A new scale measuring Relational, Individual, and Collective self-aspects (RIC) was developed. The RIC Scale consists of ten questions each followed by three options reflecting the three self-aspects. Respondents rate each option in terms of its applicability to the self, yielding three subscale scores and revealing the relative prominence of each self-aspect. Two samples of university students (N 1 = 170, N 2 = 214) were used to develop and refine the scale. Analyses supported the reliability and validity of the three RIC subscales. Each self-aspect correlated in predicted ways with several existing scales. The RIC Scale also proved useful in assessing gender differences in self-aspect prominence. Validity of the threepart model of the self and implications for future research are discussed.

The affective component of group cohesiveness is reconceptualized in terms of a distinct group-based form of attraction: social attraction. It is hypothesized, from self-categorization theory, that under conditions of self-conception based on social as opposed to personal identity the basis and structure of attraction within a group becomes depersonalized in terms of the group prototype. Four-person single-sex groups made autokinetic judgements under conditions designed to accentuate individuality (low salience) or group membership (high salience). Females behaved as predicted. They manifested depersonalized attraction associated with self-categorization in group terms, indicated by greater convergence on the group norm in the high salience condition. For males depersonalized attraction occurred in the low salience condition and was linked to convergence on some, not all, measures. The results are discussed in terms of subjective uncertainty, which was abnormally and inexplicably high among low salience male groups, and differences between this and an earlier naturalistic study by Hogg & Hardie (1991). In the light of this discussion it is concluded that the data for both sexes conform to a self-categorization analysis of social attraction.

A distinction based on social identity theory and self-categorization theory is made between depersonalized (i.e., group prototypical, stereotypical) social attraction and idiosyncratic personal attraction. Only the former; as the affective component of group cohesiveness, is considered to be related to group belongingness. A questionnaire administered after a training session to 28 members of an Australian football team supported the hypotheses. As predicted, group prototypicality was significantly more closely related to social attraction and to social (group-based) popularity than to personal attraction and personal (non-group-based) popularity. Furthermore, members who were morestrongly identified with the team (e.g., rated themselves as highly prototypical) employed prototypicality as a stronger basis for social attraction than other members did.

In contrast to traditional approaches that widely equate group cohesiveness with interpersonal at traction, self-categorization theory argues that self-categorization depersonalizes perception in terms of

This study was a randomised control trial with a waiting control group. It was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of a 6-month, group-based diabetes prevention programme, The Healthy Living Course and assess whether participation in the programme led to changes in modifiable risk factors for type 2 diabetes among an already at-risk pre-diabetic population. Individuals designated at risk for diabetes by their general practitioners (GPs) were screened using an Oral Glucose Tolerance Test. Volunteers (N = 307) with pre-diabetes were assigned to an intervention or wait-control group in the ratio of approximately 2 : 1. The sample was pre-tested on biochemical, anthropometric and self-report behavioural, cognitive and mood variables and post-tested either at the end of the educational/support-based lifestyle programme or the end of the wait period. The intervention group significantly improved their diabetes knowledge, motivation to change, positive affect, healthy eating and activity levels and showed significantly greater reductions in weight, body mass index, waist circumference, diastolic blood pressure and fasting plasma glucose in comparison with controls. The intervention group also changed their diagnostic status from pre-diabetes to non-diabetes at a greater rate than the wait group (43% vs. 26%) who received standard care from their GPs.