TL;DR: This article investigated how in-group identification, manipulated with a bogus pipeline technique, affects group members' desire for individual mobility to another group and found that low identifiers perceived the group as less homogeneous, were less committed to their group, and more strongly desired individual mobility in a higher status group than did high identifiers.
Abstract: Two experiments investigated how in-group identification, manipulated with a bogus pipeline technique affects group members' desire for individual mobility to another group In the first experiment (N = 88), the in-group had low status, and group boundaries were either permeable or impermeable Low identifiers perceived the group as less homogeneous, were less committed to their group, and more strongly desired individual mobility to a higher status group than did high identifiers The structural possibility of mobility afforded by permeable group boundaries had no comparable effect The second experiment (N = 51) investigated whether in-group identification can produce similar effects when relative group status is unknown Even in the absence of an identity threat, low identifiers were less likely to see the groups as homogeneous, felt less committed to their group, and more strongly desired individual mobility than did high identifiers Results are discussed with reference to social identity and self-categorization theories
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present core components of identity theory and social identity theory, and argue that although differences exist between the two theories, they are more differences in emphasis than in kind, and that linking these two theories can establish a more fully integrated view of the self.
Abstract: In social psychology, we need to establish a general theory of the self which can attend to both macro and micro processes, and which avoids the redundancies of separate theories on different aspects of the self For this purpose, we present core components of identity theory and social identity theory and argue that although differences exist between the two theories, they are more differences in emphasis than in kind, and that linking the two theories can establish a more fully integrated view of the self The core components we examine include the different bases of identity (category/group or role) in each of the theories, identity salience and the activation of identities as discussed in the theories, and the cognitive and motivational processes that emerge from identities based on category/group and on role. By examining the self through the lens of both identity theory and social identity theory, we see how, in combination, they can move us toward a general theory of the self In contrast to Hogg and his colleagues (Hogg, Terry, and White 1995), we see substantial similarities and overlap between social identity theory and identity theory. We think that this overlap ultimately will cause these theories to be linked in fundamental ways, though we do not think that time has
3,431 citations
Cites result from "Sticking Together or Falling Apart:..."
...Similarly, others have found that in-group identification leads to greater commitment tothe group and to less desire to leave the group, even when the group's status is relatively low (Ellemers, Spears, and Doosje 1997)....
TL;DR: In this article, a rejection-iden-tification model was proposed where stable attributions to prejudice represent rejection by the dominant group, which results in a direct and negative effect on well-being.
Abstract: The processes involved in well-being maintenance among African Americans who differed in their attributions to prejudice were examined. A rejection-iden tification model was proposed where stable attributions to prejudice represent rejection by the dominant group. This results in a direct and negative effect on well-being. The model also predicts a positive effect on well-being that is mediated by minority group identification. In other words, the generally negative consequences of perceiving oneself as a victim of racial prejudice can be somewhat alleviated by identification with the minority group. Structural equation analyses provided support for the model and ruled out alternative theoretical possibilities. Perceiving prejudice as pervasive produces effects on well-being that are fundamentally different from those that may arise from an unstable attribution to prejudice for a single negative outcome.
2,204 citations
Cites background from "Sticking Together or Falling Apart:..."
...Furthermore, as Foster and Matheson (1998) have noted, "if discrimination were measured in relation to a specific situation ....
TL;DR: Social identity theory has been used extensively in the study of intergroup relations as discussed by the authors, focusing on its powerful explanations of such phenomena as ingroup bias, responses of subordinate groups to their unequal status position, and intragroup homogeneity and stereotyping.
TL;DR: This chapter develops a taxonomy of situations to reflect the different concerns and motives that come into play as a result of threats to personal and group identity and degree of commitment to the group.
Abstract: In this chapter, we examine the self and identity by considering the different conditions under which these are affected by the groups to which people belong. From a social identity perspective we argue that group commitment, on the one hand, and features of the social context, on the other hand, are crucial determinants of central identity concerns. We develop a taxonomy of situations to reflect the different concerns and motives that come into play as a result of threats to personal and group identity and degree of commitment to the group. We specify for each cell in this taxonomy how these issues of self and social identity impinge upon a broad variety of responses at the perceptual, affective, and behavioral level.
1,409 citations
Cites background from "Sticking Together or Falling Apart:..."
...…team loss (Taylor & Doria 1981), research participants who stick together with an unsuccessful group, even when they have the opportunity to leave (Ellemers et al. 1997), or activists who may jeopardize their personal well-being for causes or principles that are unlikely to affect their own…...
[...]
...As a result, individually mobile group members decline opportunities to improve the standing of their group (Wright et al. 1990) or to help other group members (Ellemers 2001) while showing anticipatory identification with a more attractive group (Ellemers 1993, Ellemers et al. 1997)....
