social identity theory essay plan

Social Identity Theory (Examples, Strengths & Weaknesses)

Kamalpreet Gill Singh (PhD)

This article was co-authored by Kamalpreet Gill Singh, PhD. Dr. Gill has a PhD in Sociology and has published academic articles in reputed international peer-reviewed journals. He holds a Master’s degree in Politics and International Relations and a Bachelor’s in Computer Science.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Chris Drew (PhD)

This article was peer-reviewed and edited by Chris Drew (PhD). The review process on Helpful Professor involves having a PhD level expert fact check, edit, and contribute to articles. Reviewers ensure all content reflects expert academic consensus and is backed up with reference to academic studies. Dr. Drew has published over 20 academic articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education and holds a PhD in Education from ACU.

The social identity theory explains how people develop their identities. Its main argument is that people develop their identity through interaction with society.

Examples of social identity theory include religion, sport, nation, and ethnicity affiliations that help you to construct your identity.

The social identity theory was developed by the social psychologists Henri Tajfel and John Turner in the 1970s. 

Key Concepts in the Social Identity Theory

1. the interpersonal-intergroup continuum.

Tajfel and Turner proposed that an individual’s identity, or sense of the self is influenced both through:

• Interpersonal Interaction – One-to-one interactions with other individuals
• Intergroup Interaction – Identification with a large grouping of people, and the interaction of their grouping in turn with other groups.  

The Interpersonal-intergroup continuum refers to the degree to which interpersonal or intergroup interaction has a stronger effect on your social identity .

For some individuals, interpersonal interaction may play a dominant role in constructing their idea of the self (i.e. their identification with groups might be weak). For others, intergroup interaction might be dominant ( i.e. they may strongly identify with social groupings).

The social identity theory helps to determine where on this interpersonal-intergroup continuum would an individual’s socially constructed self lie, given specific structural factors.  (Tajfel & Turner, 1986)

2. Positive Distinctiveness (3 Ways People Construct Identities)

The group that an individual identifies with is called an in-group. Everyone outside the in-group constitutes the outgroup. 

Social identity theory works on the assumption that individuals attempt to create a positive idea of their selves. This is known as positive distinctiveness .

Thus, the association with one in-group, and distinction from the out–group, is a strategy deployed by individuals to achieve positive distinctiveness.

This pursuit of positive distinctiveness while being part of a group usually leads to 3 outcomes: 

1. Mobility

Mobility is a strategy adopted by individuals in cases where boundaries of the group they identify with are permeable. They may perceive that they can achieve greater status by identifying with a different group.

For instance, a child at middle school may perceive another group of friends to be more popular than their elementary school friends. They may therefore decide to stop associating with their old friends and spend time with their newer friends who give them higher perceived social status .

2. Creativity

Creativity is a strategy deployed by individuals when the boundaries of the in-group are more rigid and the members feel that their status is lower compared to those of the out-group.

An example is the Black is Beautiful movement that began in the USA in the 1960s, seeking to counter the deeply entrenched notion that black skin, and the black color in general, is devoid of beauty. 

Through creativity, people stay within the group but create counter-narratives as an attempt to claim higher social status for their group.

3. Competition

Competition results when the boundaries of the ingroup are relatively rigid, and the individuals feel they have the same or higher status than that of similarly located groups. An example is two competing political parties. The two groups compete to have the dominant and more powerful social identity.

Examples of Social Identity Theory

We can see examples of social identity theory in nationalism, religion, race and ethnicity, and fraternities and sororities. By studying these social groups, we can see how people use in-groups and out-groups to develop their social identities.

1. Nationalism

For most of us, our national identity is one of the most prominent strands in our construction of the self.

When we ask ourselves the question – “who am I”?  – our belonging to a nation – state is likely to be an important part of the answer.

Being and identifying as American, Chinese, British, Canadian, Indian and so on becomes so entrenched into our idea of the self that we often tend to overlook that nations and nationalism are social constructs .

Benedict Anderson called the nation an “ imagined community ” as its members imagine themselves to belong to the same in-group, even if no real ties holding them together might exist (Anderson, 1983).

At the same time, not everyone identifies equally strongly with the nation of their birth or with the idea of loyalty and patriotism to any nation state at all. 

For many people, loyalty to their immediate kinship or clan network (interpersonal interaction) may be more significant than a sense of belonging to the larger, more abstract nation (intergroup interaction).

2. Race and Ethnicity

Like nationalism, ethnicity and race is another grouping that commands allegiance from individuals. 

Unlike social constructs such as nation and religion, ethnicity and race have strong biological elements. They are thus examples of groups with rigid boundaries.

People cannot change their race or ethnicity the way nationality can be changed by migrating to a different country.

In multiracial, multiethnic societies, the members of a particular race or ethnic group may feel an affinity towards each other on account of their shared history, customs, traditions, and experiences. Their identification with their race or ethnicity may also influence their preference for marrying within the racial or ethnic community.

Sometimes, the pursuit of greater positive distinctiveness while identifying strongly with a race or ethnic identity can lead to competition called ethnic conflict . For example, there is currently ethnic conflict in Myanmar between Buddhists and Muslims. 

3. Fraternities and Sororities

Fraternities are all-male clubs of graduate students in the US, while sororities are their female counterparts.

Members of fraternities and sororities often find themselves bound in close social and professional relationships as a result of socializing together during their formative years in college. 

Another feature of fraternities and sororities that makes association with them desirable is their elite nature.

Most fraternities and sororities are named after Greek letters (such as Psi Sigma Kappa). Since Greek is a classical language associated in popular imagination with high scholarly and aesthetic achievement, such groups are perceived by individuals as stepping-stones to achieving greater positive distinctiveness. 

4. Religion

Like nationalism, religious identity is also a fundamental constituent of most peoples’ idea of self.

For a large number of people across the globe, their identity as a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, or Jew is an aspect of identity that comes before their identification with a nation-state, race, or ethnicity.

Pros and Cons of Social Identity Theory

Strengths (Pros)

1. Explains Group Philanthropy

A core assumption of the social identity theory is that individuals identify with groups in order to maximize positive distinctiveness. 

This helps explain philanthropic acts undertaken by social groups such as food drives, charity, etc.

Since the primary drive behind associating with groups positive distinctiveness, it follows that individuals would want their own group to be perceived in a more positive light than others. 

2. Explains In-Group Bias

Social identity theory helps explain the formation of in-groups and out-groups , and the bias that accompanies their formation. 

An in-group is a social grouping that an individual identifies with. An out-group is all those who are not part of the in-group.

In-group bias is the natural tendency of humans to favor those within the same in-group.

For instance, members of the stonemasons, elite schools, or even secret fraternity societies might favor those belonging to their in-group when networking for business or hiring for jobs. 

Weaknesses (Cons)

1. Poor Predictive Power

Social identity theory has been criticized as being more explanatory than predictive in nature.

This means that while the theory can explain existing phenomena, it is not always very accurate in predicting future behavior (Brown, 2000).

2. Fails to Explain Affiliation Between Similar Groups

According to social identity theory, when groups have rigid boundaries and similar social status, they are likely to engage in conflict and competition.

However, this is not always true. In several cases, groups that are situated similarly in terms of social status, and which have rigid boundaries, are engaged in mutual cooperation and symbiotic behavior.

For instance, in several multi-ethnic, multi-racial societies, peaceful coexistence, rather than ethnic conflict, is the norm. 

Related Theory: Self-Categorization Theory

The self-categorization theory is closely related to, but different from social identity theory (SIT).

Proposed by John Turner, one of founding theorists of social identity theory, the self-categorization theory attempts to delineate the conditions under which an individual may begin to perceive themselves as well as others as belonging to a group. 

As opposed to this, the social identity theory focuses on the different kinds of intergroup interactions are possible once group formation has occurred 

Good to Know Information : A fundamental assumption of the social identity theory is the idea of the social construction of the self.

In sociology, the idea of the  social construction of the self is built upon the work of Charles Horton Cooley (1864-1929), George Herbert Mead (1863-1931) and Erving Goffman (1922-1982). 

Cooley gave the concept of the “ looking glass self ”, i.e. we build our self-image based upon what we believe other people think of us.

Developing Cooley’s ideas further, Mead built the theory of symbolic interactions (one of three core sociological paradigms ), according to which individuals develop their understanding of the world, including their idea of the self by interacting with others around them.

Finally, Erving Goffman, in his influential book The Presentation of the Self in Everyday Life compared human interactions to the theatrical performances, in which construct and present different selves for different situations. 

Social identity theory states that individuals construct at least a part of their identity through membership within social groups.

Social groups can include groupings as large as the nation, or a religion, or as small as a local hobby club. 

This can include developing an identity that is consistent with groups that they’re part of (e.g. “I’m a Christians) as well as in opposition to groups they’re not part of (“I’m not a liberal therefore I’m a conservative”).

Key concepts within the theory include: the interpersonal-intergroup continuum (which tells you the degree to which you develop your identity through group membership or personal relationships with individuals) and positive distinctiveness (3 ways people create their identities).

Anderson, B. (1983)   Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism . Verso. 

Brown, R. (2000), Social identity theory: past achievements, current problems and future challenges. European  Journal of  Social  Psychology , 30, 745-778. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-0992(200011/12)30:6%3C745::AID-EJSP24%3E3.0.CO;2-O

Tajfel, H. and Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel and W. G. Austin (eds.). Psychology of Intergroup Relations . (pp. 7–24). Nelson-Hall

• Kamalpreet Gill Singh (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link 15 Ableism Examples
• Kamalpreet Gill Singh (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link The 10 Types of Masculinity
• Kamalpreet Gill Singh (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link 31 Most Popular Motivation Theories (A to Z List)
• Kamalpreet Gill Singh (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link Counterfactual Thinking: 10 Examples and Definition

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 23 Achieved Status Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 15 Ableism Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 25 Defense Mechanisms Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 15 Theory of Planned Behavior Examples

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Social Identity Theory In Psychology (Tajfel & Turner, 1979)

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Social Identity Theory, proposed by Henri Tajfel and John Turner in the 1970s, posits that individuals derive a portion of their self-concept from their membership in social groups.

The theory seeks to explain the cognitive processes and social conditions underlying intergroup behaviors, especially those related to prejudice, bias, and discrimination.

Social identity is a person’s sense of who they are based on their group membership(s).

Tajfel and Turner (1979) proposed that the groups (e.g., social class, family, football team, etc.) people belonged to were important sources of pride and self-esteem.

Social identity groups can give you a sense of:

• Belonging : Being part of a group can instill feelings of connection and unity, giving individuals the comforting sense that they’re not alone in their experiences or perspectives.
• Purpose : Group affiliations often come with shared goals or missions, which can provide direction and purpose to individual members.
• Self-worth : Affiliating with a group can boost self-esteem as individuals derive pride from group achievements and a positive group image.
• Identity : Groups provide a framework to understand oneself in the context of a larger community. They can help define who you are based on shared attributes, values, or goals.

1. Social Categorization

This refers to the tendency of people to classify themselves and others into various social groups based on attributes like race, gender, nationality, or religion.

We categorize objects to understand them and identify them. In a very similar way, we categorize people (including ourselves) to understand the social environment.  We use social categories like black, white, Australian, Christian, Muslim, student, and bus driver because they are useful.

Categorization helps individuals simplify the social environment but can also lead to stereotyping. If we can assign people to a category, that tells us things about those people.

Similarly, we find out things about ourselves by knowing what categories we belong to.  We define appropriate behavior by referencing the norms of groups we belong to, but you can only do this if you can tell who belongs to your group. An individual can belong to many different groups.

For example, you have categorized yourself as a student, chances are you will adopt the identity of a student and begin to act the ways you believe student act.

2. Social Identification

Once individuals categorize themselves as members of a particular group, they adopt the identity of that group. This means they begin to see themselves in terms of group characteristics and adopt its norms, values, and behaviors.

If for example you have categorized yourself as a student, the chances are you will adopt the identity of a student and begin to act in the ways you believe students act (and conform to the norms of the group).

There will be an emotional significance to your identification with a group, and your self-esteem will become bound up with group membership.

3. Social Comparison

After categorizing and identifying with a group, individuals compare their group to others. This comparison is often biased in favor of one’s own group, leading to in-group favoritism.

This is critical to understanding prejudice, because once two groups identify themselves as rivals, they are forced to compete in order for the members to maintain their self-esteem.

Competition and hostility between groups is thus not only a matter of competing for resources (like in  Sherif’s Robbers Cave ) like jobs but also the result of competing identities.

4. In-group (us) and Out-group (them)

Within the context of SIT, the ‘in-group’ refers to the group with which an individual identifies, while ‘out-group’ pertains to groups they don’t identify with.

The theory asserts that people have a natural inclination to perceive their in-group in a positive light while being neutral or even negative towards out-groups, thus enhancing their self-image .

5. Positive Distinctiveness

The desire for positive self-esteem will motivate one’s in-group to be perceived as positively different or distinct from relevant out-groups.

Prejudiced views between cultures may result in racism; in its extreme forms, racism may result in genocide, such as occurred in Germany with the Jews, in Rwanda between the Hutus and Tutsis, and, more recently, in the former Yugoslavia between the Bosnians and Serbs.

Examples of In-groups and Out-groups

It’s important to note that ingroups and outgroups are fluid concepts. The group an individual identifies with can change based on context, environment, or over time.

Moreover, everyone belongs to multiple ingroups across different facets of their identity. The categorization into ingroups and outgroups also plays a significant role in intergroup dynamics, biases, and conflicts.

Ethnicity & Race:

• Ingroup : Someone of Chinese descent might identify with other Chinese individuals.
• Outgroup : The same individual might see people of Japanese or Indian descent as an outgroup.
• Ingroup : A Christian might identify with other Christians.
• Outgroup : Muslims, Hindus, or Buddhists might be perceived as outgroups to Christians.

Nationality:

• Ingroup : An American might feel a kinship with fellow Americans.
• Outgroup : Canadians, Mexicans, or Britons might be seen as outgroups.

Professional Affiliation:

• Ingroup : Teachers might see other teachers as part of their ingroup.
• Outgroup : They might see administrators, policymakers, or even other professions like lawyers or doctors as outgroups.

