You Are “My People”: A Gamified,Experiential Exercise Illustrating Social Identity Theory and Group Dynamics

Abstract

Forming teams, developing relationships, and building trust can be challenging when dealing with increasingly socially anxious, disconnected, and diverse student cohorts. We describe an icebreaker that, through low-risk classroom interactions, allows students to socially identify with an in-group and compete with out-groups in a classroom environment. The activities provide abundant opportunities to relate in-class experiences to Social Identity Theory and other relevant management and OB theories.

Keywords

social identity theory icebreaker experential learning media organizational socialization

Designed for use in an Organizational Behavior (OB) classroom, and grounded in Social Identity Theory (SIT), this series of activities demonstrates how existing identities can be subsumed by fresh ones and how new social identities can be elicited and constructed. This process strengthens group bonding, particularly with diverse student groups who sometimes struggle to gel.

Icebreakers are designed to encourage students to share personal information and build connections. However, prompts like “share one interesting thing about yourself” cause anxiety, increasing fears of negative evaluation (Dijkstra et al., 2008; Weeks & Howell, 2012). Students may worry about saying something too boring or standing out inappropriately, heightening feelings of vulnerability (Derlega et al., 1993). In contrast to exercises centering diversity and differences (e.g., Lo, 2023), this activity helps students find commonalities and shows how new social identities can, temporarily, become more salient than those students bring into the classroom. This icebreaker should be conducted early in the semester, when students are still getting to know each other. In this context, the activities serve as an engaging, non-threatening way to build group bonds while introducing and applying key management and OB theories.

Pedagogy and Theory

This icebreaker involves activities which utilize both experiential learning (D. A. Kolb, 1984, 2013; A. Y. Kolb & Kolb, 2005) and gamification. Gamification takes the enjoyable aspects of games (challenge, play, and competition) and applies them to work or education (Dale, 2014). Gamification requires problem-solving, collaboration, and communication (Dicheva et al., 2015). These activities employ game design principles, including competition, cooperation, prizes, and time limits.

While these activities primarily connect to SIT (Karasawa, 1991; Tajfel, 1982), they also provide abundant opportunities to discuss other concepts, including organizational socialization, cohesion, and team dynamics. Each is described below.

Social Identity Theory

Within SIT, one’s social identity is the element of one’s self-concept, “Who am I?,” which stems from membership in a salient group, “Who are we?” (Karasawa, 1991; Tajfel, 1982). Social identity is a perception of oneness with a group and occurs when perspective shifts from “you vs. me” to “us vs. them.”

People tend to favor in-group members, offering more support, effort, rewards, and resources (Cikara, 2021). Social identification drives behaviors aligned with that identity, such as in-group support, stereotypical self/other perceptions (e.g., competence or likability), and shifts in team dynamics, such as increased cohesion, competition, and cooperation (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Ellemers & Haslam, 2012). In-group identification arises from factors that are relatively easy to influence, including self/other categorization, the distinctiveness and desirability of the in-group, and the salience of out-groups.

Research on “minimal groups” (Diehl, 1990) reveals that even random group assignments trigger social identity and ingroup–outgroup evaluations, a phenomenon called the “mere categorization effect.” Once they’ve identified with a group, people show in-group favoritism even when they know the assignment was simply arbitrary (Brewer, 1979; Otten & Moskowitz, 2000). Thus, the identity-eliciting activities in this icebreaker powerfully evoke social identification with students’ new in-groups.

Organizational Socialization

The transition from newcomer to organizational insider is profoundly influenced by social identification (Ashforth et al., 2018; Ibarra, 1999). Social identities are a significant component of workers’ organizational self-definitions and evolve over time, often triggered by cues such as organizational change, promotions, or disruptive events (Ashforth & Schinoff, 2016). Identification typically strengthens as employees gain experience and develop work-relevant skills (Ashforth et al., 2018).

