Social identity

theory

Social identity is the portion of an

individual's self-concept derived from
perceived membership in a relevant social
group.[1] As originally formulated by social
psychologists Henri Tajfel and John Turner
in the 1970s and the 1980s,[2] social
identity theory introduced the concept of a
social identity as a way in which to explain
intergroup behaviour.[3][4][5]
Social identity theory is described as a
theory that predicts certain intergroup
behaviours on the basis of perceived
group status differences, the perceived
legitimacy and stability of those status
differences, and the perceived ability to
move from one group to another.[3][5] This
contrasts with occasions where the term
"social identity theory" is used to refer to
general theorizing about human social
selves.[6] Moreover, and although some
researchers have treated it as such,[7][8]
social identity theory was never intended
to be a general theory of social
categorization.[2] It was awareness of the
limited scope of social identity theory that
led John Turner and colleagues to develop
a cousin theory in the form of self-
categorization theory,[1][5][9] which built on
the insights of social identity theory to
produce a more general account of self
and group processes.[2][5] The term social
identity approach, or social identity
perspective, is suggested for describing
the joint contributions of both social
identity theory and self-categorization
theory.[5][9][10] Social identity theory
suggests that an organization can change
individual behaviors if it can modify their
self-identity or part of their self-concept
that derives from the knowledge of, and
emotional attachment to the group.[3]
Aspects

Henri Tajfel suggests that soldiers of opposing armies,

fighting outside of view, is an illustrative example of
behaviour at the extreme intergroup end of the
intergroup-interpersonal continuum.[11]

The interpersonal-intergroup
continuum

Social identity theory states that social

behavior will vary along a continuum
between interpersonal behavior and
intergroup behaviour. Completely
interpersonal behaviour would be
behaviour determined solely by the
individual characteristics and
interpersonal relationships that exists
between only two people. Completely
intergroup behaviour would be behaviour
determined solely by the social category
memberships that apply to more than two
people.[3]

The authors of social identity theory state

that purely interpersonal or purely
intergroup behaviour is unlikely to be
found in realistic social situations. Rather,
behaviour is expected to be driven by a
compromise between the two
extremes.[3][11] The cognitive nature of
personal vs. social identities, and the
relationship between them, is more fully
developed in self-categorization
theory.[2][12][13][14] Social identity theory
instead focuses on the social structural
factors that will predict which end of the
spectrum will most influence an
individual's behaviour, along with the
forms that that behavior may take.[5][9][13]

Positive distinctiveness

A key assumption in social identity theory

is that individuals are intrinsically
motivated to achieve positive
distinctiveness. That is, individuals "strive
for a positive self-concept".[3][9] As
individuals to varying degrees may be
defined and informed by their respective
social identities (as per the interpersonal-
intergroup continuum) it is further derived
in social identity theory that "individuals
strive to achieve or to maintain positive
social identity".[3] It should be noted that
the precise nature of this strive for positive
self-concept is a matter of debate (see the
self-esteem hypothesis).[5][13][15][16]

Both the interpersonal-intergroup

continuum and the assumption of positive
distinctiveness motivation arose as
outcomes of the findings of minimal group
studies.[2] In particular, it was found that
under certain conditions individuals would
endorse resource distributions that would
maximize the positive distinctiveness of
an ingroup in contrast to an outgroup at
the expense of personal self-interest.[17]

The "black is beautiful" movement and the associated

African American embrace of African hairdos (like
afros), culture, traditions, and music was provided by
T jf l d ll l f h ii
Tajfel and colleagues as an example of the cognitive
creativity of low-status groups in the face of stable
intergroup relations.[3][18][19][20]

Positive distinctiveness
strategies

Building on the above components, social

identity theory details a variety of
strategies that may be invoked in order to
achieve positive distinctiveness. The
individual's choice of behaviour is posited
to be dictated largely by the perceived
intergroup relationship. In particular the
choice of strategy is an outcome of the
perceived permeability of group
boundaries (e.g., whether a group member
may pass from a low status group into a
high status group), as well as the
perceived stability and legitimacy of the
intergroup status hierarchy.[3][9] The self-
enhancing strategies detailed in social
identity theory are detailed below.
Importantly, although these are viewed
from the perspective of a low status group
member, comparable behaviours may also
be adopted by high status group
members.[9]

Individual mobility

It is predicted that under conditions where

the group boundaries are considered
permeable individuals are more likely to
engage in individual mobility
strategies.[3][9] That is, individuals
"disassociate from the group and pursue
individual goals designed to improve their
personal lot rather than that of their
ingroup".[21]