Sports Teams:

• Ingroup : A fan of the New York Yankees might identify with fellow Yankees fans.
• Outgroup : Boston Red Sox fans could be perceived as the outgroup.

Political Affiliation:

• Ingroup : A Republican might feel aligned with fellow Republicans.
• Outgroup : Democrats, Libertarians, or members of other political parties might be seen as outgroups.
• Ingroup : Teenagers might feel that other teens understand their experiences and challenges best.
• Outgroup : They might see adults, especially older adults, as an outgroup.

Musical Preference:

• Ingroup : Fans of heavy metal music might identify with fellow metalheads.
• Outgroup : Fans of pop, country, or classical music might be perceived as outgroups.

Educational Institutions:

• Ingroup : Alumni of a particular university might feel a sense of camaraderie with fellow alumni.
• Outgroup : Alumni from rival universities might be seen as the outgroup.

Gender and Sexual Orientation:

• Ingroup : LGBTQ+ individuals might feel a sense of belonging with others who identify similarly.
• Outgroup : Heterosexual individuals or those who aren’t supportive might be perceived as outgroups.

Implications

• In-group Favoritism : Because individuals seek positive self-esteem, they are inclined to favor and promote their in-group at the expense of out-groups. This can manifest in various ways, from simple preference to allocating more resources to in-group members.
• Stereotyping and Prejudice : By categorizing people into groups, there’s a risk of overemphasizing similarities within groups and differences between them, leading to stereotyping. Coupled with the natural bias towards one’s own group, this can foster prejudice against out-groups.
• Intergroup Conflict : When competition or perceived threats exist between groups, or when resources are scarce, the dynamics described by SIT can intensify, leading to intergroup hostility and conflict.
• Shifts in Group Membership : SIT suggests that if individuals feel their current group membership is not providing positive self-esteem, they may either seek to elevate the status of their current group or abandon it in favor of another group that offers a more positive identity.

Applications

• Reducing Prejudice : By recognizing the mechanisms that lead to in-group bias and out-group prejudice, interventions can be designed to foster intergroup understanding and cooperation.
• Organizational Behavior : Within organizations, understanding group dynamics can be instrumental in team formation, conflict resolution, and promoting corporate identity.
• Political and Social Movements : SIT can provide insights into the formation and mobilization of social or political groups, including understanding factors that lead to radicalization. Social identity theory is useful for political psychologists because it addresses intergroup relations, but it has limitations in explaining real-world political identities.

Key issues limiting social identity theory’s application to politics are: 1) Choice in acquiring identities versus assigned identities; 2) Subjective meaning of identities rather than just boundaries; 3) Gradual strength of identification rather than just its existence; 4) Stability of identities over time rather than high fluidity.

Key issues limiting social identity theory’s application to politics are : 1) Choice in acquiring identities versus assigned identities; 2) Subjective meaning of identities rather than just boundaries; 3) Gradual strength of identification rather than just its existence; 4) Stability of identities over time rather than high fluidity.

Research priorities include: studying real-world political identities varying in strength; examining identity formation/development, not just consequences; understanding individual differences in adopting identities; and investigating the meaning of identities based on values, prototypes, valence for members, and contrast with outgroups.

Critical Evaluation

The social identity approach explains group phenomena based on social context, categorization, identity, norms, and status. It shed new light on old topics like crowd behavior, stereotyping, social influence, cohesion, and polarization with its emphasis on collective psychology.

• The approach is one of the only broad meta-theories in social psychology that integrates concepts across an impressive range of domains.
• The theory revolutionized the field of social psychology and had a major influence on research into prejudice, stereotyping, social influence, and intergroup conflict (Hornsey, 2008).
• It has extensive empirical support. The minimal group paradigm remains a widely-used tool.

Yet theorists debate whether the original formulation oversimplified the complex relationship between personal and collective identity.

Depersonalization may also be overstated, as group members accept diverse opinions. The theory’s breadth and multifaceted nature make it hard to falsify.

Critics argue it focuses more on ingroup favoritism than outgroup negativity. And its meta-theoretical scope sometimes comes at the cost of precise, testable hypotheses.

Recent evolutions in the social identity approach sought to address some limitations. Theorists now embrace a more nuanced perspective, acknowledging the interplay between personal and social identity. The self-concept is seen as fluid, with individuals shaping group norms as well as vice-versa.

Distinctiveness and belonging are recognized as concurrent human needs. This fueled research on subgroups, deviance, and the motivational significance of inclusion versus differentiation.

New research also expanded the outcomes examined to cover emotions and historical memory. It delved into the most inclusive level of human identity. Applications proliferated in justice, leadership, communication, politics, and especially organizational psychology.

The approach is increasingly prominent in understanding responses to stigmatized identities, collective action, political conflicts, and intergroup contact.

Ingroups are studied not as monoliths but as complex entities with dissenting voices. Overall, social identity theory remains vibrant and influential, broad-reaching across psychology.

Keep Learning

• If your identity is a definition of who you are, then how does your affiliation with multiple groups affect it?
• Can one truly understand the experiences of an outgroup without having been a part of it?
• How do experiences of discrimination or privilege, based on social identities, shape an individual’s understanding of societal structures?
• In what ways does social identity contribute to societal cohesion, and conversely, societal division?

Huddy, L. (2001). From social to political identity: A critical examination of social identity theory.  Political Psychology ,  22 (1), 127-156.

Tajfel, H., Turner, J. C., Austin, W. G., & Worchel, S. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. Organizational identity: A reader , 56-65.

Billig, M., & Tajfel, H. (1973). Social categorization and similarity in inter-group behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 27–52.

Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal inter-group situation: A cognitive motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307–324.

Brown, R. (2000). Social identity theory: Past achievements, current problems and future challenges. European journal of social psychology ,  30 (6), 745-778.

Deaux, K. (1993). Reconstructing social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19 , 4–12.

Ethier, K. A., & Deaux, K. (1994). Negotiating social identity when contexts change: Maintaining identification and responding to threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 243–251.

Flippen, A. R., Hornstein, H. A., Siegal, W. E., & Weitzman, E. A. (1996). A comparison of similarity and interdependence as triggers for in-group formation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22 , 882–893.

Hogg, M. A., Terry, D. J., & White, K. M. (1995). A tale of two theories: A critical comparison of identity theory with social learning theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58 , 255–269.

Jackson, J. W., & Smith, E. R. (1999). Conceptualizing social identity: A new framework and evidence for the impact of different dimensions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25 , 120–135.

Karasawa, M. (1991). Toward an assessment of social identity: The structure of group identification and its effects on in-group evaluations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 30 , 293–307.

Mummendey, A., & Schreiber, H. J. (1984). “Different” just means “better”: Some obvious and some hidden pathways to in-group favouritism. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 363–368.

Noel, J. G., Wann, D. L., & Branscombe, N. R. (1995). Peripheral ingroup membership status and public negativity toward outgroups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68 , 127–137.

Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., & Bundy, R. P. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1 , 149–178.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–48). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Social Identity Theory: I, You, Us & We. Why Groups Matter

Cooley (1902/2022) discussed the concept of our social selves as a looking-glass self-concept:

“Each to each a looking-glass Reflects the other that doth pass.”

Our personal identities are shaped from the moment we are born. Our family, upbringing, environment, genetic makeup (psychological and physical), and social interactions all play a role in identity formation.

Research on individuals and groups contributed to the social identity theory, which has provided information and insight into this concept of identity. Let’s investigate the basis of this theory below.

Before you continue, we thought you might like to download our three Self-Compassion Exercises for free . These detailed, science-based exercises will help you increase the compassion and kindness you show yourself and give you the tools to help your clients, students, or employees show more compassion to themselves.

This Article Contains

What is social identity a definition, understanding social identity theory, social identity theory in life, understanding in-group vs. out-group, what are threats to social identities, 3 fascinating research findings on social identity theory, the intersectionality of social identity theory, how social identity shapes personal behavior, 4 interesting books on the topic, resources from positivepsychology.com, a take-home message.

Social identity is the aspect of an individual’s self-concept that comes from membership in a specific social group (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). It is the “we” categorization that can either be something someone is born into, such as gender and ethnic identity, or something assigned, such as a sports team.

A range of identity categorizations have been proposed. Some scholars argue there are six, and some have listed up to 12. To provide an example of these identification categories, Elon University has identified “ the big eight ” (Zeno, 2023), which include:

• Religious affiliation
• Socioeconomic status
• Sexual orientation

Social identity can provide a sense of belonging, purpose, self-worth , and identity (Turner & Reynolds, 2010). Being part of a group can help individuals feel connected and unified. Groups also tend to have shared goals and meaning. They create a framework to understand ourselves within the context of society, defining values, attributes, and beliefs.

Social identity theory was created to explore intergroup behavior and the phenomenon of an in-group and an out-group (Turner & Oakes, 1986).

Individuals change their own behavior to conform to the norms of a group, feel accepted, and find a sense of belonging. This includes modifying self-identity, or the part of self-concept that is psychologically and emotionally attached to the group.

Historical background

Henri Tajfel (1970) and colleagues conducted a series of studies known as minimal-group studies (more on that below) that gave rise to social identity theory. After World War II, psychologists wanted to understand intergroup relationships and how the horrors of the Holocaust could have happened.

Minimal-group studies assigned participants into groups designed to be arbitrary and meaningless and then asked them to assign points to each other. Participants systematically awarded more points to in-group members than to out-group members.

This demonstrates that the simple act of arbitrarily categorizing people into groups can be enough to create a sense of group membership rather than as individuals. Social identity theory was developed based on the conviction that group membership provides people with meaning in social situations (Tajfel, 1970).

In other words, group membership helps people define who they are and how they relate to others.

Building on these foundational ideas, a student of Tajfel, John Turner, explored cognitive factors involved in social identification. Turner looked at how people interpret their position in different social contexts and how it affects perception and behavior (Turner & Oakes, 1986). Stereotyping and ideas of social influence create self-categorization theory, or the social identity theory of a group (Turner & Oakes, 1986).

Cognitive processes

According to social identity theory, there are three cognitive processes central to creating and defining an individual’s place in society.

These include (Tajfel, 1981):

• social categorization,
• social comparison and
• social identification.

Social categorization is how people perceive themselves and others in terms of particular social categories (Tajfel, 1981). It is a way of labeling group members rather than thinking of them as unique individuals. For example, categorizing John as a football coach and father.

Social comparison is how people determine their social standing or value based on a particular group (Festinger, 1954). This can be seen in career fields and socioeconomic circles in society today. For example, doctors may be given a higher social standing than fast food workers.

Social identification is the idea that people perceive social situations based on who they are and how they relate to others (Tajfel, 1981). How people view a situation is influenced by the groups around them and how they view other people inside and outside of these groups.

These three cognitive processes are grounded in an individual’s knowledge of what social group they belong to. Social identity gains power through this knowledge, and the level of emotional attachment and value membership in the group holds.

Download 3 Free Self-Compassion Exercises (PDF)

These detailed, science-based exercises will equip you to help others create a kinder and more nurturing relationship with themselves.

Download 3 Free Self-Compassion Tools Pack (PDF)

By filling out your name and email address below.

Social identity theory determines much of a person’s behavior as it plays out in everyday life.

Identification with a specific group is heavily influenced by social media, social contacts or members of your social network, television, and life experiences on a daily basis. Once an individual finds ideas, beliefs, and other people they relate to or feel they can offer status or power to, they begin to align their identity with that particular group (Turner, 1975).

Individuals are motivated to improve their social status, both within these groups and the group as a whole. Motivation to improve social status can be organized into three strategies demonstrated in day-to-day life (Van Bezouw, van der Toorn, & Becker, 2018). These include individual mobility, social competition, and social creativity.

Individual mobility

Bullying in school is an example of an attempt at individual mobility. In order to improve social status within a group, members will often bully, demean, or put down “lesser” members in order to feel more powerful.

Hazing in fraternity is another example. Incoming members generally must go through an “initiation” phase to prove their worth and membership in the group.

Social competition

Team sports offer a great example of the social competition aspect of social identity theory, for example, claiming to be the most devoted follower of the best football team.

Social competition is a group-level strategy where members come together to improve performance and succeed at a common goal. Teams share training sessions and tactical plans and work in harmony to win a game or achieve a championship. Teams show unity through uniforms, team chants, team songs, mascots, and other rituals that help them bond for a more successful outcome.

Political parties also demonstrate social competition during election cycles by promoting their own belief systems publicly and attacking opposing viewpoints in order to win favor and votes.

Social creativity

Social creativity is the component of social identity theory that suggests people modify their perceptions of the group in order to create distinctiveness from other groups (Van Bezouw, van der Toorn, & Becker, 2018).

An example would be if rich people declared how “friendly” people in the working class are. People in this economic group might adopt the characteristics of “we are not rich, but we are friendly” in order to maintain a positive social identity.

When an individual decides which group(s) could be considered the “in-group,” they tend to define themselves less as an individual and more as a member of a shared category (Turner, 1975).

Identifying with a group creates emotional significance that leads to comparisons between the “in-group” and the “out-group.” This helps build self-esteem and self-image and has important consequences for both individuals and the groups they belong to.

In-groups are a critical source of pride and self-esteem, and therefore beliefs, behaviors, actions, and characteristics of the in-group are favored, while out-group members are negatively judged (Turner, 1975). In many cases, “in-group” favoritism is followed by negative “out-group” derogation, bias, hostility, stereotypes, and prejudice.

World’s Largest Positive Psychology Resource

The Positive Psychology Toolkit© is a groundbreaking practitioner resource containing over 500 science-based exercises , activities, interventions, questionnaires, and assessments created by experts using the latest positive psychology research.

Updated monthly. 100% Science-based.

“The best positive psychology resource out there!” — Emiliya Zhivotovskaya , Flourishing Center CEO

Social identity theory posits that group members may receive threats to their identity. These occur anytime a group’s status is devalued or their perceived competence and ability is questioned (Hackel et al., 2017).

Types of threats may include:

• Questioning moral values (often seen in political groups and different cultures)
• Being treated or labeled as a member of a different group (such as a woman addressed by her gender rather than her profession as a pilot)
• Threats to group distinctiveness (workers in a small organization taken over by a larger company and losing their small business identity)

Individuals will respond differently to threats based on how strongly they identify with the group and how the threat was personally perceived.