Team Dynamics

Relationships within teams strengthen when members identify with one another. Strong social identification increases cohesion and motivation, especially when teams share a perceived out-group, and leads members to favor their own group members (Cikara, 2021; Evans et al., 2024; Haslam et al., 2000). Identifying strongly with one’s team also shapes intergroup dynamics (relationships between teams) by increasing competition, conflict, and negative evaluations of out-groups, often resulting in stereotyping and depersonalization (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Van Knippenberg, 2000). SIT also explains how commitment to one’s team strengthens, as shared identities foster greater effort, cooperation, and reduced turnover.

Learning Objectives

This set of activities works simultaneously as an icebreaker and a demonstration of social identities and group dynamics. It is especially when applied to theory and workplace experiences. Media clips (Table B1) can reinforce the concepts, followed by discussion of social identity-related OB topics. After completing the exercise, students will be able to:

Recognize how social identity perceptions can be elicited and constructed (LO1).

Describe in-group / out-group effects on team dynamics (LO2).

Apply concepts from SIT to OB topics, including student diversity, organizational socialization, and group dynamics (LO3).

(Optional) Apply concepts from SIT to employee experiences using media clips (LO4).

Instructions for Running the Exercise

Students engage in a series of activities designed to break the ice, encourage connection and cohesion, elicit social identity evaluations and ingroup–outgroup perceptions. Competitive activities and the opportunity to win small prizes reinforce team dynamics within the class. The experiences are then related to several OB theories.

Logistics and Preparation

This activity can be done with anywhere from three to seven groups of three to six students. Students can be organized into groups based on where they happen to sit on arrival or some other, more coordinated, method (see Note 1). For the Kahoot, a computer and a projector are needed, and one internet-connected student device per table. Small prizes can be provided for the eventual winning team (see Note 2). Instructors can modify the time allocated to group bonding, debriefing, and applying theory. The session takes between 30 and 70 min (see Table 1), or up to 2 hr if media clips are utilized to further illustrate SIT.

Table 1.

Step-by-Step Summary.

Step of the exercise	Description	Learning objective	Timing
Step 1: Finding common ground as a basis for a common social identity	Students identify a “thing they have in common” with others in their newly assigned group (forming groups)	LO1	5–10 min
Step 2: Emphasizing in-group social identity through naming	Students must come up with a group name relating to their commonality (differentiating groups).	LO1 and LO2	5–10 min
Step 3: Making out-groups more salient through competition	Names are written on the board, points are awarded for the “best name”, relating to the commonality (triggering competition).	LO1 and LO2	5 min
Step 4: In-group/out-group competition	Online Kahoot, where groups compete with each other. Kahoot questions should be on to SIT and related OB topic (increasing competition). More points (and prizes) awarded.	LO1, LO2 and LO3	10–15 min
Step 5: Highlighting the power of social identification	Give students the opportunity to swap groups (making social identity and in-groups salient)	LO1, LO2 and LO3	2 min
Step 6: Debrief	With or without media examples, debrief and relate to theory and worker experiences.	LO3 and LO4	10–30 min
		Total	30–70 min

Step-by-Step Instructions

Step 1—Finding Common Ground as a Basis for a Common Social Identity

Ask students to identify something they have in common with all others in their group. This request works well as an icebreaker because, to find what they have in common, students disclose low-risk information that they assume other students may share, such as owning pets or their favorite music genre. Students need only interact with their own tablemates (not with the whole class), further avoiding the discomfort many people feel when speaking to a large audience. Thus, social identities form through commonalities with peers rather than visible differences, such as ethnicity or gender. After each group finishes, either a group member or the facilitator should write each group’s common feature on the board.

Step 2—Emphasizing in-Group Social Identity Through Naming

Building on the previous step, ask each group to come up with a humorous, accurate, or clever team name that specifically relates to their group’s common feature. This elicits social identification and in-group perceptions. For example, a group of MMA fans called themselves “Ultimate fighters” (see Table 2, Note 1 for more examples). The facilitator should make it clear that this is a competition in which the “best” name will win.

Table 2.

Examples of groups and group names.

