Improve Mental Health · Achieve Performance Goals

Social Identity Theory

Here's a comprehensive guide to Social Identity Theory and its impact on group dynamics, leadership, conformity, and norms.

Social Identity Theory

Social identity theory examines how self-perception influences one’s affiliation with groups, group dynamics, and interactions between groups. It encompasses various interconnected ideas and smaller theories that address the social-cognitive, motivational, interactive, and broader societal aspects of group existence. This theory is grounded in the belief that group-related phenomena cannot be fully understood through individual actions or one-on-one interactions alone; rather, social psychology must prioritize the study of large-scale social occurrences.

The theory conceptualizes groups based on individuals’ self-identification as members. Psychologically, a group is formed when at least three individuals perceive and evaluate themselves through common characteristics that set them apart from others. Social identity theory explores issues like bias, discrimination, ethnocentrism, stereotyping, group conflict, compliance, standard behaviours, group extremes, mass behaviour, organizational dynamics, leadership, nonconformity, and group unity.

Henri Tajfel introduced social identity theory in the early 1970s in the UK, driven by his interests in social perception, categorization, comparison, and the study of prejudice, discrimination, and group conflict. Over the past few decades, the theory has evolved conceptually, garnered a significant following, and inspired extensive research. Initially grounded in a European perspective on group relations, it has gained global recognition since the early 1990s as a key social psychological theory on the interplay between individual and group identities. However, its widespread acceptance has occasionally led to misinterpretations of its core concepts.

The term “social identity approach” is used here to indicate that the theory is more than just an analysis of group relations and social change based on the pursuit of positive distinctiveness, as proposed by Tajfel and Turner in 1979. In fact, this analysis of group relations is closely linked to other studies under the broad umbrella of social identity, including social influence, self-categorization, motivation, and group/social cohesion. This integrated approach aligns with Hogg and Abrams’s 1988 work, which consolidated social identity concepts, and with subsequent research that supports Tajfel’s original vision of a comprehensive, multilevel examination of the individual and the group. This perspective is also reflected in Turner’s 1999 work and in recent overviews of social identity theory and research.

In this article, I begin with the historical development of the social identity approach and an overview of its foundational principles. I then delve into the various conceptual elements, or sub-theories, along with related advancements and applications, and conclude with a discussion on common misconceptions, debates, and prospective developments.

Origins and Development of Social Identity Theory

For contemporary discussions on the evolution of the social identity approach, one can refer to the works of Turner (1999) and Hogg (2000). The scientific roots of this approach are traced back to Tajfel’s research, which includes: (1) studies on how categorization enhances perceived similarities within and differences between categories (Tajfel, 1959), (2) the examination of categorization’s role in prejudice (Tajfel, 1969), (3) findings that minimal categorization prompts in-group favouritism (Tajfel et al., 1971), and (4) critiques of social comparison research, emphasizing comparisons that amplify in-group versus out-group distinctions (Tajfel, 1974).

Tajfel’s personal experiences as a Polish Jew during the Nazi era, World War II, the Holocaust, and the post-war displacement period, deeply influenced his desire to understand prejudice, discrimination, and intergroup conflict. He, like Sherif and other thinkers such as Tolstoy and Marx, believed that societal factors shape individual actions, challenging social psychology to explain these dynamics.

Tajfel’s metatheoretical objective was to offer an explanation for intergroup phenomena that wasn’t reduced to personality traits or interpersonal processes among many individuals (Turner, 1996). His approach was a departure from the prevailing trends in social psychology, giving the impression that social identity research was part of a social movement, with theorists acting as agents of change within the field.

From the late 1960s until his passing in 1982, Tajfel, along with Turner, who joined him in the early 1970s, integrated his work on social categorization, ethnocentrism, social comparison, and intergroup relations under the concept of social identity. Drawing from Berger’s work, Tajfel defined social identity as an individual’s awareness of their group memberships and the emotional and value significance of these memberships (Tajfel, 1972). Groups, as entities of individuals sharing a social identity, vie for positive distinction and status, with strategies influenced by beliefs about intergroup relations. This framework, drawing from various sources, became known as social identity theory and later as the “social identity theory of intergroup behaviour” (Turner et al., 1987).