Minimal-group studies

Tajfel (1970) assigned 14–15-year-old boys into two random groups and asked them to assign points (or “money”) to other groups.

The assumption was that it would be fair to assign points evenly to groups, but the participants allocated more points to members of their own group than to others. This study was one of the first to demonstrate in-group favoritism.

COVID-19 and discrimination

More recently, a study examined personal and group discrimination as it relates to identity and social support among Chinese Canadians during COVID-19 (Mantou et al., 2023).

The study found that Chinese Canadians who identified more strongly as Chinese experienced less adverse group discrimination than those who identified more strongly as Canadians. The long-lasting racism that continued after the pandemic among these Chinese Canadians can be attributed to the same in-group and out-group mentality that social identity theory is based upon (Mantou et al., 2023).

Long-term health and wellness identification

A longitudinal study on the role of social identity and mental health examined Australian workers who transitioned into retirement (Haslam et al., 2023).

Researchers looked at preretirement group membership and postretirement membership, as well as measures of health and wellbeing. Social group memberships before retirement, which valued physical health and wellbeing, led to retirees maintaining these values after retirement.

This demonstrates the adoption and maintenance of shared values based on group membership.

Part of social identity theory includes the concept of intersectionality. As individuals identify with specific groups as part of social identity theory, some of these identities intersect and influence how life is experienced (Crenshaw, 1991).

Intersectionality was first conceptualized by Kimberlé Crenshaw (1991), a social theorist, civil rights activist, and scholar of critical race theory. Intersectionality is a framework to understand a person, group of people, or social problem affected by multiple discriminations and disadvantages. It helps account for overlapping identities and experiences to paint a more accurate picture of the complexity of prejudices and privileges faced.

For example, an individual may identify as a woman, Black, an academic, and a mother. These multiple group memberships and identities create conflicting experiences that cause challenges that a single group membership or identity would miss. It may be more difficult for a Black woman in academia than a white man, or to balance being a mother with work.

All people identify with more than one group, and throughout their lifespan, they will experience multiple identities.

This video further explains the concept of intersectionality:

Social identity shapes personal values, beliefs, and behaviors. Some of the main ways this happens are through in-group favoritism, stereotypes and prejudice, intergroup conflict, and a sense of belonging (Hackel et al., 2017).

In-group favoritism occurs when individuals seek positive self-esteem and therefore promote their own groups rather than members of other groups. This may manifest in making choices that benefit one particular group over another, such as providing resources (time, money, and energy) to one’s own group at the expense of others.

As individuals categorize people into groups, they are more likely to overemphasize similarities within groups and differences between them, which leads to stereotypes and prejudice.

Personal behavior can become hostile, aggressive, and violent when competition or perceived threats exist between groups. Intergroup conflict can also occur when resources are scarce, leading to behavior that is manipulative or harsh.

17 Exercises To Foster Self-Acceptance and Compassion

Help your clients develop a kinder, more accepting relationship with themselves using these 17 Self-Compassion Exercises [PDF] that promote self-care and self-compassion.

Created by Experts. 100% Science-based.

Books discussing social identity provide a deeper understanding of the theory, its applications, and the importance it has for individuals, groups, and society at large.

1. Social Identity and Intergroup Relations – Henri Tajfel

Based on empirical research and theoretical guidance, it provides readers with insight into the psychological processes of group affiliation and how conflicts arise from them.

Find the book on Amazon .

2. Identity Theory  – Peter J. Burke and Jan E. Stets

The book helps the reader understand the emotional, behavioral, and psychological processes that work together to form identity and how being members of groups can shape these identities.

With a wealth of information, it is written in a way that all readers can understand and relate to.

3. The Impact of Identity: The Power of Knowing Who You Are – Irina Nevzlin

Understanding identity and who we are can help individuals as they examine their relationship to others in society, including membership in organizations and groups.

4. After Identity: Rethinking Race, Sex and Gender – Georgia Warnke

It expands to political theories that discuss the implications of getting stuck in social identity and focusing only on group membership.

PositivePsychology.com offers several resources for examining identity and self-concept.

Our self-concept article further explores self-concept and the labels, categories, and groups that people may identify with. Looking at self-concept is another avenue for exploring social identity theory.

The Who Am I worksheet explores internal and external self-awareness to help clients gain a better understanding of who they are. Through a series of questions, clients are encouraged to reflect, journal, and share their thoughts, beliefs, desires, passions, and values while exploring their identity.

Core beliefs are central to personal identity and how we relate to the world. This Core Beliefs worksheet  examines the deeply held beliefs that clients have about themselves and how they relate to others in the world. These foundational beliefs play a large role in the groups that individuals identify with.

If you’re looking for more science-based ways to help others develop self-compassion, check out this collection of 17 validated self-compassion tools for practitioners. Use them to help others create a kinder and more nurturing relationship with the self.

Social identity theory helps to explain much of human behavior. Group membership and affiliation can play a role in defining personal identity and have both positive and negative consequences.

While many characteristics and traits shape our social identity, they are not fixed, and our identity has the capacity to change with time and experience.

Knowing that values, beliefs, and behaviors are shaped by the social groups we align ourselves with can help each of us make more informed choices about who we connect with.

Group membership matters and has a lasting impact on both individuals and society at large.

We hope you enjoyed reading this article. Don’t forget to download our three Self Compassion Exercises for free .

• Cooley, C. H. (2022). Looking glass self. In J. O’Brien (Ed.), The production of reality: Essays and readings on social interaction (vol. 7). Sage. (Original work published 1902)
• Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review , 43 (6), 1241–1299.
• Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations , 7 , 117–140.
• Hackel, J., Zaki, B., & Bavel, S. (2017). Social identity shapes social valuation: Evidence from prosocial behavior and vicarious reward. Social Cognitive Affective Neuroscience , 12 (8), 1219–1228.
• Haslam, C., Lam, B., Ghafoori, E., Steffens, N., Haslam, A., Bently, S., Cruwys, T., & La Rue, C. (2023). A longitudinal examination of the role of social identity in supporting health and well-being in retirement. Psychology and Aging , 38 (7), 615–626.
• Mantou, L., Kimberly, N., Shachi, K., Doris, Z., & Young, H. (2023). COVID discrimination experience: Chinese Canadians social identities moderate the effect of personal and group discrimination on well-being. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology , 29 (2), 132–144.
• Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American , 223 (5), 93–103.
• Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology . Cambridge University Press.
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.
• Turner, J. (1975). Social comparison and social identity: Some prospects for intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology , 5 , 5–34.
• Turner, J., & Oakes, P. (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.
• Turner, J. C., & Reynolds, K. J. (2010). The story of social identity. In T. Postmes & N. R. Branscombe (Eds), Rediscovering social identity: Core sources (pp. 13–32). Psychology Press.
• Van Bezouw, M. J., van der Toorn, J., & Becker, J. C. (2018). Social creativity: Reviving a social identity approach to social stability. European Journal of Social Psychology , 51 , 409–422.
• Zeno, M. (2023, September 27). Big 8 identities workshops offer an introduction to social identities . Elon University. https://www.elon.edu/u/news/2023/09/27/big-8-identities-workshops-offer-an-introduction-to-social-identities/

Share this article:

Article feedback

Let us know your thoughts cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Related articles

Discovering Self-Empowerment: 13 Methods to Foster It

In a world where external circumstances often dictate our sense of control and agency, the concept of self-empowerment emerges as a beacon of hope and [...]

How to Improve Your Client’s Self-Esteem in Therapy: 7 Tips

When children first master the expectations set by their parents, the experience provides them with a source of pride and self-esteem. As children get older, [...]

How to Boost Self-Esteem: 12 Simple Exercises & CBT Tools

Self-judgment and self-rejection can be extremely damaging. We may find ourselves taking fewer career risks, withdrawing from social engagements, and even avoiding making new friends [...]

Read other articles by their category

• Body & Brain (52)
• Coaching & Application (39)
• Compassion (23)
• Counseling (40)
• Emotional Intelligence (21)
• Gratitude (18)
• Grief & Bereavement (18)
• Happiness & SWB (40)
• Meaning & Values (26)
• Meditation (16)
• Mindfulness (40)
• Motivation & Goals (41)
• Optimism & Mindset (29)
• Positive CBT (28)
• Positive Communication (23)
• Positive Education (36)
• Positive Emotions (32)
• Positive Leadership (16)
• Positive Parenting (14)
• Positive Psychology (21)
• Positive Workplace (35)
• Productivity (16)
• Relationships (46)
• Resilience & Coping (38)
• Self Awareness (20)
• Self Esteem (37)
• Strengths & Virtues (29)
• Stress & Burnout Prevention (33)
• Theory & Books (42)
• Therapy Exercises (37)
• Types of Therapy (54)

3 Self-Compassion Tools (PDF)

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• Introduction

Cognitive processes

Strategies for status improvement.

• Identity threat

• Where was science invented?
• When did science begin?

social identity theory

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Frontiers - Scrutinizing Social Identity Theory in Corporate Social Responsibility: An Experimental Investigation
• Verywell Mind - Social Identity Theory—are we the company we keep?
• Age-of-the-Sage.org - Social Identity Theory
• National Center for Biotechnology Information - PubMed Central - A Social Identity Approach to Understanding and Promoting Physical Activity
• Simply Psychology - Social Identity Theory
• BCcampus Publishing - Reconciling Divided Nations - Social Identity Theory
• Table Of Contents

social identity theory , in social psychology , the study of the interplay between personal and social identities. Social identity theory aims to specify and predict the circumstances under which individuals think of themselves as individuals or as group members. The theory also considers the consequences of personal and social identities for individual perceptions and group behaviour .

Social identity theory developed from a series of studies, frequently called minimal-group studies, conducted by the British social psychologist Henri Tajfel and his colleagues in the early 1970s. Participants were assigned to groups that were designed to be as arbitrary and meaningless as possible. Nevertheless, when people were asked to assign points to other research participants, they systematically awarded more points to in-group members than to out-group members.

The minimal-group studies were interpreted as showing that the mere act of categorizing individuals into groups can be sufficient to make them think of themselves and others in terms of group membership instead of as separate individuals. That finding deviated from a common view at the time, namely, that an objective conflict of interest is a central factor in the emergence of intergroup conflict.

Thus, social identity theory originated from the conviction that group membership can help people to instill meaning in social situations. Group membership helps people to define who they are and to determine how they relate to others. Social identity theory was developed as an integrative theory, as it aimed to connect cognitive processes and behavioral motivation . Initially, its main focus was on intergroup conflict and intergroup relations more broadly. For that reason, the theory was originally referred to as the social identity theory of intergroup relations.

Later elaborations by Tajfel’s student John Turner and his colleagues on the cognitive factors relevant to social identification further specified how people interpret their own position in different social contexts and how that affects their perceptions of others (e.g., stereotyping ), as well as their own behaviour in groups (e.g., social influence). Those elaborations constitute self-categorization theory, or the social identity theory of the group. Together, self-categorization theory and social identity theory can be referred to as the social identity approach.

Social identity theory was developed to explain how individuals create and define their place in society. According to the theory, three psychological processes are central in that regard: social categorization, social comparison, and social identification.

Social categorization refers to the tendency of people to perceive themselves and others in terms of particular social categories—that is, as relatively interchangeable group members instead of as separate and unique individuals. For example, one can think of a certain person, Jane, as a feminist, a lawyer, or a football fan.

Social comparison is the process by which people determine the relative value or social standing of a particular group and its members. For instance, schoolteachers may be seen as having higher social standing than garbage collectors. Compared with university professors, however, schoolteachers can be seen as having lower social standing.

Social identification reflects the notion that people generally do not perceive social situations as detached observers. Instead, their own sense of who they are and how they relate to others is typically implicated in the way they view other individuals and groups around them.

Someone’s social identity is then seen as the outcome of those three processes (social categorization, social comparison, and social identification). Social identity can be defined as an individual’s knowledge of belonging to certain social groups, together with some emotional and valuational significance of that group membership. Thus, while one’s personal identity refers to self-knowledge associated with unique individual attributes, people’s social identity indicates who they are in terms of the groups to which they belong.

According to social identity theory, social behaviour is determined by the character and motivations of the person as an individual (interpersonal behaviour) as well as by the person’s group membership (i.e., intergroup behaviour).

People generally prefer to maintain a positive image of the groups to which they belong. As a result of social identity processes, people are inclined to seek out positively valued traits, attitudes, and behaviours that can be seen as characteristic of their in-groups.

That inclination may also cause them to focus on less favourable characteristics of out-groups or to downplay the importance of positive out-group characteristics. The tendency to favour one’s in-groups over relevant out-groups can affect the distribution of material resources or outcomes between in-group and out-group members, the evaluation of in-group versus out-group products, assessments of in-group versus out-group performance and achievement, and communications about the behaviour of in-group versus out-group members.

The motivation to establish a positive social identity is thought to lie at the root of intergroup conflict, as members of disadvantaged groups strive for improvement of their group’s position and social standing and members of advantaged groups aim to protect and maintain their privileged position.

According to the individual-mobility belief system, individuals are free agents who are capable of moving from one group to another. The defining feature of the system is the notion that group boundaries are permeable, such that individuals are not bound or restricted by their group memberships in pursuing position improvement. Thus, individuals’ opportunities and outcomes are viewed as dependent on their talents, life choices, and achievements rather than on their ethnic origin or social groups.

A very different belief system, known as the social change belief system, holds that changes in social relations depend on groups modifying their positions relative to each other. Status security depends on the perceived stability and legitimacy of existing status differences between groups. Stability and legitimacy tend to mutually influence each other: when positions are subject to change, existing intergroup differences in status appear less legitimate . Conversely, when the legitimacy of existing status differences between groups is questioned, the perceived stability of such relations is likely to be undermined.

The two belief systems, in turn, determine what people are most likely to do when they pursue a more positive social identity. Social identity theory distinguishes between three types of strategies for status improvement: individual mobility, social competition, and social creativity.

Individual mobility allows people to pursue individual position improvement irrespective of the group. It can also be an individual-level solution for overcoming group devaluation.

Social competition is a group-level strategy that requires group members to draw together and combine forces to help each other improve their joint performance or outcomes.

