Social Identification

Abstract

Social identification is a form of social behavior: the process by which a person comes to define part of the self through membership in a group, so that we joins I as a unit of self-description. Its home is the social identity approach, built from Tajfel and Turner's social identity theory and Turner's self-categorization theory. The founding discovery was that mere categorization into an arbitrary in-group is enough to produce favouritism toward one's own side, the minimal-group effect. From there the approach explains in-group bias, discrimination, group cohesion, and conformity as consequences of a shift in self-definition from the personal to the collective level. This article covers what social identification is, the theories that frame it, Brewer's optimal-distinctiveness account of why people identify, the neuroscience of in-group bias, and the modern social-cure work, with three interactive demonstrations.

Keywords: social identification, social identity theory, self-categorization, minimal group

Ask people who they are and the answers divide into two kinds. Some are personal — traits, tastes, a particular history that no one else quite shares. Others are collective: a nationality, a profession, a team, a faith. Social identification is the name for that second kind of self-knowledge and for the process that produces it — the step by which a social category stops being a label other people apply and becomes part of how a person understands and feels about themselves. It is the psychological hinge between the individual and the group.

The study of social identification began with a result its own authors found surprising. Trying to establish a baseline condition in which group membership should not matter — strangers sorted into meaningless groups by the toss of a coin — Tajfel's team found that it mattered anyway. People handed the barest possible group membership still favoured their own side. Explaining why a classification with no stakes could reorganise behaviour became the project of a whole research tradition, and the answer it reached — that identifying with a group changes the self rather than merely the situation — reaches well beyond the laboratory into prejudice, politics, organisations, and health.

What Social Identification Is

Social identification is the process through which a person internalises membership in a social group as part of the self-concept. The outcome of that process is a social identity — in Tajfel's definition, that part of an individual's self-concept which derives from knowledge of their membership in a social group together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Identification is therefore not simply knowing that one belongs to a category; it is caring about it, and letting it inform how one sees and evaluates oneself.

The central theoretical move is a distinction between two levels of the self. At the personal level the self is defined by idiosyncratic attributes — I am curious, impatient, left-handed. At the collective or social level the self is defined by shared category membership — we are psychologists, Europeans, supporters of this team. Social identification is the engagement of the second level: the moment group membership becomes self-defining, a person's thoughts, feelings, and actions are governed less by personal idiosyncrasy and more by what the group stands for (Turner et al., 1987). This is why identification matters theoretically — it is the switch that turns an aggregate of individuals into a psychological group.

A social identity, so defined, has a cognitive component (knowing one belongs), an evaluative component (the group's worth, positive or negative), and an emotional component (the feeling invested in belonging). Because the evaluative component is comparative — a group's standing is known only relative to other groups — social identification carries an in-built pressure toward favourable comparison, and that pressure is the engine of much of what the theory goes on to explain (Ellemers et al., 2002).

Social Identity Theory and the Minimal Group

Social identity theory grew out of an experimental surprise. Seeking a control condition — the minimal possible basis for group membership, against which the effects of real group ties could be measured — Tajfel and colleagues assigned British schoolboys to two groups on a trivial or random basis: an ostensible preference for one of two painters, or the toss of a coin dressed up as an estimation style. The groups had no history, the members never met, the categories meant nothing, and no one stood to gain personally. Asked only to allocate points to anonymous others identified solely by group, the boys consistently favoured their own group (Tajfel et al., 1971). The baseline condition had produced the very effect it was meant to rule out.

More revealing than the favouritism itself was its shape. Given a choice between a strategy that maximised the absolute payoff to their own group and one that maximised the difference between the groups — even at the cost of giving their own side less in absolute terms — participants were pulled toward maximum differentiation. The goal was not to enrich the in-group but to make it win, to achieve positive distinctiveness relative to the out-group. Discrimination, on this evidence, is not fundamentally about material gain; it is about securing a favourable comparison for a group one identifies with.

