Explain Social Identity Theory justifying it with specific studies

Social Identity Theory (SIT) was created by Tajfel and his colleagues
and is based on four concepts: Social Categorisation, Social Identity, Social
Comparison and Positive Distinctiveness. Social categorisation divides the
social environment into ingroups (us) and outgroups (them). Social
categorisation reduces the perceived difference between those in our outgroup
and those in our ingroup, using category accentuation - exaggerating group
differences and intragroup similarities. Our social identities are different from
our personal identities - this means that when we interact with each other as
members of other groups, our social identities determine our behaviours as
opposed to our personal identities which would determine our behaviours
when we interact with each other interpersonally. Social comparison is the
process with which we develop positive social identities to maintain our self-
esteem. This is fuelled by positive distinctiveness, which means that we
emphasise the difference between our ingroup and outgroup - we ensure our
ingroup establishes superiority over the outgroup. This results in us showing
that our social identity, and subsequently our self-esteem, is high enough.
Tajfel's SIT has many positive and negative aspects. For instance,
Beginning with Tajfel's minimal group studies, SIT has been backed up by
hundreds of studies. SIT has also demonstrated the role of social
categorisation in intergroup behaviour and draws the distinction between
personal and social identities, which links to the principle of the Sociocultural
Level of Analysis that all humans have a basic need to belong, and that affects
our social interaction. SIT has also contributed to the study of many social
psychological phenomena, including stereotypes, conformity, groupthink and
group polarisation and intergroup conflict. The original theory has also
expanded with the years and continues to fuel plenty of research. SIT has also
been applied to understanding certain behaviours like ethnocentrism (the
ingroup equivalent of the self-serving bias - attributing ingroup successes to
disposition and failures to situation) and ingroup favouritism, because it has
been shown through studies that we prefer to emphasise the positive aspects
of our ingroup, which links to the principle that we, as humans, have a basic
need to belong. However, SIT does have weaknesses. For example, the self-
esteem hypothesis which was originally central to SIT is no longer viewed as
central, as many studies have shown that the self-esteem that is related to SIT
is short-lived and has few long-lasting effects. In addition, one of the aims of
SIT was to favour situational over dispositional attribution. However some
studies show that dispositional differences do affect SIT processes, such as
Platow et al. (1990) who found that competitive characters showed more
ingroup favouritism (when one prefers the ingroup) than cooperative
characters. In addition, minimal group research has been criticised for
artificiality, which could limit the value of the theory. SIT can also not explain
how ingroup favouritism results in violence towards the outgroup. Despite
these, SIT has evolved, developed and maintained itself over time and has
made substantial contributions to our understanding of social behaviour and
our social identities.

Many studies are used to explain SIT. For example, Tajfel (1997)'s
minimal group paradigm study. This study involved Tajfel taking 64 boys
from the ages of 14 to 15 from a state school in the UK, in groups of 8, to a
laboratory. They all knew each other before the experiment. They were shown
clusters of varying numbers of dots flashed on a screen and had to estimate
the number of dots in each cluster. The experimenters randomly assigned the
boys to groups such as 'overestimator' or 'underestimator.' The boys
subsequently had to assign small amounts of money to the other boys in the
experiment, knowing only if they belonged to the same or different category.
In a second experiment, they were divided according to their supposed artistic
preferences for two painters and had to award points to other boys. The
experiment showed that boys gave more money to their ingroup than their
outgroup - their own category rather than others. In the second experiment,
boys tended to maximise the difference between the two groups, for example
giving their own group 7 points instead of 13 so that they could give the
outgroup the corresponding number of points - 1 instead of 13. This study
contributed to the development of SIT, as it stated that the social groups to
which we belong are an important part of our identity and self-concept. Tajfel
showed that a "minimal group" was all that was necessary for individuals to
exhibit intergroup discrimination (when we discriminate against outgroups).
The study may have been gender biased as only schoolboys were used and it
may lack cross-cultural validity as the boys were only chosen from one school
in the UK, which suggests that other factors may affect SIT, such as social
constraints (for example poverty) or cultures and how we are raised, because
how we are used to perceiving the world is different. The study also holds
many implications and applications as it contributes to SIT which, as a theory,
contributes to our understanding of social behaviour, and what settings allow
us to show certain behaviours. However the research has been criticised for
artificiality as it was a laboratory experiment and consequently may have
shown less ecological validity. This leads to the doubt that this behaviour is so
far from natural that it may not truly reflect how people act in real life which
limits the value of the study.

A second study that explains SIT is Howarth (2002). In this study,
Caroline Howarth performed focus group interviews with adolescent girls in
Brixton to study how the girls evaluated themselves. She used groups of
friends so that controversial topics could be discussed. She found that the girls
had a positive view of being from Brixton which contrasted to how others
perceived people from Brixton. This showed how girls from Brixton showed
the strengths of their ingroup, and how heir behaviour towards their friends,
their relations with others, whether they joined sports teams and employment
opportunities inside or outside Brixton could have been affected by these
representations. This experiment showed how social representations could
become the basis of stereotyping as well as how it contributes to social
identity. The study could have been gender biased as only girls were used,
which may have affected the results and not supported SIT as strongly. The
experiment also does not show how different cultures perceive themselves
(their ingroups) and how SIT applies to different places and societies as it
focuses on girls from a certain culture. In addition the focus group may not
have been very replicable, and it would, therefore, have been difficult to repeat
the experiment to make the results more reliable, as well as the fact that the
information may have been difficult to quantify and alanyse. However, the fact
that it was a focus group could result in natural, valid and detailed data, as it
was a natural setting. In addition the study did hold applications, as it showed
us how different people perceive different groups and form stereotypes - this
supports the fact that SIT has been applied to the understanding of many
behaviours, including stereotyping.
7
A third study that supports SIT is Cialdini et al. (1976) and his study of
football supporters. This study showed that after a successful match,
supporters were more likely to be wearing college insignia than after a lost
match. It is assumed that our need for a positive self-concept and self-esteem
will result in a bias in these intergroup comparisons so that you are more
positive towards anything your ingroup represents. Tajfel (1978) calls this "the
establishment of positive distinctiveness." This study was a natural
observation, which adds to the ecological validity of the experiment, and
hence strengthens SIT as it reduces the assumption of its artificiality. It also
helps us understand positive distinctiveness and our need to promote the
successes of our ingroup, as Cialdini et al. saw was done by students when
their team won a match. This study also did support the positive
distinctiveness aspect of SIT which helps support the study as a whole and
increases its validity. However this does not help us evaluate whether SIT is
cross-cultural or applies to different groups as it focuses on college football
players of one country and does not tell us to what extent different cultures
show SIT.

Overall, all these studies contribute to the strengths of SIT, as they all
support the theory and prove the aspects of it. In addition they all define the
difference between our social and personal identities and support the third
principle of the SCLOA. However, these studies also leave gaps such as the
cross-cultural aspects of the theory as they do not focus on these aspects.