Finally, social creativity implies that people modify their perceptions of the in-group’s standing. That can be achieved by introducing alternative dimensions of comparison in order to emphasize ways in which the in-group is positively distinct from relevant out-groups. A second possibility is to reevaluate existing group characteristics to enhance in-group perceptions. A third possibility is to compare one’s group with another reference group in order to make the current standing of the in-group appear more positive.

Social creativity strategies are generally characterized as cognitive strategies because they alter people’s perceptions of their group’s current standing instead of altering objective outcomes. Nevertheless, it has been demonstrated that these strategies can constitute a first step toward the achievement of social change . Because social creativity strategies help preserve identification with and positive regard for the in-group, even when it has low status, over time those strategies can empower group members to seek actual position improvement for their group

Social Identity Theory

• First Online: 18 June 2016

Cite this chapter

• Michael A. Hogg 5  

Part of the book series: Peace Psychology Book Series ((PPBS))

67k Accesses

200 Citations

327 Altmetric

Social identity theory is an interactionist social psychological theory of the role of self-conception and associated cognitive processes and social beliefs in group processes and intergroup relations. Originally introduced in the 1970s primarily as an account of intergroup relations, it was significantly developed at the start of the 1980s as a general account of group processes and the nature of the social group. Since then, social identity theory has been significantly extended through a range of sub-theories that focus on social influence and group norms, leadership within and between groups, self-enhancement and uncertainty reduction motivations, deindividuation and collective behavior, social mobilization and protest, and marginalization and deviance within groups. The theory has also been applied and developed to explain organizational phenomena and the dynamics of language and speech style as identity symbols. Chapter 1 provides a relatively comprehensive and accessible overview of social identity theory, with an emphasis on its analysis of intergroup conflict.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Intergroup Relations

Introduction to Advancing Theory, Measurement, and Research in Identity Theory

The we—sum of its parts or something else?

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.

Article   Google Scholar  

Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1990). Social identification, self-categorization and social influence. European Review of Social Psychology, 1 , 195–228.

Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2004). Metatheory: Lessons from social identity research. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8 , 98–106.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2010). Social identity and self-categorization. In J. F. Dovidio, M. Hewstone, P. Glick, & V. M. Esses (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination (pp. 179–193). London: Sage.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Abrams, D., Randsley de Moura, G., Marques, J. M., & Hutchison, P. (2008). Innovation credit: When can leaders oppose their group’s norms? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95 , 662–678.

Abrams, D., Wetherell, M. S., Cochrane, S., Hogg, M. A., & Turner, J. C. (1990). Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: Self-categorization and the nature of norm formation, conformity, and group polarization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29 , 97–119.

Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. M. (1950). The authoritarian personality . New York: Harper.

Google Scholar  

Billig, M. (1976). Social psychology and intergroup relations . London: Academic.

Billig, M., & Tajfel, H. (1973). Social categorisation and similarity in intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 3 , 27–52.

Brewer, M. B., & Campbell, D. T. (1976). Ethnocentrism and intergroup attitudes: East African evidence . New York: Sage.

Crisp, R. J., & Hewstone, M. (2007). Multiple social categorization. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 39, pp. 163–254). San Diego, CA: Academic.

Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. (1998). Social stigma. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 504–553). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Diehl, M. (1990). The minimal group paradigm: Theoretical explanations and empirical findings. European Review of Social Psychology, 1 , 263–292.

Dollard, J., Doob, L. W., Miller, N. E., Mowrer, O. H., & Sears, R. R. (1939). Frustration and aggression . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Ellemers, N. (1993). The influence of socio-structural variables on identity management strategies. European Review of Social Psychology, 4 , 27–57.

Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model . New York: Psychology Press.

Hogg, M. A. (1993). Group cohesiveness: A critical review and some new directions. European Review of Social Psychology, 4 , 85–111.

Hogg, M. A. (2006). Social identity theory. In P. J. Burke (Ed.), Contemporary social psychological theories (pp. 111–136). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Hogg, M. A. (2007). Uncertainty-identity theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 39, pp. 69–126). San Diego, CA: Academic.

Hogg, M. A. (2012). Uncertainty-identity theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 62–80). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hogg, M. A. (2014). From uncertainty to extremism: Social categorization and identity processes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23 , 338–342.

Hogg, M. A. (2015). Constructive leadership across groups: How leaders can combat prejudice and conflict between subgroups. Advances in Group Processes, 32 , 177–207.

Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes . New York: Routledge.

Hogg, M. A., Adelman, J. R., & Blagg, R. D. (2010). Religion in the face of uncertainty: An uncertainty-identity theory account of religiousness. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14 , 72–83.

Hogg, M. A., & Hornsey, M. J. (2006). Self-concept threat and multiple categorization within groups. In R. J. Crisp & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Multiple social categorization: Processes, models, and applications (pp. 112–135). New York: Psychology Press.

Hogg, M. A., & Smith, J. R. (2007). Attitudes in social context: A social identity perspective. European Review of Social Psychology, 18 , 89–131.

Hogg, M. A., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2003). Social identity and leadership processes in groups. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 1–52). San Diego, CA: Academic.

Hogg, M. A., Van Knippenberg, D., & Rast, D. E., III. (2012). The social identity theory of leadership: Theoretical origins, research findings, and conceptual developments. European Review of Social Psychology, 23 , 258–304.

Hogg, M. A., & Wagoner, J. A. (in press). Normative exclusion and attraction to extreme groups: Resolving identity-uncertainty. In K. D. Williams, & S. A. Nida (Eds.), Ostracism, social exclusion and rejection . New York: Psychology.

Hornsey, M. J. (2005). Why being right is not enough: Predicting defensiveness in the face of group criticism. European Review of Social Psychology, 16 , 301–334.

Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000). Assimilation and diversity: An integrative model of subgroup relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4 , 143–156.

Jost, J. T., & Hunyadi, O. (2002). The psychology of system justification and the palliative function of ideology. European Review of Social Psychology, 13 , 111–153.

Klandermans, B. (1997). The social psychology of protest . Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Klein, O., Spears, R., & Reicher, S. (2007). Social identity performance: Extending the strategic side of SIDE. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11 , 28–45.

La Macchia, S.T., & Louis, W.R. (2016). Crowd behaviour and collective action. In S. McKeown, R. Haji, & N. Ferguson (Eds.), Understanding peace and conflict through social identity theory: Theoretical, contemporary and worldwide perspectives . New York: Springer.

Leary, M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). The nature and function of self-esteem: Sociometer theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 32, pp. 1–62). San Diego, CA: Academic.

Leonardelli, G. J., Pickett, C. L., & Brewer, M. B. (2010). Optimal distinctiveness theory: A framework for social identity, social cognition and intergroup relations. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 43, pp. 65–115). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.

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, England: Blackwell.

Marques, J. M., Abrams, D., & Serôdio, 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.

Marques, J. M., & Páez, D. (1994). The black sheep effect: Social categorization, rejection of ingroup deviates, and perception of group variability. European Review of Social Psychology, 5 , 37–68.

Martiny, S.E., & Rubin, M. (2016). Towards a clearer understanding of social identity theory’s self-esteem hypothesis. In S. McKeown, R. Haji, & N. Ferguson (Eds.) Understanding peace and conflict through social identity theory: Theoretical, contemporary and worldwide perspectives . New York: Springer

Mummendey, A., & Otten, S. (1998). Positive–negative asymmetry in social discrimination. European Review of Social Psychology, 19 , 107–143.

Nemeth, C., & Staw, B. M. (1989). The tradeoffs of social control and innovation in groups and organizations. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 22, pp. 175–210). San Diego, CA: Academic.

Otten, S., & Wentura, D. (1999). About the impact of automaticity in the minimal group paradigm: Evidence from affective priming tasks. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29 , 1049–1071.

Pettigrew, T. F. (1958). Personality and sociocultural factors in intergroup attitudes: A cross-national comparison. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2 , 29–42.

Pinto, I. R., Marques, J. M., Levine, J. M., & Abrams, D. (2010). Membership status and subjective group dynamics: Who triggers the black sheep effect? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99 , 107–119.

Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (1998). Deindividuation and anti-normative behavior: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 123 , 238–259.

Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (Eds.). (1999). Cultural divides: Understanding and overcoming group conflict . New York: Russell Sage.

Reicher, S. D., Haslam, S.A., Platow, M., & Steffens, N. (2016). Tyranny and leadership. In S. McKeown, R. Haji, & N. Ferguson (Eds.) Understanding peace and conflict through social identity theory: Theoretical, contemporary and worldwide perspectives . New York: Springer

Reicher, S. D., Spears, R., & Postmes, T. (1995). A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena. European Review of Social Psychology, 6 , 161–198.

Reid, S. A., & Hogg, M. A. (2005). Uncertainty reduction, self-enhancement, and ingroup identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31 , 1–14.

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 , 40–62.

Sani, F. (2005). When subgroups secede: Extending and refining the social psychological model of schisms in groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31 , 1074–1086.

Sedikides, C., & Strube, M. J. (1997). Self-evaluation: To thine own self be good, to thine own self be sure, to thine own self be true, and to thine own self be better. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 209–296). New York: Academic.

Sherif, M. (1966). In common predicament: Social psychology of intergroup conflict and cooperation . Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Stürmer, S., & Simon, B. (2004). Collective action: Towards a dual-pathway model. European Review of Social Psychology, 15 , 59–99.

Tajfel, H. (1969). Cognitive aspects of prejudice. Journal of Social Issues, 25 , 79–97.

Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223 , 96–102.

Tajfel, H. (1972). Social categorization. English manuscript of ‘La catégorisation sociale’. In S. Moscovici (Ed.), Introduction à la psychologie sociale (Vol. 1, pp. 272–302). Paris: Larousse.

Tajfel, H., Billig, M., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1 , 149–177.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

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, England: Blackwell.

Van Zomeren, M., Leach, C. W., & Spears, R. (2012). Protestors as “passionate economists”: A dynamic dual pathway model of approach coping with collective disadvantage. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16 , 180–199.

Van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 134 , 504–535.

Zimbardo, P. G. (1970). The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse, and chaos. In W. J. Arnold & D. Levine (Eds.), Nebraska symposium on motivation 1969 (Vol. 17, pp. 237–307). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Claremont Graduate University, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Michael A. Hogg

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael A. Hogg .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Graduate School of Education, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom

Shelley McKeown

Department of Psychology, Laurentian University, Barrie, Ontario, Canada

Reeshma Haji

Department of Psychology, Liverpool Hope University, Liverpool, Merseyside, United Kingdom

Neil Ferguson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Hogg, M.A. (2016). Social Identity Theory. In: McKeown, S., Haji, R., Ferguson, N. (eds) Understanding Peace and Conflict Through Social Identity Theory. Peace Psychology Book Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29869-6_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29869-6_1

Published : 18 June 2016

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-29867-2

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-29869-6

eBook Packages : Behavioral Science and Psychology Behavioral Science and Psychology (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Understanding Social Identity Theory and Its Impact on Behavior

Gary Waters / Getty Images

• Archaeology

• Ph.D., Psychology, Fielding Graduate University
• M.A., Psychology, Fielding Graduate University
• B.A., Film Studies, Cornell University

Social identity is the part of the self that is defined by one’s group memberships. Social identity theory, which was formulated by social psychologist Henri Tajfel and John Turner in the 1970s, describes the conditions under which social identity becomes more important than one’s identity as an individual. The theory also specifies how social identity can influence intergroup behavior.

Key Takeaways: Social Identity Theory

• Social identity theory, introduced by social psychologists Henri Tajfel and John Turner in the 1970s, describes the cognitive processes related to social identity and how social identity impacts intergroup behavior.
• Social identity theory is built on three key cognitive components: social categorization, social identification, and social comparison.
• Generally, individuals wish to maintain a positive social identity by maintaining their group’s favorable social standing over that of relevant out-groups.
• In-group favoritism can result in negative and discriminatory outcomes, but research demonstrates that in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination are distinct phenomena, and one does not necessarily predict the other.

Origins: Studies of In-Group Favoritism

Social identity theory arose from Henri Tajfel’s early work, which examined the way perceptual processes resulted in social stereotypes and prejudice. This led to a series of studies that Tajfel and his colleagues conducted in the early 1970s that are referred to as minimal-group studies.

In these studies, participants were arbitrarily assigned to different groups . Despite the fact that their group membership was meaningless, the research showed that participants favored the group they were assigned to—their in-group—over the out-group, even if they received no personal benefits from their group membership and had no history with members of either group.

The studies demonstrated that group membership was so powerful that simply classifying people into groups is enough to make people think of themselves in terms of that group membership. Furthermore, this categorization led to in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination, indicating that intergroup conflict could exist in the absence of any direct competition between groups.

Based on this research, Tajfel first defined the concept of social identity in 1972. The concept of social identity was created as a means to consider the way one conceptualizes the self , based on the social groups to which one belongs.

Then, Tajfel and his student John Turner introduced social identity theory in 1979. The theory aimed to illuminate both the cognitive processes that lead people to define their group memberships and the motivational processes that enable people to maintain positive social identity by favorably comparing their social group to other groups.

Cognitive Processes of Social Identity

Social identity theory specifies three mental processes individuals go through to make in-group/out-group classifications.

The first process, social categorization , is the process by which we organize individuals into social groups in order to understand our social world. This process enables us to define people, including ourselves, based on the groups to which we belong. We tend to define people based on their social categories more often than their individual characteristics.

Social categorization generally results in an emphasis on the similarities of people in the same group and the differences between people in separate groups. One can belong to a variety of social categories, but different categories will be more or less important depending on social circumstances. For example, a person can define themselves as a business executive, an animal lover, and a devoted aunt, but those identities will only come up if they are relevant to the social situation.

The second process, social identification , is the process of identifying as a group member. Socially identifying with a group leads individuals to behave in the way that they believe members of that group should behave. For instance, if an individual defines herself as an environmentalist, she may try to conserve water, recycle whenever possible, and march in rallies for climate change awareness. Through this process, people become emotionally invested in their group memberships. Consequently, their self-esteem is impacted by the status of their groups.