The late 1970s to mid-1980s marked a shift in focus, partly in response to the rise of American social cognition. Turner and his students at Bristol emphasized and expanded on the role of categorization in social identity. These concepts were formalized as self-categorization theory (Turner, 1985; Turner et al., 1987), also known as “the social identity theory of the group”. This theory explains how self and other categorizations form the basis for social identification and related group behaviours. During this period, the social identity model of referent informational influence was developed (Turner, 1982), and there was a growing interest in the motivational aspects of social identity processes (Abrams & Hogg, 1988).

By the mid-1980s, the need for an integrative focus became apparent due to the proliferation of social identity research. Hogg and Abrams (1988) advocated for an integrated social identity approach, encompassing various concepts and theories related to social identity processes.

Since the late 1980s, social identity research has surged, placing the approach at the forefront of renewed interest in group processes and intergroup relations. Significant conceptual advancements have been made in areas such as stereotyping, self-conception, motivation, collective behaviour, norms, social influence, diversity, and intragroup dynamics, particularly in small groups. Social identity theory has also gained traction in fields beyond social psychology, such as sociology and organizational science.

Underlying Foundations

The social identity approach is guided by a clear metatheoretical vision that outlines its purpose, scope, and the appropriate level of explanation. Although it has grown beyond its European roots, it was originally shaped within the context of European social psychology after World War II. Post-war, European social psychology was heavily influenced by American thought, but by the 1960s, European researchers recognized their unique perspective, focusing more on the broader societal context of behaviour.

This European focus is captured in “The Social Dimension: European Developments in Social Psychology”, a two-volume work edited by Tajfel in 1984, which highlights the distinctiveness of European social psychology. The work emphasizes the importance of the social and interactive elements in the field, advocating for a social psychology that is deeply intertwined with large-scale social processes and events.

European social psychology pays particular attention to the levels of explanation, aiming to develop theories that are suitable for the level of analysis required, and integrating them into a broader framework without succumbing to reductionism. This approach places a strong emphasis on group processes, especially intergroup relations involving large social categories, from a uniquely European perspective that views interactions as occurring between individuals as group members rather than as isolated entities.

Developed within this intellectual environment, the social identity approach, along with research on minority influence and social representations, became the hallmark of European social psychology until the late 1980s. It served as a platform for advancing a European metatheory. While the initial fervour has subsided, the metatheory continues to be significant, and the approach has become more encompassing and varied.

Conceptual Structure

The social identity approach encompasses various conceptual elements, each with its own explanatory role, concentrating on distinct facets of group affiliation and dynamics (Hogg, 2003; Hogg et al., 2004). These elements coalesce and interrelate seamlessly, forming a cohesive, intermediate theory that connects self-perception with group dynamics. This theory is interactionist and non-reductionist in nature, bridging the gap between personal cognition, social engagement, and broader societal activities.

Social Identity, Collective Self, and Group Membership

Social Identity versus Personal Identity. A social group extends beyond merely a pair of individuals with a shared social identity. Members of a group perceive and judge themselves uniformly, agreeing on their collective identity, characteristics, and how they compare and contrast with non-members or those in certain out-groups. Group affiliation is about the collective sense of self — ‘we’ and ‘us’ against ‘them.’ On the other hand, personal identity is about unique personal traits not common to others (‘I’) or one-on-one relationships with another individual (‘me’ and ‘you’). While personal identity may seem unrelated to group dynamics, it is often shaped within the context of group interactions, influencing the formation of personal identities as well as personal friendships and rivalries.

Individuals possess as many social and personal identities as the number of groups they are part of and the personal connections they maintain. These identities differ in their subjective significance, value, and the ease with which they come to mind (chronic accessibility) or become relevant in specific situations (situational accessibility). Nonetheless, in any particular context, only one identity becomes psychologically prominent, guiding one’s self-view, social perception, and behaviour. As circumstances or contexts shift, so does the prominent identity or its manifestation.

Variations and Facets of Self and Identity. While social identity theory traditionally differentiates between social and personal identities, this distinction is nuanced by various perspectives. For instance, Reid and Deaux (1996) differentiate between collective selves, which mirror social identities, and individual selves, which reflect personal characteristics rather than identities. Deaux and colleagues (1995) highlight the qualitative distinctions among social identity types, such as those based on ethnicity, religion, stigma, or politics. Cameron (2004) posits that social identity is multifaceted, comprising three interconnected yet distinct elements: centrality (the cognitive ease of identity recall), in-group affect (the evaluative emotions stemming from the identity), and in-group ties (the sense of connection and belonging to the defining group).

