Evaluate social identity theory, making reference to relevant studies

Evaluate social identity theory, making reference to relevant studies. (22)

Evaluate (22) – An appraisal by weighing up the strengths and limitations.

Social Identity Theory (Theorist: Henry Tajfel)

Social Categorisation
Grouping of different social circles based on the members’ stereotypical culture and behaviour.
Social Identity
Identifying yourself with a particular social group based on their in-group norms.
Cultural expectations
Belongingness
Social Comparison
Comparing in-group members with out-group members, looking fro benefits to be in the in-group which boosts self esteem.
Positive Distinctiveness
Using verbal or non-verbal cues to make your social group more socially valued, creating an increasingly positive meaning for the group’s identity.
Rewards as motivators.

Henry Tajfel – Intergroup discrimination Experiment (SIT)
[A]	To test the Social Identity Theory.
[P]	48 boys were assigned at random to 2 groups based on their preference between Klee or Kandinsky’s art work. Asked to rate in-group and out-group based on traits e.g. like-ability.
[F]	Tajfel found that the out-group was rated less likeable, but never actually disliked.
[C]	There seems to be a preference of the in-group over out-group, however it is not clear that they make social comparisons to enhance either self-esteem. Later research – Social identity does not account for intergroup conflict. In the absence of competition, social comparison can be positive.
[E]	Supports Social Identity Theory. Showed the formation and the features of SIT. Ecological validity: Low, lab conditions. Meaningless groups. Controlled environment removed confounding variables.

Cialdini et al. – Football game observation (SIT)
[A]	Demonstrate social comparison with college football supporters.
[P]	Observed what college students wear to school the next day after their football game.
[F]	Students wore apparel with the representative colour of their school the day after the football game if the school won.
[C]	Result of positive self-concept results in a bias intergroup comparison. Having a positive representation of your social group (Positive distinctiveness).

Philip Zimbardo – Stanford Prison Experiment (Conformity/SIT)
[A]	Prove that situational factors can affect behaviour.
[P]	22 male subjects were selected through personality assessment based on their mental stability, maturity and social ability. Randomly assigned the role of either prisoner or warden. "Prisoners" Signed a consent document that some of their human rights will be suspended for the experiment and that all subjects would receive $15 a day up to 2 weeks. "Arrested" by surprise by real police from their house, taken to a real police station for standard procedures. Driven blindfolded to a prison (set, not a real prison) where they were stripped naked, delouse, and dressed in prisoner uniform. Stayed in the prison for 24 hours a day, followed a schedule of work, rest and meal. "Wardens" Put on warden costumes with the correct props. They worked 8 hours a day, and were given no specific instructions. Asked to keep a reasonable degree of order and were prohibited against any means of physical violence.
[F]	Experiment was terminated in 6 days, instead of the intended 14 days due to abnormal reactions shown by both prisoners and wardens. "Prisoners" Displayed passivity and dependence. Half the prisoners showed signs of depression, crying, fits of rage, acute anxiety. Due to this reason, they were released early. All but two prisoners would forfeit the money if they could be released early. Experimenters proposed that these behaviours were results of the loss of personal identity, dependency and learned helplessness. "Wardens" Displayed huge enjoyment of power at their disposal, leading towards abusive use of power, dehumanizing the prisoners. Some wardens worked extra time with no extra pay and were disappointed that the experiment was over. They punished the prisoners for no apparent justifications (abusive use of power). Not all wardens displayed aggression, but none opposed other’s use of it.
[C]	The situation (prison environment) affected all participant’s behaviour. Arguable that the environment of a prison is what causes prisoners to act violently. Supports SIT Displayed the categorisation and development of identity in both groups.
[E]	Ecological validity: Low, lab environment, overt observation. Prohibition of physical violence limited the generalising ability of the experiment. Experimenters argue that… The functional equivalent of the prison system (setting, costumes etc.) were implemented. Reactions and behaviours of the subjects exceeded the level of “role play”. Calling each other by ID number in private, wardens showed aggression even when they thought they were not being watched. Reliability: Experiment was not repeated until years after, subjects did not act as predicted. Culture bias: only studied subjects from the US. Ethical considerations and issues. Participants signed consent forms, but they had no clear idea of the procedure of the experiment. Induced aggression in subjects. Created discrimination and violence. Gender bias: only male subjects were used.

Strengths of SIT

Creates norms and culture for people to adhere and belong to.
Explanation for stereotyping and discrimination.

Weaknesses of SIT

Describe but does not predict.
Reductionist theory, does not take into account of the interaction with situational factors.
Personal identity in individuals with high self esteem may be stronger than group identity.