Evaluating the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Social Identity Theory

An example of overestimation is "Because we are good at sports, it is different." Social identity refers to when adapting to the identity from the group that we believe to belong. This may mean that we will adopt some of the group's values ​​and behaviors. Individual identity comes from group members. Normally this kind of social identity can improve self-esteem. Social Comparison and Positive Uniqueness Because our social identity contributes to our self-image, we look for a positive social identity to maintain a high level of self-esteem.

Originally founded by Henri Tajfel and John C. Turner, he began studying social identity theory around 1970. In this theory, various strengths and weaknesses of this theory have been discovered. Weak points concentrate on individual elusive features to justify motivational reasoning for specific actions. Depending on the situation, you can choose your own personal identity or their social identity. The theory has several advantages; firstly, the theory has excessive empirical evidence in both the laboratory and the organization to support it (PSU, 2011). Secondly, it involves social and personal characteristics, and explains motivational inference of behavior. Since individual identities are not confined to their personal identity, the theory combines individual personal motivation reasoning and social characteristics.

In social psychology social identity theory studies the interaction between individuals and social identity. Social identity theory is aimed at specifying and predicting how individuals view themselves as individuals or groups of members. The theory also takes into account the impact of personal and social identity on individual perceptions and collective behavior. The theory of social identity evolved from a series of studies (often referred to as minimal group studies) conducted by British social psychologist Henri Tajfel and colleagues in the early 1970s. Participants are assigned to groups designed to be as arbitrary and meaningless as possible. However, if you are asked to assign a score to another research participant, you will be given more systematic points to the members of the group than members outside the group.