The third process, social comparison , is the process by which people compare their group with other groups in terms of prestige and social standing. To maintain self-esteem, one must perceive their in-group as having a higher social standing than an out-group. For example, a movie star might judge himself favorably in comparison to a reality TV show star. Yet, he may see himself as having a lower social standing in comparison to a famous classically-trained Shakespearean actor. It’s important to remember that per social identity theory, an in-group member won’t compare themselves with just any out-group—the comparison must be pertinent to the situation.

Maintenance of Positive Social Identity

As a general rule of social identity theory, people are motivated to feel positive about themselves and maintain their self-esteem . The emotional investments people make in their group memberships result in their self-esteem being tied to the social standing of their in-groups. Consequently, a positive evaluation of one's in-group in comparison to relevant out-groups results in a positive social identity. If a positive evaluation of one's in-group isn’t possible, however, individuals will generally employ one of three strategies:

• Individual mobility . When an individual does not view her group favorably, she can attempt to leave the current group and join one with a higher social standing. Of course, this won’t alter the status of the group, but it can alter the status of the individual.
• Social creativity . In-group members can enhance the social standing of their existing group by adjusting some element of the between-group comparison. This can be accomplished by choosing a different dimension on which to compare the two groups, or by adjusting value judgments so that what was once thought to be negative is now considered positive. Another option is to compare the in-group to a different out-group—specifically, an out-group that has a lower social status.
• Social competition . In-group members can attempt to enhance the group's social status by collectively working to improve their situation. In this case, the in-group competes directly with an out-group with the objective of reversing the group's social positions on one or more dimensions.

Discrimination Against Out-Groups

In-group favoritism and out-group discrimination are often viewed as two sides of the same coin. However, social identity theory research has shown that this is not necessarily the case. There is not a systematic relationship between the positive perception of one’s in-group and the negative perception of out-groups. Helping in-group members while withholding such help from out-group members differs significantly from actively working to harm out-group members.

In-group favoritism can result in negative outcomes, from prejudice and stereotypes to institutional racism and sexism . However, such favoritism does not always lead to hostility towards out-groups. Social identity theory research demonstrates that in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination are distinct phenomena, and one does not necessarily predict the other.

• Brewer, Marilynn B. “Intergroup Relations.” Advanced Social Psychology: The State of the Science , edited by Roy F. Baumeister and Eli J. Finkel, Oxford University Press, 2010, pp. 535-571.
• Ellemers, Naomi. “ Social Identity Theory .” Encyclopedia Britannica, 2017.
• McLeod, Saul. “ Social Identity Theory .” Simply Psychology , 2008.
• Hogg, Michael A., and Kipling D. Williams. “ From I to We: Social Identity and the Collective Self .” Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice , vol. 4, no. 1, 2000, pp. 81-97.
• Tajfel, Henri, and John Turner. “ An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict. ” The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations , edited by William G. August and Stephen Worchel, Brooks/Cole, 1979, pp. 33-47.
• Social Constructionism Definition and Examples
• What Is Self-Concept in Psychology?
• What Is a Schema in Psychology? Definition and Examples
• What Was the Robbers Cave Experiment in Psychology?
• Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Explained
• What Is Deindividuation in Psychology? Definition and Examples
• Psychodynamic Theory: Approaches and Proponents
• What Is Attachment Theory? Definition and Stages
• Social Cognitive Theory: How We Learn From the Behavior of Others
• What Is Gender Socialization? Definition and Examples
• Emerging Adulthood: The "In-Between" Developmental Stage
• What Is Survivor's Guilt? Definition and Examples
• Cultivation Theory
• What Is Identity Diffusion? Definition and Examples
• An Introduction to Erikson’s Stages of Psychosocial Development
• Gender Schema Theory Explained

• Abnormal Psychology
• Assessment (IB)
• Biological Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Criminology
• Developmental Psychology
• Extended Essay
• General Interest
• Health Psychology
• Human Relationships
• IB Psychology
• IB Psychology HL Extensions
• Internal Assessment (IB)
• Love and Marriage
• Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
• Prejudice and Discrimination
• Qualitative Research Methods
• Research Methodology
• Revision and Exam Preparation
• Social and Cultural Psychology
• Studies and Theories
• Teaching Ideas
• Social Identity Theory: A Brief Summary for Students

Travis Dixon February 25, 2017 Revision and Exam Preparation , Studies and Theories

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

On the surface, Tajfel and Turner’s social identity theory can seem complex as there are multiple parts and some of the ideas are really abstract. In our themantic approach we try to break it down, lesson-by-lesson so each of the major concepts of social identity theory are introduced gradually.

Like many theories, SIT was inspired by events of World War II which saw extreme examples of prejudice and discrimination.

Remember that one of the first questions you should ask when trying to understand psychological theories is  what is the theory trying to explain?  R emember that psychology is the study of relationships between variables and behaviour, and most theories are attempts to explain relationships between variables and behaviour.

• Key Study: Stereotypes, Social Identity Theory and the Out-group Homogeneity Effect (Park and Rothbart, 1982)
• Key Studies: Minimal Group Paradigm (SIT – Tajfel et al)

So what are the variables affecting behaviour in SIT?

Put simply, the variable is belonging to the group and this can affect the way individuals think and act. There are multiple behaviours, and cognitive processes (thought processes and actions) that can be affected by this social variable.

It’s important to remember that social identity theory was devised to explain  inter-group behaviour.  Specifically, it helps to explain inter-group conflict, including sources of that conflict like stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination.

By the end of the lessons on SIT (as outlined in IB Psychology: A student’s guide ) it’s hoped that you understand how the following are related to the social variable of belong to a group:

• Social categorization
• Social Comparison
• Social identity 
• Self-esteem
• Positive distinctiveness
• Out-group homogeneity 

Other behaviours closely related to this are inter-group competition, stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination. I like to think of it in this order:

Belonging to a Group ⇒ Thought Processes (Cognition) ⇒ Actions (Behaviour)

Belonging to a  group can affect our thinking and our behaviour. (Image via bigstock license)

This is a cognitive process that simply involves thinking about different groups. You categorize groups of people into out-groups and in-groups. At your school, for instance, you might have the typical American TV show cliched groups, like the jocks, cheerleaders, rockers, punks, etc. Or sports fans might think about fans of different teams as belonging to groups.

When individuals categorize people into groups, they are thinking about in-groups and out-groups . If this initial thought process doesn’t occur, then the following cognitive processes and behaviours can’t be explained by social identity theory.

It’s only natural that after we mentally think about people as belonging to in-groups or out-groups that we would compare these groups. So we categorize (put into groups) and then compare. Categorizing and comparing groups are two cognitive processes that are affected by belonging to an in-group.

The social identity part of SIT is related to the idea of “belonging to the group” in the first place. Humans build their sense of personal identity: who we think we are. This can be influenced by many things, like our own sense of who we are and what we value. But it can also be influenced by how we think about the groups we belong to. And this is where our social identity is formed: one way we build our sense of who we are is by thinking about our belonging to particular groups. Moreover, this identity is influenced by the comparisons of our in-groups with other out-groups.

A key part of SIT is the  self-esteem hypothesis.  Tajfel and Turner posited that humans have a natural desire to build a positive social identity and to build their self-esteem. This can explain the nature of  how  people make comparisons between in-groups and out-groups. Typically, according to SIT, we want to view our in-groups as being better than out-groups; at the very least we want to have a positive view of our in-groups so we can feel good about belonging to that group. This will help build our self-esteem and give us a positive social identity. Moreover, by viewing our own groups as better than the out-group, or by viewing out-groups in a negative way, we can build our self-esteem by feeling good about our in-group.

The above self-esteem hypothesis is closely related to the idea of positive distinctiveness: we have a desire to make our group different (distinct) and better (positively distinct) from other out-groups. This is closely related to  in-group bias , which means we favour members of our in-group over those in the out-group.

When we are thinking about groups of people, instead of individuals, it’s natural to make generalizations. The out-group homogeneity effect is when we tend to view out-group members as being more similar than our own in-group members. This is a product of the above cognitive processes of social categorization and social comparison.

As a stereotype is a generalization about a group of people, you can see how the out-group homogeneity effect might explain stereotypes.

In summary, according to social identity theory, the social variable of belonging to a group and identifying with that group can influence a number of cognitive processes, including thinking about in-groups and out-groups and comparing them. The desire to boost our self-esteem can lead to particular thought processes and comparisons, such as viewing out-group members negatively and being similar (out-group homogeneity). These cognitive processes can then lead to other  behaviours  such as discrimination, in-group bias and inter-group competition (as one group tries to show they’re better than the other).

So like most psychological theories, the key to understanding SIT is to:

• variables, cognitive processes and behaviours
• Understand how they are related

Creating a mind-map of variables, cognitive processes and behaviours is a good way to process the many ideas that make up social identity theory. 

Travis Dixon is an IB Psychology teacher, author, workshop leader, examiner and IA moderator.

THE CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY

• December 2021

• Polis Akademisi Baskanligi

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• Korawan Sangkakorn
• Sansanee Krajangchom
• Roselyn B. Polintan
• Jennifer P. Adriano

• Michael A. Hogg

• Pers Soc Psychol Bull

• Henri Tajfel
• John C Turner
• J. C. Turner
• John C. Turner
• EUR J SOC PSYCHOL

• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Contentious Politics and Political Violence
• Governance/Political Change
• Groups and Identities
• History and Politics
• International Political Economy
• Policy, Administration, and Bureaucracy
• Political Anthropology
• Political Behavior
• Political Communication
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Philosophy
• Political Psychology
• Political Sociology
• Political Values, Beliefs, and Ideologies
• Politics, Law, Judiciary
• Post Modern/Critical Politics
• Public Opinion
• Qualitative Political Methodology
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• World Politics
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Social identity theory: status and identity in international relations.

• Deborah Welch Larson Deborah Welch Larson Department of Political Science, University of California, Los Angeles
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.290
• Published online: 24 May 2017
• This version: 15 August 2022
• Previous version

Social identity theory (SIT) from social psychology provides a means to explore the influence of identity and status concerns on foreign policy. The theory argues that groups are motivated to achieve a positively distinctive identity. Groups compare themselves to a similar but slightly higher reference group. Inferiority on important dimensions may lead to the adoption of an identity management strategy: social mobility (emulating the higher-status group to gain admission), social competition (striving to equal or surpass the dominant group), or social creativity (revaluing an ostensibly negative characteristic as positive or identifying an alternative dimension on which the group is superior).

Applied to international relations, states may pursue social mobility by emulating the values and practices of higher-status states in order to be admitted to a higher standing, much as Eastern Europe did in seeking admission into the European Union after the end of the Cold War. If elite groups are impermeable to new members, and the status hierarchy is perceived to be unstable or illegitimate, aspiring powers may engage in social competition, which usually entails territorial conquest and military displays. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union sought to catch up with and surpass the capitalist states. If elite clubs are not permeable, but the status hierarchy is stable, states may seek status through social creativity—either reframing a negative trait as positive or seeking preeminence in a domain apart from geopolitical competition. Social creativity may entail creating new international institutions, promoting new norms, or engaging in major diplomatic initiatives in order to increase the state’s prestige.

Research applying SIT to international relations has addressed the question of whether anarchy necessarily leads to conflict between states, the diffusion of values, the selection of an identity discourse on the domestic level, and state efforts at moral leadership.

Critics have charged that SIT does not clearly predict which identity management strategy will be chosen in a given situation. From a realist perspective, the selection of a strategy for enhancing a state’s status is constrained by geographic position, size, and natural endowments. But this argument does not consider the availability of social mobility and social creativity as ways to achieve status that do not depend on relative military power.

• competition
• empirical international relations theory

Updated in this version

References have been expanded and updated. Updated reference citations have also been added to the References list.

Introduction

States sometimes fight for honor, dignity, or preservation of their status as great powers ( Dafoe et al., 2014 ; Kagan, 1995 ; Lebow, 2008 , 2010 ; Renshon, 2016 , 2017 ). States intervene in far-off places, enter “unnecessary” wars rather than face humiliation, provide costly foreign aid to clients of minor importance, or acquire expensive prestige weapons with little strategic value. Former global powers, reluctant to accept the loss of their former status, attempt to “punch above their weight” in global affairs, sometimes to the detriment of their economic development. A state’s conception of its appropriate position in the international pecking order is usually linked to its identity or self-image.

Despite the importance of both identity and status in our understanding of world politics, scholars have not given systematic attention to these factors. How does a state’s identity influence its status aspirations? Does the desire for increased status always lead to conflict with the dominant powers? How does status-seeking affect peace and world order?

Social identity theory (SIT) ( Tajfel, 1978 , 1982 ; Tajfel & Turner, 1979 ) provides a means to explore the influence of identity and status concerns on foreign policy. SIT explores how social groups strive to achieve a positively distinctive identity by using different strategies to enhance their status. Although developed for social groups, SIT has potential relevance for international relations.

Social Identity Theory

A social identity refers to knowledge of membership in a social group, along with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership ( Tajfel, 1978 , p. 63). In other words, social identity requires not only awareness of belonging to a group but also being attached to it. Individuals behave very differently when they are acting as part of a group—whether a member of a striking labor union, police force, or army—than as individuals ( Tajfel, 1978 , pp. 39–42, 62–64; Tajfel & Turner, 1979 , p. 40). Social groups include race, ethnicity, gender, occupation, or nationality. In the modern era, people increasingly identify with their state and derive vicarious pleasure in its achievements.

One of the findings of SIT is that people tend to accentuate differences between their group and the outgroup, while perceiving their ingroup as being more homogeneous than it really is ( Tajfel, 1978 , pp. 63–64; Tajfel & Turner, 1979 , p. 40; van Knippenberg, 1984 , pp. 561–562). A social identity is prescriptive as well as descriptive; it is both relative and comparative. Social groups compare themselves to an equal or slightly higher reference group ( Brown & Haeger, 1999 ; Tajfel & Turner, 1979 , p. 41). The outcome of such comparisons determines how satisfied people are with their social identity ( Turner & Brown, 1978 , p. 204). Because social identity is part of the self-concept, members want their group to be superior. Social groups, seeking to be not only different but also better, are motivated to achieve a positively distinctive identity ( Tajfel & Turner, 1979 ).

