Click here to view all late offers

Social Identity Theory was developed by Tajfel and Turner in 1979 to understand the psychological basis of inter-group discrimination. Tajfel et al (1971) attempted to identify the minimal conditions that would lead members of one group to discriminate in favour of the in-group to which they belonged and against another out-group.

In the Social Identity Theory a person has not one “personal self” but rather several selves that correspond to widening circles of group membership. Different social contexts may trigger an individual to think, feel and act on basis of his personal, family or national “level of self” (Turner et al, 1987). Apart from the “level of self” an individual has multiple “social identities”. Social identity is the individual’s self-concept derived from perceived membership of social groups (Hogg & Vaughan, 2002); in other words it is an individual-based perception of what defines the “us” associated with any internalised group membership. This can be distinguished from the notion of personal identity which refers to self-knowledge that derives from the individual’s unique attributes.

Social Identity Theory asserts that group membership creates in-group/self-categorisation and enhancement in ways that favour the in-group at the expense of the out-group. The examples (minimal group studies) of Turner and Tajfel (1986) showed that the mere act of individuals categorising themselves as group members was sufficient to lead them to display in-group favouritism. After being categorised as a member of a group, individuals seek to achieve positive self-esteem by positively differentiating their in-group from a comparison out-group on some valued dimension. This quest for positive distinctiveness means that people’s sense of who they are is defined in terms of ‘we’ rather than ‘I’.

Tajfel and Turner (1979) identify three variables whose contribution to the emergence of in-group favouritism is particularly important:

• The extent to which individuals identify with an in-group to internalise that group membership as an aspect of their self-concept.
• The extent to which the prevailing context provides ground for comparison between groups.
• The perceived relevance of the comparison group which itself will be shaped by the relative and absolute status of the in-group. Individuals are likely to display favouritism when an in-group is central to their self-definition and a given comparison is meaningful or the outcome is contestable.

Social Identity Theory has a considerable impact on social psychology and it is tested in a wide range of fields and settings and includes prejudice, stereotyping, negotiation and language use. The theory has also implications on the way people deal with social and organisational change.

In further research this example is referred to as 'Minimal Group Studies'. Schoolboys were assigned to groups which were intended as meaningless as possible. They were assigned randomly, excluding roles of interpersonal discrimination such as history of conflict, personal animosity or interdependence. The schoolboys assigned points to anonymous members of both their own group and the other group. Conclusions were that even the most minimal conditions were sufficient to encourage in-group favouring responses. Participants picked a reward pair that awarded more points to people who were identified as ingroup members - in other words they displayed in-group favouritism.

References

Mael, F.A. and B.E. Ashforth, Alumni and their alma mater: a partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1992. 13(2): p. 103-123.

Dutton, J.E., J.M. Dukerich, Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in organizational adaptation. The Academy of Management Journal, 1991. 34(3): p. 517-554.

Haslam, Alexander S. (2001), Psychology in Organizations - The Social Identitty Approach, Sage Publications Ltd, London.

Knippenberg, v.e.a., Organizational Identification after a merger: A social identity perspective. British Journal of Social Psychology, 2002. 41: p. 233-252.

Smidts, A., A.T.H. Pruyn, and C.B.M.v. Riel, The impact of employee communication and perceived external prestige on organizational identification. The Academy of Management Journal, 2001: p. 1-29.

Scott, C.R., et al., The impacts of communication and multiple identifications on intent to leave. Management Communication Quarterly, 1999. 12(3): p. 400-435.

Tajfel, H. and Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-group behavior. In S. Worchel and L. W. Austin (eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Chigago: Nelson-Hall

Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (ed.), Social Identity and Intergroup Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hymans, J.E.C. (2002). Applying Social Identity Theory to the Study of International Politics: A Plea for Caution. IR and SIT paper for PPBW, January 3. Available at: http://www.cbrss.harvard.edu/events/ppbw/papers/hymans.pdf

Hogg, M.A. & Vaughan, G.M. (2002). Social Psychology (3rd ed. ) London: Prentice Hall.

Find out more:

11/12/2009

12/05/2010