TL;DR: People who perceived the in-group as strong were more likely to experience anger toward the out-group and to desire to take action against it, and the effects of perceived in-groups strength on offensive action tendencies were mediated by anger.
Abstract: Purdue University Three studies tested the idea that when social identity is salient, group-based appraisals elicit specific emotions and action tendencies toward out-groups. Participants' group memberships were made salient and the collective support apparently enjoyed by the in-group was measured or manipulated. The authors then measured anger and fear (Studies 1 and 2) and anger and contempt (Study 3), as well as the desire to move against or away from the out-group. Intergroup anger was distinct from intergroup fear, and the inclination to act against the out-group was distinct from the tendency to move away from it. Participants who perceived the in-group as strong were more likely to experience anger toward the out-group and to desire to take action against it. The effects of perceived in-group strength on offensive action tendencies were mediated by anger. The annals of history and contemporary news sources bear overwhelming witness to the variety of ways in which out-groups are devalued, discriminated against, and sometimes decimated by the members of other groups. One group is shunned and avoided, a second economically exploited, another belittled and scape- goated, and yet another systematically murdered. In contributing a social psychological perspective to the understanding of negative intergroup behavior, social psychologists have typically focused on prejudice---a negative evaluation of a group and its mem- bers-as the cause of discrimination. Despite the insights provided by such an approach (for reviews, see Brewer & Brown, 1998; Dovidio, Brigham, Johnson, & Gaertner, 1996; Fiske, 1998; Macrae, Stangor, & Hewstone, 1996; Mackie & Smith, 1998a), conceptualizing prejudice as a negative evaluation of a group has proved of little help in explaining the wide variety of negative reactions to out-groups (Mackie & Smith, 1998a, 1998b; Schnei- der, 1996; E. R. Smith, 1993). Why does one out-group attract fear or contempt while another becomes the target of anger? If out- groups uniformly attract negative evaluation, what factors explain the impulse, desire, intention, or tendency to move against some groups and away from others? Unfortunately, very little work has been done to differentiate action tendencies elicited in intergroup contexts (Grant & Brown, 1995; Mackie & Smith, 1998a; Messick & Mackie, 1989; Wright, Taylor, & Moghaddam, 1990; important Diane M. Mackie and Thierry Devos, Department of Psychology, Uni- versity of California, Santa Barbara; Eliot R. Smith, Department of Psy- chological Sciences, Purdue University. This research was supported by National Science Foundation Grant SBR 9209995, a Swiss National Science Foundation Fellowship, and National Institute of Mental Health Grants RO1 MH46840 and KO2 MH01178. Thierry Devos is now at the Department of Psychology, Yale University. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Diane M. Mackie, Department of Psychology, University of California, Santa Barbara, California 93106-9660. Electronic mail may be sent to mackie @psych.ucsb.edu. 602 exceptions are discussed later). The research reported here consti- tutes an initial empirical investigation of a novel theoretical ap- proach to answering these questions. Although intergroup theorists have by and large concentrated on negative attitude or evaluation as a precursor to discrimination, emotion theorists have typically differentiated both the diversity of feelings that may be directed toward a particular target and the specificity of behavior that can follow from those feelings. Ap- praisal theories of emotion (Frijda, 1986; Roseman, 1984; Scherer, 1988; C. A. Smith & Ellsworth, 1985), in particular, conceptualize personal emotions as complex reactions to specific situations or events that include quite differentiated cognitions, feelings, and action tendencies. Specific emotions experienced by an individual are triggered by appraisals (cognitions or interpretations) of whether an event appears to favor or harm the individual's goals or desires and whether the individual has the resources to cope or not, for example. Depending on their particular configuration, cogni- tive appraisals trigger specific emotional experiences (Ellsworth & Smith, 1988; Roseman, Spindel, & Jose, 1990; C. A. Smith & Ellsworth, 1985) and these emotional experiences in turn promote certain behaviors (Frijda, Kuipers, & ter Schure, 1989; Roseman, Wiest, & Swartz, 1994). Anger at another individual, for example, is typically conceptualized as resulting from appraisals that the other has harmed the self and that the self is strong. Such anger in turn leads to tendencies to aggress against that other person. Appraisal theory was developed to explain personal emotions experienced by individuals, and this focus was maintained in an important application of it to the intergroup context. Dijker (1987; Dijker, Koomen, van den Heuvel, & Frijda, 1996) asked native Dutch participants their emotional reactions to individual members of naturally occurring out-groups, with the assumption that these reactions depended on the nature of interpersonal interactions that participants had experienced. Respondents reported feeling a range of distinct negative and positive emotions about out-group mem- bers indicating that their personal emotions were indeed influenced by their individual experiences in encounters with other groups.