When their group is falling behind, members are motivated to differentiate their group in a positive direction, as was revealed by the “minimal-group” studies carried out by Henri Tajfel ( Tajfel et al., 1971 ) and his associates at the University of Bristol. Tajfel found that that even groups established by arbitrary criteria such as preference for the art of Kandinsky versus Klee, where the members did not know each other, discriminated in favor of the ingroup in distributing points (see Brewer, 1979 ). The minimal group experiments suggest that, contrary to realistic group theory, ingroup bias and ethnocentrism do not depend on prior competition with another group over scarce resources ( Sherif, 1966 ), or negative stereotyping of the other side. Mere categorization into ingroup and outgroup seems to be sufficient to produce favoritism ( Turner, 1999 ).

While the minimal group experiments are striking, SIT has also been tested extensively in field studies and experiments with real-world social groups, such as ethnicity ( Capozza et al., 1982 ; Van Knippenberg, 1984 ) and occupation ( Bourhis & Hill, 1982 ). SIT recognizes that social groups are ranked in society based on their relative status ( Hogg & Abrams, 1988 , p. 14).

Just as a group’s status depends on its position on traits valued by society, so a state’s international stature depends on its ranking on prized attributes, such as military power, economic development, and technological innovation. Since the 18th century , certain states have been identified as the “great powers” ( Scott, 2001 ). Status is the outcome of subjective judgments about the social worth that individuals ascribe to an individual or group ( Blader & Chen, 2014 ; Chen et al., 2012 ). In contrast, power refers to control over resources ( Fiske, 2010 ). The two concepts are separate and should not be conflated. For example, the Soviet Union was acknowledged to be a superpower after World War II largely owing to its defeat of Nazi Germany, but it was not accepted by the United States as an equal power. Military power is necessary but not sufficient for great power status ( Gray, 1974 ; Wohlforth, 1993 , pp. 146, 177–178). China has the world’s second-largest economy and believes that it is entitled to great power status. Despite having nuclear weapons and a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council, both of which are indicators of great power status, the People’s Republic of China does not believe that it has received the respect and recognition it deserves ( Shambaugh, 2013 , pp. 17, 310–311, 317).

Membership in a higher-status group increases collective self-esteem and pride ( Hogg & Abrams, 1988 ; Rubin & Hewstone, 1998 ), while being part of a low-status group is damaging to morale ( Ellemers & Barreto, 2001 ). Inferiority to a reference group threatens the group’s identity and stimulates the desire to improve its position ( Ellemers et al., 2002 ).

Identity Management Strategies

The group may want to pursue an identity management strategy to achieve a more positive, distinctive identity ( Tajfel, 1978 ; Tajfel & Turner, 1979 ). A group that wants to improve its standing may try to join a higher-status group, compete with the dominant group, or achieve preeminence in a different area. The choice of one strategy over another depends on perceptions of the permeability of elite groups as well as the security (stability and/or legitimacy) of the status hierarchy. States have also pursued varying strategies for attaining status, depending on the openness of elite clubs as well as their perceptions of the stability and legitimacy of status distinctions.

If boundaries of elite groups appear to be permeable to new members, an individual may adopt a social mobility strategy, emulating the values and behavior of the higher-status group in order to gain admission ( Ellemers et al., 1990 ; van Knippenberg & Ellemers, 1993 ). The individual may disidentify with the ingroup and try to join the dominant group. A group may also try to become more like the superior group in order to pass, but at the cost of losing its distinctive identity ( Tajfel, 1978 , pp. 93–94). A social mobility strategy requires conformity to the norms and practices of an elite group to gain acceptance into a more elevated status position. Applied to international relations, a social mobility strategy implies that states emulate the values and norms of the higher-status states to gain acceptance into elite clubs. For example, in the 19th century , the Ottoman Empire, China, and Japan gradually adapted their institutions and adopted international law in order to be admitted into international society, which was dominated by the European states ( Bull & Watson, 1984 ). In the modern era, smaller states emulate the domestic practices of the leading powers so as to gain prestige ( Fordham & Asal, 2007 ).

If elite group boundaries are impermeable to new members and the status hierarchy is insecure , the lower-status group may strive for equal or superior status through social competition ( Bettencourt et al., 2001 ; Ellemers et al., 1993 ; Tajfel, 1978 , pp. 51–52; Tajfel & Turner, 1979 ). The status hierarchy is insecure when it is perceived by the lower-status group to be illegitimate (unfair or unjust) and/or unstable (capable of being changed) ( Ellemers, 1993 ; Turner & Brown, 1978 ). As Tajfel (1978 , p. 52) observed, “a combination of illegitimacy and instability would become a powerful incitement for attempts to change the status quo.” Social competition aims to equal or surpass the dominant group on the dimensions on which its higher status is based. Social competition is therefore all about relative position rather than absolute gains ( Turner, 1975 ). In international relations, social competition is often manifested in attempts to acquire control over territory or military superiority, such as the Anglo–German naval race before World War I ( Kennedy, 1980 ; Murray, 2010 , 2019 ) or the space race between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Social competition with a rival state helps create a sense of identification with the nation that helps mobilize resources for war. Defeating a great power in war, in turn, advances a state’s status and intensifies national identification, in a virtuous circle ( Sambanis et al., 2015 ).

When elite group boundaries are impermeable ( Jackson et al., 1996 ) and existing status distinctions appear to be stable and/or legitimate, a group may seek prestige in a different area, pursuing social creativity ( Ellemers et al., 1993 , 1999 ; Hinckle et al., 1998 ; Tajfel, 1978 , pp. 52–53; Tajfel & Turner, 1979 ). The pecking order is stable when lower-status groups cannot even imagine an alternative order. It is legitimate when lower-status groups believe that the criteria used to determine the social structure are fair ( Spears, 2008 , p. 325).

Social creativity is aimed at improving the group’s status without changing the system, thereby increasing satisfaction with the group’s identity. Social creativity may involve (a) revaluing a negative characteristic as positive or (b) identifying a new value dimension on which the group is superior. Reframing an ostensibly negative characteristic as positive is illustrated by the African American slogan of the 1960s, “Black is beautiful,” or by gay pride. For example, Chinese nationalists now view Confucianism, which Mao had attacked for blocking China’s economic development, as positive, as part of China’s “glorious civilization” ( Gries, 2005 ). Unlike social competition, social creativity does not try to change the hierarchy of status in the international system, but rather seeks to achieve preeminence on a different ranking system.

To succeed, social creativity requires recognition by the dominant group of the alternative value dimension as worthy and the lower-status group’s position on that criterion as superior ( Tajfel, 1978 , p. 96). In contrast, rejection of a lower-status group’s social creativity efforts will provoke anger and hostility ( Brown & Ross, 1982 ), which can lead to offensive action against the dominant group ( Mackie et al., 2000 ).

In international relations, social creativity may be manifested in efforts to enhance a state’s “soft power” through diplomatic mediation, playing a leadership role in international organizations or promoting new international norms. With social creativity’s introduction of additional value dimensions, higher- and lower-status groups can each accept the other’s superiority on a different dimension, showing social cooperation ( van Knippenberg, 1984 ; van Knippenberg & Ellemers, 1990 ). If there is only one value, competition for precedence is zero-sum. But if there are two values, then Group 1 may be superior on Dimension X while Group 2 is preeminent on Dimension Y ( Mummendey & Schreiber, 1983 ; van Knippenberg & van Oers, 1984 ). For example, in a study of national stereotypes held by adolescents from six Central and Eastern European countries, participants accepted that the higher-status Western European countries were more competent, but they viewed their own country as more “moral” ( Poppe & Linssen, 1999 ). In international relations, it might be accepted that the EU is better at “soft power” and integrating newly emerging democracies, while the United States is better at hard power and deterrence.

Social creativity will be preferred when a state perceives that the existing hierarchy is stable and/or legitimate. The best evidence that the status hierarchy is stable would be admissions by the elite that the existing order was unlikely to change in the near future. More indirect evidence would be the absence of ideological challenges to the status quo distribution of power and influence. Indicators that a state is pursuing social creativity include advocacy of new international norms, regimes, institutions, or a developmental model.

Social identity theory is therefore more complex than is conventionally believed. For example, status differences do not invariably lead to in-group favoritism. There is a reality constraint, whereby lower-status groups acknowledge that the dominant group is superior on status-related dimensions ( Ellemers et al., 1997 ; Poppe & Linssen, 1999 ). Moreover, groups do not invariably compete for status. Lower-status groups may accept their position if they regard the status hierarchy as legitimate or stable ( Ellemers et al., 1993 ; Spears, 2008 ). Such was the case for minority groups within the United States, until they perceived that the conditions were changing and there was an opportunity to improve their situation.

In sum, identity management strategies have different goals and tactics in response to varying social structures. Social mobility entails emulating the values and practices of the established powers as a means of attaining integration into elite clubs. Social competition, however, tries to equal or surpass the dominant power on the geopolitical dimensions of status. Social creativity seeks a favorable position on an alternative value dimension, while highlighting the state’s uniqueness and differences from the dominant powers. The choice of strategy depends on the state’s perceptions of the permeability of elite clubs and the legitimacy and stability of the status hierarchy.

SIT differs from other standard theories of international relations in its explanation for state behavior. Neorealism strongly argues that competition between states is over relative power, not status. In an anarchic system where any state is a potential foe, and all states must rely on themselves for protection, only superior power counts ( Gilpin, 1981 ; Waltz, 1979 ). While social competition may produce behavior that resembles power maximization, the difference is that social identity theory can explain why great powers also engage in nonaggressive, constructive, “responsible” behavior, failing to take advantage of opportunities for aggrandizement. The social creativity strategy of SIT explains why states may seek preeminence in “softer” areas such as diplomatic initiatives or institution building. Most varieties of realism suggest that a state’s ambitions will grow in line with its capabilities ( Gilpin, 1981 , p. 106), but SIT predicts that accommodation by the higher-status states of the other’s status claims will elicit constructive “status quo” behavior even if its military and economic capabilities continue to grow. Rohan Mukherjee (2022) found that rising powers (United States, Japan, India, China) are more likely to cooperate with existing norms if international institutions are open and procedurally fair. Conversely, status humiliations are expected to push an aspiring power in the opposite direction of hostile and belligerent behavior. Neorealists might argue that much status seeking by states is instrumental to the achievement of economic prosperity and power. More research is needed to determine if this criticism is valid. Nevertheless, achieving and maintaining great power status can be costly to a state’s finances and security, raising questions about whether status is merely a means to another end, as opposed to an intrinsic value.

Both constructivism and SIT attribute importance to identity in influencing state interests and foreign policy ( Hansen, 2006 ; Hopf, 2012 ), an identity that is defined relative to an “Other” or outgroup. Constructivism, however, argues that a state’s identity is shaped by interactions with other states ( Wendt, 1992 , 1999 ), as well as influences from domestic society ( Hopf, 2012 ), whereas SIT perceives identities as derived from history, culture, and the social context and therefore is not subject to fluid interaction and mirror imaging. As a process theory, SIT requires that researchers input beliefs, expectations, and status differences between groups before making any inferences ( Turner, 1999 , pp. 33–34).

Constructivists view leaders as socialized by discourse and practice, with the result that elites cannot willingly select an identity among available alternatives. Identities are not a product of rational choice but are embedded in the social structure and prevailing discourse ( Hopf, 2012 , pp. 18–22). Foreign policy identities emerge and are reinforced through diplomatic practice and discourse ( Wendt, 1992 ). In contrast, SIT suggests that national elites may object to their treatment by other states and adopt an identity management strategy. States do not always see themselves as others do. A major difference with constructivist approaches is that SIT is a theory of “group freedom” in which lower-status groups can select ways to improve their image and sense of self-worth—for example, through reframing a negative characteristic as positive by finding a new dimension of comparison or by challenging the position of the dominant group ( Billig, 2002 ).

Social identity theory may be better at explaining changes in state identities than constructivism, which views identities as “mutually constituted,” with the direction of causality unclear. As some prominent constructivists admit ( Hopf, 2012 , pp. 17–18), constructivists have not convincingly shown why one discourse of identity is chosen over another. In contrast, SIT makes predictions about identity based on the social structure and the group’s beliefs about the permeability of elite clubs and the legitimacy and stability of the status hierarchy.

Relevant Research in International Relations

While SIT is a relatively recent addition to international relations theory, researchers have used it to explain conflict and cooperation between states, grand strategy, and states’ drive for “soft power.” Mercer (1995) introduced SIT into international relations with his critique of Wendt’s (1992) article, “Anarchy Is What States Make of It.” Criticizing Wendt’s contention that rivalry and self-help are socially constructed practices rather than necessary consequences of anarchy, Mercer uses SIT’s minimal group experiments to argue that competition between states is inevitable; states are groups, and identification with groups promotes competition. But this is a misconception of SIT, which does not predict that identification with a group always leads to ethnocentrism and competition with outgroups. There are alternative identity management strategies, such as social mobility and social creativity, and moderator variables, such as the permeability of elite group boundaries and the legitimacy and stability of the status hierarchy ( Ellemers & Haslam, 2012 ). Indeed, when inequalities are institutionalized in a consensual status system and legitimized through ideology, lower-status groups may show bias toward the superior group ( Tajfel & Turner, 1986 , p. 12).

Gries (2005) takes issue with Mercer’s (1995) argument, using Chinese nationalist writings for illustration. He contends that comparison to other groups does not necessarily damage the group’s identity and self-esteem, promoting competition. Groups may choose other means of achieving a positive identity, such as the introduction of a new value, reevaluation of an existing value dimension, or comparison to a different target group.

In a survey experiment, Viskupic (2020) found that individuals identify with their state and respond to potential status threats by increasing their support for military intervention, even when strategic interests are low and casualties may be high.

The identity management strategies of SIT have implications for domestic politics. Improving a country’s standing may require reforms. Leaders may use the goal of meeting the membership criteria for a more prestigious organization to mobilize domestic support for reforms. From 2013 to 2016 , economic reformers in China made favorable references to the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) to persuade the public of the need for economic liberalization, even though the TPP was intended to contain China ( Lin & Katada, 2022 ). Kennedy (2010) found through survey research that Moldovans who wanted to join the European Union had more positive attitudes toward rights associated with liberal democracy, consistent with a social mobility strategy. The Moldovans wanted to be “European,” which was associated with support for liberal democracy.

