Outline social identity theory with reference to one relevant study.

Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.

The command term “outline” requires candidates to give a brief account or summary of social identity theory in relation to one relevant study.

Responses should identify the key concepts of social identity theory which include, but are not limited to:

• social categorization (in-group/out-group)
• social comparison
• positive in-group distinctiveness.

Studies related to social identity theory may include but are not limited to:

• Tajfel’s studies on social groups and identities
• Sherif et al.’s Robbers Cave study (1961)
• Cialdini et al.’s Basking in Reflected Glory study (1976)
• Abrams’s study of the role of social identity on levels of conformity (1990)
• Maass’s study of the role of social identity on violence (2003).

If a candidate refers to more than one study, credit should be given only to the first study described.

If a candidate outlines social identity theory without reference to a relevant study, up to a maximum of [5] should be awarded.

If a candidate only describes a study related to social identity theory but does not outline the theory, up to a maximum of [4] should be awarded.

HL - Most candidates were able to demonstrate some understanding of social identity theory (SIT) and include a relevant study as support. However, outlines of the theory were sometimes very limited and simply addressed the formation of in-groups and out-groups. The study details often lacked detail especially in terms of the results of the study and weaker candidates struggled to show how the study was relevant to the theory. Stronger responses were successful in outlining the key features of SIT and using a relevant and well-described study to exemplify those features. Several candidates confused social cognitive theory with SIT so gained no marks or were unable to gain many marks as they chose to use irrelevant studies such as Pavlov's classical conditioning study or Seligman's study on learned helplessness to support their response.

SL - Most candidates were able to demonstrate some understanding of social identity theory (SIT) and include a relevant study as support. The stronger candidates were successful in outlining the key features of SIT and using a relevant and well-described study to exemplify those features: Tajfel (1971), Sherif (1961), and Cialdini (1976) provided the best answers.

However, outlines of the theory were sometimes very limited and simply addressed the formation of ingroups and out-groups. The study often lacked detail especially in terms of the results and weaker candidates struggled to show how the study was relevant to the theory. Several candidates confused social learning theory with SIT so gained limited marks as they chose irrelevant studies such as Bandura to support their response.

Studies on conformity such as Zimbardo also appeared as a popular choice, again this rarely gained marks as little or no link was made to SIT.