From this Tajfel and Turner built social identity theory on three linked assumptions (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). First, people strive for a positive self-concept. Second, part of the self-concept is social, deriving from group memberships, so a positive self-concept requires groups that compare favourably with others. Third, people therefore seek positive distinctiveness for their in-groups through intergroup comparison. When a group's standing is unsatisfactory, members may pursue one of several identity-management strategies — individual mobility (leaving the group), social creativity (comparing on a different dimension, or revaluing a devalued attribute), or social competition (direct challenge to the higher-status group) — the choice depending on whether group boundaries seem permeable and the status hierarchy legitimate and stable (Ellemers et al., 2002). The theory thus linked a cognitive fact about the self to the full range of intergroup behaviour, from assimilation to collective protest. Its historical development and its relationship to the later self-categorization theory are traced in Hornsey's review (Hornsey, 2008).

Self-Categorization Theory

Where social identity theory explained why group membership drives intergroup behaviour, self-categorization theory explained how a person comes to act as a group member in the first place (Turner et al., 1987). Its starting point is that the self is not a fixed structure but a set of self-categorizations that vary in inclusiveness — from the subordinate (me as an individual) to the intermediate (us as members of a group) to the superordinate (we as human beings). Which level is active at a given moment is not fixed; it depends on the context.

The theory's key construct is salience: the process by which a particular self-categorization becomes the one that is psychologically operative. A social identity becomes salient when it best fits the comparative context, captured by the meta-contrast ratio — a categorisation is more salient the larger the average difference between categories relative to the average difference within a category. Among a crowd of rival supporters, the difference between fan groups dwarfs the differences within them, so the group identity fits and becomes salient; among one's own friends, personal differences dominate and the personal self comes to the fore. When a social identity is salient, the person undergoes depersonalization — perceiving and treating the self not as a unique individual but as an interchangeable exemplar of the group, assimilating to the group prototype, the position that best captures what the in-group has in common and what distinguishes it from relevant out-groups.

Depersonalization is the mechanism that makes group phenomena psychologically real. Because salient group members define themselves by the shared prototype, they expect to agree with fellow members and treat that agreement as evidence about reality — which is why shared identity, not blind submission, underlies social conformity and influence (Turner et al., 1987). The same mechanism accounts for group cohesion, cooperation, and the capacity of a collection of strangers to act as one. Later work extended the account to how shared identity is actively negotiated in interaction, not merely switched on by context, in an interactive model of social-identity formation (Postmes et al., 2005), and applied it to organisational life, where identification with a team or firm shapes commitment, cooperation, and leadership (Hogg & Terry, 2000). A synthesis of the combined social-identity approach is given by Reicher and colleagues (Reicher et al., 2010).

Why People Identify: Optimal Distinctiveness and Uncertainty

Social identity theory originally carried a self-esteem hypothesis: that people identify with groups, and favour the in-group, to raise or protect self-esteem. Abrams and Hogg showed the assumption was too narrow — the predicted effects are inconsistent, the direction of causation is unclear, and some people identify most strongly with low-status or stigmatised groups (Abrams & Hogg, 1988). Two accounts filled the gap by specifying what identification actually does for the person.

Marilynn Brewer's optimal distinctiveness theory models identification as the resolution of two opposing social needs: a need for inclusion or assimilation, satisfied by belonging to a larger collective, and a competing need for differentiation, satisfied by being distinct from others (Brewer, 1991). The two needs pull in opposite directions as a group grows more inclusive: a very large, all-encompassing category satisfies belonging but starves distinctiveness, while a very small, exclusive one does the reverse. People identify most strongly, Brewer argued, with groups at the point of optimal distinctiveness — inclusive enough to provide belonging, distinctive enough to mark the self off from the wider field. The theory explains why moderately sized, clearly bounded groups command the firmest loyalty, and why threats to a group's distinctiveness, not just its status, provoke defence of the identity.

A second account locates the motive in uncertainty reduction. Michael Hogg's uncertainty-identity theory holds that identifying with a group and conforming to its prototype resolves uncertainty about who one is and how one should think and act — the clearer and more distinctive the group, the more effectively it does so. This explains why conditions of self-uncertainty intensify identification and can drive people toward highly distinctive, tightly structured, even extreme groups (Hogg & Terry, 2000). Together the two accounts reframe identification as serving fundamental needs for belonging, distinctiveness, and certainty, and recent work folds these into a broader claim that social identities satisfy a range of psychological needs (Greenaway et al., 2016).

Table 1. The social-identity approach: its two theories and two motivational accounts.

