Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Social Identity Theory - Coggle Diagram
Social Identity Theory
AO1
Background
It opposes Realistic Conflict Theory, which suggests conflict based on irrational needs for identity rather than rational competition for scarce resources. SIT proposes that people might make choices that cost them what they need, in order to defeat out-groups.
Social Identity Theory (SIT) says we get our self-esteem from the groups we belong to. It opposes “Realist” theories because it suggests that group membership by itself is sufficient to create prejudice, without any need for competition over resources.
-
Tajfel & Turner argue that self-esteem is at the core of social identity. We need to feel good about ourselves so we need to feel good about the groups we belong to.
-
AO3
SIT is supported by Tajfel et al.’s 1970 study into minimal groups. The research showed how boys will discriminate against an outgroup (even an outgroup that contains their own friends) and show favouritism to an ingroup (even an ingroup made up of strangers) and that this will happen when the group identity is based on something as flimsy as “being an over-estimator” or “preferring the art of Paul Klee”.
SIT also provides an explanation for why discrimination occurs even when the outgroup is no threat to the ingroup and there is no competition over resources. If self-esteem is based on social identity, then some people need to put down outgroups in order to feel good about themselves.
The “Minimal Groups” studies that support SIT have been criticised for using artificial tasks that lack ecological validity. However, Tajfel would contend that, if boys will be discriminatory over trivial and pointless tasks like this, how much more likely are they to discriminate when something important is at stake!
There are gaps in the theory, such as why some people cling to social identity for their self-esteem more than others. A theory of personality like Adorno’s Authoritarian Personality might explain this better.
Sherif’s Realistic Conflict Theory (1966) stands in contrast to SIT. RCT claims that prejudice is produced by competition and happens when there is (or seems to be) a scarcity of resources like food, money, jobs or status.
RCT is backed up by Sherif’s “Robbers Cave” study (1954) where boys showed outgroup discrimination when a tournament was arranged between them. This started with name-calling and food fights but became increasingly violent.
As with “Minimal Groups”, this is a study of schoolboys that may not generalise to adult behaviour. Unlike “Minimal Groups”, boys squabbling at a summer camp possessed much more ecological validity than ticking books of matrices.
Strategies that increase people’s sense of personal identity may reduce prejudice, especially if they raise self-esteem at the same time. Counseling (especially using Cognitive Therapy) may be one way of doing this. Religion sometimes gives people a sense of self-worth, but it can also create a very powerful sense of social identity and lead to some of the worst discrimination.
Encouraging people to see themselves as part of a larger social identity can combat outgroup discrimination. Some people think teaching “Britishness” in schools may reduce conflict between groups, if they all see themselves as British citizens. However, this may backfire if it leads to more conflict with people who are seen as “un-British”.