Social identity threat

Last updated

Social identity threat is a theory in social psychology derived from social identity theory to explain the different types of threats that arise from group identity being threatened as opposed to personal identity. [1] This theory distinguishes between four distinct types of social identity threats: categorization threat, distinctiveness threat, threats to the value of social identity, and acceptance threat. Each type is associated with particular social contexts that make the threats more or less likely to occur. This theory emphasizes how the level of commitment with the social identity shapes the nature of the threat experienced.

Contents

Components of the theory

The four components of social identity threat were developed by Nyla R. Branscombe, Naomi Ellemers, Russell Spears, and Bertjan Doosje (1999). [1] Each threat is experienced differently depending on the level of identification with the group identity.

Categorization threat

Categorization threat happens when individuals are involuntarily assigned stereotypical characteristics or judged on the basis of their group membership. [2] This theory suggests that there are certain social contexts where people want to be seen as unique individuals who have their own personal characteristics or accomplishments, and if instead, they are categorized in accordance with a group membership such as gender, ethnicity, or political orientation, then they would be resistant to the identity and feel as if they are being treated unfairly.

This resistance to categorization is especially pronounced when the assigned membership seems irrelevant or inappropriate to the situation at hand (even if the identity is normally one which they strongly identify with) such as gender in the workforce. [3] Individuals might even opt to hide stigmatized group membership in order to avoid the possible consequences of being categorized. Other identities like gender or ethnicity cannot be concealed, thus making it impossible to prevent others from categorizing them in specific ways. [4]

Since individuals have a multitude of identities they can be categorized as, the theory suggests that people might prefer identities that they have self-selected rather than identities in which they are given. [5] [6] However, the authors argue that willingness to identify with an identity is determined most by the level of commitment towards an identity versus another competing identity. The authors recommended further research be conducted exploring the specific conditions that lead to identification with one identity over another. Regardless, based on principles from social identity theory and self-categorization theory theorizing that identities which are assigned can still determine how individuals see and define themselves, the researchers believed in the importance of examining both self-selected and socially assigned identities.

People who do not identify strongly with an identity are most likely to resist categorization threat, especially when the categorization is involuntarily imposed on them. When identity is emphasized, these low-identifiers distance themselves from the group, emphasize their individual identity, and might even demean ingroup members. [7] High-performing individuals placed into a group with low status are likelier to disidentify because they view the group membership as threatening to their reputation and high self-esteem. [8] Low-identifying members experience negative affective emotions such as anger, low self-esteem, or depression. [9] Also, involuntary categorization into groups which are not valued or negatively stereotyped can lead to the individual emphasizing the shared qualities between groups and the heterogeneity in the in-group. [10] People who are stereotyped into groups expected to perform badly on a task actually do end up performing worse. This has been more commonly documented as stereotype threat. [11]

Distinctiveness threat

Distinctiveness threat occurs when individuals are concerned about not having a unique social identity or having an identity that is indistinguishable from other comparable groups. According to research done by Tajfel and colleagues, individuals rely on distinct identities as a way to find meaning and define themselves in the world. [12] [13] [14] After a distinct identity is formed, social comparison with similar groups can pose a potential threat to group distinctiveness. In other words, because humans desire to have a unique personal identity, they pursue a distinct group identity in order to distinguish themselves from others.

In the context of distinctiveness threat, discrimination against other groups only occur when the differences between the groups are unclear or minimal. The minimal group paradigm suggest that people favor in-group members and discriminate against out-group members based on arbitrary group assignments like painter preferences. Some researchers demonstrated that when individuals were given meaningful reasons between the differentiation (i.e. people who like painter A are more extroverted than painter B), discrimination decreased because individuals were presumably more secure and certain about their identity. [15]

Some studies also demonstrate that people are more likely to choose a distinct identity over a positive identity. For example, Polish students would rather embrace some stereotypically negative traits of their nation than emphasize the similarities between all European countries. [16] While research demonstrates the importance of having distinctive identities over ones with positive traits, the embrace of negative traits are more common among people who strongly identify with the group rather than low-identifiers.

People are likelier to identify with groups that are numerically smaller versus majority groups. [17] People also seek belonging in groups, which tend to be found in smaller tight-knit groups than larger groups. [18] Similarly, individuals identify more with minority groups relative to majority groups because there are distinct cultures found in minority groups that may not be present in majority groups, [19] despite the politically and economically disadvantages of minority groups in society.