Social creativity

Where group boundaries are considered

impermeable, and where status relations
are considered reasonably stable,
individuals are predicted to engage in
social creativity behaviours. Here, low-
status ingroup members are still able to
increase their positive distinctiveness
without necessarily changing the objective
resources of the ingroup or the outgroup.
This may be achieved by comparing the
ingroup to the outgroup on some new
dimension, changing the values assigned
to the attributes of the group, and
choosing an alternative outgroup by which
to compare the ingroup.[3][9]

Social competition

Here an ingroup seeks positive

distinctiveness via direct competition with
the outgroup in the form of ingroup
favoritism. It is considered competitive in
that in this case favoritism for the ingroup
occurs on a value dimension that is shared
by all relevant social groups (in contrast to
social creativity scenarios). Social
competition is predicted to occur when
group boundaries are considered
impermeable, and when status relations
are considered to be reasonably
unstable.[3][9] Although not privileged in the
theory, it is this positive distinctiveness
strategy that has received the greatest
amount of attention.[22][23]

Development
Social scientist William Graham Sumner

Social psychologist Henri Tajfel

Historical background

The term 'social identity theory' achieved

academic currency only in the late 1970s,
but the basic underlying concepts
associated with it had emerged by the
early twentieth century. William G. Sumner,
writing in 1906, captures the primary
dynamics in this excerpt from his
influential work Folkways: A Study of the
Sociological Importance of Usages,
Manners, Customs, Mores, and Morals:

"Loyalty to the group, sacrifice for it,

hatred and contempt for outsiders,
brotherhood within, warlikeness without,
—all grow together, common products of
the same situation. [...] Men of an
others-group are outsiders with whose
ancestors the ancestors of the we-group
 waged war. [...] Each group nourishes its
own pride and vanity, boasts itself
superior, exalts its own divinities, and
looks with contempt on outsiders. Each
group thinks its own folkways the only
right ones, and if it observes that other
groups have other folkways, these excite
its scorn." [24]

By the late 1920s the collectivist

perspective had all but disappeared from
mainstream social psychology.[25] Over
fifty years later, around the time of the first
formal use of the term 'social identity
theory,' Tajfel wrote this on the state of
social psychology:
"Thus, social categorization is still
conceived as a haphazardly floating
'independent variable' which strikes at
random as the spirit moves it. No links
are made or attempted, between the
conditions determining its presence and
mode of operation, and its outcomes in
widely diffused commonalities of social
behaviour. Why, when and how is social
categorisation salient or not salient?
What kind of shared constructions of
social reality, mediated through social
categorization, lead to a social climate
in which large masses of people feel
they are in long-term conflict with other
masses? What, for example, are the
 psychological transitions from a stable
to an unstable social system?" (Original
emphasis, p. 188)[26]

Thus, social identity theory in part reflects

a desire to reestablish a more collectivist
approach to social psychology of the self
and social groups.[25]

Implications
Ingroup favoritism

In-group favoritism (also known as

"ingroup bias", despite Turner's objections
to the term[13]) is an effect where people
give preferential treatment to others when
they are perceived to be in the same
ingroup. Social identity attributes the
cause of ingroup favoritism to a
psychological need for positive
distinctiveness and describes the
situations where ingroup favoritism is
likely to occur (as a function of perceived
group status, legitimacy, stability, and
permeability).[3][27] It has been shown via
the minimal group studies that ingroup
favoritism may occur for both arbitrary
ingroups (e.g. a coin toss may split
participants into a 'heads' group and a
'tails' group) as well as non-arbitrary
ingroups (e.g. ingroups based on cultures,
genders, sexual orientation, and first
languages).[28][29]

Continued study into the relationship

between social categorization and ingroup
favoritism has explored the relative
prevalences of the ingroup favoritism vs.
outgroup discrimination,[30] explored
different manifestations of ingroup
favoritism,[27][31] and has explored the
relationship between ingroup favoritism
and other psychological constraints (e.g.,
existential threat).[32]

Reluctance to bet against

identity-relevant outcomes
Social identities are a valued aspect of the
self, and people will sacrifice their
pecuniary self-interest to maintain the self-
perception that they belong to a given
social group. Political partisans and fans
of sports teams (e.g., Republicans and
Democrats, or MLB, NFL, NCAA fans) are
reluctant to bet against the success of
their party or team because of the
diagnostic cost such a bet would incur to
their identification with it. As a result,
partisans and fans will reject even very
favorable bets against identity-relevant
desired outcomes. More than 45% of
N.C.A.A. basketball and hockey fans, for
example, turned down a free, real chance
to earn $5 if their team lost its upcoming
game.[33]

