Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free 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 Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Duck, J. M.
Right arrow Articles by Fielding, K. S.
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. 2, No. 3, 203-230 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/1368430299023001
© 1999 SAGE Publications

Leaders and Subgroups: One of Us or One of them?

Julie M. Duck

School of Psychology, The University of Qmeensland, Australia, julied{at}psy.uq.edu.au

Kelly S. Fielding

School of Psychology, The University of Qmeensland, Australia

In two experiments we examined responses to nomination of a leader from within a super ordinate group that comprised subgroups. In Experiment 1, the leader was aligned with the participant's subgroup (in group) or the other subgroup (out group), or the leader was non-aligned, belonging to both or neither subgroup. Results indicated that nomination of a leader made subgroup identity salient relative to a no leader control. Respondents expected aligned leaders, especially out group leaders, to favor their own subgroup and those with an out group leader were more biased themselves. In Experiment 2, members evaluated in group and out group leaders in contexts that emphasized intergroup competition (at the level of the super ordinate group) or intergroup competition (between the subgroups). Members were more satisfied with the leader in the inter group context, although context did not attenuate differences in evaluations of in group and out group leaders. Implications for leadership in groups and organizations are discussed.

Key Words: comparative context • leader evaluations • social categorization • subgroups


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?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Group Processes Intergroup RelationsHome page
T. Stahl, R. Vermunt, and N. Ellemers
Reactions to Outgroup Authorities' Decisions: The Role of Expected Bias, Procedural Fairness and Outcome Favorability
Group Processes Intergroup Relations, July 1, 2008; 11(3): 281 - 299.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Group Processes Intergroup RelationsHome page
S. A. Haslam, M. J. Platow, J. C. Turner, K. J. Reynolds, C. McGarty, P. J. Oakes, S. Johnson, M. K. Ryan, and K. Veenstra
Social Identity and the Romance of Leadership: The Importance of being Seen to be 'Doing it for Us'
Group Processes Intergroup Relations, July 1, 2001; 4(3): 191 - 205.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Group Processes Intergroup RelationsHome page
R. Martin and O. Epitropaki
Role of Organizational Identification on Implicit Leadership Theories (ILTs), Transformational Leadership and Work Attitudes
Group Processes Intergroup Relations, July 1, 2001; 4(3): 247 - 262.
[Abstract] [PDF]