Once the group identity is established, social comparison with other similar groups may cause conflict and lead to differentiation. [20] People who strongly identify with the group will engage in differentiation while low-identifiers are not as threatened and might prefer to identify as individuals or in categories involving both groups. [21]

While direct differentiation between groups is one strategy when faced with distinctiveness threat, it may be unrealistic in cases where the two groups are actually quite similar. So, those who strongly identify with the group will engage in other responses like identifying with the group even more by self-stereotyping. [22] The authors emphasize how the concept of distinctiveness threat demonstrates that groups discriminate against out-groups, not necessarily because distinctiveness is threatened, but rather in order to achieve or maintain the distinctiveness between the two groups. When resolving distinctiveness conflict among groups, a common result is to acknowledge that the other group has some positive traits while also acknowledging that their own group has positive traits, allowing for members of both groups to keep their positive distinct self-image. [23]

Value threat

Value threat refers to when the group value is undermined by a source of threat ranging from outgroups, neutral sources, or even ingroup members on dimensions such as competence or morality. When one's social identity is being explicitly attacked by an outgroup member (e.g. verbally insulted), then this can result in outgroup derogation. [24] Perceptions of discrimination based on group membership (e.g. the more Black Americans felt discriminated based on their race) can also result in increased hostility. [25]

When high-identifiers are faced with value threats, they tend to both self-affirm the value of their identity and self-stereotype themselves to be prototypical of the group. [26] Moreover, if members of a group believe that their group has been unjustly persecuted resulting in their stigmatized group status, then their ingroup affiliation will increase, as well as their out-group derogation.

The source of the threat could also be symbolic and still invoke similar reactions as threats from out-groups. In a study by Branscombe and Wann (1994), they found that simply watching a video where a Russian boxer beat an American boxer invoked reductions in self esteem among people who strongly identified as American (there was no effect for people who did not strongly identify as American). [27] Reductions in self-esteem were also directed linked to outgroup derogation. Level of identification with the group is a significant factor in determining the impact of the threat and subsequent reactions to the threat.

Besides direct outgroup derogation, when the ingroup is depicted as inferior to a competing outgroup, other defensive responses may occur. In situations where the status-dimension is taken into account and social reality is hard to dispute (e.g. sports team losing), then direct in-group favoritism is not effective. Only high identifiers are likely to reinforce or demonstrate their commitment to the group by actions like perceiving the ingroup as homogenous, taking on prototypical group traits, and stereotyping the group on other dimensions. [7] [22]

As identification with the group becomes stronger, ingroup members will protect the group in the moral dimension of value threats as well. This response can occur in both low-status and high-status groups. For instance, high-identifying White Americans who are reminded of the privileges they have due to their race score higher on a racism scale compared to low-identifying White Americans. [28] To resolve the dissonance from having pride in being White and the history of racism perpetrated by White Americans, high-identifying White Americans engage in out-group derogation, while low-identifying white Americans experience no such increase in out-group hostility and instead experience a decrease in self-esteem. The authors argue that strong identification with a group leads to feelings of linked fate, where one experiences emotions based on the group despite not necessarily being involved in the group's past or future decisions.

The strength of identification with a group also affects how one evaluates feedback from the out-group versus the in-group. In a study examining the effects of identity threat (whether the person is rated as positively or negatively as a result of their group membership) on self-esteem, participants received either positive or negative feedback from in-group or outgroup members. [1] Positive feedback was generally more well-received than negative, but feedback from an in-group member was always deemed as more reliable than an out-group member regardless of the content. In-group members' opinions may be seen as more value because they are an important part of one's identity and are supposed to be accepting of the individual. [24] Additionally, those who were low-identifying suffered more self-esteem loss from negative feedback compared to high-identifying individuals.

