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 Kashima, E. S.
Right arrow Articles by Hardie, E. A.
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. 3, No. 1, 97-110 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/1368430200031006

Self-Typicality and Group Identification: Evidence for their Separateness

Emiko S. Kashima

Swinburne University of Technology, ekashima{at}swin.edu.au

Yoshihisa Kashima

La Trobe University

Elizabeth A. Hardie

Swinburne University of Technology

Two studies demonstrated group identification (affective-evaluative response to in-group membership) and self-typicality (perceived typicality of the self as an in-group member) to be empirically separate. Study 1 showed that these two variables correlated distinctively with age of the participants, and that prior self-typicality but not prior identification correlated with similarity in subsequent self-and in-group ratings. Study 2 examined the latter relationships in a context that presented new, fictitious information about in-group members. Similarity in self-and group judgments, made after presentation of the new information, correlated positively with later self-typicality but negatively with later group identification. Advantages in making conceptual and operational distinctions between self-typicality and group identification are discussed.

Key Words: group identification • self-attitude • self-typicality • social identity


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
S. Otten and Y. Bar-Tal
Self-Anchoring in the Minimal Group Paradigm: The Impact of Need and Ability to Achieve Cognitive Structure
Group Processes Intergroup Relations, October 1, 2002; 5(4): 267 - 284.
[Abstract] [PDF]