Discuss social identity theory’s explanation of human behavior.

Discuss social identity theory with reference to research studies.

Teachers’ emails become available on August the 1st.

Social identity is a type of identity that comes from one’s membership in a group. Social identity theory
suggests that merely belonging to a group and being aware of another’s existence can create an ingroup
that defines one’s social identity. According to social identity theory, an individual first divides their
social world into ‘ingroups’ (the groups they belong to) and ‘outgroups’ (the groups they do not belong
to). The individual then undergoes social identification, when they conform to the behaviors and values
of the ingroup. Due to the drive for self-esteem - which comes from an aspect of positive distinctiveness
- social comparison occurs where individuals favorably compare their ingroups with outgroups. On the
one hand, the social identity theory has empirical evidence and can be applied to explain various
behaviors like ingroup favoritism and outgroup discrimination; on the other hand, the theory lacks
construct validity because it is difficult to operationalize and measure variables, such as identities.
Hence, I will discuss social identity theory regarding its effectiveness in explaining behavior and validities
/ The following account will discuss social identity theory with reference to two supporting studies -
Tajfel et al. (1970) and Sherif et al. (1954).

SIT is testable, and yet it is difficult to operationalize and measure variables, for example

Relied on certain cultural groups and may not be generalizable

Social identity theory can explain ingroup favoritism - the behavior of individuals to favor the group they
identify with and related social phenomena such as. This is evident in Tajfel et al. (1970) because it
shows that the participants favored their ingroup merely by identifying with an arbitrary label of
distinction. Tajfel aimed to investigate how assigning the participants a group name results in
identification with a group. In the first experiment, 64 schoolboys aged 14-15 were divided into groups
of 8 and asked to estimate the number of dots in clusters. Tajfel randomly allocated participants to
either the ‘overestimators’ or ‘underestimators’, such that they were grouped based on the minimal
factor of group names. The researchers then asked the subjects to give points to two other boys at a
time. They have told which groups the receivers belonged to but not their personal identities.
Participants could adopt different strategies among various point combinations. When giving points
between 2 ingroup members or 2 outgroup members, the strategy of maximum fairness was usually
adopted. When choosing between an ingroup and an outgroup member, participants tended to
maximize their ingroup profit. The results showed that participants favored the ingroup over the
outgroup, regardless of their allocated condition and personal identity. The researchers thus concluded
that people may identify with a group based on any arbitrary label of distinction, which justifies the
rationale for the second experiment of the study. In the second experiment, 48 schoolboys underwent a
similar procedure. The results showed that when making between-group choices, the participants
clearly favored their ingroup, maximizing the difference between the ingroup profit and the outgroup
profit.

The study demonstrates the effectiveness of social identity theory in explaining group behavior because
it shows that the participants favored their ingroup merely by identifying with the group labels
‘overestimators’ or ‘underestimators’. The study also has high internal validity because it
operationalized the abstract concept of ingroup favoritism as measurable point allocation strategies.
Hence, the influence of social identity on behavior may be tested by measuring how many points the
subjects allocated to their ingroup and their outgroup, respectively.

Evaluative comments on SIT and studies need to be cohesive

However, as a supporting study of social identity theory, Tajfel et al. (1970) were not conducted in a
natural setting, which means the subjects' behaviors might be unrealistic. Rather than dividing objects
with real-world significance, the participants were asked to allocate points based on options in matrices.
Hence, the study has limited external validity, which reduces the generalizability of social identity theory
to the real world and hinders its explanatory power of real-world behaviors.

Social identity theory also explains how the salience of group identity may cause outgroup
discrimination - the group behavior that creates disadvantages for the outgroup. This is evident in Sherif
(1954) because it shows that the participants activated their group identity in response to the presence
of an outgroup, leading them to discriminate against the outgroup. The researchers aimed to investigate
whether merely the creation of two groups with social identities would lead to ingroup favoritism. In the
first phase of this field experiment, Sherif randomly allocated 22 twelve-year-old boys to two different
groups. The boys were asked to choose a name for their own group; one group decided on "The
Rattlers", and the other "The Eagles." Later, the groups engaged with each other. During this stage, the
boys activated their group identity and developed ‘us’ and ‘them’ thinking, leading to hostility between
the groups. This is because they wanted to seek positive distinctiveness and enhance their self-esteem
through social comparison. Therefore, the study demonstrates the effectiveness of social identity theory
in explaining the group behavior of outgroup discrimination.

The study has ecological validity because the subjects bonded and interacted in a natural environment.
Therefore, the participants’ outgroup discrimination is likely to be realistic and representative, meaning
that it can be applied to a real-world setting. For example, when football fans of different cliques
encounter, they may discriminate against and become hostile towards the other group.

In the study, however, we cannot measure how salient one’s personal or group identity actually is
because . Therefore, we are unsure whether ingroup favoritism and outgroup discrimination are merely
caused by social identity, or they may be attributed to other factors like personal identity. In this regard,
social identity theory lacks construct validity because it assumes that one's social identity is always
salient (the status where one’s social identity conceptual structure embodied in a positively distinctive
characteristic is activated).
Both Tajfel et al. (1970) and Sherif et al. (1954) relied on a male sample, which means their design is
androcentric and has a gender bias. Thus, the results of these studies may not be generalizable to the
overall population. However, modern studies showed that social identity theory is a holistic explanation
that addresses the complex behavior of the general population, which increases its generalizability.

In conclusion, social identity theory can explain group behavior like ingroup favoritism and outgroup
discrimination, as shown in Tajfel et al. However, the theory lacks construct validity because one cannot
measure how salient his/her social identity is in the supporting studies, and how this may affect
behavior. In addition, more research needs to be conducted in the natural environment to provide
empirical support for the social identity theory.