The Social Identity Theory (SIT), first proposed by Tajfel (1979), argues that an individual does not have just one “personal self” but rather several social selves that correspond to group membership. SIT is based on the assumption that groups give us a sense of social identity and that the groups we belong to are an important source of pride and self-esteem. The theory identifies 3 psychological mechanisms involved in creating a social identity – social categorization, social comparison, and the tendency for people to use group membership as a source of self-esteem. Social categorization involves classifying people into groups based on similar, salient characteristics, giving rise to in-group (us) and out-group (them). This may result in in-group favoritism, which is the general preference for members of our in-group, and out-group discrimination, the tendency to dislike members of a group that we don’t identify with. The minimal group paradigm, established by Tajfel, suggests that the minimal conditions may lead to discrimination between groups due to in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination. Social comparison is the benefits of belonging to the in-group versus the out-group, which may lead to positive distinctiveness – our need for a positive self-concept will result in a bias in intergroup comparisons so that we feel more positive toward any representations of our group. This response will discuss the SIT with regard to Sherif et al. (1954).

Sherif et al. (1954) have shown that intergroup conflict and hostility can arise from categorizing individuals into separate groups leading to the formation of distinct social identities. The study aimed to study informal groups and observe the natural development of group organization, attitudes, and group norms. Specifically, the study examined the “realistic conflict theory”, which assumes that positively independent groups which work toward common goals will have good intergroup relations and vice versa. The study involved boys aged 11-12 as the participants, who were white, protestant, and middle-class homes. Researchers conducted a covert field experiment, deceiving the participants that they had joined a summer camp and randomly allocating them into two groups. The two groups were separated and played activities to form a group bond and create an identity. After participants established group identities, the researchers introduced conflict through games that involved competition for scarce resources – in both cases, solidarity increased within the group, and hostility towards the other group rose. Then, participants were asked to list the features of the two groups. Participants tended to characterize their in-group in favorable terms, whereas described the out-group in unfavorable terms. Finally, researchers introduced super-ordinate goals by creating cooperative situations where both groups had to work towards a common goal. Consequently, this eased the tension between the groups, and the negative ratings of the other group lessened.

Sherif et al. (1954) support the SIT as it shows how group identities, which are created by social categorization, and fighting for resources may lead to intergroup conflicts and negative intergroup attitudes: in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination. Simultaneously, Sherif et al. (1954) demonstrate how a super-ordinate goal for both groups can reduce the intergroup hostility.