Acceptance threat

Acceptance threat deals with whether one is accepted by their own in-group. Many social groups like jobs, sororities or fraternities, or churches have various requirements to entry. These requirements allow the organization to see whether the member is suitable for entry and may increase the member's commitment once they are accepted into the group. [29] The authors argue that while acceptance threat may present similarly like the other threats (i.e. outgroup derogation), the internal processes are different. Taking from self-categorization theory which implies that people act strategically in ways that indicate who they want to align themselves with, individuals who have multiple conflicting identities have to choose which identity to publicly align with. [14] After choosing an identity, members must try and prove their allegiance, and they may do so by devaluing the other group. [30]

People who have or feel insecure about their place in group are most likely to engage in behaviors that are prototypical of the group. While these behaviors may manifests itself differently depending on the group that one wants to gain entry for, individuals just desire to be accepted into the in-group they favor. [31] Some experiments have demonstrated that people engage in in-group favoritism and out-group derogation when faced with uncertainty, with people who are more insecure about their group standing strongly supporting leaders who are biased towards their in-group rather than leaders who are equitable. [32]

The reactions of people who are seeking entry to a group are similar to the reactions of individuals who are faced with the possibility for being excluded from the group, or at the very least, demoted. If the individual cares about the identity, then they will engage in the aforementioned behaviors to try and maintain their status. [1] They will even evaluate a person who is more prototypical of the group more favorably than someone who is more similar to themselves to preserve the distinctiveness of the group. [33] However, for individuals who are low-identifying, they will not try to stay in the group's good graces because they already expect to be negatively perceived by the group. Interestingly, their self-categorization of themselves as low-identifying will be validated by the group's perception of them as non-prototypical. [8]

Whether the group's elite members recognize the individual's commitment to the group is another way in which one can gain acceptance from the group. Since rejection by an ingroup is seen as distressing to those who are high-identifying, they might over-compensate by adhering strictly to all of the expectations associated with the group. Meanwhile, if the individual seems to value themselves over the group (forsaking the group when it becomes disadvantageous to them), then the group elites might have a negative impression of them. [34] People who act in this way tend to be low-identifying, so these people may be rejected by those who are highly committed to the group. [35] This pattern of low-identifying individuals being rejected by the group, therefore they do not try to fit in, may become a cycle, where a subgroup might come to believe that they do not belong in the group in the first place. [36]

Related Research Articles

Group dynamics is a system of behaviors and psychological processes occurring within a social group, or between social groups. The study of group dynamics can be useful in understanding decision-making behaviour, tracking the spread of diseases in society, creating effective therapy techniques, and following the emergence and popularity of new ideas and technologies. These applications of the field are studied in psychology, sociology, anthropology, political science, epidemiology, education, social work, leadership studies, business and managerial studies, as well as communication studies.

The out-group homogeneity effect is the perception of out-group members as more similar to one another than are in-group members, e.g. "they are alike; we are diverse". Perceivers tend to have impressions about the diversity or variability of group members around those central tendencies or typical attributes of those group members. Thus, outgroup stereotypicality judgments are overestimated, supporting the view that out-group stereotypes are overgeneralizations. The term "outgroup homogeneity effect", "outgroup homogeneity bias" or "relative outgroup homogeneity" have been explicitly contrasted with "outgroup homogeneity" in general, the latter referring to perceived outgroup variability unrelated to perceptions of the ingroup.

In-group favoritism, sometimes known as in-group–out-group bias, in-group bias, intergroup bias, or in-group preference, is a pattern of favoring members of one's in-group over out-group members. This can be expressed in evaluation of others, in allocation of resources, and in many other ways.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">In-group and out-group</span> Sociological notions

In social psychology and sociology, an in-group is a social group to which a person psychologically identifies as being a member. By contrast, an out-group is a social group with which an individual does not identify. People may for example identify with their peer group, family, community, sports team, political party, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or nation. It has been found that the psychological membership of social groups and categories is associated with a wide variety of phenomena.

Social identity is the portion of an individual's self-concept derived from perceived membership in a relevant social group.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Black sheep</span> Idiom for oddness or disreputability

In the English language, black sheep is an idiom that describes a member of a group who is different from the rest, especially a family member who does not fit in. The term stems from sheep whose fleece is colored black rather than the more common white; these sheep stand out in the flock and their wool is worth less as it will not dye.