Clunan (2009 , 2014 ) addresses the question of why a statist identity discourse was selected over several alternatives in Russia after the end of the Cold War. Drawing on social identity theory, Clunan argues that a national identity becomes dominant if it is consistent with the country’s historical experience and can be enacted successfully. Based on her study of public opinion polls and her analysis of the foreign policy specialist discourse, Clunan argues that the statist national identity focused on recovering Russia’s great power status triumphed over competing identities because it resonated with Russian history and was more feasible than alternative strategies such as competition with the United States.

The emulation of social values associated with social mobility may not be appealing for large states, such as Russia and China, which have a long history and place greater priority on maintaining a distinctive identity ( Larson & Shevchenko, 2019b ). Malinova (2014) interprets identity discourse in Russia in the 19th and 20th centuries , represented in the works of leading intellectuals, as an interplay between Westernism, which views Russia as destined to follow the path of the Europeans (social mobility), and Slavophilism, which argues that Russia should follow its own distinctive path, based on its spiritualism, collectivism, and Orthodoxy (social creativity). Neither identity management strategy was entirely successful in overcoming the ressentiment that the Russian intelligentsia felt over their country’s perceived cultural and economic inferiority and the West’s unwillingness to recognize Russia’s equal status.

Larson and Shevchenko (2003) attribute Soviet “New Thinking” under Mikhail Gorbachev to the use of social creativity, a response to the failure of the social competition policy pursued by Soviet leaders to achieve recognition of the Soviet Union as a political equal to the United States and its allies. Gorbachev and other reformers in the Soviet Union recognized that the status hierarchy was stable; the superiority of the Western countries was unlikely to be overturned by economic development in the Soviet Union and the spread of communist revolutions. Military power, a sphere of influence in Eastern Europe, and Soviet interventions in the Third World had not enabled the Soviet Union to be admitted into the Western great power clubs. Gorbachev tried to achieve greatness for the Soviet Union in a new domain—as the moral and political leader of a new international order shaped on idealistic principles of the New Thinking such as mutual security, nonoffensive defense, and the Common European Home.

Just as Gorbachev tried to achieve status as a norm entrepreneur, so states using social creativity may engage in normative and institutional innovation. India and China have promoted innovations in nuclear restraint such as de-alerting of nuclear weapons and no-first use to win recognition as “nuclear responsible” powers ( Leveringhaus & Sullivan de Estrada, 2018 ). China has had more success in institutional innovation in the economic domain. Unable to secure reforms in the leadership of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that would give more representation to emerging powers, China created a new institution for international lending, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), part of a social creativity strategy. The AIIB complements existing multilateral banks in that it focuses on funding infrastructure rather than on development. Through the AIIB, China is able to establish a distinctive identity in providing aid that is not contingent on the recipient’s domestic reforms or policy changes, in contrast to the American-dominated World Bank ( Yang, 2016 ).

Social creativity strategies allow states to improve their standing without engaging in arms racing or international conflict. Since the end of the Cold War, Norway has sought to achieve preeminence on different criteria by “doing good”; that is, participating in peacekeeping, mediating international conflict, and providing developmental aid that exceeds expectations for a smaller state. Through assisting the United States in maintaining peace and security, Norway has succeeded in elevating its profile and securing access to U.S. decision makers ( Wohlforth et al., 2018 ). Similarly, the first president of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev, sought to elevate his state’s status by promoting nuclear nonproliferation and offering his capital as the site for international conferences and dialogue. Attaining recognition for Kazakhstan was particularly important to Nazarbayev because the state was newly created as part of the breakup of the Soviet Union ( Varkocková, 2021 ). States that have experienced loss of sovereignty are also highly motivated to attain recognition from the international community. Burundi and Rwanda, where UN peacekeeping troops were stationed to halt ethnic conflict, are now contributing peacekeeping troops to other countries to enhance their state’s status and legitimacy ( Wilén, 2022 ).

To be successful, a social creativity strategy requires that the dominant group recognize the new value as worthwhile and the lower-status group’s actions as commendable. After the end of the Cold War, the United States was more receptive to China’s efforts at social creativity than to those of Russia. Larson and Shevchenko (2010) try to account for variation in China and Russia’s responses to the end of the Cold War, collapse of communism, and emergence of U.S. unipolarity—serious threats to the identities of both states as great powers. After realizing the futility of social competition with the United States, both states shifted to a social creativity strategy. China sought status as a “responsible power” through engaging in multilateral institutions and providing a developmental model in the form of the Beijing consensus, while Russia under Vladimir Putin initially tried to be a strategic partner with the United States in the “War on Terror.” The United States reinforced China’s turn toward responsible behavior. In contrast, Washington did not regard Putin’s cooperation as meriting any special treatment. Instead, the Bush administration supported “color revolutions” in Russia’s near abroad, culminating in U.S. efforts to secure approval for the admission of Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, a policy that Russia regarded as a threat to its sphere of influence in the near abroad and great power status, which contributed to the outbreak of the 2008 Russia–Georgia War.

Social psychologists have recently incorporated group emotions into SIT ( Mackie & Smith, 2015 ; Smith, 1993 ). When individuals identify strongly with a social group, they experience its triumphs and humiliations through emotions as if they were their own. Groups that have been humiliated or experience injustice are likely to feel anger, which is directed toward the out-group in the form of aggression. Russian president Putin felt humiliated by the overthrow of Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych in response to popular protests, and he responded by sending Russian special forces into Crimea, also an act of vengeance against what he perceived as a series of Western insults to Russia’s status ( Larson & Shevchenko, 2014 ).

SIT emphasizes that groups seek an identity that is distinctive from similar groups. Since returning to power in 2010 , Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban has sought to win greater respect for Hungary through distinctive domestic policies, affirmation of Christian values, a strong state, and a multi-vector foreign policy—a manifestation of social creativity rather than social mobility ( Shevchenko, 2018 ). Evans (2015) argues that Putin used social creativity beginning in the fall of 2013 , when he asserted that Russia was a better representative of traditional conservative family values and Christianity than the supposedly decadent and amoral Europe. Putin’s appeal to traditional values has elevated Russia’s status among some right-wing parties in Europe.

China has used social creativity through its “peaceful rise” rhetoric, most recently illustrated by President Xi Jinping’s advocacy of a “new type of great power relationship” between the United States and China involving the avoidance of conflict and “win–win” outcomes ( Larson, 2015 ). The discourse associated with the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the signature foreign policy of Xi, stresses “win-win,” mutual learning, and peace and cooperation, in contrast to past policies of Western imperialist powers ( Gloria, 2021 ). But Chinese actions may undermine the claims of BRI rhetoric, as evidenced by the rapid decline in China’s status among Italian members of parliament due to its lack of transparency over COVID-19, revocation of Hong Kong’s independent status, and repression of Xinjiang. Italy had signed a Memorandum of Understanding with China on its participation in the BRI in 2019 ( Andornino, 2022 ).

The recent rise of China and India has undermined Japan’s previous status as the leading power in Asia. Funaiole (2015) attributes Japan’s adoption of a more “normal” defense strategy since 2001 as part of a shift from a social creativity strategy of emphasizing economic growth while taking a low profile, to a social mobility strategy of emulating the military contributions of U.S. allies such as Britain.

Criticisms and Directions for Future Research

Since social identity theory has only recently been applied to international relations, its theoretical concepts are still in the process of being specified and operationalized. The observable indicators of the different types of identity management strategies need to be more fully explicated. Sometimes states will combine elements of two different strategies. Shifting operational indicators can make SIT difficult to falsify when applied to particular cases in international relations.

Ward (2017) contends that the psychological theory of SIT conceived of social mobility as individuals who try to leave their social group, a different level of analysis than social competition and social creativity. But the original version of SIT proposed by Tajfel envisioned that social groups could seek to improve their collective status within society through emulation of the values of the dominant group ( Larson & Shevchenko, 2019a ; Tajfel, 1978 , p. 94). Subsequent psychological research has analyzed how social groups such as African Americans may seek collective mobility ( Derks et al., 2009 ; Sweetman et al., 2013 ).

In a review of SIT, Brown (2000 , pp. 758–759) criticized the theory for failure to predict which identity management strategy would be used—social mobility, social competition, or different variants of social creativity. SIT does posit that the choice of identity management strategy varies as a function of the permeability of elite group boundaries and the legitimacy and stability of the status hierarchy. Nevertheless, greater refinement of these variables or additional moderator variables may be useful for the study of international relations. Perhaps culture and history may provide predispositions for states to pursue specific strategies. For example, historically Russia has been quite successful in using military power to advance its status, whereas China has relied on the glory of its civilization and moral superiority ( Larson & Shevchenko, 2019b ). More work could be done to elaborate operational indicators for the permeability of elite clubs in international relations or the legitimacy/stability of the status hierarchy. Another criticism is that international relations applications of SIT do not explain why some individual leaders or domestic publics place a higher valuation on relative status ( Götz, 2021 , p. 235; MacDonald & Parent, 2021 , p. 374). The domestic politics of identity formation and status appeals is an area that could benefit from additional research. Related to the choice of an identity management strategy is the selection of a reference group, which has also not been adequately explained in SIT ( Brown, 2000 , pp. 762–763).

Wohlforth (2009) dismisses SIT as having limited relevance for international relations because it does not incorporate major asymmetries in power as well as status. In his view, a state’s choice of identity management strategy is constrained by its geographic position as well as its natural endowments, such as size and population. Wohlforth argues that SIT is most likely to be applicable under conditions of no major power asymmetries and a flat, ambiguous status hierarchy. But Wohlforth’s conception treats status as being determined solely by military capabilities, rather than incorporating other dimensions. While unable to compete with great powers, smaller states may also improve their status by emulating the values and norms of more prestigious states as part of a strategy of social mobility or by emphasizing different criteria through social creativity. A smaller state may enhance its international prestige through creating institutions, promoting new norms, or diplomatic mediation ( de Carvalho & Neumann, 2015 ). States may gain status by winning Olympic medals or by providing developmental aid ( Bezerra et al., 2015 ). Medium and smaller powers may achieve higher status by complying with uncontested norms such as bilateral aid, multilateralism, and economic liberalism ( Miller et al., 2015 ). Major powers may seek the self-esteem derived from deploying status symbols such as nuclear weapons or aircraft carriers ( Fikenscher et al., 2015 ). A dissatisfied competitor may gain additional status by acting as a “spoiler,” preventing the leading state from achieving its goals, without catching up to its military capabilities. Just as status should not be conflated with power, so states have ways of achieving higher standing that do not involve geopolitical competition.

Conclusions

Compared to other psychological theories, social identity theory offers substantial relevance for international relations because it is on group-level rather than individual analysis. Leaders usually act on the basis of their national rather than personal identity.

SIT also highlights the importance of social comparison as a motive for foreign policy. National elites compare their state’s achievements and qualities to those of a reference state. The selection of a reference group is extremely important in shaping state policy. Small and middle powers, for example, may choose as a reference group the Western liberal democracies or the nonliberal states such as Russia and China. The adoption of a particular reference group will also affect how satisfied states are with their position on the status hierarchy. After the end of the Cold War, for example, Eastern European states compared their economic well-being not with that of the Soviet Union or other former communist countries, but with the higher-status Western European states, a comparison that motivated them to reform their political institutions in order to be admitted into the European Union.

Neorealism suggests that power transitions such as the emergence of China and the resurgence of Russia are likely to be conflictual because status is scarce and zero-sum. But SIT holds out the possibility of peaceful transitions if the rising power uses social creativity in choosing a status dimension that does not challenge the leading power. Mutual recognition and a division of labor between the rising and status quo powers could lead to social cooperation.

SIT emphasizes external recognition as a major determinant of a state’s satisfaction with the international system. Rising and resurgent powers wish to be recognized as equal to the dominant states. More research using SIT needs to be done on the responses of higher-status states to perceived threats to their superior status.

Research applying SIT to international relations may use any of a variety of methods to address such questions—survey experiments, discourse analysis, quantitative analysis, and historical case studies. Knowing how states seek and maintain a positive status is extremely important for avoiding future conflict due to the uneven growth in state power and status.

