Social Identity Theory largely ignored emotion despite defining it in

Evidence

Around the same time (the late 1960s and early 1970s) another approach emerged, originally in Europe. Inspired by Henri Tajfel (Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, & Flament, 1971), Social Identity Theory has spawned its own descendants and variants, including self-categorization theory (Turner et al., 1987). But in all versions, the emphasis is on the effects of social context – specifically, important and salient group memberships – on the ways people think, feel, and act toward themselves and others. Both laboratory studies using temporary groups and real-world investigations of live, interacting social groups generated broad support for Social Identity Theory’s predictions (see Brown & Zagefka, ch. 4 this volume). This tradition has produced tremendous insights into the ways that group membership shapes perceptions and actions toward other people. In fact, its key tenets are reminiscent of Allport’s ideas about the psychological benefits of seeking “an island of security” distinct from outgroups. However, although Tajfel’s original definition of social identity included a reference to the “emotional significance” of group membership, emotions received relatively little emphasis in the research generated by Social Identity Theory. — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 2252

Categorization

• XREF: Ties Social Identity Theory back to Allport’s ‘island of security’ concept, an echo worth noting given this book is an Allport retrospective. — connects to: Rationalist social science systematically demotes affect in identity formation. — Ernesto Laclau, On Populist Reason, 448