In-Group Bias and the Social Brain

The behavioural core of social identification is in-group bias: the tendency to evaluate, trust, reward, and empathise with in-group members more than out-group members. The minimal-group studies showed that this bias needs no realistic conflict to arise, and a large literature has since mapped its reach — from biased allocation and evaluation to differential helping and the attribution of more complex humanity to the in-group. Importantly, in-group bias is primarily in-group love rather than out-group hate: the default effect of identification is enhanced positivity toward one's own group, and overt hostility toward out-groups is a separable, less automatic step (Brewer, 1991).

This bias has a measurable neural signature. Reviews of the social neuroscience of in-group bias find that merely assigning people to groups — even minimal, arbitrary ones — modulates activity in regions tied to reward, face processing, and empathy: in-group faces recruit stronger activity in reward and recognition circuitry, and watching an in-group member's pain elicits a larger empathic response than the same pain in an out-group member (Molenberghs, 2013). The effect appears rapidly and flexibly, tracking whichever categorisation is currently salient rather than any fixed set of groups — a neural echo of self-categorization theory's claim that identity is context-dependent.

At the extreme, identification can fuse with the self so completely that the boundary between personal and social identity dissolves. Identity fusion describes a visceral, irreversible sense of oneness with a group in which personal and social identities reinforce rather than trade off against each other, a state that predicts extreme pro-group behaviour including willingness to fight and die for the group (Swann et al., 2012). Fusion marks one end of a continuum of identification whose milder forms appear in everyday loyalty to teams, institutions, and nations.

Demo 1 — Minimal Group Allocator

A Tajfel allocation matrix. You divide points between one anonymous in-group member and one out-group member by choosing a column. Three strategies pull in different directions: maximum in-group profit and maximum joint profit both favour the right end, while maximum difference — making your group win — favours the left, even though it gives the in-group far fewer points. The minimal-group studies found people pulled toward that difference.

Choosing maximum difference (column 0) gives the in-group only 7 points — 12 fewer than the 19 available at maximum in-group profit — purely to widen the gap over the out-group. Positive distinctiveness, not gain, is the goal.

Demo 2 — Self-Categorization Explorer

Four people hold positions on an attitude scale. Self-categorization theory says whichever grouping has the higher meta-contrast ratio — bigger differences between groups than within them — becomes psychologically salient. Move the four people and switch the candidate grouping; the ratio decides, and the same four individuals form a group under one frame but not another.

At the worked-example positions {2, 3, 8, 9}, Grouping A yields MCR 6.00 (salient) and Grouping B yields MCR 0.58 (not salient): salience is a property of the comparative context, not of the people.

Demo 3 — Optimal Distinctiveness

Brewer's account of why people identify. Belonging is best served by large, inclusive groups (rising line); distinctiveness by small, exclusive ones (falling line). Identification peaks where the two needs are balanced — the point of optimal distinctiveness. Raise the differentiation need and the preferred group shrinks.

Belonging 0.50, distinctiveness 0.50. The current group is at the optimum; identification is 100% of its peak, which falls at inclusiveness x* = 0.50. A stronger differentiation need (higher k) moves that optimum toward smaller, more exclusive groups.

Worked Example

Self-categorization theory's claim that identity salience depends on context can be made quantitative through the meta-contrast ratio, which the second demonstration computes directly. For a candidate grouping, the ratio is the mean perceived difference between members of different categories divided by the mean perceived difference between members of the same category:

MCR = (mean between-category difference) / (mean within-category difference)

A categorisation becomes salient when this ratio is high — when people in different groups look very different from each other relative to how different people within a group look. Consider four people rated on a single attitude dimension from 0 to 10. Suppose a stadium context sorts them into two fan groups, A = {2, 3} and B = {8, 9}.

The within-category differences are the gaps among same-group members: |2−3| = 1 for group A and |8−9| = 1 for group B, a mean of 1.0. The between-category differences are the gaps across the groups: |2−8|, |2−9|, |3−8|, |3−9| = 6, 7, 5, 6, a mean of 6.0. The meta-contrast ratio is 6.0 / 1.0 = 6.0 — far above 1, so the fan-group categorisation fits the data well and becomes salient; the four people perceive themselves as two groups, and depersonalization follows.

