I started studying psychology in 2003 after a gap year mostly travelling around Australia, where I now reside, lucky country, lucky me! I fell pregnant with my first child in 2005 and so my studies went on hold for a few years (15 years but who’s counting?), until in covid lockdown when I picked up the books again, there was something good that came out of lockdown after all. I wouldn’t change a thing, I enjoyed bringing up my two clever, beautiful, adaptable offspring.  Obviously not every day was perfect, parenthood is anything but, it is very similar to studying; a learning curve, sometimes you get a distinction, some of the time it’s a pass or a credit and you have to just keep improving, hoping you’re on the right track and that your interpretation of the results is correct, or at least plausible.

Just like many journeys of study there were no straight lines to the end of my degree although I began my Bachelor of Psychological Sciences at the University of East London, it’s certainly not where I finished, not the same country, continent, hemisphere or decade! Social Psychology and Social Identity Theory was an interesting semester;

Social Identity theory was hypothesised and continually examined by Tajfel & Turner (1979). The theory that we as social beings have the need to belong in groups; be it a sporting group or an educational group or perhaps a cultural group, this feeling of belonging supports our self-esteem and pride. The flip side of this grouping is that we adopt a ‘them and us’ mentality, whether that be the other side in a footie game or another culture, or people with opposite beliefs to our own. We create a divide and exaggerate the differences between the groups and similarities within our own groups to facilitate a sense of belonging. The in-group manifests favoritism to itself and a negative bias to the out group (Robinson, 1981).

Tajfel’s experiments time and time again provided evidence that when creating groups and asking these groups to reward other individuals, the subjects would always prefer to reward those in their own group rather than those in the outer group.

There are some related theoretical principles that can be developed further from Tajfel’s original theory. One such theory would be that individuals strive to keep a positive social identity, (being part of the IT crowd). Positive social identity is largely created by comparisons between the in group and the out group and that when one’s social identity is unsatisfactory the individual will either try to make their existing group more distinct from other groups, leave the in group or join another group (Hatch & Schultz, 2004).

Identity Process Theory (Breakwell, 1986) explores how our self-concept is defined by
content and value/affect dimensions: content is added through experience and the content is valued on a spectrum from positive to negative and how this is internalized which affects our external actions. Breakwell discovered four identity principles: continuity across time and situation, distinctiveness from others, self-efficacy and self-esteem. Breakwells theory continually acknowledges the role of how social representations determine an individuals identity components. In this respect Identity Process Theory can be described as a social constructivist model.

Although it is very difficult to argue with Tajfel’s Social Identity Theory as all of us have
experienced the in group and the out group, it tends to focus on the negative rather than the positive. The theory doesn’t look deep enough into the individual’s identity and self. Breakwells research into identity and the way we react socially gives a much broader, wholistic approach, is much more informative and makes Tajfel and Turner’s experiments and theory seem dated in comparison.

Interestingly in further research (and definitely not what my lecturers wanted included in my essay, but I was never one to follow the rules!) I discovered that in the late 1990’s in a set of interviews with former students and colleagues it emerged that Henri Tajfel had asserted unwanted sexual attention to the women around him, (Young & Hegarty, 2020). Although this does not eliminate the years of research and development he undertook in the field of social psychology it seems slightly ironic that whilst professing the in group and out group dynamics he was taking full advantage of his superior placement, being part of the ‘in group’ of male scholars.