Social identity theory proposes that people derive part of their self-concept from group memberships. It explains how social categorization and comparisons between in-groups and out-groups impact behavior. Several studies discussed provide evidence for this, such as Tajfel's finding that random groupings led to in-group favoritism, and research showing that threats to social identity increase stress levels and derogation of out-groups. However, the theory also has limitations, as some studies had low ecological validity or did not fully account for factors like poverty. Overall, social identity theory effectively explains phenomena like in-group bias, conformity, and intergroup conflict, though more research is still needed.

1. ESSAY PROMPTS
Discuss the impact that social identity theory
has on behavior, making reference to relevant
studies.
Discuss the function of Acculturation and/or
Enculturation on human behavior.

2. SAQ PROMPTS
 Explain the impact that social identity theory has on behavior.
 Explain how Acculturation and/or Enculturation impacts human
behavior.

3. SOCIAL IDENTITY
THEORY

4. IDENTITY
 Each person has an individual self-identity. This is how we see
ourselves and how we relate with the world around us.
 Identity is also impacted by the groups that we belong to. Social
Identity Theory focuses on our belonging to groups.
 Family, Schools, Sport Teams, Clubs, Religions, Countries, etc.
 These groups provide us with schemas and ways of thinking.
 We learn from these groups through Social Cognitive Theory and
they guide our behavior.

5. SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY
 The part of one’s self-concept based on the knowledge
of membership in social groups.
 Individuals make comparisons between in-groups and out-groups
which impact their self-concept. We desire to feel positive about
ourselves and our groups.
 The comparison can result in positive or negative feelings. We
generally want to feel positive about ourselves.
Social
Categorization
(Us & Them)
In-Groups
(Positive)
Social
Comparison
Out-groups
(Negative)

6. TAJFEL (1971)
 Aim: To investigate if grouping would lead to in-group favoritism or
out-group discrimination
 Method: Randomly placed 64 boys into groups based on their
preference of a painting. Participants were brought into a separate
room and asked to distribute virtual money to other participants. They
were only aware of what group the other particiapnts belonged to.
 Findings: Most participants awarded more money to participants
from their own group (in-group) than the other group (Out-Group).
 Conclusion: The participants adopted in-group favoritism based on
insignificant groupings.
 Explanation?
 Critical Thinking: Ecological Validity? Sample size? Population?

7. BASKING IN REFLECTIVE GLORY
 Basking in reflected glory (BIRGing) is a self-serving cognition
whereby an individual associates themselves with known
successful others such that the winner's success becomes the
individual's own accomplishment. The affiliation of another's
success is enough to stimulate self-glory.

8. CIALDINI (1976)
 Aim: To Discover if Basking in Reflective Glory (BIRGing) was real.
 Procedure: Recorded the percentage of college students in 7
psychology courses at different colleges would wear school shirts
after football games.
 Finding:
 Students were more likely to wear their school apparel the Monday after a win
than following a loss.
 They were also more likely to refer to the team as “we” after a win and “they” after
a loss.
 Conclusion: Students display SIT in relation to sports in order to
maintain a positive self-identity.
 Explanation?
 Critical Thinking: Ecological Validity? Sample Size? Population?
Other factors?

9. YUKI ET AL (2005)
 Aim: To investigate the impact of in-groups or out-groups on levels
of trust.
 Method:
 Participants: 171 male & female students from Ohio State University (U.S.) &
171 male and female from Hokkaido University (Japan).
 Participants were presented with a questionnaire on the following situations.
 Asking someone to watch luggage in an airport.
 Allowing someone to borrow money at a restaurant.
 Buying concert tickets online from an individuals.
 Later they were told to decide which person you would trust most from the
below options. Three types of people were used:
 Someone is from an in-group;
 Someone is from out-group with potential (no actual) connection between the out-
group members through the participants’ acquaintance.
 Someone is from out-group that suggested with no potential connection.

10. YUKI ET AL (2005) CONTINUED
 Findings:
 The results are U.S and Japanese participants trusted the unknown person
from the in-group more than they trusted either out-group person.
 In addition, the Japanese sample was more likely to trust the out-group
member with potential connection.
 In contrast, the U.S. sample did not trust either out-group member, even if the
person had a potential connection.
 Conclusions: People base rates of trust on varying groupings
based on culture. Individualistic and Collectivistic groups showed
differing levels of trust.
 Explanation?
 Critical Thinking

11. SIT SUMMARY
 Summarize what Social Identity Theory is, how it works, and how
it impacts human behavior?

12. IMPACTS OF SIT
Dehumanization: Denying an enemy full
human status.
Infrahumanization: When a victim of a crime is
given less than human status.

13. CASTANO & GINER-SOROLLA
(2006)
 Aim: To investigate the conditions in which infrahumanization
occurs.
 Method:
 Participants: 68 British college students
 Participants were presented with either of two conditions:
1. They were told a story of a group of aliens who had 10,000 of their people killed by
humans in a war with limited causalities to humans.
2. They were told of an accident in which 10,000 aliens were killed.
 Participants were then asked to respond about how the alien group would feel
in response to their assigned situation.