What the group had in common	Group name	Number of students	Ethnicities	Gender proportions
All from the Computer Science dept., taking this paper as an elective	ComNerds	5	Korean and Chinese	3 male, 2 female
MMA (mixed martial arts) fans. They identified this commonality as one person was wearing an MMA logo on his shirt	Ultimate fighters	4	Pacifica, NZ European and Russian	4 male
They all wore glasses	Blurry but brilliant	5	Chinese, Malaysian, NZ European	2 male, 3 female
Car enthusiasts, one of whom had a small car detailing business with the same name as their chosen group name	Attention to Detail	4	NZ European and Chinese	4 male
K-Pop fans	K-popsicles	3	Korean and Chinese	3 female
All could also speak more than one language fluently. From this activity, the group also connected in other classes they had together.	Bilingual Baddies	3	Philippines, Indian, and Samoan	3 female
All eldest sisters, which they bonded over and hence the name. They also bonded over coming from immigrant/minority families.	Born Tired	4	Egyptian, Indian, Tongan/NZ Samoan	4 female

Step 3—Making Out-Groups More Salient Through Competition

Inter-group competition reinforces social identification and strengthens team cohesion. Rank the group names in a light-hearted competition. Award points from one to the total number of groups (i.e., if four groups, give four points for the best name). As above, instructors can use a variety of criteria that best suit their teaching style and the student cohort; any or all of speed (how quickly groups agreed on a name), humor, linguistics (puns and rhymes), accuracy, etc. Experienced facilitators can more easily gauge which groups might enjoy some banter about their choice and elicit laughter from the class. Less experienced TAs may prefer to have more objective criteria, such as accuracy.

Step 4—In-Group/Out-Group Competition

A Kahoot! works well in this context. A Kahoot! competition is an interactive quiz game hosted on www.kahoot.com, where questions are presented, and participants join using a device shared by the group and a game PIN. Players answer questions as a team within a set time limit, earning points for correct and faster responses. Scores are updated after each question to create an ongoing leaderboard, and the competition concludes with a winner based on the highest total score (see Appendix A). Further points should be awarded to the top three teams. The students in the group with the most points then receive a small prize (see Note 2).

Step 5—Highlighting the Power of Social Identification

Ask if anyone in the room would like to swap groups. We have asked this question numerous times to student groups over several years, and have not yet had a student volunteer to switch (see Note 3). However, if a student does want to move, this scenario can also be related to other group processes (see Notes 4 and 5).

Step 6—Debrief

Appendix C provides specific discussion questions and conversation starters to promote reflection, critical thinking, and application of theory. Below, we outline opportunities to address various learning outcomes.

Eliciting Social Identification

Relating to LO1, students see how simply finding a shared trait (and naming their group after it) strongly evokes social identification (Karasawa, 1991; Tajfel, 1982). For diverse groups of relative strangers, this process, followed by intergroup competition, makes group membership more salient than individual characteristics, such as ethnicity, gender, or age. Facilitators can link this phenomenon to broader discussions on social and organizational roles, unconscious bias, and diversity (Ashforth & Schinoff, 2016).

In-Group Versus Out-Group Behavior

Relating to LOs 1 and 2, discuss how ingroup versus outgroup perceptions are experienced and magnified. Throughout the session, the facilitator should be noting competitive behaviors, such as outbursts of joy at winning or comments revealing frustration while losing the Kahoot. These examples can then be used to initiate in-class discussions of how people felt, behaved and interpreted others’ actions (Kuppens et al., 2013). This discussion can then be extended to examples of being competitive with other groups and encouraging fellow team members.

Members of a group become more cohesive and cooperative when the group share a “common enemy” (an out-group). People prefer in-group members and provide them with more resources (Voci, 2006). This links to motivation, work experiences and organizational norms around nepotism, equity, and fairness. Facilitators might also discuss the causes and effects of in-group biases in organizations, including negative stereotypes of out-groups (Evans et al., 2024).

