Evaluate social identity theory, with reference to one or more studies.

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

The command term “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal by weighing up the strengths and limitations of social identity theory. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.

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).

Evaluation may include, but is not limited to:

• the effectiveness of the theory in explaining behaviour
• the productivity of the theory in generating psychological research
• methodological, cultural and gender considerations
• contrary findings or explanations
• applications of the theory.

If the candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion D: critical thinking. 

HL - There were some strong responses to this question; however, many candidates evaluated relevant research, rather than actually evaluating Social Identity Theory (SIT).

There were some difficulties in applying research to address the question. Many candidates struggled to write a coherent summary of Tajfel’s research. There were many incorrect claims regarding conflict in the original study. Candidates who wrote about Sherif often focused on conflict resolution and Realistic Conflict Theory, rather than on SIT. Candidates also were often not able to make a valid link between Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison study and SIT. Some candidates used Jane Elliot’s classroom experience as research; this is not acceptable as research.

Critical thinking was often limited to generalizability and ecological validity. This was a superficial approach to the question. Strong responses discussed the applications of the theory, measurement of the constructs of self-esteem and salience, or research that challenges the minimum group paradigm.

SL - The vast majority of responses in this question did not evaluate Social Identity Theory (SIT) as required and merely described research supporting the theory. Many candidates showed an impressive grasp of the fundamental concepts constituting the theory and went into detail describing aspects such as social categorization, social comparison, social identification and positive distinctiveness.

A common flaw with responses was in candidates’ application of the research to the question. Tajfel and Turner’s research was not described well and both experiments contained errors. Sherif’s research was described with regards to Realistic Conflict Theory and the links to SIT were not explicit. Some responses discussed Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment, Bandura’s Bobo Doll study and Jane Elliot’s A Class Divided which are not appropriate examples. Asch’s study was also occasionally used in an attempt to link conformity to SIT.