Now change the context to a friendly gathering where the same four sort by a different attitude into pairs C = {2, 8} and D = {3, 9}. Within-category differences are now |2−8| = 6 and |3−9| = 6, mean 6.0; between-category differences are |2−3|, |2−9|, |8−3|, |8−9| = 1, 7, 5, 1, mean 3.5. The ratio is 3.5 / 6.0 = 0.58 — below 1, so this grouping does not fit, and that categorisation fails to become salient. The identical four individuals constitute a salient group under one comparative frame and not under another: salience is a property of the context, not of the people, which is the theory's central claim. (All six differences and both ratios are recomputed in the demo's own code, so the control and the prose always agree.)

Discussion

Social identification matters to cognitive psychology because it specifies how the social world enters the self. The self-concept is not only a store of personal attributes; it is partly built from group memberships, and when a group membership is active it reorganises perception, evaluation, and action around the category rather than the individual. This makes social identification a bridge between social cognition and intergroup behaviour: the same depersonalization that lets a person think of themselves as we also lets them apply a group stereotype to themselves and to others, and tilts attitudes and social perception along group lines.

The approach's explanatory reach is its chief strength. A single construct — the shift from personal to social identity — connects phenomena that earlier theories treated separately: prejudice and discrimination, group cohesion and cooperation, conformity and leadership, collective protest and crowd behaviour. It reframes each as a consequence of people acting in terms of a shared identity rather than as isolated individuals. This is also why the social-identity approach became one of the dominant frameworks in social psychology, and why it continues to generate research across organisational, political, and clinical domains (Reicher et al., 2010; Scheepers & Ellemers, 2019).

Two cautions keep the topic honest. First, the self-esteem hypothesis that originally motivated the theory is not well supported: identification serves belonging, distinctiveness, and certainty more reliably than it raises self-regard, and the field has largely moved on from the simple self-esteem account. Second, identification is a matter of degree and kind, not an on-off switch — people hold many group memberships of differing strength and character, and the determinants of when a given identity governs behaviour, and how strongly, remain central research questions (Ellemers et al., 2002).

Current Directions

The most prominent contemporary application treats shared social identity as a resource for health and well-being — the social cure, first set out as an applied agenda by Haslam and colleagues (Haslam et al., 2009). On this view, belonging to valued groups, and holding several such memberships, protects mental and physical health by providing meaning, support, and a sense of control, while identity loss (through retirement, migration, or illness) carries a corresponding cost (Jetten et al., 2017). The programme has produced evidence that group-based interventions reduce depression and ease major life transitions, and that the benefit flows specifically through identification rather than mere social contact (Cruwys et al., 2014). A complementary strand argues that social identities promote well-being because they satisfy fundamental psychological needs for belonging, meaning, control, and self-esteem at the group level (Greenaway et al., 2016).

A second active front applies social identification to political cognition. The partisan-brain model treats political allegiance as a social identity, arguing that identity-based motivations bias how people seek, evaluate, and remember political information, so that partisans process the same evidence differently depending on which side it favours (Van Bavel & Pereira, 2018). This reframes political polarisation and resistance to correction as products of identity maintenance rather than simple misinformation, and connects the classic minimal-group finding to one of the most consequential problems in contemporary public life. Across both fronts the modern work shares a method — measuring identification precisely and testing its causal consequences — that distinguishes it from the broad theorising of the field's early decades (Scheepers & Ellemers, 2019).

Common Misconceptions

In-group favouritism requires real conflict or competition over resources.

The minimal-group experiments showed the opposite: categorisation into arbitrary groups with no conflict, contact, or self-interest is sufficient to produce favouritism. Realistic competition can intensify bias, but it is not necessary for it to appear (Tajfel et al., 1971).

In-group bias is the same thing as hostility toward out-groups.

Identification primarily produces enhanced positivity toward the in-group — in-group love — which is separable from and does not entail out-group hate. Discrimination in the minimal-group paradigm takes the form of favouring one's own group, not harming the other (Brewer, 1991).

People identify with groups mainly to boost their self-esteem.

The self-esteem hypothesis is only weakly supported. Identification serves needs for belonging, distinctiveness, and uncertainty reduction, which is why people identify strongly with low-status and stigmatised groups that confer no esteem advantage (Brewer, 1991; Ellemers et al., 2002).

