Social identity and intergroup evaluative bias: Realistic categories and domain specific self-esteem in a conflict setting

Abstract

Social identity theory predicts a link between self-esteem and intergroup discrimination. Previous research hasWe would Like to thank Amelie Mummendey and three anonymous reviewen for their helpful comments.

Increases in global and domain specific self-esteem following a 10 day developmental voyage

“…The SDQ III has proven to be reliable across cultures. These include Northern Ireland (Hunter et al 1996), Canada (Byrne 1988a), Australia (Marsh and O'Neill 1984), Portugal (Faria 1996), and New Zealand (Hunter et al 1997;Mitchell and Mitchell 1989). Each of the 13 subscales of the SDQ III have excellent levels of internal (median r = .90) and retest reliability (median r = .87).…”

“…in terms of the esteem related to particular attributes such as attractiveness, honesty or intelligence). Because various domains of self-esteem are orthogonal to one another and global self-esteem (Marsh et al 1986a, b;Marsh and O'Neill 1984) scales assessing global self-esteem are unlikely to detect the effects of interventions, which target particular behaviours, attributes or self-esteem domains (Hunter et al 1996;Hunter et al 1997).…”

A Qualitative Approach to Intergroup Relations: Exploring the Applicability of the Social Identity Approach to “Messy” School Contexts

“…Despite its application to "messy" real life processes, as noted earlier, psychologists exploring group processes and relations have continued to adhere almost exclusively to quantitative methods and methodologies, often laboratory based or, in fewer cases, quasiexperimental field studies (e.g., Aberson, Healy & Romero 2000;Branscombe & Wann 1992;Brewer, Dull & Lui 1981;Doosje et al 1998;Crisp, Hewstone & Cairns 2001;Griffin & Phoenix 1994;Hogg & Mullin 1999;Hornsey & Hogg 2000;Hunter 1998;Hunter et al 1996;Hunter et al 1997;Judd & Park 1988;Kelly 1988;Lemyre & Smith 1985;Long & Spears 1998;Mummendey et al 1992;Oakes & Turner 1980;Verkuyten & Hagendoorn 2002;Vignoles & Moncaster 2007). There are a few exceptions, where there are elements of combining quantitative and qualitative methods (e.g., Coats & Smith 1999;Eckes 1994;Eckes, Trautner & Behrendt 2005;Vonk & Olde-Monnikhof 1998) or qualitative methods only (e.g., Giles 2006).…”

Residential Community Identification and Psychological Well-Being

“…Hence, place identification helps predict self-functioning generally (i.e., well-being, low distress) via a sense of control or mastery (self-efficacy), emotional self-regulation or enhancement (self-esteem), and dependability or stability (self-continuity). Similarly, valued group identities (positive and central to self) have positive consequences for domain-specific and sometimes overall self-esteem (Hunter, O'Brien, & Grocott, 1999;Hunter, Platow, Bell, Kypri, & Lewis, 1997;Hunter, Platow, Howard, & Stringer, 1996;Rubin & Hewstone, 1998), self-efficacy (C. Brown, Glastetter-Fender, & Shelton, 2000;De Cremer & van Vugt, 1998;Koch, 1993), and self-continuity (Chandler & Lalonde, 1998), whereas subjectively devalued social identities have negative consequences for the same.…”

“…Reviews of this literature, however, indicate mixed results (Abrams & Hogg, 1988;Hogg & Abrams, 1990;Long & Spears, 1997;Rubin & Hewstone, 1998). Hunter and colleagues suggest, and show empirically, it is not so much global self-esteem that is affected by these acts of social competition, but rather domain-specific self-esteem (i.e., those self-domains relevant to the category membership; e.g., academic or verbal ability, physical appearance, religion; Hunter, O'Brien, & Grocott, 1999;Hunter, Platow, Bell, Kypri, & Lewis, 1997;Hunter, Platow, Howard, & Stringer, 1996).…”