Controversies
Self-esteem hypothesis

Social identity theory proposes that people

are motivated to achieve and maintain
positive concepts of themselves. Some
researchers, including Michael Hogg and
Dominic Abrams, thus propose a fairly
direct relationship between positive social
identity and self-esteem. In what has
become known as the "self-esteem
hypothesis", self-esteem is predicted to
relate to in-group bias in two ways. Firstly,
successful intergroup discrimination
elevates self-esteem. Secondly, depressed
or threatened self-esteem promotes
intergroup discrimination.[34][35] Empirical
support for these predictions has been
mixed.[15][36]

Some social identity theorists, including

John Turner, consider the self-esteem
hypothesis as not canonical to social
identity theory.[13][15] In fact, the self-
esteem hypothesis is argued to be
conflictual with the tenets of the
theory.[5][13][37] It is argued that the self-
esteem hypothesis misunderstands the
distinction between a social identity and a
personal identity. Along those lines, John
Turner and Penny Oakes argue against an
interpretation of positive distinctiveness
as a straightforward need for self-esteem
or "quasi-biological drive toward
prejudice".[37] They instead favour a
somewhat more complex conception of
positive self-concept as a reflection of the
ideologies and social values of the
perceiver. Additionally, it is argued that the
self-esteem hypothesis neglects the
alternative strategies to maintaining a
positive self-concept that are articulated in
social identity theory (i.e., individual
mobility and social creativity).[5][13][27]
Positive-negative asymmetry

In what has been dubbed the Positive-

Negative Asymmetry Phenomenon,
researchers have shown that punishing the
out-group benefits self-esteem less than
rewarding the in-group.[38] From this
finding it has been extrapolated that social
identity theory is therefore unable to deal
with bias on negative dimensions. Social
identity theorists, however, point out that
for ingroup favouritism to occur a social
identity "must be psychologically salient",
and that negative dimensions may be
experienced as a "less fitting basis for self-
definition".[39] This important qualification
is subtly present in social identity theory,
but is further developed in self-
categorization theory. Empirical support
for this perspective exist. It has been
shown that when experiment participants
can self-select negative dimensions that
define the ingroup no positive–negative
asymmetry is found.[40]

Intergroup similarity

It has been posited that social identity

theory suggests that similar groups should
have an increased motivation to
differentiate themselves from each
other.[35][41] Subsequently, empirical
findings where similar groups are shown
to possess increased levels of intergroup
attraction and decreased levels of in-group
bias have been interpreted as problematic
for the theory.[35] Elsewhere it has been
suggested that this apparent
inconsistency may be resolved by
attending to social identity theory's
emphasis on the importance of the
perceived stability and legitimacy of the
intergroup status hierarchy.[41]

Predictive power

Social identity theory has been criticised

for having far greater explanatory power
than predictive power.[20][25][42] That is,
while the relationship between
independent variables and the resulting
intergroup behaviour may be consistent
with the theory in retrospect, that
particular outcome is often not that which
was predicted at the outset. A rebuttal to
this charge is that the theory was never
advertised as the definitive answer to
understanding intergroup relationships.
Instead it is stated that social identity
theory must go hand in hand with
sufficient understanding of the specific
social context under consideration.[5][13][43]
The latter argument is consistent with the
explicit importance that the authors of
social identity theory placed on the role of
"objective" factors, stating that in any
particular situation "the effects of [social
identity theory] variables are powerfully
determined by the previous social,
economic, and political processes".[3]

SIT-lite

Some researchers interpret social identity

theory as drawing a direct link between
identification with a social group and
ingroup favoritism.[44][45][46][47][48] For
example, Charles Stangor and John Jost
state that "a main premise of social
identity theory is that ingroup members
will favour their own group over other
groups".[49] This interpretation is rejected
by other researchers.[5][9][13][27][50][51][52] For
example, Alex Haslam states that
"although vulgarized versions of social
identity theory argue that 'social
identification leads automatically to
discrimination and bias', in fact…
discrimination and conflict are anticipated
only in a limited set of circumstances".[53]
The likening of social identity theory with
social competition and ingroup
favouritism is partly attributable to the fact
that early statements of the theory
included empirical examples of ingroup
favouritism, while alternative positive
distinctiveness strategies (e.g., social
creativity) were at that stage theoretical
assertions.[6] Regardless, in some circles
the prediction of a straightforward
identification-bias correlation has earned
the pejorative title "social identity theory-
lite".[51]