Others argue that the binary of social versus personal identity is overly simplistic. Brewer and Gardner (1996) and Yuki (2003) identify three self-aspects: the individual self (characterized by unique personal traits), the relational self (defined by one-to-one relationships), and the collective self (shaped by group affiliations). Brewer (2001) further categorizes social identity into four types: (1) person-based, where group characteristics are internalized by individuals; (2) relational, defining the self through interactions with others within a group; (3) group-based, aligning with traditional definitions of social identity; and (4) collective, where group members actively shape the group’s public image and shared attributes.

The concept of relational self or social identity is intriguing. It may be seen as a form of social identity or personal identity, depending on the broader social context, such as cultural norms. In individualistic cultures, relational identities might isolate individuals from the group, whereas in collectivist cultures, relationships define and sustain group membership. Thus, relational identity can be an expression of social identity.

Given the divergence in self-construal preferences between individualistic (independent) and collectivist (interdependent or relational) cultures, one might expect social identity dynamics to be more pronounced in collectivist societies. Collectivist values emphasize the group over the individual, fostering social identity and group-centric behaviours. However, even in individualistic societies, where cultural norms shape group interactions, groups still endow individuals with a strong sense of identity, place, and belonging. Paradoxically, in individualistic groups, heightened identification may lead to more individualistic behaviour.

Dyads, Aggregates, and Groups. What constitutes a group? Social identity scholars assert that a dyad does not qualify as a group. A true group requires at least three individuals because a dyad is overwhelmed by one-on-one interactions, it takes at least three to establish group norms based on others’ behaviours, and certain group dynamics, like forming coalitions, exerting majority influence, or managing deviance, are not possible within a dyad. This view aligns with many researchers in group processes. Forsyth, for instance, notes that dyads are unique due to their two-member composition, dissolving with the departure of one member and incapable of forming internal subgroups (Forsyth, 1999).

From a social identity standpoint, however, even two individuals can form a group if they share an identity linked to a broader collective. For example, two Australians in Canada, Steve and Maggie, might embody Australian characteristics and, in that sense, form a group under the broader category of “Australians”, rather than a group defined as “Steve and Maggie”. A person might also feel and behave as a group member when alone; for instance, Maggie might continue to feel and act Australian upon seeing the Australian flag, even if Steve is not present.

The transition from a mere aggregate to a group hinges on identification with the group. Factors like common destiny, interdependence, interaction, shared objectives, and group structure contribute to this, as they enhance the group’s entity-like quality and cohesion, thereby fostering identification, which is the core psychological mechanism of group phenomena.

Groups differ in size, purpose, duration, and distribution. A key distinction lies between groups formed based on shared characteristics (categorical groups) and those formed through interactions (dynamic groups). This echoes Tönnies’ historical differentiation between Gemeinschaft (community-based on close bonds) and Gesellschaft (association-based on formal, impersonal links). Despite these differences, the crux of being part of a group is identification; without a sense of belonging or self-definition in relation to the group, individuals are unlikely to adopt the mindset or behaviours typical of group members.

Groups are typically diverse, with structures comprising roles, subgroups, and various categories. Common roles include newcomers, full members, and veterans, with individuals transitioning through these roles as they join, integrate into, and eventually leave the group. Moreland and colleagues suggest that role adoption involves a mutual commitment between the individual and the group, dependent on the individual’s prototypicality within the group and the specific role (Moreland & Levine, 2003; Moreland et al., 2001).

Social Categorization, Prototypes, and Depersonalization

Prototypes and Metacontrast. Social categorization forms the mental groundwork for social identity processes, where groups are essentially categories of individuals. In this framework, a group is mentally depicted as a prototype, which is a collection of related attributes like perceptions, attitudes, emotions, and behaviours that define the group’s internal similarities and its external distinctions from other groups or individuals outside the group.

Prototypes not only characterize but also assess categories and dictate behaviours linked to group membership. They outline the essence of social groups, delineating both the group’s defining traits and its differences from other groups. Prototypes enhance the perception of a group as a cohesive and distinct entity (entitativity) and adhere to the metacontrast principle, which amplifies the contrast between intergroup differences and intragroup similarities.