Optimal distinctiveness is a social psychological theory seeking to understand ingroup–outgroup differences. It asserts that individuals desire to attain an optimal balance of inclusion and distinctiveness within and between social groups and situations. These two motives are in constant opposition with each other; when there is too much of one motive, the other must increase in order to counterbalance it and vice versa. The theory of optimal distinctiveness was first proposed by Dr. Marilynn B. Brewer in 1991 and extensively reviewed in 2010 by Drs. Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Cynthia L. Pickett, and Marilynn Brewer.

Self-categorization theory is a theory in social psychology that describes the circumstances under which a person will perceive collections of people as a group, as well as the consequences of perceiving people in group terms. Although the theory is often introduced as an explanation of psychological group formation, it is more accurately thought of as general analysis of the functioning of categorization processes in social perception and interaction that speaks to issues of individual identity as much as group phenomena. It was developed by John Turner and colleagues, and along with social identity theory it is a constituent part of the social identity approach. It was in part developed to address questions that arose in response to social identity theory about the mechanistic underpinnings of social identification.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stereotype</span> Generalized but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing

In social psychology, a stereotype is a generalized belief about a particular category of people. It is an expectation that people might have about every person of a particular group. The type of expectation can vary; it can be, for example, an expectation about the group's personality, preferences, appearance or ability. Stereotypes are often overgeneralized, inaccurate, and resistant to new information. A stereotype does not necessarily need to be a negative assumption. They may be positive, neutral, or negative.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ultimate attribution error</span>

The ultimate attribution error is an attribution error made when making in-group and out-group attributions. The error occurs when attributions of outgroup behavior are more negative and attributions of ingroup behavior are more positive. As a cognitive bias, the error results in negative outgroup behavior being more likely to be attributed to factors internal and specific to the actor, such as personality, and the attribution of negative ingroup behavior to external factors such as luck or circumstance. The bias reinforces negative stereotypes and prejudice about the outgroup and favouritism of the ingroup through positive stereotypes. The theory also extends to the bias that positive acts performed by ingroup members are more likely a result of their personality. The Ultimate attribution error is an example of a cognitive bias that shows cross cultural differences, showing up more strongly for individuals in Western cultures than Eastern Cultures.

In social psychology, self-stereotyping is a process by which an individual integrates and internalizes commonly held characterizations of an in-group into their self-concept. It is described as part of social identity theory (SIT) and, more specifically, self-categorization theory (SCT).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social identity approach</span> Research and theory pertaining to two intertwined, but distinct, social psychological theories.[

"Social identity approach" is an umbrella term designed to show that there are two methods used by academics to describe certain complex social phenomena- namely the dynamics between groups and individuals. Those two theoretical methods are called social identity theory and self-categorization theory. Experts describe them as two intertwined, but distinct, social psychological theories. The term "social identity approach" arose as an attempt to mitigate against the tendency to conflate the two theories, as well as the tendency to mistakenly believe one theory to be a component of the other. These theories should be thought of as overlapping. While there are similarities, self categorisation theory has greater explanatory scope and has been investigated in a broader range of empirical conditions. Self-categorization theory can also be thought of as developed to address limitations of social identity theory. Specifically the limited manner in which social identity theory deals with the cognitive processes that underpin the behaviour it describes. Although this term may be useful when contrasting broad social psychological movements, when applying either theory it is thought of as beneficial to distinguish carefully between the two theories in such a way that their specific characteristics can be retained.

In social psychology, collective narcissism is the tendency to exaggerate the positive image and importance of a group to which one belongs. The group may be defined by ideology, race, political beliefs/stance, religion, sexual orientation, social class, language, nationality, employment status, education level, cultural values, or any other ingroup. While the classic definition of narcissism focuses on the individual, collective narcissism extends this concept to similar excessively high opinions of a person's social group, and suggests that a group can function as a narcissistic entity.

The self-expansion model proposes that individuals seek to expand their sense of self by acquiring resources, broadening their perspectives, and increase competency to ultimately optimize their ability to thrive in their environment. It was developed in 1986 by Arthur Aron and Elaine Aron to provide a framework for the underlying experience and behavior in close relationships. The model has two distinct but related core principles: the motivational principle and the inclusion-of-other-in-self principle. The motivational principle refers to an individual's inherent desire to improve their self-efficacy and adapt, survive, and reproduce in their environment. The inclusion-of-other-in-self principle posits that close relationships serve as the primary way to expand our sense of self as we incorporate the identities, perspectives, resources, and experiences of others as our own through these relationships.