See also
Collective narcissism
Identity politics
Microculture
Reference group
Stigma management
Cultural identity
 Intergroup relations

References
1. Turner, John; Oakes, Penny (1986). "The
significance of the social identity concept
for social psychology with reference to
individualism, interactionism and social
influence". British Journal of Social
Psychology. 25 (3): 237–252.
doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1986.tb00732.x .
2. Turner, J. C. & Reynolds, K. J. (2010).
"The story of social identity". In T. Postmes
& N. Branscombe. Rediscovering Social
Identity: Core Sources. Psychology Press.
3. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). "An
integrative theory of intergroup conflict". In
W. G. Austin & S. Worchel. The social
psychology of intergroup relations.
Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. pp. 33–47.
4. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). "The
social identity theory of intergroup
behaviour". In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin.
Psychology of Intergroup Relations.
Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall. pp. 7–24.
5. Turner, J. C. (1999). Ellemers, N.; Spears,
R.; Doosje, B., eds. "Some current issues in
research on social identity and self-
categorization theories". Social Identity.
Oxford: Blackwell: 6–34.
6. Haslam, S. A.; Ellemers, N.; Reicher, S. D.;
Reynolds, K. J.; Schmitt, M. T. (2010).
Postmes, T.; Branscombe, N. R., eds. "The
social identity perspective today: An
overview of its defining ideas".
Rediscovering Social Identity. Psychology
Press: 341–356.
7. Brown, R. J.; Zagefka, H. (2006). "Choice
of comparisons in intergroup settings: the
role of temporal information and
comparison motives". European Journal of
Social Psychology. 36 (5): 649–671.
doi:10.1002/ejsp.311 .
8. Ashmore, R. D.; Deaux, K.; McLaughlin-
Volpe, T. (2004). "An organizing framework
for collective identity: Articulation and
significance of multidimensionality".
Psychological Bulletin. 130 (1): 80–114.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.1.80 .
PMID 14717651 .
9. Haslam, A. S. (2001). Psychology in
Organizations. London, SAGE Publications.
p 26-57
10. Postmes, T. & Branscombe, N. (2010).
"Sources of social identity". In T. Postmes &
N. Branscombe (Eds). Rediscovering Social
Identity: Core Sources. Psychology Press.
11. Tajfel, H. (1978). Tajfel, H., ed.
"Interindividual and intergroup behaviour".
Differentiation Between Groups: Studies in
the Social Psychology of Intergroup
Relations. London: Academic Press: 27–60.
12. Oakes, Penny; Haslam, Alex; Turner,
John (1994). Stereotyping and social
reality. Blackwell: Oxford.
13. Turner, J. C.; Reynolds, K. H. (2001).
Brown, S. L.; Gaertner, eds. "The Social
Identity Perspective in Intergroup Relations:
Theories, Themes, and Controversies".
Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology:
Intergroup Processes. 3 (1): 133–152.
doi:10.1002/9780470693421.ch7 .
14. Haslam, S. Alexander; Reicher, Stephen
D.; Platow, Michael J. (2011). The new
psychology of leadership: Identity, influence
and power. New York, NY: Psychology
Press. pp. 45–76. ISBN 978-1-84169-610-2.
15. Long, K.; Spears, R. (1997). Spears, R.;
Oakes, P. J.; Ellemers, N; et al., eds. "The
self-esteem hypothesis revisited:
Differentiation and the disaffected". The
Social Psychology of Stereotyping and
Group Life. Oxford: Blackwell: 273–295.
16. Rubin, M.; Badea, C.; Jetten, J. (2014).
"Low status groups show in-group
favoritism to compensate for their low
status and to compete for higher status".
Group Processes and Intergroup Relations.
17 (5): 563–576.
doi:10.1177/1368430213514122 .
17. Turner, J. C. (1978). H, Tajfel, ed. "Social
categorization and social discrimination in
the minimal group paradigm".
Differentiation Between Social Groups:
Studies in the Social Psychology of
Intergroup Relations. London: Academic
Press: 235–250.
18. Tajfel, H. (1978). Tajfel, H., ed. "The
achievement of group differentiation".
Differentiation Between Groups: Studies in