Several points arise from this concept. Firstly, the substance of a prototype depends on the attributes that heighten metacontrast within a given context, with a tendency to favour in-group attributes. Secondly, prototypes tend to be polarized, not representing the average member but rather an idealized version of in-group members, distanced from out-group characteristics. Thirdly, prototypes are sensitive to the social context and can shift if the comparative backdrop changes, although this fluctuation is generally limited by stable and prominent representations of significant groups. Lastly, the dynamics within and between groups are interconnected; changes in one sphere influence the other.

Categorization and Depersonalization. When you categorize someone as belonging to a group, your perception of them shifts. Instead of recognizing their unique individuality or personal connection, you perceive them through the defining characteristics of the group’s prototype. This process, known as depersonalization, involves attributing the group’s typical qualities to the individual. It’s important to note that depersonalization differs from dehumanization; the latter involves denying someone’s human qualities, potentially leading to inhumane treatment, whereas depersonalization is about associating someone with the traits of a group, which can be positive or negative.

This process of social categorization leads to depersonalization of both those within the group (in-group) and those outside it (out-group). For out-group members, this is often referred to as stereotyping, where they are seen as homogeneous and possessing the same out-group characteristics. The same process applies to oneself; by categorizing oneself, one adopts the in-group’s attributes (self-stereotyping), which influences one’s feelings and behaviours to align with group norms, fostering conformity, trust, and solidarity within the group.

Depersonalization of oneself should not be confused with deindividuation. While depersonalization involves seeing oneself as an embodiment of the group, deindividuation is characterized by a loss of personal identity, often leading to antisocial and aggressive behaviours. However, such behaviours only arise from depersonalization when the group’s prototype endorses them. Wright and colleagues offer a complementary view, suggesting that the degree of identification with a group—and consequently depersonalization—is determined by how much the group’s characteristics are internalized as part of one’s self-concept.

Psychological Salience. For social categorization to influence behaviour, it must be psychologically prominent, serving as the foundation for perception and self-identity. This concept of social identity prominence, refined by Oakes (1987) building on Bruner’s (1957) work, is based on two key ideas: accessibility and fit. Individuals rely on social categorizations that are either chronically accessible due to their significance and frequent use in self-concept, or situationally accessible because they stand out in a given context.

Individuals apply these accessible categories to understand their social environment, assessing how well the categorization explains people’s similarities and differences (structural or comparative fit) and the extent to which stereotypical traits of the category explain behaviours (normative fit). If the categorization doesn’t align well — for instance, if observed behaviours don’t match typical gender or racial stereotypes — people will explore other accessible categories until they find one that fits better. This selection is not just an automatic cognitive process but also involves social dynamics where individuals might actively seek or contest the relevance of certain categorizations.

The category that achieves the best fit becomes psychologically significant in that scenario, guiding self-categorization, group identification, and depersonalization based on prototypes. It highlights the commonalities within a group and the distinctions between groups, bolsters the perceived cohesiveness of the group, and supports behaviours relevant to the group and intergroup context.

Motivations Behind Social Identity

Social identity is driven by the dual desires for self-improvement and the reduction of uncertainty, leading groups to aspire for superiority and uniqueness compared to others. Additionally, the pursuit of optimal distinctiveness plays a significant role.

Self-Enhancement and Positive Distinctiveness. A key aspect of group dynamics and intergroup interactions is the tendency towards ethnocentrism or positive distinctiveness — the conviction that our group surpasses others in all respects. This belief is fervently defended and promoted by groups. In contexts where group identity is prominent, individuals’ self-concept is intertwined with the group’s standing, thus linking the group’s prestige to personal self-worth. This drive for a favourable social identity may stem from fundamental human needs for self-enhancement and self-esteem. Consequently, the quest for positive distinctiveness and the resulting group behaviours could be fuelled by the desire for self-esteem, suggesting that lower self-esteem may spur group affiliation and that such identification, in turn, boosts self-esteem.

Reviews of this self-esteem hypothesis have yielded mixed results, indicating a need to differentiate between self-esteem derived from individual identity and that from group membership. The connection between self-esteem and group conduct might also be influenced by factors like the intensity of self-esteem, the degree of identification with the group, and perceived threats to the group or its members. Notably, while group identification can enhance self-esteem, it’s not a consistently reliable motivator for identification; often, those with higher self-esteem are more inclined to identify with groups. This aligns with the perspective that self-esteem serves more as a gauge for the fulfillment of other drives, such as sustaining gratifying social connections.

