence from three trials of Groups 4 Health. Behav. Ther. 53 , 1233–1249 (2022).

Schury, V. A., Nater, U. M. & Häusser, J. A. The social curse: evidence for a moderating effect of shared social identity on contagious stress reactions. Psychoneuroendocrinology 122 , 104896 (2020).

Dingle, G. A. et al. An agenda for best practice research on group singing, health, and well-being. Music Sci. https://doi.org/10.1177/2059204319861719 (2019).

Lee, G. C. et al. Facilitating goals, tasks, and bonds via identity leadership: understanding the therapeutic working alliance as the outcome of social identity processes. Group Dyn. 25 , 271–287 (2021).

Jetten, J., Haslam, C. & Alexander, S. H. (eds) The Social Cure: Identity, Health and Well-being (Psychology Press, 2012).

Kellezi, B. & Reicher, S. D. in The Social Cure: Identity, Health and Well-being (eds Jetten, J. et al.) 217–233 (Psychology Press, 2012).

Hays, P. A. Addressing Cultural Complexities in Practice: A Framework for Clinicians and Counselors (APA, 2001).

Tarrant, M., Haslam, C., Carter, M., Calitri, R. & Haslam, S. A. in Handbook of Behavior Change (eds Haggar, M. S. et al.) 649–660 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2020).

Cruwys, T. et al. Social identity mapping: a procedure for visual representation and assessment of subjective multiple group memberships. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 55 , 613–642 (2016).

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute of Lifecourse Development, University of Greenwich, Greenwich, UK

Martha Newson

Centre for the Study of Social Cohesion, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

School of Psychology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

S. Alexander Haslam & Catherine Haslam

School of Medicine and Psychology, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia

Tegan Cruwys

Centre for Psychedelic Research, Imperial College London, London, UK

Leor Roseman

School of Psychology, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

M.N. and L.R. devised the project idea, which was developed jointly with S.A.H., C.H., and T.C. All authors discussed the development of the Perpective and wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martha Newson .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature Mental Health thanks Franklin King IV and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information, rights and permissions.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Newson, M., Haslam, S.A., Haslam, C. et al. Social identity processes as a vehicle for therapeutic success in psychedelic treatment. Nat. Mental Health 2 , 1010–1017 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44220-024-00302-5

Download citation

Received : 27 January 2024

Accepted : 13 June 2024

Published : 09 September 2024

Issue Date : September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s44220-024-00302-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

IMAGES

Social Identity Theory (Examples, Strengths & Weaknesses) (2024)
Social Identity Theory
Social Identity Theory. This framework in social psychology…
1 A Schematic Diagram of Social Identity Theory's Basic Principles
Theoretical Framework of Social Identity Theory. The model is the basis
Social Identity Theory

VIDEO

Social Identity Theory: How Group Memberships Shape Our Identity
Social Identity Theory presentation
What are some psychology experiments with interesting results #redditstories #experiment
Tajfel et al
Worst TikTok "Prophet"
How to Have the WORST Idea

