This article presents a model of social identity development and integration in the self. Classic intergroup theories (e.g., social identity theory, self-categorization theory) address the situational, short-term changes in social identities. Although these theories identify the contextual and environmental factors that explain situational changes in social identification, the intraindividual processes underlying developmental changes in social identities and their integration within the self remain to be identified. Relying on recent intergroup models as well as on developmental (i.e., neo-Piagetian) and social cognitive frameworks, this article proposes a four-stage model that explains the specific processes by which multiple social identities develop intraindividually and become integrated within the self over time. The factors that facilitate versus impede these identity change processes and the consequences associated with social identity integration are also presented.

A revised theory of planned behaviour (TPB) model was used to determine the influence of attitudes, norms (injunctive, descriptive, and moral norms), perceived behavioural control, and past behaviour on intentions to donate money to charitable organisations.Respondents (N = 227) completed a questionnaire assessing the constructs of the revised TPB model. Four weeks later, a subsample of respondents (N = 67) reported their donating behaviour. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses revealed support for the revised TPB model. Attitudes, perceived behavioural control, injunctive norms, moral norms, and past behaviour all predicted charitable giving intentions; however, descriptive norms did not predict donating intentions. Donating intentions were the only significant predictor of donating behaviour at Time 2. In addition, a number of beliefs differentiated between those who did and did not intend to donate to charity. Theoretical and applied implications of the results are discussed. Australians do donate significantly to charitable organisations -however, levels of charitable giving in Australia are lower than in many other developed countries such as the US and the UK (Industry Commission Report, 1995). For example, in terms of the proportion of Gross National Product (GNP) donated to charities, the Australian population as a whole gives at a far lower rate than (0.5%) than both the UK (0.77%) and particularly the US (2.1%; Asia-Pacific Centre for Philanthropy & Social Investment, 2004). Moreover, while the average Australian donor donates $AU133 to charitable organisations, the average donor in the UK gives the equivalent of $AU400 every year (UK Giving, 2005). Thus, there is scope for Australian charitable organisations to engage more donors and to encourage the public to donate more to charitable organisations. Charitable Giving: The Australian ContextLike most modern democracies, Australian society is supported and served by a not-for-profit sector that delivers a range of services to its citizens. Charitable organisations play an important role in Australian society, contributing both time and funds to numerous research efforts and causes that aid the needy. Despite the work carried out by charitable organisations, and despite public perceptions to the contrary (Polonsky, Shelley, & Voola, 2002), most remain unfunded by government. As a result, charitable 3 organisations are forced to rely on the generosity of the general community and the scope of their work is restricted by the amount of funds received from the public.It is estimated that approximately AU$3 billion is donated to charitable organisations by individual Australians every year (Philanthropy Australia, 2004). Recent statistics suggest that 71% of the population over 15 years donate to charities, with the average Australian donating $133 per year (O'Keefe, Clements, & Fleet, 2001). However, there is doubt as to whether future generations will donate money in the same fashion. It has been reported that 65% of the population under t...

The present research investigated three approaches to the role of norms in the theory of planned behaviour (TPB). Two studies examined the proposed predictors of intentions to engage in household recycling (Studies 1 and 2) and reported recycling behaviour (Study 1). Study 1 tested the impact of descriptive and injunctive norms (personal and social) and the moderating role of self-monitoring on norm-intention relations. Study 2 examined the role of group norms and group identification and the moderating role of collective self on norm-intention relations. Both studies demonstrated support for the TPB and the inclusion of additional normative variables: attitudes; perceived behavioural control; descriptive; and personal injunctive norms (but not social injunctive norm) emerged as significant independent predictors of intentions. There was no evidence that the impact of norms on intentions varied as a function of the dispositional variables of self-monitoring (Study 1) or the collective self (Study 2). There was support, however, for the social identity approach to attitude-behaviour relations in that group norms predicted recycling intentions, particularly for individuals who identified strongly with the group. The results of these two studies highlight the critical role of social influence processes within the TPB and the attitude-behaviour context.

were conducted to tease apart the relative effects of descriptive and injunctive group norms. In both studies, university students' attitudes towards current campus issues were obtained, descriptive and injunctive group norms were manipulated, and participants' postmanipulation attitudes, behavioural willingness, and behaviour were assessed. Study 2 also examined the role of norm source (i.e., ingroup vs. outgroup injunctive and descriptive norms). In both studies, injunctive and descriptive ingroup norms interacted significantly to influence attitudes, behavioural willingness, and behaviour. Study 2 revealed that outgroup norms were largely ineffective. The research illustrates that ingroups interactively influence decisions, not only by what they say, but also by what they do, and asserts the value of considering the interaction of descriptive and injunctive norms in accounts of normative influence.

Research has shown limited support for the notion that perceived effectiveness of collective action is a predictor of intentions to engage in collective action. One reason may be that effectiveness has been in terms of whether the action will influence key decision makers. We argue that the effectiveness of collective action might be judged by other criteria, such as whether it influences third parties, builds an oppositional movement, and expresses values. Two hundred and thirty one attendees at a rally rated the effectiveness of the rally and their intentions to engage in future collective action. For those participants who were not members of an organization, intentions were linked to the perceived effectiveness of the rally in expressing values and influencing the public. For those who were members of an organization, intentions were linked only to the effectiveness of the rally in building an oppositional movement.It is well documented that people's concerns about social and economic issues do not necessarily translate into collective action (Klandermans, 2002;Olson, 1968). For example, a 1983 Gallup poll (cited in Fox & Schofield, 1989 revealed that approximately 40% of people in the U.S. believed that it was likely that there would be nuclear war by 1998, and 70% believed that they would not survive a nuclear war. Despite this, surveys in the 1980s showed that only a very small minority of people engaged in collective