Which group identity governs a person's behaviour is fixed.

Self-categorization theory holds that identity salience is context-dependent: the same person acts in terms of different identities depending on the comparative frame, as the meta-contrast principle predicts. Identity is a flexible, situated process, not a fixed trait (Turner et al., 1987).

Key Researchers

Marilynn B. Brewer

(The Ohio State University). Proposed optimal distinctiveness theory, explaining social identification as a balance between the need to belong and the need to be distinct, and contributed foundational work on in-group identification and the in-group-love basis of bias. Wikipedia · Wikidata · ORCID

Naomi Ellemers

(Utrecht University). Mapped the conditions under which people maintain, defend, or abandon a group identity, clarifying how commitment, status, and the permeability of group boundaries shape identity-management strategies. ORCID · Wikipedia · Wikidata

S. Alexander Haslam

(University of Queensland). Led the social-identity approach to health and organisational life, showing that shared group membership is a psychological resource for well-being, resilience, and effective leadership. ORCID · Wikipedia · Wikidata

Michael A. Hogg

(Claremont Graduate University). Extended self-categorization theory with the uncertainty-identity account of why people identify with groups, and applied social identity to organisational contexts, leadership, and group cohesion. ORCID · Wikipedia · Wikidata

Jolanda Jetten

(University of Queensland). Developed the social-cure research programme, showing that belonging to valued groups protects mental and physical health, and studied how multiple group memberships support adjustment to life transitions. ORCID · Wikipedia · Wikidata

Henri Tajfel

(University of Bristol; 1919–1982). Founded social identity theory and devised the minimal-group experiments, showing that mere categorisation into an in-group is enough to produce intergroup discrimination, and argued that part of the self-concept derives from group membership. Wikipedia · Wikidata

John C. Turner

(Australian National University; 1947–2011). Co-authored social identity theory with Tajfel and developed self-categorization theory, formalising how people come to define themselves at the group level and how shared identity underlies social influence. Wikipedia · Wikidata

Glossary

Collective self.

The level of the self-concept defined by shared group membership (we), as opposed to the personal self defined by individual attributes.

Depersonalization.

The process by which a person, when a social identity is salient, perceives and treats the self as an interchangeable exemplar of the group rather than as a unique individual.

Identity fusion.

A visceral sense of oneness with a group in which personal and social identities reinforce one another, predicting extreme pro-group action.

In-group bias.

The tendency to evaluate, trust, reward, and empathise with members of one's own group more than members of other groups.

Meta-contrast ratio.

The mean between-category difference divided by the mean within-category difference; a categorisation becomes salient when this ratio is high.

Minimal group paradigm.

An experimental method assigning people to arbitrary groups with no history, contact, or self-interest, used to isolate the effect of categorisation alone.

Optimal distinctiveness.

The point at which a group's inclusiveness best balances the opposing needs for belonging and for distinctiveness, where identification is strongest.

Positive distinctiveness.

A favourable comparison of the in-group against relevant out-groups, which members seek in order to maintain a positive social identity.

Prototype.

The position that best captures what in-group members share and what distinguishes them from relevant out-groups; salient members assimilate toward it.

Salience.

The process by which a particular self-categorization becomes psychologically operative in a given context, as a function of fit and accessibility.

Self-categorization theory.

Turner's theory of how the self is categorised at varying levels of inclusiveness, and how a salient group identity produces depersonalization and group behaviour.

Social cure.

The finding that belonging to valued social groups protects mental and physical health by supplying support, meaning, and a sense of control.

Social identity theory.

Tajfel and Turner's theory that people seek positive distinctiveness for in-groups through intergroup comparison in order to maintain a positive social identity.

Social identity.

The part of the self-concept that derives from membership in a social group, together with the value and emotional significance attached to it.

Uncertainty-identity theory.

Hogg's account that identifying with a clear, distinctive group reduces uncertainty about who one is and how one should think and act.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is social identification?

Social identification is the process by which a person comes to define part of the self through membership in a social group, so that the group becomes self-defining. Its product is a social identity: the part of the self-concept that derives from group membership together with the value and feeling attached to it. It is a basic form of social behavior that links the individual to the group.

What is the difference between social identity and personal identity?

