Evaluate social identity theory with reference to relevant studies.

The social identity theory states that individuals attempt to boost

self-esteem by raising their own personal identity or a group
identity. An example would be becoming a part of a successful or
popular group for group identity, and gaining a personal
achievement for personal identity. A group identity is based on
social categorization, where a person who has been placed in a
group demonstrates in-group and out-group behavior. This behavior
would be in-group bias and favoritism. Once this in-group has
elevated a persons self esteem, they then boost their social identity
by comparing it with the out-group.
In order to explain the social identity theory, two studies will be
used. The studies are Tajfel et al. 1970, and Zimbardos Stanford
prison experiment (1973).
In Tajfels experiment, there were forty-eight boys who were told to
choose between paintings from Kandinsky and Klee. They were then
told that they were put into groups according to their preference,
when it had actually been done at random. This establishes the ingroup and out-group for each individual. They were then asked to
give virtual money to members of the in-group and out-group. The
two variables were that they could either select the choice that
would maximize profit for the in-group, or maximize the difference
between the in-group and out-group. The results found that the boys
chose to maximize the difference between the groups and would
only choose to maximize profit for their own group when it was
higher than that of the out-group.
Tajfels experiment supports the social identity theory because it
showcases in-group bias because of a group identity. The boys were
competitive because of the will to have a higher score and therefore
raise their groups collective self-esteem. As this was a lab
experiment, the variables were controlled and rich information could
be obtained. It can be used to determine the cause and effect
relationship of in-group and out-group bias. Still, the experiment has
a few limitations. The experiment consisted of only boys, and since
they were from the same school, it was ethnocentric. Additionally,
because it was not done in a naturalistic setting, the study is not
ecologically valid.
The Stanford prison experiment aims to prove that situational
factors can affect behavior. Twenty-two male subjects were selected
after mental, social and maturity evaluations. They were then
randomly given the task to be a warden or a prisoner. The prisoners
signed a consent form stating that they would be stripped of their
human rights for fourteen days for fifteen dollars a day for two
weeks. They were then arrested by the people roleplaying as

wardens and were asked to strip naked and change into a prisoners
uniform at a predetermined jail set. They were required to stay in jail
for 24 hours a day until the consent was over. The wardens on the
other hand, were given a wardens uniform and were expected to
work 8 hours a day with no instructions. They were expected to
maintain order but the use of violence was disallowed. In the end,
the experiment was terminated prematurely because the effects
were detrimental towards the participants. The prisoners acted
depressed and dependence. They had fits of rage and emotional
outbursts. The experimenters had determined the cause to be the
erosion of personal identity, as they had blended into the group
identity of prisoners and were conforming to that. The wardens
too had displayed a vast change because of group identity. They had
abused their power and dehumanized the prisoners, while working
overtime without demanding for additional pay. Although not all the
wardens had acted aggressively, those who hadnt did not stop
those who had. This shows an in-group bias, because although it
was infringing on moral rights, they did not appose. This supports
the social identity theory because of the social categorization into
two groups, and the group identities that were formed because of
that.
This experiment was good in a sense that a lab experiment could
yield rich results and all the variables could be controlled. However,
there were some major drawbacks to the experiment. There was
extremely low ecological validity, and it was ethnocentric because of
the sample used. The most significant drawback was that of the
ethical considerations. Although participants were aware that they
had no human rights, they were not informed of the clear purpose
and methodology of the experiment. Additionally, aggression was
observed in wardens, whereas depression was observed in
prisoners. This can be considered as mentally detrimental because
of the unmeasured long-term effect it may have on an individual.
On the whole, social identity theory can be considered as a valid
way of describing human behavior, but has certain drawbacks that
cannot be solved. The social identity theory creates a set framework
for how people display favoritism and prejudice. These drawbacks
include the fact that at times, personal identity can overpower that
of the social identity, and lead to no in-group and out-group
favoritism. Additionally, the social identity theory can only describe,
but not predict how individuals may react to a situation.