Intergroup relations refers to interactions between individuals in different social groups, and to interactions taking place between the groups themselves collectively. It has long been a subject of research in social psychology, political psychology, and organizational behavior.

In social psychology, a metastereotype is a stereotype that members of one group have about the way in which they are stereotypically viewed by members of another group. In other words, it is a stereotype about a stereotype. They have been shown to have adverse effects on individuals that hold them, including on their levels of anxiety in interracial conversations. Meta-stereotypes held by African Americans regarding the stereotypes White Americans have about them have been found to be largely both negative and accurate. People portray meta-stereotypes of their ingroup more positively when talking to a member of an outgroup than to a fellow member of their ingroup.

Diversity ideology refers to individual beliefs regarding the nature of intergroup relations and how to improve them in culturally diverse societies. A large amount of scientific literature in social psychology studies diversity ideologies as prejudice reduction strategies, most commonly in the context of racial groups and interracial interactions. In research studies on the effects of diversity ideology, social psychologists have either examined endorsement of a diversity ideology as individual difference or used situational priming designs to activate the mindset of a particular diversity ideology. It is consistently shown that diversity ideologies influence how individuals perceive, judge and treat cultural outgroup members. Different diversity ideologies are associated with distinct effects on intergroup relations, such as stereotyping and prejudice, intergroup equality, and intergroup interactions from the perspectives of both majority and minority group members. Beyond intergroup consequences, diversity ideology also has implications on individual outcomes, such as whether people are open to cultural fusion and foreign ideas, which in turn predict creativity.

In social psychology, social projection is the psychological process through which an individual expects behaviors or attitudes of others to be similar to their own. Social projection occurs between individuals as well as across ingroup and outgroup contexts in a variety of domains. Research has shown that aspects of social categorization affect the extent to which social projection occurs. Cognitive and motivational approaches have been used to understand the psychological underpinnings of social projection as a phenomenon. Cognitive approaches emphasize social projection as a heuristic, while motivational approaches contextualize social projection as a means to feel connected to others. In contemporary research on social projection, researchers work to further distinguish between the effects of social projection and self-stereotyping on the individual’s perception of others.

An empathy gap, sometimes referred to as an empathy bias, is a breakdown or reduction in empathy where it might otherwise be expected to occur. Empathy gaps may occur due to a failure in the process of empathizing or as a consequence of stable personality characteristics, and may reflect either a lack of ability or motivation to empathize.