14. CASTANO & GINER-SOROLLA
(2006)
 Findings:
 Participants in the In-Group Killing condition had stronger feelings of
infrahumanization than the accident condition. This means that participants
who were part of an in-group who did a wrong doing were less likely to see
the victims as people.
 This was replicated with US participants with stories about European-
Americans & Native Americans, and Australians & Indigenous Populations.
 Conclusions: Infrahumanization of out-groups may be a result of
Social Identity Theory because it allows people to maintain a
positive social identity and psychological balance.
 Explanation?
 Critical Thinking?

15. HAMLIN ET AL. (2013)
 Aim: To examine if babies prefer individuals with similar tastes or
similarities to them.
 Method:
 Tested 200 babies’ (9 & 14 months) food preference for green beans or
graham crackers.
 Presented two puppets. Each one with either a similar or dissimilar food
choice. If the puppets shared a food preference with the babies, it was
concluded that they formed in-group bonds with them.
 Had a second puppet either harm or help the puppets.
 Measured how much preference the babies had for the second puppets
(shared food taste, opposite food taste, Helper/Harmer).

16. HAMLIN ET AL (2013)
 Findings:
 Babies preferred puppets that shared a similar food choice as themselves
over the puppets who had different tastes.
 Babies showed a strong preference for a puppet that helped the puppet with
similar tastes but even stronger preference for a puppet who hurt the puppet
with dissimilar taste.
 Conclusion: Contrasting social groupings can influences our
social attitudes and judgments of others in powerful ways, even
very early in human life.
 Explanation?
 Critical Thinking?

17. SAMPASIVAM ET AL (2016)
Aim: To investigate the relationship between
intergroup threats and outgroup derogation in the
context of a physiological stress response.
Method:
 Participants: 112 Canadian college students who identified as
Canadian.
 Participants were informed about the similarities and differences in
Canadian and Chinese Culture.
 Participants were then placed into two groups; Identity Threatened
Group (heard about negative viewpoints on their culture, or Non-
Threatened Group (No negative viewpoints).
 Participants were then either allowed to provide derogatory
statements about Chinese groups or given a control task.
 Cortisol levels were tested following the test for all participants.

18. SAMPASIVAM ET AL (2016)
 Findings:
 Participants who were exposed to the threat showed a consistent increase in cortisol
levels, indicative of a stress response, compared to those who did not receive a threat.
 Participants who were both threatened and had an opportunity to derogate the
outgroup showed an increase in stress levels compared to that of individuals who were
threatened but without an option to respond by derogation.
 In the non-threat condition, there was no difference between participants who had a
chance to derogate the outgroup and those who did not.
 Conclusion: Both having group-identity threatened and the opportunity
to insult other cultures leads to increased amounts of stress. However,
insulting groups alone does not decrease stress as SIT may predict.
 Explanation?
 Critical Thinking?

19. CLOSE READING & PARTNER
SUMMARIES
 Read back through the studies and mark up your text using the
close reading marks.
 Summarize your reaction and response to the nature of Social
Identity Theory and its impact on human behavior.

20. MLK: “I HAVE A DREAM”
 What is MLK’s dream?
 What obstacles and challenges does MLK identify in
achieving this dream? How does SIT impact these
obstacles?
 What steps does MLK believe is necessary to
overcome these obstacles? How do these ideas relate
to SIT?
 To what extent are the challenges to MLK’s dream the
result of social categorization and comparison? Can
we overcome these factors?

21. A BETTER WAY TO ARGUE ABOUT
POLITICS
 A Better Way to Argue About Politics
 What steps can we as a community take to be able to discuss
ideas?
 To what extent would these strategies be effective in achieving
MLK’s Dream? TWE did MLK use these strategies in his
speech?

22. THE RETREAT TO TRIBALISM
 What strategies did MLK use to make his message effective
during his time?
 What factors does the article argue led to a rise in Tribalism in the
past two decades?

23. OVERCOMING TRIBALISM
 What is the main argument of this article?
 What evidence in this article is most convincing to you? Why?
 To what extent does this article relate to SIT? Does it support or
oppose the arguments that exist within SIT?
 What can we learn from this article about achieving MLK’s
Dream?

24. MIDDLE GROUND
 Middle Ground
 What steps does this show take to break down the SIT barriers
that may exist between people?
 To what extent do you think the strategy in the show is effective at
helping our nation achieve MLK’s Dream?

25. MLK’S DREAM IN OUR MODERN
WORLD
 How can we use our understandings of Social Identity
Theory and the strategies that we explored today to
improve our community and work towards MLK’s
Dream?
 What specific steps can we take as individuals, a
classroom, a school, and community to accomplish
this?

26. D.E.A.L.S. EVALUATION:
SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY
 Instructions: Work in your group to complete your D.E.A.L.S.
Evaluation of Social Identity Theory.
 D: Describe the theory.
 E: Evidence from psychological research to defend the theory.
 A: Applications to the real world
 L: Limitations of the study or theory
 S: Summarize your evaluation of the study with reference to key
studies.

27. EVALUATION OF S.I.T
Strengths of S.I.T Limitations of S.I.T
• Shows that conflict between
groups does not necessary to
lead to discrimination.
• Explains how “positive
distinctiveness” occurs for in-
groups.
• Helps us understand in-group
favoritism, conformity to group
norms, and stereotypes
• Tajfel’s research has been
criticized for low ecological
validity.
• Does not fully explain why in-
group favoritism may result in
violent behavior towards out-
groups.
• Does not explain why
constraints such as poverty
could play a bigger role than
SIT.