Evaluate social identity theory, making reference to relevant studies.

Henri Tafjels social Identity theory assumes that individuals strive to improve their self-image by trying to enhance their self-esteem, based on either personal identity or various social identities. Henri Tafjels experiment in intergroup discrimination the minimal group paradigm AIM: To investigate if boys placed in random groups based on an arbitrary task (minimal group) would display in-group favoritism and intergroup discrimination. Method: - There were 64 schoolboys ranging from the age 14-15 as participants coming from a state school in the UK. - They all entered a psychology lab in groups of eight, and knew each other well before the experiment. - The boys were shown clusters of varying numbers of dots, flashed onto a screen and had to estimate the number of dots in each cluster - The experiment assigned the boys to groups at random categorized as over estimator, under-estimator. - The boy had to allocate small amounts of money to the other boys in the experiment. The only thing they knew of the boy was if they belonged to the same or a different category - In a second experiment, the boys were randomly allocated to groups based on their supposed artistic preferences for two painters, and then they had to award money to the other boys Results: - A large majority of the boys gave more money to the members of their own category (in-group) than to members of the other categories (out-group) - In the second experiment the boys tried to maximize the difference between the two groups - The results of both experiments indicate that the boys adopted a strategy of in-group favoritism. This supports the predictions of the social identity theory Conclusion: - The experiment contributed to the development of the social identity theory, which states that social groups and categories to which we belong are an important part of our self-concept.

Evaluation: - Tafjel demonstrated that a minimal group is all that is necessary for individuals to exhibit discrimination against out-group - The experiment has been criticized for artificiality and demand characteristics. The boys may have interpreted the task as a sort of a competitive game and therefore reacted the way they did

Another study that could be used is Howarth (2002), he performed focus group interviews with adolescent girls in Brixton to study how the girls described and evaluated themselves. The girls had a positive view from being from Brixton which contrasted with how people living outside Brixton perceived people from Brixton. This can be seen as an example of creating a positive social identity based on group belonging. STRENGTHS OF Social Identity Theory (SIT) - Assumed that inter-group conflict is not required for discrimination to occur. This is supported by empirical research. - It can explain some of the mechanisms involved in establishing positive distinctiveness to the in-group by maximizing differences to the out-group - It has been applied to understanding behaviors such as ethnocentrism, ingroup favoritism, conformity to in-group norms, and stereotyping LIMITATIONS OF Social Identity Theory (SIT) - Minimal group research has been criticized for artificiality. The experimental set-up is so far from natural behavior that it can be questioned whether it reflects how people would react in real life. This could limit the predictive value of the theory. - It cannot fully explain how in-group favoritism may result in violent behavior towards out-groups. - It cannot explain why social constraints such as poverty could play a bigger role in behavior than social identity.