Outgroup favoritism is a social psychological construct intended to capture why some socially disadvantaged groups will express favorable attitudes toward social, cultural, or ethnic groups other than their own. Considered by many psychologists as part of a variety of system-justifying motives, outgroup favoritism has been widely researched as a potential explanation for why groups—particularly those disadvantaged by the normative social hierarchy—are motivated to support, maintain, and preserve the status quo. Specifically, outgroup favoritism provides a contrast to the idea of ingroup favoritism, which proposes that individuals exhibit a preference for members of their own group over members of the outgroup.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Branscombe, N.R.; Ellemers, N.; Spears, R.; Doosje, E.J. (1999). Social identity: Context, commitment, content: The context and content of social identity threat. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 35–55.
  2. ↑ Lemyre, Louise; Smith, Philip M. (September 1985). "Intergroup discrimination and self-esteem in the minimal group paradigm". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 49 (3): 660–670. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.660. ISSN   1939-1315.
  3. ↑ Young, Heather; Knippenberg, Ad van; Ellemers, Naomi; Vries, Nanne de (July 1999). "The Asymmetrical Perception of Men and Women". Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. 2 (3): 259–278. doi:10.1177/1368430299023004. ISSN   1368-4302.
  4. ↑ Crocker, Jennifer; Major, Brenda (October 1989). "Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma". Psychological Review. 96 (4): 608–630. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.96.4.608. ISSN   1939-1471.
  5. ↑ Doosje, Bertjan; Branscombe, Nyla R.; Spears, Russell; Manstead, Antony S. R. (October 1998). "Guilty by association: When one's group has a negative history". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 75 (4): 872–886. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.4.872. ISSN   1939-1315.
  6. ↑ Ellemers, Naomi; Kortekaas, Paulien; Ouwerkerk, Jaap W. (March 1999). "Self-categorisation, commitment to the group and group self-esteem as related but distinct aspects of social identity". European Journal of Social Psychology. 29 (2–3): 371–389. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199903/05)29:2/3<371::AID-EJSP932>3.0.CO;2-U. ISSN   0046-2772.
  7. 1 2 Doosje, Bertjan; Ellemers, Naomi; Spears, Russell (1995-09-01). "Perceived Intragroup Variability as a Function of Group Status and Identification". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 31 (5): 410–436. doi:10.1006/jesp.1995.1018. ISSN   0022-1031.
  8. 1 2 van Prooijen, Jan-Wiliem; van Knippenberg, Daan (January 2000). "Individuation or Depersonalization: The Influence of Personal Status Position". Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. 3 (1): 63–77. doi:10.1177/1368430200031004. ISSN   1368-4302.
  9. ↑ Koper, Gerda; Van Knippenberg, Daan; Bouhuijs, Francien; Vermunt, Riel; Wilke, Henk (May 1993). "Procedural fairness and self-esteem". European Journal of Social Psychology. 23 (3): 313–325. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420230307. ISSN   0046-2772.
  10. ↑ Doosje, Bertjan; Spears, Russell; Ellemers, Naomi; Koomen, Willem (January 1999). "Perceived Group Variability in Intergroup Relations: The Distinctive Role of Social Identity". European Review of Social Psychology. 10 (1): 41–74. doi:10.1080/14792779943000017. ISSN   1046-3283.
  11. ↑ Spencer, Steven J.; Logel, Christine; Davies, Paul G. (2016-01-04). "Stereotype Threat". Annual Review of Psychology. 67 (1): 415–437. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-073115-103235. ISSN   0066-4308. PMID   26361054.
  12. ↑ TAJFEL, HENRI; WILKES, A. L. (May 1963). "Classification and Quantitative Judgement". British Journal of Psychology. 54 (2): 101–114. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1963.tb00865.x. ISSN   0007-1269. PMID   13980241.
  13. ↑ Tajfel, Henri (1969). "Cognitive aspects of prejudice". Journal of Biosocial Science. 1 (S1): 173–191. doi:10.1017/s0021932000023336. ISSN   0021-9320.
  14. 1 2 Tajfel, Henri (April 1974). "Social identity and intergroup behaviour". Social Science Information. 13 (2): 65–93. doi:10.1177/053901847401300204. ISSN   0539-0184.
  15. ↑ Mullin, Barbara-Ann; Hogg, Michael A. (September 1998). "Dimensions of subjective uncertainty in social identification and minimal intergroup discrimination". British Journal of Social Psychology. 37 (3): 345–365. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1998.tb01176.x. ISSN   0144-6665.
  16. ↑ MLICKI, PAWEL P.; ELLEMERS, NAOMI (January 1996). <97::aid-ejsp739>3.0.co;2-f "Being different or being better? National stereotypes and identifications of Polish and Dutch students". European Journal of Social Psychology. 26 (1): 97–114. doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-0992(199601)26:1<97::aid-ejsp739>3.0.co;2-f. hdl: 1871/17737 . ISSN   0046-2772.
  17. ↑ McGuire, William J.; McGuire, Claire V.; Child, Pamela; Fujioka, Terry (1978). "Salience of ethnicity in the spontaneous self-concept as a function of one's ethnic distinctiveness in the social environment". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 36 (5): 511–520. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.36.5.511. ISSN   0022-3514. PMID   671213.
