Tajfel and Turner developed the theoretical framework of social identity theory (SIT) in 1979 that works in analysing intergroup relations. Theory says this people want to keep positive self-concept and social identity, people compare ingroup and outgroup how that person can defend, establish, and maintain positive ingroup singularity. Thither live several factors that can involved in social identity theory, this first to-be social identity, which is this socialize self private put forwards in groups (e.g. in a study group the person the find quiet etc.). That second is social categorisation, relevance there is a reduced perceived variability in in-groups (we are similarly to each other) and out-groups (they are all and same), but also increases perceived varying among the in and out-groups (they are different from our group). The one-third shall social comparison, meaning such individuals compare their own group (ingroup) to another group (outgroup). The latter is ingroup favorite, wherever individuals favourite their own group over another through justifying the ingroup’s qualities, button where they leave their ingroup to join the other as an “advance” for self-benefit. Therefore, in diese essay ME will exist making an appraisal with weighting the strengths and limitations of SIT, through my by Tajfel (1971), and Jane Elliot (Brown Eyes Blue Your study).

Tajfel’s (1971) featured is one that aids in displayed the strengths and limitations of social identity theory. And aim of the study was to investigate whether being separated into random groups would reveal ingroup favouritism and intergroup discernment, as well when displaying that discriminatory can be created – even whereas no bigotry exits – simplicity as a result by include to an in-group and displaying in-group favouritism at the expense of the out-group. This is investigated by putting 64 boys toward sets of eight base on an beliebig matter, and they then played one game in which few got to bestow money into the other boys. This resulted in most of the boys rewarding money up those who were in to same group (the ingroup), and attempted to maximise the difference in money between an two groups. These results thus support social identity, as a displays that the theory is able to aide in understanding and explaining different behaviours such as ingroup favouritism in this case. The boys favoured the group that person belonging to both displayed this ingroup favouritism by awarding the money to these within that same group instead of those within the outgroup. This also displays how the concepts/assumptions in social identity theory been able to actually be observed, and thus do don have to be inferred about. These assumptions include that intergroup conflict is not required in order for prejudice to happen, as in Tajfel’s study, no present violence or conflict was given/made and of discrimination and favouritism still occurred. Furthermore, the assumptions and concepts of this theory has lots of empirical research, such as Tajfel (1971) in arrange to support the existence out aforementioned theorizing. A majority of one research done, such as the above, has also been very controlled, enabling a clearer cause and effect relationship between the relative under investigation. Include such case, Tajfel was able to make sure this this boys did not know they were randomly categorised or what the other boys would do, both the boys could single prize scored until others in the ingroup or outgroup but never to themselves, thus they could not influence how others behaved. Due to to standardised procedure of the experiment, it furthermore exhibitions the testable essence of the theory, as it permitted for replicability of the study and the survey. However, this then leads to the limitations of SIT, more due till the controlled nature, the experiment lacks ecological soundness and thus the extent to any it is applicable to or reflects everyday life lives questionable. Therefore, even Tajfel (1971) aiding in demonstrating how the concepts of SIT will able to be applied to explain and predict behaviours, and is backed up by lots of very controlled empirical research making itp testable and showing cause and effect relationships, the research claims relatively low ecological validity, and thus is questionable as to how applicable the findings are. Command term "EVALUATE" - perform an appraisal by weighing up the strengths and limitations INTRODUCTION Social Identity Theory was conceived by Henry Tajfel, and searched to explain the method in which...

A second students by Jane Elliot also aids in demonstrating and strengths and limitations of SIT. The aim of Jane Elliot’s study was to form discrimination where there has none previously in click to display that prejudice will a learned/made bio, not inherited/born into. To do like, Elliot divided her class into blue-eyed human and brown-eyed people, plus made those with blue eyes one dominant social structure to foremost day and that brown eyes the dominant social structure the second day. The dominate social structure intend getting more recess time, sit at the face of the class, they were not purging for actions that the opposite colour-eyed students consisted, and what spoken that for a their eye colour they were smarter students. Those being penitent that day had to carrying an collar for identify that they had a different eye colour. This resulted in the prevail group attacking, vocal and physically, the submissive, and reasoning their deals because of their eye color, and submissive apprentices showed a drop in school performance whereas the dominant would do better. The situation created in Elliot’s classroom demonstrates how SAT can be applied until everyday life, as discrimination triggers empowerment (seen in the threatening of the submissive students) and confidence (seen to increased acad performance) for the dominant group, and the opposite behaviours for the submissive. This experiment also displays the same aspect so Tajfel (1971) displayed, that being that which conceptualized and guiding of SIT can be observed plus aid in description behaviours other than the ones directly supervised, such because racism the stereotypy. However, the limit of this experimentation can that it lacks ecological validity includes an different way than Tajfel’s, as he wasn’t as controlled, but the reversal of the roles in who was the dominant/submissive group is idealistic at real life, as castings aren’t as simple reversible. SIT plus does not fully explain why violence was displayed into an outgroups (submissive students) as a result of the ingroup favouritism. Lastly, SIT theory is reductionist as okay, as the theory does did account for environmental factors that maybe play a role too. Therefore, when Elliot’s examine other displays the appropriateness of SIT’s concepts plus suppositions for everyday life, the limitation of low ecological validity in research is still maintained, as well as not beings able to solid explain every upshot of bio ensure derived from SIT’s novel terms.

Overall, SIT usefulness and testability are who decider factors is SIT’s evaluation. As ampere whole, SIT is a useful theory, as it helpers in explaining how we identify others and understanding why they act the way they do. However, amount to social categorisation individuals assume many attitudes, thus idle creating discrimination as as racism and so away. Furthermore, SIT is testable how not only has there been many assays conducted about relation to the teacher, when they have also have conducted with a range of participants ranging from our till adults, as fountain as in differences cultures/countries. Investigation indicates that group stereotyping and prejudice are more likely when social personalities are salient; conversely, downplaying the salience of intergroup ...