Describe 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 “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of social identity theory in relation to one relevant study.

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

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

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

• Abrams’s (1990) study on the role of social identity on levels of conformity
• Cialdini et al.’s (1976) "Basking in Reflected Glory" study
• Drury et al.’s (2009) study of helping behaviour
• Levine’s (2005) study of helping behaviour
• Tajfel’s studies on social groups and identities
• Sherif et al.’s (1961) "Robbers Cave" study

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

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

If a candidate only describes an appropriate study without describing social identity theory, up to a maximum of [4] should be awarded.

SL:

There were many good responses to this question. The majority of candidates were able to provide a detailed description of social identity theory (SIT)and its component parts. There was also a wide variety of appropriate research described, with many responses focusing on Tajfel's Minimal Group Paradigm experiments.

Stronger responses described the aims and procedures well, clearly linking the study back to SIT. There were a noticeable amount of candidates who mistakenly described Social Cognitive Theory, incorrectly using Bandura's Bobo Doll study as an example of research. 

HL:

There were many strong, well-detailed descriptions of social identity theory. There were also many candidates who simply listed several relevant terms without demonstrating understanding of their meaning.

Many candidates described Tajfel's (1970) study; however, some candidates struggled to clearly and accurately outline the procedure and findings of the study.