While self-enhancement is certainly a component of social identity mechanisms, the association between individual self-esteem and positive group distinctiveness isn’t always direct. Even though a marginalized or stigmatized social identity might lower self-esteem, individuals are remarkably skilled at shielding themselves from the negative self-assessment that stigma can bring.

Reducing Uncertainty in Social Identity. Another driving force behind social identity is the reduction of uncertainty. This epistemic motivation is closely linked to social categorization. Individuals aim to diminish their subjective uncertainty regarding their social environment and their role within it. They seek clarity about their identity and expected behaviours, as well as those of others. Social categorization effectively mitigates uncertainty by providing group prototypes that outline expected behaviours and interactions. These prototypes are generally agreed upon, affirming one’s worldview and self-concept, making behaviour more predictable, and enabling effective planning and action.

The greater one’s self-conceptual uncertainty, the stronger the drive to affiliate with groups that offer clarity and certainty. Such groups are characterized by distinctiveness, high cohesiveness, and straightforward, widely accepted prototypes. In extreme cases, these groups may be orthodox or extremist, with rigid ideologies, belief systems, and structured leadership. Ideological beliefs, such as the belief in a just world, the Protestant work ethic, and right-wing authoritarianism, often emerge under conditions of social uncertainty. Thus, group identification can serve as a mediator between social uncertainty and ideological leanings. The uncertainty reduction theory also suggests that subordinate groups may accept their lower status to avoid the discomfort of increased uncertainty that comes with challenging established norms.

The interplay between uncertainty reduction and self-enhancement in social identity is complex. While uncertainty might lower self-esteem, it doesn’t necessarily do so, and identification can occur independently of self-esteem. The interaction between self-enhancement and uncertainty reduction is evident in how individuals align with groups. Those with self-conceptual uncertainty are driven by the need to reduce it, leading them to identify with both low- and high-status groups. Conversely, those with a clear self-concept are drawn by self-enhancement motives to associate more with high-status groups.

Optimal Distinctiveness. The concept of optimal distinctiveness, introduced by Brewer in 1991, suggests that individuals navigate between two opposing desires: the need for inclusion or similarity (fulfilled by being part of a group) and the need for distinctiveness or individuality (fulfilled by standing out). To achieve a state of optimal distinctiveness, people seek a middle ground. In small groups, the desire for uniqueness is overly met, prompting a push towards more inclusivity. Conversely, in large groups, the need for inclusion is overly satisfied, leading individuals to seek ways to stand out within the group. This theory implies that people are most content when they belong to groups of moderate size, rather than very large or very small ones.

Depersonalized Attraction and Group Cohesion

When the identity of a group is prominent, the group’s defining characteristics become the lens through which members view, interpret, and act. Members are attuned to these characteristics and how well each person embodies them. Their emotional responses and opinions of one another are shaped by the degree to which they embody these defining traits. Should these traits evolve, members’ alignment with them may shift, affecting their standing within the group — enhancing favourability for those who align more closely and diminishing it for those who do not.

This leads to a transformation in how members evaluate and feel about each other. As group membership gains importance, the basis of liking shifts from personal attraction, grounded in individual identity, to an impersonal attraction based on the group’s defining traits. This impersonal attraction depends on one’s identification with the group and the embodiment of its defining traits by others, resulting in a collective appreciation for those who represent the group’s identity.

Such attraction is generally shared and directed towards those who are seen as embodying the group’s traits. When group membership is emphasized and there is consensus on the group’s defining traits, those who embody these traits well are likely to be favoured, gaining influence and potential leadership roles. Conversely, those who do not align as closely may be less favoured, having less influence and potentially being viewed as outsiders. The shared positive regard based on the group’s defining traits contributes to the emotional bond and sense of unity within the group.

While social and personal attractions arise from different origins, they often coexist within groups, allowing members to form positive personal connections. However, these two forms of attraction might relate to distinct group dynamics. For instance, ‘groupthink’, typically linked to excessive unity in small groups, may actually be more connected to an overabundance of impersonal social attraction rather than too much personal attraction.

Intergroup Relations

Social identity processes involve individuals engaging in comparisons with others, including themselves, based on their affiliation with various groups and the typical traits of these groups. While comparisons within personal or within-group settings aim for resemblance and uniformity, intergroup comparisons pursue a distinct goal — they seek to establish and emphasize the uniqueness of one’s own group in contrast to others. Moreover, since social identity serves to both characterize and appraise one’s sense of self, intergroup comparisons are geared towards achieving a positively valued uniqueness for one’s group.

