Group Identification: The Same Thing to All People?

Brown, Rupert; Williams, Jennifer

doi:10.1177/001872678403700704

Cited by 110 publications

(70 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Consistent with the above, it is well established that such ingroup identifi cation is variable (e.g. Branscombe, Wann, Noel, & Coleman, 1993;Doosje, Ellemers, & Spears, 1995; for reviews see Brown & Williams, 1984;Hinkle & Brown, 1990), and this variability in social identifi cation has strong predictive validity when combined with value or distinctiveness threat. This is the case with respect to a range of intergroup attitudes and behaviors ranging from self-stereotyping (e.g.…”

Section: This Researchmentioning

confidence: 68%

Seeing Red or Feeling Blue: Differentiated Intergroup Emotions and Ingroup Identification in Soccer Fans

Crisp

Heuston

Farr

et al. 2007

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study we examined how social identity threat, contextualized as soccer fans’ reactions to their team’s success or failure, can lead to differentiated emotional expression as a function of ingroup identification. We predicted that negative responses to threat (a team losing a match) would be qualitatively differentiated for lower and higher ingroup identifiers in terms of both emotions and action tendencies. English male soccer fans were tested in three sessions (following matches resulting in two losses and one win). The findings supported the hypotheses: following match losses lower identifiers felt sad but not angry, whereas higher identifiers felt angry but not sad. These qualitatively different negative emotional reactions to match loss mediated reported action tendencies. We discuss how these findings support intergroup emotions theory and the predictive utility of social identification in discerning differentiated emotional and behavioral reactions to intergroup threat.

show abstract

Section: This Researchmentioning

confidence: 68%

Seeing Red or Feeling Blue: Differentiated Intergroup Emotions and Ingroup Identification in Soccer Fans

Crisp

Heuston

Farr

et al. 2007

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The incorporation of membership cues into the self-concept stems to some extent from individuals' awareness of belonging to social minorities, such as ethnic, occupational, or gender groups (Allport, 1954;Doise, 1978;Hacker, 1951;Lewin, 1948;McGuire, McGuire, Child and Fujioka, 1978;Tajfel, 1981). Self-conceptions of dominated group members are more often embedded in an ingroup-outgroup contrast that overrides interpersonal differentiation within the groups; those of dominant group members draw from personal attributes stressing the uniqueness of the self compared to other people, especially to ingroup members (Amancio, 1989;Brown and Williams, 1984;Hinkle and Brown, 1990;Lorenzi-Cioldi and Doise, 1990).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self‐stereotyping and self‐enhancement in gender groups

Lorenzi‐Cioldi

1991

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…group homogeneity hypothesis have not attracted much interest, even though results such as those reported by Brown and his associates (Brown & Smith, 1989;Brown & Williams, 1984) and by Smith & Zarate (1992) using occupational and sex groups, and those reported by Cross, Cross & Daly (1971) and by Malpass and his associates (Malpass & Kravitz, 1969;Malpass, Lavigueur & Weldon, 1973) using racial groups, suggest that status affects perceived out-group homogeneity. Namely, low-status out-groups are often perceived as more homogeneous than high-status out-groups (see Messick & Mackie, 1989).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

They all look alike, but so do we … sometimes: Perceptions of in‐group and out‐group homogeneity as a function of sex and context

Lorenzi‐Cioldi

1993

British J Social Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The impact of gender on perceptions of group homogeneity was assessed using a memory paradigm. In the main experimental conditions, male and female subjects were presented with 12 pairs of photographs and gendered silhouettes. The photographs portrayed a series of environments (e.g. a kitchen) in public settings (e.g. a restaurant) and in domestic ones (e.g. at home). The connection of settings and gender of silhouettes varied across subjects. In control conditions, all silhouettes were of the same sex or were geometrical forms (triangles and squares). The subjects memorized the pairs of photographs and targets, and then had to reconstruct them. The experiment addressed three hypotheses. The categorization effect: within-category errors would exceed betweencategory errors, especially when gender was used as a categorization criterion. The out-group homogeneity effect: within-category errors concerning the out-group would be greater than those concerning the in-group. The social status effect: men would display more out-group homogeneity than women. Results provided evidence for the categorization and the out-group homogeneity hypotheses. They also supported to some extent the social status hypothesis. Different styles of processing of information were suggested by men's and women's performances. Men consistently displayed the outgroup homogeneity bias, whereas women did not. Women took into account the kind of setting: they made more errors when matching the male or the female silhouettes to the domestic settings (the stereotypical in-group settings) than when matching these silhouettes to the public settings (the stereotypical out-group settings). Finally, sex-typing measures about the self were related to the subjects' behavioural performances, especially for women.Out-groups tend to be perceived as less variable and less differentiated than in-groups:They all look alike, but we don't. Several explanations of this out-group homogeneity effect have been proposed. Some of them stress the perceivers' familiarity with in-group members (Linville, Salovey & Fischer, 1986), others focus on the nature of the intergroup interactions (e.g. Wilder, 1984) and others on individuals' cognitive processes (e.g. Park & Rothbart, 1982; see Quattrone, 1986, for a review).Despite the abundance of arguments sustaining the pervasiveness of this effect, authors do not consistently argue in favour of the out-group homogeneity effect. Self-categorization theory, for instance, posits an equal balance of in-group and out-group homogeneities *Requests for reprints. 112Fabio Lorenzi-Cioldi when intergroup comparisons between oneself and others are concerned (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher & Wetherell, 1987). Moreover, inspection of the empirical literature reveals a puzzling pattern of results. Perceptions of out-group homogeneity vary greatly in magnitude and sometimes in-groups are more homogeneous than out-groups. Various mediating factors which account for these inconsistencies have been reported: interpersonal attraction (Stephan, 1977...

show abstract

Group Identification: The Same Thing to All People?

Cited by 110 publications

References 13 publications

Seeing Red or Feeling Blue: Differentiated Intergroup Emotions and Ingroup Identification in Soccer Fans

Seeing Red or Feeling Blue: Differentiated Intergroup Emotions and Ingroup Identification in Soccer Fans

Self‐stereotyping and self‐enhancement in gender groups

They all look alike, but so do we … sometimes: Perceptions of in‐group and out‐group homogeneity as a function of sex and context

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About