the Social Psychology of Intergroup
Relations. London: Academic Press: 77–
100.
19. Tajfel, H. (1974). "Social identity and
intergroup behavior". Social Science
Information. 13 (2): 65–93.
doi:10.1177/053901847401300204 .
20. Miller, D. (1983). Children and race.
Sage publications.
21. Haslam, A. S. (2001). Psychology in
Organizations. London, SAGE Publications.
p. 38
22. Ouwerkerk, J. W.; Ellemers, N.; de Gilder,
D. (1999). Ellemers, N.; Spears, R.; Doosje,
B., eds. "Group commitment and individual
effort in experimental and organizational
contexts". Social Identity. Oxford:
Blackwell: 184–204.
23. Haslam, S. A.; Ellemers, N.; Reicher, S.
D.; Reynolds, K. J.; Schmitt, M. T. (2010).
Postmes, T.; Branscombe, N. R., eds. "The
social identity perspective tomorrow:
Opportunities and avenues for advance".
Rediscovering Social Identity. Psychology
Press: 357–379.
24. Sumner, W. G. Folkways: A Study of the
Sociological Importance of Usages,
Manners, Customs, Mores, and Morals.
New York: Ginn, 1906. p. 13.
25. Hogg, Michael A.; Williams, Kipling D. (1
January 2000). "From I to we: Social
identity and the collective self". Group
Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice.
4 (1): 81–97. doi:10.1037/1089-
2699.4.1.81 .
26. Tajfel, H. (1979). "Individuals and
groups in social psychology". British
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology.
18 (2): 183–190. doi:10.1111/j.2044-
8260.1979.tb00324.x .
27. Ellemers, N.; Barreto, M. (2001). Brown,
S. L.; Gaertner, eds. "The impact of relative
group status: affective, perceptual and
behavioural consequences". Blackwell
Handbook of Social Psychology: Intergroup
Processes. 3 (1): 324–343.
doi:10.1002/9780470693421.ch16 .
28. Brewer, Marilynn B. (1 January 1979).
"Ingroup bias in the minimal intergroup
situations: A cognitive motivational
analysis". Psychological Bulletin. 86 (2):
307–324. doi:10.1037/0033-
2909.86.2.307 .
29. Hogg, M.A.; Turner, J.C. (1987).
"Intergroup behaviour, self-stereotyping and
the salience of social categories". British
Journal of Social Psychology. 26 (4): 325–
340. doi:10.1111/j.2044-
8309.1987.tb00795.x .
30. Ahmed, Ali M. (1 June 2007). "Group
identity, social distance and intergroup
bias". Journal of Economic Psychology. 28
(3): 324–337.
doi:10.1016/j.joep.2007.01.007 .
31. Krumm, Angela J.; Corning, Alexandra F.
(1 December 2008). "Who Believes Us
When We Try to Conceal Our Prejudices?
The Effectiveness of Moral Credentials
With In-Groups Versus Out-Groups". The
Journal of Social Psychology. 148 (6):
689–709. doi:10.3200/SOCP.148.6.689-
710 . PMID 19058658 .
32. Giannakakis, Andrew Erik; Fritsche,
Immo (1 January 2011). "Social Identities,
Group Norms, and Threat: On the
Malleability of Ingroup Bias". Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin. 37 (1): 82–
93. doi:10.1177/0146167210386120 .
PMID 20956355 .
33. Morewedge, Carey K.; Tang, Simone;
Larrick, Richard P. (2016-10-12). "Betting
Your Favorite to Win: Costly Reluctance to
Hedge Desired Outcomes". Management
Science. 64 (3): 997–1014.
doi:10.1287/mnsc.2016.2656 . ISSN 0025-
1909 .
34. Hogg, M. A.; Abrams, D. (1990).
Abrams, D.; Hogg, M. A, eds. "Social
motivation, self-esteem, and social
identity". Social Identity Theory.
Constructive and Critical Advances.
London: Harvester Wheatsheaf: 44–70.
35. Brown, Rupert (1 November 2000).
"Social Identity Theory: past achievements,
current problems and future challenges".
European Journal of Social Psychology. 30
(6): 745–778. doi:10.1002/1099-
0992(200011/12)30:6<745::AID-
EJSP24>3.0.CO;2-O .
36. Rubin, M.; Hewstone, M. (1998). "Social
identity theory's self-esteem hypothesis: A
review and some suggestions for
clarification". Personality and Social
Psychology Review. 2 (1): 40–62.
doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0201_3 .
PMID 15647150 .
37. Turner, J. C.; Oakes, P. J. (1997).
McGarty, C.; Haslam, S. A., eds. "The
socially structured mind". The Message of
Social Psychology. Cambridge, MA:
Blackwell: 355–373.
38. Bourhis, R. Y.; Gagnon, A. (2001).