Personal identity is the self defined by idiosyncratic attributes: traits, tastes, a particular history (I). Social identity is the self defined by shared group membership (we). Self-categorization theory holds that these are different levels of the same self-concept, and that which one governs behaviour depends on the context.

What did the minimal-group experiments show?

Tajfel and colleagues assigned people to arbitrary groups with no history, contact, or self-interest, then had them allocate points to anonymous others. Participants consistently favoured their own group and were pulled toward maximising the difference between groups. This showed that categorisation alone is sufficient to produce in-group favouritism.

What is the difference between social identity theory and self-categorization theory?

Social identity theory explains why group membership drives intergroup behaviour: people seek positive distinctiveness for in-groups to maintain a positive self-concept. Self-categorization theory explains how a person comes to act as a group member, through context-dependent salience of a self-categorization and the depersonalization that follows. The two together form the social-identity approach.

Does in-group bias mean hostility toward other groups?

Not necessarily. Identification primarily produces in-group love (enhanced positivity toward one's own group), which is separable from out-group hate. In the minimal-group paradigm, discrimination takes the form of favouring the in-group rather than harming the out-group; overt hostility is a further, less automatic step.

Why do people identify with groups at all?

Several needs are served. Optimal distinctiveness theory points to a balance between belonging and being distinct; uncertainty-identity theory points to the reduction of uncertainty about who one is; and recent work adds needs for meaning, control, and self-esteem. The original self-esteem-only account is only weakly supported.

What is the social cure?

The social cure is the finding that belonging to valued social groups, and holding several such memberships, protects mental and physical health. Shared identity supplies support, meaning, and a sense of control, so that group-based interventions can reduce depression and ease major life transitions, while identity loss carries a health cost.

How does social identification relate to prejudice?

Social identification supplies the motivational and cognitive basis for prejudice: the drive for positive distinctiveness pushes members to favour the in-group, and depersonalization lets group stereotypes be applied wholesale. Prejudice is thus reframed as a consequence of ordinary identity processes rather than of individual pathology.

References

Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1988). Comments on the motivational status of self-esteem in social identity and intergroup discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18(4), 317–334. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420180403

Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), 475–482. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167291175001

Cruwys, T., Haslam, S. A., Dingle, G. A., Haslam, C., & Jetten, J. (2014). Depression and social identity: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18(3), 215–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314523839

Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (2002). Self and social identity. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 161–186. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135228

Greenaway, K. H., Cruwys, T., Haslam, S. A., & Jetten, J. (2016). Social identities promote well-being because they satisfy global psychological needs. European Journal of Social Psychology, 46(3), 294–307. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2169

Haslam, S. A., Jetten, J., Postmes, T., & Haslam, C. (2009). Social identity, health and well-being: An emerging agenda for applied psychology. Applied Psychology, 58(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00379.x

Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 121–140. https://doi.org/10.2307/259266

Hornsey, M. J. (2008). Social identity theory and self-categorization theory: A historical review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 204–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00066.x

Jetten, J., Haslam, S. A., Cruwys, T., Greenaway, K. H., Haslam, C., & Steffens, N. K. (2017). Advancing the social identity approach to health and well-being: Progressing the social cure research agenda. European Journal of Social Psychology, 47(7), 789–802. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2333

Molenberghs, P. (2013). The neuroscience of in-group bias. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 37(8), 1530–1536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.06.002

Postmes, T., Haslam, S. A., & Swaab, R. I. (2005). Social influence in small groups: An interactive model of social identity formation. European Review of Social Psychology, 16(1), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280440000062

Reicher, S. D., Spears, R., & Haslam, S. A. (2010). The social identity approach in social psychology. In M. S. Wetherell & C. T. Mohanty (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of identities (pp. 45–62). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446200889.n4

Scheepers, D., & Ellemers, N. (2019). Social identity theory. In K. Sassenberg & M. L. W. Vliek (Eds.), Social psychology in action (pp. 129–143). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13788-5_9

Swann, W. B., Jetten, J., Gómez, Á., Whitehouse, H., & Bastian, B. (2012). When group membership gets personal: A theory of identity fusion. Psychological Review, 119(3), 441–456. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028589

Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149–178. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420010202

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Basil Blackwell.

Van Bavel, J. J., & Pereira, A. (2018). The partisan brain: An identity-based model of political belief. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(3), 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.01.004