A recent paper on ‘digital humanism’ or how we align technology with our human values indicated a need to revisit theory on Social Identity Theory (Levine & Kordoni, 2026). It also returned attention to Henri Tajfel’s work in the 1970’s and 80’s on Social Identity and Intergroup Relations. Here individuals construct an identity when they engage in practice and social interaction - there is a sense of belongingness in this. It can be viewed as a ‘perception of oneness with or belongingness to some human aggregate’ (Ashforth & Mael 1989, pg. 135) and include a student identity (Kaufman 2014, Nielsen, 2017) for example. Much of the reading in this area points to the importance of communal culture (Erik Erikson, 1968) and its influence on identity. To gain an understanding about the navigation of individuals through development of Social Identity a theory was formulated by Tajfel and Turner in the 1970s, namely Social Identity Theory (SIT). According to SIT individuals engage in social classification, which integrates the process of characterising oneself within a social context (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). The dangers that this can bring are very obvious today, in our media and in world affairs. The basis of social identity is that individuals engage in cognitive strategies such as evaluating the status of a group (such as healthcare professionals) and making comparisons between the perceived status of various groups. This evaluation is the basis for individuals to align themselves with an in-group. Although the theory stretches back over four decades it is pertinent today, as SIT provides a useful framework for understanding the process of stereotyping (Ferrucci, 2018). As a result of stereotyping, boundaries are formed between in-groups and other out groups which Hotho describes as the ‘fabric of social practice’ (Hotho, 2008, pg. 728). So, individuals ‘categorised themselves’ as group members they began to display in-group favouritism (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). SIT divides the external environment into elements and provides order to this for an individual. Through this process individuals are provided with a means for defining those within the environment and place themselves within in it, so they find their place and define who they are within a social environment (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). This process involves discriminating individuals and their status as well as stereotyping.

Student Identity Theory and Role Identity (RIT)

SIT considers the meanings attributed to membership within a category of society. Role Identity Theory (RIT) (Farmer, 2003, Mlotshwa 2015) and Student Identity Theory (Kaufman 2014, Nielsen, 2017) are a related theories, which considers the meaning individuals associate with a given role e.g. a University Student. Role Identity Theory (RIT) and Student Identity Theory are a more specific forms of Social Identity, which therefore form as a sub-set of Social Identity as depicted in Figure A1 below:

Figure A1

Digital Identity and other types of relevant identities

What has this to do with Digital Identity?

‘The term digital identity indicates the conversion of human identities into machine-readable digital data’ (Masieroa & Bailurb, 2021). Is it too simplistic to view this form of identity as a sub-set of Social Identity and of our Role Identity? Does our lack of control over our digital identity mean that it is not based on how we ‘stereotype’ ourselves, how we present ourselves online or who we social within a digital environment?