Brown, S. L.; Gaertner, eds. "Social
Orientations in the Minimal Group
Paradigm". Blackwell Handbook of Social
Psychology: Intergroup Processes. 3 (1):
133–152.
39. Turner, J. C. & Reynolds, K. J. (2010).
The story of social identity. In T. Postmes &
N. Branscombe (Eds). Rediscovering Social
Identity: Core Sources. Psychology Press.
p. 142
40. Reynolds, K. J.; Turner, J. C.; Haslam, S.
A.; Ryan, M. K. (2000). "When are we better
than them and they worse than us? A closer
look at social discrimination in positive and
negative domains". Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology. 78 (1): 64–80.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.1.64 .
PMID 10653506 .
41. Brown, R. J. (1984). Tajfel, H., ed. The
role of similarity in intergroup relations. The
Social Dimension. 2. Cambridge: University
Press. pp. 603–623.
doi:10.1017/CBO9780511759154.012 .
ISBN 9780511759154.
42. Duckitt, John (1992). "5". The social
psychology of prejudice. London: Praeger
Publishers. pp. 84–90.
43. Tajfel, H. (1984). Tajfel, H., ed.
Intergroup relations, social myths and
social justice in social psychology. The
Social Dimension. 2. Cambridge: University
Press. pp. 695–715.
doi:10.1017/CBO9780511759154.016 .
ISBN 9780511759154.
44. Stangor, C.; Jost, J. T. (1997). Spears,
R.; Oakes, P. J.; Ellemers, N; et al., eds.
"Commentary: Individual, group and system
levels of analysis and their relevance for
stereotyping and intergroup relations". The
Social Psychology of Stereotyping and
Group Life. Oxford: Blackwell: 336–358.
45. Smith, E.R.; Smith, E. R. (1999).
"Reconceptualizing social identity: a new
framework and evidence for the impact of
different dimensions". Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin. 25: 120–135.
doi:10.1177/0146167299025001010 .
46. Operanio, D.; Fiske, S. T. (2001). Brown,
R.; Geartner, S., eds. "Stereotypes: Content,
Structures, Processes and Context".
Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology:
Intergroup Processes. Oxford: Blackwell:
22–44.
47. Triandis, H.C.; Trafimow, D. (2001).
Brown, S. L.; Gaertner, eds. "Culture and its
implications for intergroup behavior".
Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology:
Intergroup Processes. 3 (1): 367–385.
doi:10.1002/9780470693421.ch18 .
48. Brewer, M. B.; Gaertner, S. L. (2001).
Brown, S. L.; Gaertner, eds. "Toward
reduction of prejudice: intergroup contact
and social categorization". Blackwell
Handbook of Social Psychology: Intergroup
Processes. 3 (1): 451–472.
doi:10.1002/9780470693421.ch22 .
49. Stangor, C.; Jost, J. T. (1997). Spears,
R.; Oakes, P. J.; Ellemers, N; et al., eds.
"Commentary: Individual, group and system
levels of analysis and their relevance for
stereotyping and intergroup relations". The
Social Psychology of Stereotyping and
Group Life. Oxford: Blackwell: 346.
50. Spears, R.; Doosje, B.; Ellemers, N.
(1999). Ellemers, N.; Spears, R.; Doosje, B.,
eds. "Commitment and the context of
social perception". Social Identity. Oxford:
Blackwell: 59–83.
51. McGarty, C (2001). "Social Identity
Theory does not maintain that identification
produces bias, and self-categorization
Theory does not maintain that salience is
identification: Two comments on
Mummendey, Klink and Brown". British
Journal of Social Psychology. 40 (Pt 2):
173–176. doi:10.1348/014466601164777 .
PMID 11446223 .
52. Rubin, M.; Hewstone, M. (2004). "Social
identity, system justification, and social
dominance: Commentary on Reicher, Jost
et al., and Sidanius et al". Political
Psychology. 25 (6): 823–844.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00400.x .
53. Haslam, A. S. (2001). Psychology in
Organizations. London, SAGE Publications.
p. 40

External links
Mind Changers: Henri Tajfel's Minimal
Groups : BBC Radio programme about
the origins of the theory
Retrieved from
"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Social_identity_theory&oldid=888275783"

Last edited 12 days ago by Knzy6

Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless

otherwise noted.