Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to register today!

Click here to register today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Stone, C. H.
Right arrow Articles by Crisp, R. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, Vol. 10, No. 4, 493-513 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/1368430207081537
© 2007 SAGE Publications

Superordinate and Subgroup Identification as Predictors of Intergroup Evaluation in Common Ingroup Contexts

Catriona H. Stone

University of Exeter

Richard J. Crisp

University of Kent, r.crisp{at}kent.ac.uk

We examined the combined effects of subgroup and superordinate group identification on intergroup evaluations within common ingroup identity contexts. In Studies 1 and 2 we observed a positive correlation between subgroup identification and intergroup bias, and a negative correlation between superordinate identification and bias. In Study 3 we replicated these effects using alternative measures and observed a common path underlying these relationships: the perceived psychological distance between the self and outgroup. In Studies 4 and 5 we replicated this path model and found that the relationship between superordinate identification and intergroup bias was contingent upon making the superordinate identity salient, but this was not the case for subgroup identification. We discuss the findings in the context of theoretical and applied development of the Common Ingroup Identity Model.

Key Words: common ingroup identity • distinctiveness threat • identification


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?