Part II
Social Identity Theory Henri Tajfel s social identity theory assumes that individuals strive to improve their self-image by trying to enhance their self-esteem, based on either personal identity or various social identities. Social categorization theory has been used to explain social phenomena such as ethnocentrism, in-group favoritism, stereotyping, and conformity to in-group norms.
Social Identity Theory In-group (us) Out-group (them) Tajfel argues that people who belong to a group or even are randomly assigned to a group they automatically think that group as the in-group, and all others as the out group. They will show in-group favoritism, and a pattern of discrimination against the out-group.
Social Identity Theory An individuals self-esteem is maintained by social comparison, meaning the benefits of belonging to the in-group versus the out-group. The outcome of these comparisons is critical because it influences our own self-esteem.
Social Identity Theory Cialdini et at. (1976) demonstrated this phenomenon among college football supporters. After a successful football match, the supporters were more likely to be seen wearing college insignia and clothing than after defeats. Tajfel (1978) the establishment of positive distinctiveness - It is assumed that our need for positive self-concept will result in a bias in these intergroup comparisons, so that you are more positive towards anything that your own group represents.
Kandinsky versus Klee experiment Tajfel et al. (1971) Boys, 14-15 years old, were shown 12 slides portraying different painting. One half of the paintings were by Kandinsky and the other half were painted by Klee. Boys were asked to express their preferences, which paintings did they like and which paintings did they hate. Kadinsky Klee
Kandinsky versus Klee experiment Tajfel et al. (1971) The boys were seemingly allocated to two separate groups. They were given the impression that this grouping was based on the impressions that the experimenters received from them after the initial part of the experiment. The two groups were named Kandinsky group and Klee group. The names that were given to the group added up to the impression that the groupings were based on the expressed preferences of the boys but the truth is, the grouping was completely randomized.
Kandinsky versus Klee experiment Tajfel et al. (1971) The last stage of the experiment is the rewards allocation task. Each boy was given a task to award points to two other boys, one from his same group and one from the other group. The only information that each boy was given were code numbers and the name of the group of the two boys they were supposed to award. There were two systems of awarding points that were employed by the researchers.
Kandinsky versus Klee experiment Tajfel et al. (1971) In the first system of point awarding, the boys generally awarded more points to the members of their in-group showing in-group favoritism. In the second system of point awarding, the boys generally opted to maximize the difference between the profits of the two groups favoring their in-group
Kandinsky versus Klee experiment Tajfel et al. (1971) One of the most obvious conclusions that we can draw from this experiment is the natural tendency of members of a group to favor their in-group. Despite the seemingly meaningless groupings created by the experimenters, the subjects were able to identify with their respective groups and create a positive social identity through giving their ingroup more points. This phenomenon can be likened to self-serving bias. Since every individual within a group was able to identify themselves with their group, the group is now associated with one s self, thus, benefit of the group identified with the self is prioritized.
Limits of Social Identity Theory Social Identity Theory is a good way of understanding human behavior. It describes but does not accurately predict human behavior. Using the theory on isolation is reductionist, meaning it fails to address the environment that interacts with the self. The environment includes cultural expectations, rewards as motivators, and societal constraints such as poverty may play more of a role in behavior than one s sense of in-group identity.