  18. ↑ Brewer, Marilynn B. (October 1991). "The Social Self: On Being the Same and Different at the Same Time". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 17 (5): 475–482. doi:10.1177/0146167291175001. ISSN   0146-1672.
  19. ↑ Simon, Bernd; Hamilton, David L. (1994). "Self-stereotyping and social context: The effects of relative in-group size and in-group status". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 66 (4): 699–711. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.4.699. ISSN   1939-1315. PMID   8189347.
  20. ↑ Jetten, Jolanda; Spears, Russell; Manstead, Antony S. R. (June 1998). "Defining dimensions of distinctiveness: Group variability makes a difference to differentiation". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 74 (6): 1481–1492. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1481. ISSN   1939-1315.
  21. ↑ Jetten, Jolanda; Spears, Russell; Manstead, Antony S.R. (199). Group Distinctiveness and Intergroup Discrimination. Blackwell Publishers.
  22. 1 2 Ellemers, Naomi; Spears, Russell; Doosje, Bertjan (1997). "Sticking together or falling apart: In-group identification as a psychological determinant of group commitment versus individual mobility". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 72 (3): 617–626. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.3.617. ISSN   1939-1315.
  23. ↑ Ellemers, Naomi; van Knippenberg, Ad; Wilke, Henk (September 1990). "The influence of permeability of group boundaries and stability of group status on strategies of individual mobility and social change". British Journal of Social Psychology. 29 (3): 233–246. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1990.tb00902.x. ISSN   0144-6665. PMID   2224425.
  24. 1 2 Bourhis, R.Y.; Giles, H.; Leyens, J.P.; Tajfel, H. (1979). Psycholinguistic Distinctiveness: Language Divergence in Belgium: Language and Social Psychology. Blackwell. pp. 158–185.
  25. ↑ Branscombe, Nyla R.; Schmitt, Michael T.; Harvey, Richard D. (July 1999). "Perceiving pervasive discrimination among African Americans: Implications for group identification and well-being". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 77 (1): 135–149. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.1.135. ISSN   1939-1315.
  26. ↑ Ellemers, Naomi; Wilke, Henk; van Knippenberg, Ad (1993). "Effects of the legitimacy of low group or individual status on individual and collective status-enhancement strategies". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 64 (5): 766–778. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.64.5.766. ISSN   1939-1315.
  27. ↑ Branscombe, Nyla R.; Wann, Daniel L. (November 1994). "Collective self-esteem consequences of outgroup derogation when a valued social identity is on trial". European Journal of Social Psychology. 24 (6): 641–657. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420240603. ISSN   0046-2772.
  28. ↑ Branscombe, N.R.; Wann, D.L. (1998). "Effects of thinking about White privilege or disadvantage and degree of White racial identification for feelings about the ingroup and outgroup". Unpublished Manuscript.
  29. ↑ Aronson, Elliot; Mills, Judson (September 1959). "The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group". The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 59 (2): 177–181. doi:10.1037/h0047195. ISSN   0096-851X.
  30. ↑ Ethier, Kathleen A.; Deaux, Kay (August 1994). "Negotiating social identity when contexts change: Maintaining identification and responding to threat". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 67 (2): 243–251. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.243. ISSN   1939-1315.
  31. ↑ Noel, Jeffrey G.; Wann, Daniel L.; Branscombe, Nyla R. (1995). "Peripheral ingroup membership status and public negativity toward outgroups". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 68 (1): 127–137. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.1.127. ISSN   1939-1315. PMID   7861310.
  32. ↑ Platow, Michael J.; Hoar, Stephanie; Reid, Scott; Harley, Keryn; Morrison, Dianne (July 1997). "Endorsement of distributively fair and unfair leaders in interpersonal and intergroup situations". European Journal of Social Psychology. 27 (4): 465–494. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199707)27:4<465::AID-EJSP817>3.0.CO;2-8. ISSN   0046-2772.
  33. ↑ Schmitt, Michael T.; Branscombe, Nyla R. (2001-11-01). "The Good, the Bad, and the Manly: Threats to One's Prototypicality and Evaluations of Fellow In-Group Members". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 37 (6): 510–517. doi:10.1006/jesp.2001.1476. ISSN   0022-1031.
  34. ↑ Spears, Russell; Doosje, Bertjan; Ellemers, Naomi (1999). Commitment and the Context of Social Perception. Blackwell. pp. 59–83.
  35. ↑ Branscombe, Nyla R.; Wann, Daniel L; Noel, Jeffrey G.; Coleman, Jason (August 1993). "In-Group or Out-Group Extemity: Importance of the Threatened Social Identity". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 19 (4): 381–388. doi:10.1177/0146167293194003. ISSN   0146-1672.
  36. ↑ Vorob’ev, D. N. (2022-12-01). "From the Origins to the Present-Day Relationships between the African American Community and the Republican Party". Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 92 (15): S1412–S1419. doi:10.1134/S1019331622210237. ISSN   1555-6492. PMC   10052273 .
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.