COMMENTS

Social Identity Theory In Psychology (Tajfel & Turner, 1979)
Social Identity Theory, proposed by Henri Tajfel and John Turner in the 1970s, posits that individuals derive a portion of their self-concept from their membership in social groups. The theory seeks to explain the cognitive processes and social conditions underlying intergroup behaviors, especially those related to prejudice, bias, and discrimination.
Social identity theory
social identity theory, in social psychology, the study of the interplay between personal and social identities. Social identity theory aims to specify and predict the circumstances under which individuals think of themselves as individuals or as group members. The theory also considers the consequences of personal and social identities for ...
Social Identity Theory
Social Identity Theory (SIT; Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel & Turner, 1979) begins with the premise that individuals define their own identities with regard to social groups and that such identifications work to protect and bolster self-identity.The creation of group identities involves both the categorization of one's "in-group" with regard to an "out-group" and the tendency to view one's ...
Experimentation within the Social Identity Approach: History
Social identity theory and self-categorization theory: A historical review, Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2 (1), 204-22. Google Scholar Huddy , L. ( 2001 ).
Social Identity Theory
Social Identity, Psychology of. D. Abrams, in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2001 3 Social Identity Theory. Social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner 1979) offers an explanation for minimal intergroup bias, and also a broader statement of how relationships between real- world groups relate to social identity.According to social identity theory, there is a ...
Social identity theory
Social identity is the portion of an individual's self-concept derived from perceived membership in a relevant social group. [1] [2]As originally formulated by social psychologists Henri Tajfel and John Turner in the 1970s and the 1980s, [3] social identity theory introduced the concept of a social identity as a way in which to explain intergroup behaviour.
Social identity theory: past achievements, current problems and future
The European Journal of Social Psychology is an international social psychology journal for research at the intersection of psychology, sociology & behavioural science. Abstract This article presents a critical review of Social Identity Theory. Its major contributions to the study of intergroup relations are discussed, focusing on its powerful ...
Social Identity Theory
Social context is the determinant of which level of self is the dominating feature driving interaction and relevant contextual knowledge of the self. The social identity perspective focuses on the part of the self-concept that people derive from their important group memberships—their social identities— and how group memberships can become ...
Social Identity Theory
Social identity theory was initially developed at Bristol University in the UK in the 1970s by Henri Tajfel, who essentially integrated his early classic scientific work on categorisation and social perception (e.g. Tajfel, 1969) with his passion to understand prejudice, discrimination, and intergroup conflict in society.Tajfel was a Polish Jew who lost his entire family to the holocaust.
Social Identity Theory
According to social identity theory, people derive part of their identity - their social identity - from the groups to which they belong (e.g., an identity as "student," "woman," "left-hander," or "Barcelona supporter"). Social identities differ in strength and content. The strength component is conceptualized in terms of ...
The social identity approach: Appraising the Tajfellian legacy
Indeed, the 'social identity approach' has become one of the most widely used perspectives in contemporary social psychology. In this article, I examine the popularity of Tajfel's writings on social identity and intergroup relations, especially over the last thirty years when they started to become more generally used.
Social Identity Theory
Social Identity Theory contains three stages that explain how we come to be a part of another group and view others outside the group. ... One of Henri Tajfel's experiments regarding the Social Identity Theory asked participants to compare and assess people in different groups. ... like many theories in social psychology, may conflict with ...
Social Identity Theory: Definition, Examples, Impact
Social identity is the part of the self that is defined by one's group memberships. Social identity theory, which was formulated by social psychologist Henri Tajfel and John Turner in the 1970s, describes the conditions under which social identity becomes more important than one's identity as an individual. The theory also specifies how social identity can influence intergroup behavior.
Social Identity Theory
Social Identity Theory is a significant concept in social psychology that explains how individuals form a self-concept from social groups. British social psychologist Henri Tajfel and his colleagues created the early foundations of Social Identity Theory in the early 1970s. Tajfel originally developed the theory from a series of studies known ...
Social Identity Theory: Tajfel, Experiment & Social Group
This explanation will start by introducing Tajfel's social identity theory. Then, the social identity theory experiments will be reviewed. Moving on from this, the explanation will evaluate the social identity theory. The social identity theory and the politics of identity will be explored. Last, an example of the social identity theory is ...
Tajfel and Turner's Social Identity Theory
Tajfel was a Polish Jew and fought in the French Army against the Nazis in WWII. His war-time experiences inspired his research on intergroup conflict. Henri Tajfel and John Turner devised their Social Identity Theory (SIT) in the 1970s to "supplement" Sherif's Realistic Conflict Theory (RCT), which was developed in the 1950s and '60s.
Social status and the pursuit of positive social identity: Systematic
Social identity theory and intergroup discrimination. Since the minimal group studies (Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, & Flament, 1971), research in SIT has focused on the cognitive and motivational processes underlying intergroup discrimination.SIT argues that discrimination is driven by a fundamental motivation to maintain a positive and distinctive social identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1979, 1986).
Social Identity Theory: I, You, Us & We. Why Groups Matter
A Definition. Social identity is the aspect of an individual's self-concept that comes from membership in a specific social group (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). It is the "we" categorization that can either be something someone is born into, such as gender and ethnic identity, or something assigned, such as a sports team.
Social identity and intergroup behaviour
Tajfel, H.; Flament, C. et al . 1971 "Social categorization and intergroup behaviour", European journal of social psychology 1: 149-178. Google Scholar Thibaut, J. 1950 "An experimental study of the cohesiveness of underprivileged groups", Human relations 3: 251-278.
Social Psychology: Definition, Theories, Scope, & Examples
Tajfel (1971) - Social Identity Theory. ... Double-blind procedures, controlled settings, and standardized measures in many social psychology experiments ensure that results are replicable and less prone to experimenter bias. Empirical Evidence. Over the years, a multitude of experiments in social psychology have bolstered the credibility of ...
Social Identity Theory And The Minimal Group Paradigm
Tajfel and colleagues came up with a neat solution for testing their idea, which is referred to as the minimal group paradigm. From this experiment and others like it Henry Tajfel developed social identity theory. Participants, who were 14 and 15 year-old boys, were brought into the lab and shown slides of paintings by Klee and Kandinsky.
Social Identity Theory AO1 AO2 AO3
This theory was developed by Henri Tajfel (pronounced TIE-FELL) and John Turner, two British psychologists.Tajfel (caption right) was a Polish Jew whose family were killed in Nazi death camps.He settled in Britain but devoted himself to researching prejudice and discrimination. Social Identity Theory (SIT) says we get our self-esteem from the groups we belong to.
The Social Psychology of Identity and Inter-group Conflict: From Theory
inter-group conflict and the practice of Track Two diplomacy has emerged. paper will examine this gap by connecting theory to practice. We begin. reviewing three seminal theories of social psychology which have guided ship on inter-group conflicts: social identity theory, stereotyping and and contact theory.
Social identity processes as a vehicle for therapeutic success in
In this Perspective, authors overview the 'social cure' model employing group contexts, identity, and connections and argue for its use as a therapeutic framework for psychedelic treatment.