• Andornino, G. B. (2022). China’s pursuit of international status through negotiated deference: An empirical analysis of Italy’s parliamentary attitude . Italian Political Science Review , online edition, 1–19.
• Bettencourt, B. A. , Dorr, N. , Charlton, K. , & Hume, D. L. (2001). Status differences and in-group bias: A meta-analytic examination of the effects of status stability, status legitimacy, and group permeability. Psychological Bulletin , 127 (4), 520–542.
• Bezerra, P. , Cramer, J. , Hauser, J. , Miller, J. L. , & Volgy, T. J. (2015). Going for the gold versus distributing the green: Foreign policy substitutability and complementarity in status enhancement strategies. Foreign Policy Analysis , 11 (3), 253–272.
• Billig, M. (2002). Henri Tajfel’s “Cognitive Aspects of Prejudice” and the psychology of bigotry. British Journal of Social Psychology , 41 (2), 171–188.
• Blader, S. L. , & Chen, Y. R. (2014). What’s in a name? Status, power, and other forms of social hierarchy. In J. T. Cheng , J. L. Tracy , & C. P. Anderson (Eds.), The psychology of social status (pp. 71–94). Springer.
• Bourhis, R. Y. , & Hill, P. (1982). Intergroup perceptions in British higher education: A field study. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 423–468). Cambridge University Press.
• Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive–motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin , 86 (2), 307–324.
• Brown, R. (2000). Social identity theory: Past achievements, current problems, and future challenges. European Journal of Social Psychology , 30 (6), 745–778.
• Brown, R. , & Haeger, G. (1999). “Compared to what?”: Comparison choice in an international context. European Journal of Social Psychology , 29 (1), 31–42.
• Brown, R. J. , & Ross, G. F. (1982). The battle for acceptance: An investigation into the dynamics of intergroup behavior. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 155–178). Cambridge University Press.
• Bull, H. , & Watson, A. (1984). The expansion of international society . Clarendon Press.
• Capozza, D. , Bonaldo, E. , & Di Maggio, A. (1982). Problems of identity and social conflict: Research on ethnic groups in Italy. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 299–325). Cambridge University Press.
• Chen, R. J. , Peters, R. S. , Phillips, D. J. , Podolny, J. M. , & Ridgeway, C. L. (2012). Introduction to the special issue: Bringing status to the table: Attaining, maintaining, and experiencing status in organizations and markets. Organization Science , 23 (2), 299–307.
• Clunan, A. L. (2009). The social construction of Russia’s resurgence: Aspirations, identity, and security interests . Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Clunan, A. L. (2014). Historical aspirations and the domestic politics of Russia’s pursuit of international status. Communist and Post-Communist Studies , 47 (3–4), 281–290.
• Dafoe, A. , Renshon, J. , & Huth, P. (2014). Reputation and status as motives for war. Annual Review of Political Science , 17 , 371–393.
• de Carvalho, B. , & Neumann, I. B. (Eds.). (2015). Small states and status seeking: Norway’s quest for international standing . Routledge.
• Deng, Y. (2008). China’s struggle for status: The realignment of international relations . Cambridge University Press.
• Derks, B. , van Laar, C. , & Ellemers, N. (2009). Working for the self or working for the group: How self- versus group affirmation affects collective behavior in low-status groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 96 (1), 183–202.
• Ellemers, N. (1993). The influence of socio-structural variables on identity management strategies. European Review of Social Psychology , 4 (1), 27–57.
• Ellemers, N. , & Barreto, M. (2001). The impact of relative group status: Affective, perceptual and behavioral consequences. In R. Brown & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Vol. 4. Intergroup processes (pp. 324–343). Blackwell.
• Ellemers, N. , Barreto, M. , & Spears, R. (1999). Commitment and strategic responses to social context. In N. Ellemers , R. Spears , & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 127–146). Blackwell.
• Ellemers, N. , & Haslam, S. A. (2012). Social identity theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange , A. W. Kruglanski , & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 379–398). SAGE.
• Ellemers, N. , Spears, R. , & Doosje, B. (2002). Self and social identity. Annual Review of Psychology , 5 , 161–186.
• Ellemers, N. , van Knippenberg, A. , & Wilke, H. (1990). The influence of permeability of group boundaries and stability of group status on strategies of individual mobility and social change. British Journal of Social Psychology , 29 (3), 233–246.
• Ellemers, N. , van Rijswijk, W. , Roefs, M. , & Simons, C. (1997). Bias in intergroup perceptions: Balancing group identity with social reality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 23 (2), 186–198.
• Ellemers, N. , Wilke, H. , & van Knippenberg, A. (1993). Effects of low group or individual status on individual and collective status-enhancement strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 64 (5), 766–778.
• Evans, A. (2015). Ideological change under Vladimir Putin in the perspective of social identity theory. Demokratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization , 23 (4), 401–426.
• Fikenscher, S. , Jaschob, L. , & Wolf, R. (2015). Seeking status recognition through military symbols: German and Indian armament policies between strategic rationalizations and prestige moves. In C. Daase , C. Fehl , A. Geis , & G. Kolliarakis (Eds.), Recognition in international relations: Rethinking a political concept in a global context (pp. 86–103). Palgrave Macmillan.
• Fiske, S. T. (2010). Interpersonal stratification: Status, power, and subordination. In S. T. Fiske , D. T. Gilbert , & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., pp. 941–982). John Wiley & Sons.
• Fordham, B. O. , & Asal, V. (2007). Billiard balls or snowflakes? Major power prestige and the international diffusion of institutions and practices. International Studies Quarterly , 52 (2), 31–52.
• Funaiole, M. P. (2015). Conceptualizing Japan’s foreign policy trajectory through social identity theory. East Asia , 32 (4), 361–383.
• Gilpin, R. (1981). War and change in world politics . Cambridge University Press.
• Gloria, E. V. (2021). The Silk Road Spirit: China’s BRI discourse and its pursuit for great power status. Asian Politics & Policy , 13 (4), 493–510.
• Götz, E. (2021). Status matters in world politics. International Studies Review , 23 (1), 228–247.
• Gries, P. H. (2005). Social psychology and the identity-conflict debate: Is a “China threat” inevitable? European Journal of International Relations , 22 (2), 235–265.
• Gray, C. S. (1974). The urge to compete: Rationales for arms racing. World Politics , 26 (2), 207–233.
• Hansen, L. (2006). Security as practice: Discourse analysis and the Bosnian War . Routledge.
• Hinckle, S. , Taylor, L. A. , Fox-Cardamone, L. , & Ely, P. G. (1998). Social identity and aspects of social creativity: Shifting to new dimensions of intergroup comparison. In S. Worchel , J. F. Morales , D. Paez , & J. Deschamps (Eds.), Social identity: International perspectives (pp. 166–179). SAGE.
• Hogg, M. A. , & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes . Routledge.
• Hopf, T. (2012). Reconstructing the Cold War: The early years, 1945–1958 . Oxford University Press.
• Jackson, L. A. , Sullivan, L. A. , Harnish, R. , & Hodge, C. N. (1996). Achieving positive social identity: Social mobility, social creativity, and permeability of group boundaries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 70 (2), 241–254.
• Kagan, D. (1995). On the origins of war and preservation of peace . Doubleday.
• Kennedy, P. M. (1980). The rise of Anglo-German antagonism, 1860–1914 . George Allen and Unwin.
• Kennedy, R. (2010). Supranational identity, democratic attitudes, and political participation: The EU and Moldova. European Union Politics , 11 (4), 511–532.
• Larson, D. W. (2015). Will China be a new type of great power? Chinese Journal of International Politics , 8 (4), 323–348.
• Larson, D. W. , & Shevchenko, A. (2003). Shortcut to greatness: The new thinking and the revolution in Soviet foreign policy. International Organization , 57 (1), 77–109.
• Larson, D. W. , & Shevchenko, A. (2010). Status seekers: Chinese and Russian responses to U.S. primacy. International Security , 34 (4), 63–95.
• Larson, D. W. , & Shevchenko, A. (2014). Russia says no: Power, status, and emotions in foreign policy. Communist and Post-Communist Studies , 47 (3–4), 269–279.
• Larson, D. W. , & Shevchenko, A. (2019a). Lost in misconceptions about social identity theory. International Studies Quarterly , 63 (4), 1189–1191.
• Larson, D. W. , & Shevchenko, A. (2019b). Quest for status: Chinese and Russian foreign policy . Yale University Press.
• Lebow, R. N. (2008). A cultural theory of international relations . Cambridge University Press.
• Lebow, R. N. (2010). Why nations fight . Cambridge University Press.
• Leveringhaus, N. , & Sullivan de Estrada, K. (2018). Between conformity and innovation: China’s and India’s quest for status as responsible nuclear powers. Review of International Studies , 44 (3), 482–503.
• Lin, A. Y. , & Katada, S. N. (2022). Striving for greatness: Status aspirations, rhetorical entrapment, and domestic reforms. Review of International Political Economy , 29 (1), 175–201.
• Mackie, D. M. , Devos, T. , & Smith, E. R. (2000). Intergroup emotions: Explaining offensive action tendencies in an intergroup context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 79 (4), 602–616.
• Mackie, D. M. , & Smith, E. R. (2015). Intergroup emotions. In M. Mukulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 1–31). American Psychological Association.
• MacDonald, P. K. , & Parent, J. M. (2021). The status of status in world politics. World Politics , 73 (2), 358–391.
• Malinova, O. (2014). Obsession with status and ressentiment : Historical backgrounds of the Russian discursive identity construction. Communist and Post-Communist Studies , 47 (3–4), 291–303.
• Mercer, J. (1995). Anarchy and identity. International Organization , 49 (2), 229–252.
• Miller, J. L. , Cramer, J. , Volgy, T. J. , Bezerra, P. , Hauser, M. , & Sciabarra, C. (2015). Norms, behavioral compliance, and status attribution in international politics. International Interactions , 41 (5), 779–784.
• Mukherjee, R. (2022). Ascending order: Rising powers and the politics of status in international institutions . Cambridge University Press.
• Mummendey, A. , & Schreiber, H. (1983). Better or just different? Positive social identity by discrimination against, or by differentiation from outgroups. European Journal of Social Psychology , 13 (4), 389–397.
• Murray, M. (2010). Identity, insecurity, and great power politics: The tragedy of German naval ambition before the First World War. Security Studies , 19 (4), 656–688.
• Murray, M. (2019). The struggle for recognition in international relations: Status, revisionism, and rising powers . Oxford University Press.
• Neumann, I. B. (1996). Self and other in international relations. European Journal of International Relations , 2 (2), 139–174.
• Poppe, E. , & Linssen, H. (1999). In-group favouritism and the reflection of realistic dimensions of difference between national states in Central and Eastern European nationality stereotypes. British Journal of Social Psychology , 38 (1), 85–102.
• Renshon, J. (2016). Status deficits and war. International Organization , 70 (3), 513–550.
• Renshon, J. (2017). Fighting for status: Hierarchy and conflict in world politics . Princeton University Press.
• 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.
• Sambanis, N. , Skaperdas, S. , & Wohlforth, W. C. (2015). Nation-building through war. American Political Science Review , 109 (2), 279–296.
• Scott, H. M. (2001). The emergence of the eastern powers, 1756–1775 . Cambridge University Press.
• Shambaugh, D. (2013). China goes global: The partial power . Oxford University Press.
• Sherif, M. (1966). Group conflict and cooperation: Their social psychology . London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
• Shevchenko, A. (2018). From a follower to a trendsetter: Hungary’s post–Cold War identity and the West. Communist and Post-Communist Studies , 51 (1), 63–72.
• Smith, E. R. (1993). Social identity and social emotions: Toward new conceptualizations of prejudice. In D. M. Mackie & D. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Affect, cognition and stereotyping (pp. 297–315). Academic Press.
• Spears, R. (2008). Social identity, legitimacy, and intergroup conflict: The rocky road to reconciliation. In A. Nadler , T. E. Malloy , & J. D. Fisher (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup reconciliation (pp. 319–344). Oxford University Press.
• Sweetman, J. , Leach, C. W. , Spears, R. , Pratto, F. , & Saab, R. (2013). “I have a dream”: A typology of social change goals. Journal of Social and Political Psychology , 1 (1), 2195–3325.
• Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations . Academic Press.
• Tajfel, H. (1982). Social identity and intergroup relations . Cambridge University Press.
• Tajfel, H. , Billig, M. , Bundy, R. , & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology , 1 (2), 149–178.
• Tajfel, H. , & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.
• Tajfel, H. , & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Nelson Hall.
• Turner, J. , & Brown, R. (1978). Social status, cognitive alternatives and intergroup relations. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups (pp. 201–225). Academic Press.
• Turner, J. C. (1975). Social comparison and social identity: Some prospects for intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology , 5 (1), 5–34.
• 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 context, commitment, content (pp. 6–34). Blackwell.
• Van Knippenberg, A. (1984). Intergroup differences in group perceptions. In H. Tajfel , C. Fraser , & J. M. F. Jaspars (Eds.), The social dimension: European developments in social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 560–578). Cambridge University Press.
• Van Knippenberg, A. , & Ellemers, N. (1990). Social identity and intergroup differentiation processes. European Review of Social Psychology , 1 (1), 137–169.
• Van Knippenberg, A. , & Ellemers, N. (1993). Strategies in intergroup relations. In M. A. Hogg & D. Abrams (Eds.), Group motivation: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 17–32). Harvester/Wheatsheaf.
• Van Knippenberg, A. , & Van Oers, H. (1984). Social identity and equity concerns in intergroup perceptions. British Journal of Social Psychology , 23 (4), 351–361.
• Varkocková, M. (2021). Non-aligned good power? Status enhancement of early post-independence Kazakhstan . Central Asian Survey , December, 1–18.
• Viskupic, F. (2020). More valuable than blood and treasure? Experimental evidence on the impact of status on domestic preferences for military intervention. Peace Economics, Peace Science and Public Policy , 26 (4), 1–20.
• Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics . Addison-Wesley.
• Ward, S. M. (2017). Lost in translation: Social Identity Theory and the study of status in world politics. International Studies Quarterly , 61 (4), 821–834.
• Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics. International Organization , 46 (2), 391–425.
• Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics . Cambridge University Press.
• Wilén, N. (2022). From “peacekept” to peacekeeper: Seeking international status by narrating new identities . Journal of Global Security Studies , 7 (1), 1–18.
• Wohlforth, W. C. (1993). The elusive balance: Power and perceptions during the Cold War . Cornell University Press.
• Wohlforth, W. C. (2009). Unipolarity, status competition, and great power war. World Politics , 61 (1), 28–57.
• Wohlforth, W. C. , de Carvalho, B. , Leira, H. , & Neumann, I. B. (2018). Moral authority and status in international relations: Good states and the social dimension of status seeking. Review of International Studies , 44 (3), 526–546.
• Yang, H. (2016). The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and status-seeking: China’s foray into global economic governance. Chinese Political Science Review , 1 (4), 754–778.

Related Articles

• Conflict, Regions, and Regional Hierarchies
• Regional Politics and Powers: Hierarchy and Comparative Regional Analysis in International Relations
• Political Partisanship as a Social Identity
• Hierarchy and International Relations: Theory and Evidence
• Global Anti-LGBT Politics

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 04 September 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [185.126.86.119]
• 185.126.86.119

Character limit 500 /500

Social Identity Theory Essays

Social psychology assignment, understanding stakeholder conflict management using social identity theory, popular essay topics.

• American Dream
• Artificial Intelligence
• Black Lives Matter
• Bullying Essay
• Career Goals Essay
• Causes of the Civil War
• Child Abusing
• Civil Rights Movement
• Community Service
• Cultural Identity
• Cyber Bullying
• Death Penalty
• Depression Essay
• Domestic Violence
• Freedom of Speech
• Global Warming
• Gun Control
• Human Trafficking
• I Believe Essay
• Immigration
• Importance of Education
• Israel and Palestine Conflict
• Leadership Essay
• Legalizing Marijuanas
• Mental Health
• National Honor Society
• Police Brutality
• Pollution Essay
• Racism Essay
• Romeo and Juliet
• Same Sex Marriages
• Social Media
• The Great Gatsby
• The Yellow Wallpaper
• Time Management
• To Kill a Mockingbird
• Violent Video Games
• What Makes You Unique
• Why I Want to Be a Nurse
• Send us an e-mail