Swapping Groups

Also relating to LO2, students being offered the chance to move groups, but preferring to remain, relates to social identification and the minimal group paradigm (Brewer, 1979; Diehl, 1990; Otten & Moskowitz, 2000). The facilitator can describe research showing that ingroup preferences can emerge even in randomly assigned, arbitrary groups, and even in the absence of similarity, conflict, competition, or meaningful distinction. Thus, it is almost inevitable that in-group evaluations and the desire to stay in one’s group will emerge after the class activities (see Note 3). It is also worth discussing the implications of wanting to switch groups, even if this doesn’t happen in the class (see Note 4).

Linking to Organizational Socialization

Relating to LO3, instructors can explore how social identities develop as employees become integrated into their organizations (He & Brown, 2013). Social identity forms a significant component of organizational self-definition and evolves as workers construct their identities as organizational insiders over time (Ashforth et al., 2018). Students benefit from discussing the positive outcomes when employees strongly identify with their organization or profession; “I’m on the McDonald’s team” versus “I flip burgers.”

Variations

Relating to LO4, facilitators can extend this activity by using selected media from Appendix B to relate SIT to employee experiences. Preliminary work might include asking students to view films or TV episodes that exemplify social identity, exclusion, role conflict, and organizational socialization.

Conclusion

In addition to breaking ice, when students participate in these activities, they experience a new, salient social identity. They can reflect on in-groups and out-groups and will be introduced to a range of key OB concepts, which can be expanded upon as the semester progresses. For courses that involve group discussions or group projects, this experience fosters functional and cohesive work groups, facilitating genuine friendships in the classroom.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-mtr-10.1177_23792981261429910 – Supplemental material for You Are “My People”: A Gamified, Experiential Exercise Illustrating Social Identity Theory and Group Dynamics

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-mtr-10.1177_23792981261429910 for You Are “My People”: A Gamified, Experiential Exercise Illustrating Social Identity Theory and Group Dynamics by Rachel L. Morrison and Helena D. Cooper Thomas in Management Teaching Review

Footnotes

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Rachel L. Morrison

Supplemental Material

The online supplemental material is available at

References

Ashforth

B. E.

Harrison

S. H.

Sluss

D. M.

(2018). Becoming: The interaction of socialization and identity in organizations over time. In C

Cooper

(Ed.), Current issues in work and organisational psychology (pp. 316–339). Routledge.

Ashforth

B. E.

Mael

(1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39.

Ashforth

B. E.

Schinoff

B. S.

(2016). Identity under construction: How individuals come to define themselves in organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3(1), 111–137.

Brewer

M. B.

(1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 307.

Bumpus

M. A

. (2005). Using motion pictures to teach management: Refocusing the camera lens through the infusion approach to diversity. Journal of Management Education, 29(6), 792–815.

Chicca

Shellenbarger

. (2018). Connecting with Generation Z: Approaches in nursing education. Teaching and Learning in Nursing, 13(3), 180–184.

Cikara

(2021). Causes and consequences of coalitional cognition. In Gawronski

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 64, pp. 65–128). Elsevier.

Comer

D. R

. (2001). Not just a Mickey Mouse exercise: Using Disney’s The Lion King to teach leadership. Journal of Management Education, 25(4), 430–436.

Dale

(2014). Gamification: Making work fun, or making fun of work? Business Information Review, 31(2), 82–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266382114538350

10.

Derlega

V. J.

Metts

Petronio

Margulis

S. T.

(1993). Self-disclosure. Sage.

11.

Dicheva

Dichev

Agre

Angelova

(2015). Gamification in education: A systematic mapping study. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(3), 75–88.

12.

Diehl

(1990). The minimal group paradigm: Theoretical explanations and empirical findings. European Review of Social Psychology, 1(1), 263–292.

13.

Dijkstra

Kuyper

Van der Werf

Buunk

A. P.

van der Zee

Y. G.

(2008). Social comparison in the classroom: A review. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 828–879.

14.

Ellemers

Haslam

S. A.

(2012). Social identity theory. In Van Lange

P. A. M.

Kruglanski

A. W.

Higgins

E. T.

(Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 379–398). Sage.

