Who is this "We"? Levels of collective identity and self representations.

Brewer, Marilynn B.; Gardner, Wendi L.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.83

Cited by 2,802 publications

(2,637 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

2,528

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Brewer & Gardner, 1996;Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002). Individual differences between people with higher or lower degrees of individualist or collectivist values may influence reactions to single victims and groups in a similar manner; such that people with stronger personal horizontal-collectivist values (i.e.…”

Section: In Today's World Where Communication Is Open and Available Amentioning

confidence: 99%

Scope insensitivity in helping decisions: Is it a matter of culture and values?

Kogut¹,

Slovic²,

Västfjäll³

2015

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The singularity effect of identifiable victims refers to people's greater willingness to help a single concrete victim compared with a group of victims experiencing the same need. We present 3 studies exploring values and cultural sources of this effect. In the first study, the singularity effect was found only among Western Israelis and not among Bedouin participants (a more collectivist group). In Study 2, individuals with higher collectivist values were more likely to contribute to a group of victims. Finally, the third study demonstrates a more causal relationship between collectivist values and the singularity effect by showing that enhancing people's collectivist values using a priming manipulation produces similar donations to single victims and groups. Moreover, participants' collectivist preferences mediated the interaction between the priming conditions and singularity of the recipient. Implications for several areas of psychology and ways to enhance caring for groups in need are discussed.

show abstract

Section: In Today's World Where Communication Is Open and Available Amentioning

confidence: 99%

Scope insensitivity in helping decisions: Is it a matter of culture and values?

Kogut¹,

Slovic²,

Västfjäll³

2015

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We illustrate this point with the subgroup slightly overlapping the superordinate identity. At the least inclusive level are relational groups, including friends, family, work, and category groups (Brewer & Gardner, 1996;Prentice et al, 1994). Figure 1 displays the three forms of relational group: A, B and C. Circle A represents external socialisation, which involves a relational group that exists aside from the superordinate identity that socialises a person into (1) superordinate identification, (2) subgroup identification, or (3) a combination of both.…”

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Multiple In-group Identity Framework

Lock

Funk

2016

Sport Management Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of team identification on sport consumer behaviour are well established.Recent research, however, has moved beyond this perspective to examine the influence of groups within and beyond the team identity on consumption. Assimilating previous research findings, we advance a Multiple In-group Identity Framework (MIIF), which consists of three levels: (1) superordinate (i.e., team identity), (2) subgroup (e.g., specific stadium area), and (3) relational group (e.g., friends or family). The MIIF conceptualises the complex array of groups to which a consumer may belong within a superordinate identity. Each level includes groups with varying degrees of inclusiveness, homogeneity, and interpersonal attachment between members.Individuals seek out sub and relational group membership because solely identifying at the superordinate level may not provide optimal distinctiveness or sufficient interpersonal attachment. This provides additional self-concept benefits that nourish and operate in complement with the superordinate identification. The extent that different in-group identities influence behaviour relates to their importance in a consumer's self-concept and relevance to context. We provide implications for theory and practice.

show abstract

“…Promotion focus, then, is associated with, or heightens the accessibility of, personal interest or self-esteem. Stated otherwise, promotion focus is associated with, or heightens, the accessibility of the individual self (Brewer & Gardner, 1996;Sedikides & Brewer, 2001a).The individual self refers to the set of traits and characteristics that are unique to the person. These attributes differentiate the person from close others and, more generally, from ingroup members (Gaertner & Sedikides, 2005;Gaertner, Sedikides, Luke, & Iuzzini, 2008;Sedikides & Brewer, 2001b).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Retaliation as a response to procedural unfairness: A self-regulatory approach.

Brebels¹,

Cremer²,

Sedikides³

2008

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When does procedural unfairness result in retaliation, and why do unfair-treatment recipients sometimes pursue and other times inhibit retaliation? Five studies addressed these questions. We proposed and found that regulatory focus moderates retaliation against an unfairness-enacting authority: Promotion-focus participants were more likely to retaliate than prevention-focus participants. Promotion focus was associated with, and also heightened the accessibility of, the individual self. In turn, individual-self accessibility influenced retaliation. In fact, preventionfocus participants were as retaliatory as promotion-focus participants under conditions of high individual-self accessibility. Implications for the procedural fairness and regulatory focus literatures are discussed and suggestions for future research are offered.Keywords: retaliation, unfair treatment, procedural fairness, regulatory focus, self-activation This article may not exactly replicate the final version published in the APA journal. It is not the copy of record.Unfair Treatment, Retaliation, and Self-Regulation 3 Retaliation as a Response to Procedural Unfairness: A Self-Regulatory ApproachFor many people, unfair treatment in group or organizational settings is a recurrent experience; it is also an aversive experience (Mikula, 1986;Miller, 2001;Oyserman, Uskul, Yoder, Nesse, & Williams, 2007). Aversion would be expected to result in retaliation (e.g., revenge, stealing, antisocial resource allocation). Indeed, justice researchers have considered perceived unfairness a key predictor of retaliation in employee-supervisor relationships, and they have carried out field studies to test this idea (Aquino, Tripp, & Bies, 2001;Barclay, Skarlicki, & Pugh, 2005;Bies, Tripp, & Kramer, 1997;Blader, Chang, & Tyler, 2001;Giacalone & Greenberg, 1997;Greenberg, 1993;Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). When these studies were metaanalyzed (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001), however, a rather surprising conclusion emerged: perceived unfairness was an inconsistent predictor of retaliation. This conclusion was echoed by subsequent bodies of research (Bembenek, Beike, & Schroeder, 2007; Colquitt, Scott, Judge, & Shaw, 2006;Posthuma, Maertz, & Dworkin, 2007). In the words of Colquitt et al. (2006), "a substantial amount of variation exists in these relationships, and … moderators could explain much of that variation (p. 111)." It appears, then, that researchers lack a clear understanding of when perceived unfairness translates into retaliation and why unfairness recipients pursue or inhibit retaliation.Some justice research has looked into affect as an explanation for the inconsistent relation between unfair treatment and retaliation (Barclay, Skarlicki, & Pugh, 2005;Bembenek et al., 2007;Bies & Tripp, 1996;De Cremer, 2007). This research has shown that negative emotions (e.g., anger, disappointment) accompany retaliation as a response to perceived unfairness, but the research has not addressed when and why people sometimes pursue and sometimes inhi...

show abstract

Who is this "We"? Levels of collective identity and self representations.

Cited by 2,802 publications

References 58 publications

Scope insensitivity in helping decisions: Is it a matter of culture and values?

Scope insensitivity in helping decisions: Is it a matter of culture and values?

The Multiple In-group Identity Framework

Retaliation as a response to procedural unfairness: A self-regulatory approach.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About