Social identity approach

[2] While there are similarities, self categorisation theory has greater explanatory scope (i.e. is less focused on intergroup relationships specifically) and has been investigated in a broader range of empirical conditions.

[1] Specifically the limited manner in which social identity theory deals with the cognitive processes that underpin the behaviour it describes.

[2] The social identity approach has been applied to a wide variety of fields[example needed] and continues to be very influential.

Instead it anticipates that the same psychological processes underlie intergroup and intragroup phenomenon involving both small and large groups.

[11] Additionally, they tend to be more socially attractive, which makes it easier for group members to accept their authority and comply with their decisions.

[14][15] For example, two separate papers and a book by Akerlof and Kranton incorporate social identity as a factor in the principal–agent model.

The main conclusion is that when agents consider themselves insiders, they will maximize their identity utility by exerting greater effort compared to the prescription behavior.

The SIDE model uses this framework to explain cognitive effects of visibility and anonymity in intra-group and inter-group contexts.

The SIDE model proposes that anonymity shifts both the focus of self-awareness from the individual self to the group self and the perceptions of others from being mostly interpersonal to being group-based (stereotyping).

[18] Research has suggested that visual anonymity not only increases negative behavior towards others, but can also promote positive social relations.

[23][24][25] Moreover, they argue that researchers making the above criticisms have also significantly misinterpreted the role of sociological categories in the two theories.