Misreading social identity theory: Why affective-polarisation research got it wrong

This paper challenges the theoretical foundation on which contemporary research on affective polarisation rests. Since Iyengar et al., scholars have largely attributed partisan hostility to social identity theory, assuming that group membership automatically produces both in-group favouritism and out-group dislike. I argue that this interpretation is based on a fundamental misreading of Tajfel’s original theory. The minimal-group experiments that gave rise to social identity theory examined behavioural discrimination in resource allocation, not emotional hostility towards out-groups. By conflating discrimination with dislike, subsequent research has overstated the emotional consequences of partisan identity while neglecting the role of intergroup conflict. Drawing on realistic conflict theory, this article develops a conflict-centred framework that distinguishes identity, discriminatory behaviour, and negative affect. It shows that hostile emotions towards out-groups arise from conflict rather than from social categorisation itself. This reinterpretation clarifies a long-standing conceptual error and situates affective polarisation within a broader theory of group conflict and political emotion.