Cognitive processes

social identity theory

Login Alert

Book contents

20 - Experimentation within the Social Identity Approach: History, Highlights, and Hurdles

Access options

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive

Article contents

Social Identity Theory

Cite this chapter

Access this chapter

Similar content being viewed by others

Towards a Clearer Understanding of Social Identity Theory’s Self-Esteem Hypothesis

The Role of Autonomy in Intergroup Processes: Toward an Integration of Self-Determination Theory and Intergroup Approaches

Author information

Corresponding author

Editor information

Rights and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Download citation

Share this chapter

Social Identity Theory

What Is Social Identity Theory?

About Ingroups and Outgroups

What Are The Three Stages of Social Identity Theory?

Categorization

Examples of Identification in Social Identity Theory

Is Social Identity Theory Testable?

Henri Tajfel Quotes

From a Publication in Psychological Review

From an Essay in the Journal of Social Issues

Examples of Social Identity Theory

Criticisms of Social Identity Theory

u/browneyes3190 said:

u/soggyagain said:

u/no_mango said:

This Is Just An Introduction to Social Identity Theory

Related posts:

About The Author

Psychology Resources

Psychology Tests

Understanding Social Identity Theory and Its Impact on Behavior

Key Takeaways: Social Identity Theory

Origins: Studies of In-Group Favoritism

Cognitive Processes of Social Identity

Maintenance of Positive Social Identity

Discrimination Against Out-Groups

Social Identity Theory

Introduction to Social Identity Theory

Key Definition:

Historical Development

Basics of Social Identity Theory

Evolution of Social Identity Theory

Key Concepts

Applications in Social Psychology

An Example of Social Identity Theory

The Good, Bad, and Ugly

Psychology Experiments Displaying the Ugly:

Criticisms and Future Directions

A Few Words by Psychology Fanatic

Protecting Against the Ugly

References:

Resources and Articles

Topic Specific Databases:

Share this:

T. Franklin Murphy

Self-Presentation Theory

Relativistic Thinking

Search for Truth

Social Neuroscience

OverSimplified Meanings

Harmful Implicit Biases

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Tajfel's Social Identity Theory

Tajfel’s Social Identity Theory Experiment

Experiment on Social Categorisation (1971)

Reward Allocation Task

‘Klee and Kandinsky’ Experiment (1971)