Therefore, social identity is deeply rooted in comparisons that are sensitive to value judgments, aiming for homogeneity within groups and distinction between them. This principle underlies the ethnocentrism and preference for one’s own group often seen in intergroup interactions. It elucidates the reasons behind groups’ endeavours to stand out and excel, as they vie for status, recognition, and distinct identity.

Frameworks of Social Beliefs Structures. Tajfel’s examination of intergroup behaviour and societal evolution combines the principles of intergroup comparisons with the study of social belief systems. These systems encompass individuals’ perceptions of intergroup relations and their evaluation of various strategies to achieve or sustain positive differentiation between groups. The components of social belief systems include beliefs about one’s group status compared to others, the stability and legitimacy of this status, the permeability of group boundaries, and the viability of alternative social structures.

The interplay of these beliefs (status, stability, legitimacy, permeability, and alternatives) leads to diverse intergroup behaviours. For example, members of lower-status groups who view the social hierarchy as stable and legitimate, and the boundaries as crossable, may distance themselves from their group and attempt to assimilate into the higher-status group. This strategy aligns with broader societal beliefs in a just world and the notion that hard work can improve one’s circumstances.

However, attempts at social mobility often fail. The reality is that societal fairness is not guaranteed, and hard work doesn’t always yield rewards. Dominant groups may propagate ideologies that mask the true nature of intergroup relations, maintaining their superiority. While the concept of mobility serves the interests of the dominant group by deterring challenges to the status quo, it often results in a marginal identity for those who unsuccessfully attempt to cross group boundaries — they find themselves alienated from both the dominant group and their original group for perceived disloyalty.

Conflict and Harmony. It’s often thought that the issues arising from intergroup conflict could be resolved by merging conflicting groups into a single, harmonious entity. This would theoretically transform adversarial intergroup interactions into cooperative intragroup relations. However, from the perspective of social identity, creating a unified superordinate identity can be challenging. People typically have strong ties to their original groups, and deep-seated cultural differences between groups can complicate integration.

When a superordinate group is formed, it may inadvertently highlight the differences between subgroups. Often, the characteristics of one subgroup are more prominently represented in the larger group, leading to a power imbalance. This can make subgroups feel that their unique identity is under threat, prompting them to assert their distinctiveness and autonomy vigorously. This dynamic is a common reason why organizational mergers and acquisitions sometimes fail, as members of the merged entity struggle to preserve their pre-merger identities.

In theory, a solution to this issue is to structure the superordinate identity in a way that allows subgroups to flourish as distinct yet cooperative units within the larger group. Subgroups could embrace each other’s characteristics, and the overarching identity could be defined by the diversity of its subgroups. However, achieving this level of integration and mutual respect can be a complex endeavor.

Influence, Conformity, and Norms

Through the lens of social identity, norms define the framework of groups and their associated identities, encapsulated as group prototypes that guide behaviour reflective of that identity. Within any group, there’s typically a strong consensus on the characteristics that define ‘us’ versus ‘them’. The process of self-categorization, or seeing oneself as part of the group, leads to adherence to group norms because individuals align their behaviour with the group’s defining characteristics.

Conformity, therefore, is not merely superficial compliance but a profound transformation of behaviour to match the group’s defining prototype. This type of social influence, driven by the need to identify with the group, is known as referent informational influence. In group settings, individuals pay attention to behaviours that signal the group’s norms, often modelled by key group members. Once these norms are recognized, they are internalized as the specific prototype for the group, guiding conformity through self-identification.

Group norms fulfill dual roles: they reinforce similarities and the identity within the group, and they establish a clear distinction from other groups. As a result, group norms often diverge significantly from those of other groups, leading to more pronounced group characteristics. For instance, when group norms diverge from those of a notable out-group, discussions or decisions within the group tend to become more extreme, moving further away from the out-group’s stance — a phenomenon known as group polarization.

Group Norms, Individual Behaviour, and Social Mobilization. Group standards not only shape thoughts and views but also influence actions. A notable aspect of group dynamics is that individuals who resonate deeply with a group and its prescribed behaviours are more inclined to act accordingly. Moreover, groups can bolster the willingness of individuals to put forth effort for collective goals. While people generally contribute less effort in group settings — a phenomenon known as social loafing — they may fully engage if they feel a strong connection to the group and a need to compensate for others’ lackluster performance. This commitment is even stronger when the task is central to the group’s identity, leading individuals to work more diligently within the group than they would alone.