15.

Evans

A. L.

Coffee

Barker

J. B.

(2024). The effects of social identity and social identity content on cohesion, efficacy, and performance across a competitive rugby league season. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 22(7), 1724–1742.

16.

Frankel

. (2006). The Devil Wears Prada. 20th Century Fox.

17.

Gervais

Carell

Feig

. (2009a). Dream team (Season 3, Episode 20). In The Office (U.S.). Deedle-Dee Productions.

18.

Gervais

Carell

Feig

. (2009b). Michael Scott paper company (Season 3, Episode 21). In The Office (U.S.). Deedle-Dee Productions.

19.

Haslam

S. A.

Powell

Turner

(2000). Social identity, self-categorization, and work motivation: Rethinking the contribution of the group to positive and sustainable organisational outcomes. Applied Psychology, 49(3), 319–339.

20.

Brown

A. D.

(2013). Organizational identity and organizational identification: A review of the literature and suggestions for future research. Group & Organization Management, 38(1), 3–35.

21.

Ibarra

(1999). Provisional selves: Experimenting with image and identity in professional adaptation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 764–791.

22.

Karasawa

(1991). Toward an assessment of social identity: The structure of group identification and its effects on in-group evaluations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 30(4), 293–307.

23.

Kolb

A. Y.

Kolb

D. A.

(2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(2), 193–212.

24.

Kolb

D. A.

(1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.

25.

Kolb

D. A.

(2013). The process of experiential learning. In Hanson

Thorpe

Edwards

(Eds.), Culture and processes of adult learning (pp. 138–156). Routledge.

26.

Korsh

Cropper

. (2013). She’s mine (Season 3, Episode 7). In Suits. Universal Content Productions (UCP).

27.

Kuppens

Yzerbyt

V. Y.

Dandache

Fischer

A. H.

Van Der Schalk

(2013). Social identity salience shapes group-based emotions through group-based appraisals. Cognition & Emotion, 27(8), 1359–1377.

28.

Linehan

. (2006). Yesterday’s jam (Season 1, Episode 1). In The IT Crowd. Channel 4 Television Corporation.

29.

Linehan

. (2012). Bad boys (Season 4, Episode 6). In The IT Crowd. Channel 4 Television Corporation.

30.

K. D.

(2023). Contextual and experiential understandings of privilege as intersectional. Journal of Management Education, 47(1), 79–103.

31.

Otten

Moskowitz

G. B.

(2000). Evidence for implicit evaluative in-group bias: Affect-biased spontaneous trait inference in a minimal group paradigm. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36(1), 77–89.

32.

Schur

. (2012). Win, lose, or draw (Season 4, Episode 22). In Parks and Recreation. NBCUniversal.

33.

Singh

A. P.

Dangmei

. (2016). Understanding the Generation Z: The future workforce. South Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 3(3), 1–5.

34.

Smith

G. W

. (2009). Using feature films as the primary instructional medium to teach organizational behavior. Journal of Management Education, 33(4), 462–489.

35.

Stratton

M. T.

Kass

D. S.

Rotenberry

P. F

. (2011). Affective events theater: Creating teaching moments from film and television to explore emotions in the workplace. Journal of the Academy of Business Education, 12, 1–27.

36.

Tajfel

(1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1–39.

37.

Tregear

Kuznesof

Brennan

. (2007). Critical approaches in undergraduate marketing teaching: Investigating students’ perceptions. Journal of Marketing Management, 23(5–6), 411–424.

38.

Van Knippenberg

. (2000). Work motivation and performance: A social identity perspective. Applied Psychology, 49(3), 357–371.

39.

Voci

(2006). The link between identification and in-group favouritism: Effects of threat to social identity and trust-related emotions. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45(2), 265–284.

40.

Weeks

J. W.

Howell

A. N.

(2012). The bivalent fear of evaluation model of social anxiety: Further integrating findings on fears of positive and negative evaluation. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 41(2), 83–95.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB