---
title: Social identity
url: https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/social-identity/
description: 'Part of who people think they are comes from the groups they belong to: nation, faith, class, region, party.'
section: Learn
---

![Illustration: a dossier collage of generic campaign-era posters, loudspeaker trucks and rally crowds.](https://propagandaarchive.org/static/generated/hero-campaigns.jpg)

[Learn](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/) · Group identity

# Social identity

In brief

Even a meaningless group label makes people favor their own side, a finding replicated for half a century; newer claims about identity fusion and the political effects of partisan identity are less settled.

On this page

- [In brief](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/social-identity/#in-brief)
- [What the research shows](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/social-identity/#what-the-research-shows)
- [Has it held up?](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/social-identity/#has-it-held-up)
- [How it shows up in political messaging](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/social-identity/#how-it-shows-up-in-political-messaging)
- [How to spot it](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/social-identity/#how-to-spot-it)
- [Persuasion or manipulation?](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/social-identity/#persuasion-or-manipulation)
- [Archive techniques that lean on this](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/social-identity/#archive-techniques-that-lean-on-this)
- [Related topics](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/social-identity/#related-topics)
- [Sources](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/social-identity/#sources)
- [Images](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/social-identity/#images)

On this page

*Area: [Group identity](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/group-identity/) · Evidence:**strong**([How we rate the evidence](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/evidence-ratings/)). The core finding, that trivial group labels change how people treat others, has replicated for half a century; newer claims about identity fusion and the political consequences of partisan identity are less settled.*

## In brief

Part of who people think they are comes from the groups they belong to: nation, faith, class, region, party. Laboratory work since 1970 shows that even a meaningless label is enough to make people favor "their" side. Political messages that address the audience as a group ("we," "people like us") are drawing on this, and when a party or cause becomes a core identity, disagreement with it can start to feel like a personal threat.

## What the research shows

The foundational experiments were run by the Polish-born British psychologist Henri Tajfel in Bristol. Schoolboys were split into groups on trivial grounds, for example whether they had supposedly overestimated or underestimated the number of dots flashed on a screen, or whether they preferred paintings by Klee or Kandinsky. They never met their group, and they could not benefit personally. Asked to divide small sums of money between two other anonymous boys, they reliably gave more to members of their own group [1], [2]. Follow-up studies found something more striking: many boys chose splits that maximized the *difference* between the groups even when that meant their own group received less in absolute terms [2]. This setup became known as the "minimal group paradigm," because the groups were stripped of history, conflict and self-interest.

![Paul Klee's 1922 painting Senecio: a round face built from rectangles of orange, pink, yellow and white](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/images/psych-social-identity-klee-senecio-1922.jpg)

*Tajfel's schoolboys were sorted by whether they preferred paintings by Klee or Kandinsky. Paul Klee, "Senecio", 1922, Kunstmuseum Basel: an example work by one of the two artists, not the stimulus Tajfel used. Public domain (published before 1931), via Wikimedia Commons.*

![Wassily Kandinsky's 1913 painting Composition VII: dense abstract swirls of red, blue, yellow and black](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/images/psych-social-identity-kandinsky-composition-vii-1913.jpg)

*Wassily Kandinsky, "Composition VII", 1913, Tretyakov Gallery: an example work by the other artist, not the stimulus Tajfel used. Public domain (published before 1931), via Wikimedia Commons.*

Tajfel and John Turner then proposed social identity theory to explain the result. People derive part of their self-esteem from the groups they belong to, so they are motivated to see their group as better than comparable groups. When that comparison is unfavorable, members may try to leave the group, reinterpret the comparison, or compete directly [3]. Turner and colleagues later extended this into self-categorization theory, which holds that people carry many possible identities and that context decides which one is "switched on." Once a category is salient, people see themselves and others as interchangeable examples of it, and they are most influenced by those they count as fellow members [4].

A more intense form of attachment was described by William Swann and colleagues as "identity fusion": a visceral sense of oneness with a group in which the boundary between personal and group self becomes porous. Fused people treat threats to the group as threats to themselves and report greater willingness to fight or die for it [5]. In a field survey of 179 Libyan revolutionaries in 2011, nearly half of the frontline fighters said their bond to their battalion was stronger than their bond to their own families [6].

Political scientists have applied the same framework to party. Lilliana Mason argues that American partisanship has become a "mega-identity" because party now lines up with race, religion, region and culture, so that partisans react to politics as a contest between teams rather than a set of policy choices [7]. Shanto Iyengar and colleagues document the rise of "affective polarization," meaning growing dislike and distrust of the other party's supporters, among both Democrats and Republicans, and trace it to partisanship functioning as a social identity [8].

## Has it held up?

In-group bias in minimal groups is one of the most reproduced results in social psychology. A 1992 meta-analysis (a statistical pooling of many studies) of 137 tests found a highly significant effect of moderate size, stronger when the group was salient and real rather than artificial [9]. The interpretation has been disputed. Jacob Rabbie and colleagues argued that minimal-group favoritism reflects expectations about how others will reciprocate rather than identity as such [10], and that debate continues in the in-group favoritism literature.

Identity fusion research is younger. A 2024 meta-analysis of 90 studies (about 37,000 participants) found that fusion is strongly linked to extreme pro-group attitudes, more strongly than ordinary group identification, but the effects vary widely between studies and most of the evidence is correlational, meaning it shows association rather than cause [11]. Some researchers still question whether fusion is a different kind of attachment or just a stronger degree of identification.

On partisanship, rising affective polarization in the United States is well documented [8], but its consequences are contested. In five experiments that lowered people's partisan animosity, David Broockman, Joshua Kalla and Sean Westwood found little change in support for undemocratic behavior or willingness to hold one's own party accountable [12].

## How it shows up in political messaging

- **War-bond appeals, both sides of WWI.** The German poster [Helft uns siegen! Zeichnet die Kriegsanleihe (Help Us Win! Subscribe to the War Loan)](https://propagandaarchive.org/collection/helft-uns-siegen-1917/) ("Help us win!") and American campaigns such as [Let's Fly This Flag: Everybody at Least 10 Percent in War Bonds](https://propagandaarchive.org/collection/lets-fly-this-flag-1943/) speak to the audience as "us" and turn a financial transaction into a badge of membership.
- **Insurgent cohesion.** The Libyan revolutionary battalions of 2011 are a documented case of fusion-level bonds forming in a rebel movement fighting an established government [6].
- **American party politics.** Mason's account covers both major parties: campaign messages that sort voters into cultural teams tap the same identity process whichever side sends them [7].
- **Loyalty tests.** Rhetoric that treats questioning a claim as betraying the group, the move catalogued in the archive as [Identity fusion](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/identity-fusion/), works because a salient identity makes criticism feel personal.

![Men, women and a small girl queue to hand in gold at a collection desk in Milan under a poster reading Date oro alla Patria](https://propagandaarchive.org/collection/images/oro-alla-patria-milan-1935.jpg)

*[Oro alla Patria: handing in gold wedding rings in Milan, 1935](https://propagandaarchive.org/collection/oro-alla-patria-milan-1935/): "Oro alla Patria": handing in gold wedding rings, Milan, December 1935, National Fascist Party collection. A public show of belonging during the Ethiopian war. Public domain.*

![German war-bond poster of a steel-helmeted infantryman under the line Help us win](https://propagandaarchive.org/collection/images/helft-uns-siegen-1917.jpg)

*[Helft uns siegen! Zeichnet die Kriegsanleihe (Help Us Win! Subscribe to the War Loan)](https://propagandaarchive.org/collection/helft-uns-siegen-1917/): "Helft uns siegen!" (Help us win!), Imperial German war-loan campaign, 1917, artist Fritz Erler. Public domain.*

## How to spot it

- The audience is addressed as a group ("we," "real Americans," "the workers," "our people") before any claim is made.
- Group membership is offered as the reason to believe or act.
- A policy disagreement is described as a contest between kinds of people.
- Doubt or dissent is framed as disloyalty to the group.
- The speaker stresses that they are "one of us" as a credential.

## Persuasion or manipulation?

Speaking to a shared identity is not dishonest in itself. Movements, unions, veterans' groups and national governments all legitimately appeal to common membership, and it can motivate real sacrifice for real goals. It tips into manipulation when identity is used as a substitute for evidence, when checking a claim is recast as betrayal, or when the speaker performs membership they do not have. Honest writing can say "people like us care about this," and then still give the reader the facts needed to decide whether the claim is true.

## Archive techniques that lean on this

- [Identity fusion](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/identity-fusion/) — Identity fusion: draws directly on the fusion construct, turning scrutiny of a claim into disloyalty to the group.
- [Plain folks](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/plain-folks/) — Plain folks: the speaker claims in-group membership so the audience categorizes them as "one of us" and grants them extra influence.

## Related topics

- [In-group favoritism](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/in-group-favoritism/) — In-group favoritism
- [Out-group homogeneity](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/out-group-homogeneity/) — Out-group homogeneity
- [Conformity](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/conformity/) — Conformity
- [Group polarization](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/group-polarization/) — Group polarization
- [Moral foundations](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/moral-foundations/) — Moral foundations
- [Motivated reasoning](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/motivated-reasoning/) — Motivated reasoning
- [Scapegoating](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/scapegoating/) — Scapegoating

## Sources

1. Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. *Scientific American*, 223(5), 96–102. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1170-96
2. 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
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Swann, W. B., Jr., 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
6. Whitehouse, H., McQuinn, B., Buhrmester, M., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (2014). Brothers in arms: Libyan revolutionaries bond like family. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*, 111(50), 17783–17785. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1416284111
7. Mason, L. (2018). *Uncivil agreement: How politics became our identity*. University of Chicago Press.
8. Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. J. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. *Annual Review of Political Science*, 22, 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034
9. Mullen, B., Brown, R., & Smith, C. (1992). Ingroup bias as a function of salience, relevance, and status: An integration. *European Journal of Social Psychology*, 22(2), 103–122. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420220202
10. Rabbie, J. M., Schot, J. C., & Visser, L. (1989). Social identity theory: A conceptual and empirical critique from the perspective of a behavioural interaction model. *European Journal of Social Psychology*, 19(3), 171–202. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420190302
11. Varmann, A. H., Kruse, L., Bierwiaczonek, K., Gómez, Á., Vázquez, A., & Kunst, J. R. (2024). How identity fusion predicts extreme pro-group orientations: A meta-analysis. *European Review of Social Psychology*, 35(1), 162–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2023.2190267
12. Broockman, D. E., Kalla, J. L., & Westwood, S. J. (2023). Does affective polarization undermine democratic norms or accountability? Maybe not. *American Journal of Political Science*, 67(3), 808–828. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12719

## Images

| Image | Source | Licence |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Klee, *Senecio* (1922) | [Kunstmuseum Basel via Wikimedia Commons](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Paul_Klee,_1922,_Senecio,_oil_on_gauze,_40.3_%C3%97_37.4_cm,_Kunstmuseum_Basel.jpg) | Public domain (author died 1940; published before 1931) |
| Kandinsky, *Composition VII* (1913) | [Tretyakov Gallery via Wikimedia Commons](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vassily_Kandinsky,_1913_-_Composition_7.jpg) | Public domain (author died 1944; published before 1931) |
| *Oro alla Patria*, Milan (1935) | FRAME gallery, [Oro alla Patria: handing in gold wedding rings in Milan, 1935](https://propagandaarchive.org/collection/oro-alla-patria-milan-1935/) | Public domain (Italian simple photograph) |
| *Helft uns siegen!* (1917) | FRAME gallery, [Helft uns siegen! Zeichnet die Kriegsanleihe (Help Us Win! Subscribe to the War Loan)](https://propagandaarchive.org/collection/helft-uns-siegen-1917/) | Public domain (published before 1923) |

### Image gaps

Photographs of Tajfel and of the actual Bristol stimuli, and images of the Libyan battalions of 2011, were not verified as openly licensed; none is hosted.

## Techniques

[Identity fusion](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/identity-fusion/) [Plain folks](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/plain-folks/)

## Related

- [In-group favoritism](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/in-group-favoritism/)
- [Out-group homogeneity](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/out-group-homogeneity/)
- [Conformity](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/conformity/)
- [Group polarization](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/group-polarization/)
- [Moral foundations](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/moral-foundations/)
- [Motivated reasoning](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/motivated-reasoning/)
- [Identity fusion](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/identity-fusion/)
- [Plain folks](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/plain-folks/)
- [Scapegoating](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/scapegoating/)