These concepts are pivotal to understanding social mobilization — the process by which people join social movements or action groups. The transition from personal grievances to collective action raises questions about the catalysts for mobilization. Klandermans (1997) suggests that while sympathizers may share supportive attitudes toward a cause, these do not automatically translate into active participation. Involvement in social movements often presents a dilemma: actions are typically aimed at societal benefits or combating societal issues, and while success rewards all, failure disproportionately affects those who participate, tempting some to remain passive supporters. Leadership plays a crucial role in rallying a group to take action, especially when the leader is perceived as fair and trustworthy, acting in the group’s best interest. Ultimately, it is the sense of shared identity that heightens the likelihood of collective action and protest.

Leadership Dynamics Within Groups. In group settings, while norms guide influence, certain members personify these norms more distinctly, making them notably influential. This concept forms the basis of the social identity approach to leadership. When individuals strongly resonate with a group, they are more attentive and responsive to those who exemplify the group’s defining traits. Leaders who are seen as embodying these traits command more influence and are more readily endorsed. Such prototypical members become the focal point for group alignment and are perceived as having a natural authority, enabling them to lead effectively and introduce new ideas. Their actions are seen as representative of the group, enhancing their leadership image.

Members who closely align with the group’s identity tend to act in ways that benefit the group, reinforcing their credibility and garnering trust. This trust grants them the paradoxical freedom to innovate beyond typical group norms. In contrast, leaders who do not as closely represent the group’s defining traits must work harder to affirm their belonging and are consequently trusted less, limiting their capacity to lead innovatively.

Deviance and Marginalization. Members who marginally represent group norms, especially those on the fringes, tend to be less favoured and trusted within the group, leading to their minimal influence and potential labelling as outliers. Such individuals, particularly those straddling the line between belonging and not belonging, often face stronger rejection from within the group than from outside, becoming the proverbial ‘black sheep’.

The subjective group dynamics model proposed by Marques and colleagues suggests that the group’s adverse reactions to outliers stem from the perceived threat these individuals pose to the group’s established norms. Hogg, Fielding, and Darley introduce a motivational perspective, positing that members’ responses to an outlier hinge on the outlier’s proximity to the group boundary, the perceived threat to the group’s value or uniqueness, and whether the outlier’s divergence is self-attributed or projected onto the group.

While outliers generally face negative reactions from the group, they can also play a pivotal role in advocating for social change within the group. Outliers may act as internal critics or represent minority viewpoints that challenge the majority’s consensus. Although it may be challenging for these marginal members to gain a platform, their efforts can ultimately be constructive, aiming to reshape the group’s identity from within.


In conclusion, the social identity approach offers a profound understanding of group dynamics, intergroup relations, and individual behaviour within the context of groups. It elucidates how norms and prototypes shape interactions, influence, and conformity, highlighting the importance of group identification in determining members’ actions and the group’s cohesion. Leadership within groups is contingent upon the embodiment of group norms, where more prototypical members are granted influence and the capacity to lead effectively.

The theory also addresses the challenges of outliers and marginalization, recognizing the complex role of less prototypical members who may face rejection yet also serve as agents of change. Intergroup relations are characterized by a quest for positive distinctiveness, with social belief structures influencing behaviours ranging from assimilation to social mobilization. The pursuit of optimal distinctiveness balances the need for inclusion with the desire for uniqueness, shaping the size and nature of groups.

Social mobilization and collective action are driven by shared identities and the alignment of individual attitudes with group norms. Leadership is crucial in this process, with trust in leaders being paramount for effective mobilization. Lastly, the theory acknowledges the difficulties in achieving harmony through the integration of groups, suggesting that a superordinate identity that respects subgroup diversity may facilitate unity.

Overall, the social identity approach provides valuable insights into the mechanisms of group behaviour, the motivations behind social action, and the potential for leadership and change within group structures. It underscores the significance of shared identity in fostering group unity and the intricate balance between individual and collective interests. 


  • Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1988). Comments on the motivational status of self-esteem in social identity and intergroup discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 317–334.
  • Berger, P. L. (1966). Identity as a problem in the sociology of knowledge. European Journal of Sociology, 7, 105–115.
  • Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475–482.
  • Brewer, M. B. (2001). The many faces of social identity: Implications for political psychology. Political Psychology, 22, 115–125.
  • Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “we”? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83–93.
  • Bruner, J. S. (1957). On perceptual readiness. Psychological Review, 64, 123–152.
  • Cameron, J. E. (2004). A three-factor model of social identity. Self and Identity, 3, 239–262.
  • Deaux, K., Reid, A., Mizrahi, K., & Ethier, K. A. (1995). Parameters of social identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 280–291.
  • Forsyth, D. R. (1999). Group Dynamics (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
  • Hogg, M. A. (2000). Social identity and social comparison. In J. Suls & L. Wheeler (Eds.), Handbook of Social Comparison: Theory and Research (pp. 401–421). New York: Kluwer/Plenum.
  • Hogg, M. A. (2003). Social identity. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of Self and Identity (pp. 462–479). New York: Guilford.
  • Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social Identifications: A Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations and Group Processes. London and New York: Routledge.
  • Hogg, M. A., Abrams, D., Otten, S., & Hinkle, S. (2004). The social identity perspective: Intergroup relations, self-conception, and small groups. Small Group Research, 35, 246–276.
  • Hogg, M. A., Fielding, K. S., & Darley, J. (2005). Fringe dwellers: Processes of deviance and marginalization in groups. In D. Abrams, M. A. Hogg, & J. M. Marques (Eds.), The social psychology of inclusion and exclusion (pp. 191–210). New York: Psychology Press.
  • Klandermans, B. (1997). The Social Psychology of Protest. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
  • Marques, J. M., Abrams, D., Páez, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2001). Social categorization, social identification, and rejection of deviant group members. In M. A. Hogg & R. S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Group Processes (pp. 400–424). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
  • Marques, J. M., Abrams, D., & Serodio, R. (2001). Being better by being right: Subjective group dynamics and derogation of in-group deviants when generic norms are undermined. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 436–447.
  • Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (2003). Group composition: Explaining similarities and differences among group members. In M. A. Hogg & J. Cooper (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 367–380). London: Sage.
  • Moreland, R. L., Levine, J. M., & McMinn, J. G. (2001). Self-categorization and work group socialization. In M. A. Hogg & D. Terry (Eds.), Social Identity Processes in Organizational Contexts (pp. 87–100). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
  • Oakes, P. J. (1987). The salience of social categories. In J. C. Turner, M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher, & M. S. Wetherell (Eds.), Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory (pp. 117–141). Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Reid, A., & Deaux, K. (1996). Relationship between social and personal identities: Segregation or integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1084–1091.
  • Tajfel, H. (1959). Quantitative judgement in social perception. British Journal of Psychology, 50, 16–29.
  • Tajfel, H. (1969). Cognitive aspects of prejudice. Journal of Social Issues, 25, 79–97.
  • Tajfel, H. (1972). Social categorization. In S. Moscovici (Ed.), Introduction à la Psychologie Sociale (Vol. 1, pp. 272–302). Paris: Larousse.
  • Tajfel, H. (1974). Intergroup Behaviour, Social Comparison and Social Change. Unpublished Katz-Newcomb lectures, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
  • Tajfel, H., Billig, M., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149–177.
  • Tönnies, F. (1955). Community and Association. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  • Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social Identity and Intergroup Relations (pp. 15–40). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behavior. In E. J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in Group Processes: Theory and Research (Vol. 2, pp. 7–122). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
  • Turner, J. C. (1996). Henri Tajfel: An introduction. In W. P. Robinson (Ed.), Social Groups and Identities: Developing the Legacy of Henri Tajfel (pp. 1–23). Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.
  • Turner, J. C. (1999). Some current issues in research on social identity and self-categorization theories. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social Identity (pp. 6–34). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
  • Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
  • Wright, S. C., Aron, A., & Tropp, L. R. (2002). Including others (and groups) in the self: Self-expansion and intergroup relations. In J. P. Forgas & K. D. Williams (Eds.), The Social Self: Cognitive, Interpersonal, and Intergroup Perspectives (pp. 343–363). New York: Psychology Press.
  • Yuki, M. (2003). Intergroup comparison versus intragroup relationships: A cross-cultural examination of social identity theory in North American and East Asian cultural contexts. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66, 166–183.

Cite this article as:

Roychowdhury, D. Social Identity Theory. Dr Dev Roychowdhury.