TL;DR: Douglass C. North as discussed by the authors developed an analytical framework for explaining the ways in which institutions and institutional change affect the performance of economies, both at a given time and over time.
Abstract: Continuing his groundbreaking analysis of economic structures, Douglass North develops an analytical framework for explaining the ways in which institutions and institutional change affect the performance of economies, both at a given time and over time. Institutions exist, he argues, due to the uncertainties involved in human interaction; they are the constraints devised to structure that interaction. Yet, institutions vary widely in their consequences for economic performance; some economies develop institutions that produce growth and development, while others develop institutions that produce stagnation. North first explores the nature of institutions and explains the role of transaction and production costs in their development. The second part of the book deals with institutional change. Institutions create the incentive structure in an economy, and organisations will be created to take advantage of the opportunities provided within a given institutional framework. North argues that the kinds of skills and knowledge fostered by the structure of an economy will shape the direction of change and gradually alter the institutional framework. He then explains how institutional development may lead to a path-dependent pattern of development. In the final part of the book, North explains the implications of this analysis for economic theory and economic history. He indicates how institutional analysis must be incorporated into neo-classical theory and explores the potential for the construction of a dynamic theory of long-term economic change. Douglass C. North is Director of the Center of Political Economy and Professor of Economics and History at Washington University in St. Louis. He is a past president of the Economic History Association and Western Economics Association and a Fellow, American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He has written over sixty articles for a variety of journals and is the author of The Rise of the Western World: A New Economic History (CUP, 1973, with R.P. Thomas) and Structure and Change in Economic History (Norton, 1981). Professor North is included in Great Economists Since Keynes edited by M. Blaug (CUP, 1988 paperback ed.)
TL;DR: In this article, the authors examine the role that institutions, defined as the humanly devised constraints that shape human interaction, play in economic performance and how those institutions change and how a model of dynamic institutions explains the differential performance of economies through time.
Abstract: Examines the role that institutions, defined as the humanly devised constraints that shape human interaction, play in economic performance and how those institutions change and how a model of dynamic institutions explains the differential performance of economies through time. Institutions are separate from organizations, which are assemblages of people directed to strategically operating within institutional constraints. Institutions affect the economy by influencing, together with technology, transaction and production costs. They do this by reducing uncertainty in human interaction, albeit not always efficiently. Entrepreneurs accomplish incremental changes in institutions by perceiving opportunities to do better through altering the institutional framework of political and economic organizations. Importantly, the ability to perceive these opportunities depends on both the completeness of information and the mental constructs used to process that information. Thus, institutions and entrepreneurs stand in a symbiotic relationship where each gives feedback to the other. Neoclassical economics suggests that inefficient institutions ought to be rapidly replaced. This symbiotic relationship helps explain why this theoretical consequence is often not observed: while this relationship allows growth, it also allows inefficient institutions to persist. The author identifies changes in relative prices and prevailing ideas as the source of institutional alterations. Transaction costs, however, may keep relative price changes from being fully exploited. Transaction costs are influenced by institutions and institutional development is accordingly path-dependent. (CAR)
TL;DR: The Logic of Hierarchical Linear Models (LMLM) as discussed by the authors is a general framework for estimating and hypothesis testing for hierarchical linear models, and it has been used in many applications.
Abstract: Introduction The Logic of Hierarchical Linear Models Principles of Estimation and Hypothesis Testing for Hierarchical Linear Models An Illustration Applications in Organizational Research Applications in the Study of Individual Change Applications in Meta-Analysis and Other Cases Where Level-1 Variances are Known Three-Level Models Assessing the Adequacy of Hierarchical Models Technical Appendix
TL;DR: This chapter discusses Hierarchical Linear Models in Applications, Applications in Organizational Research, and Applications in the Study of Individual Change Applications in Meta-Analysis and Other Cases Where Level-1 Variances are Known.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a struggling attempt to give structure to the statement: "Business in under-developed countries is difficult"; in particular, a structure is given for determining the economic costs of dishonesty.
Abstract: This paper relates quality and uncertainty. The existence of goods of many grades poses interesting and important problems for the theory of markets. On the one hand, the interaction of quality differences and uncertainty may explain important institutions of the labor market. On the other hand, this paper presents a struggling attempt to give structure to the statement: “Business in under-developed countries is difficult”; in particular, a structure is given for determining the economic costs of dishonesty. Additional applications of the theory include comments on the structure of money markets, on the notion of “insurability,” on the liquidity of durables, and on brand-name goods.