Emina Subasic

The Political Solidarity Model of Social Change: Dynamics of Self-Categorization in Intergroup Power Relations:

Social and political change involves a challenge to the status quo in intergroup power relations. Traditionally, the social psychology of social change has focused on disadvantaged minority groups collectively challenging the decisions, actions, and policies of those in positions of established authority. In contrast, this article presents a political solidarity model of social change that explores the process by which members of the majority challenge the authority in solidarity with the minority. It is argued that political solidarity as a social change process involves a contest between the authority and the minority over the meaning of a shared (higher order) identity with the majority. When identity ceases to be shared with the authority and becomes shared with the minority, majority challenge to authority in solidarity with the minority becomes possible. The models contributions to existing social psychological approaches to social change are also discussed.

Interactionism in Personality and Social Psychology: An Integrated Approach to Understanding the Mind and Behaviour

In both personality psychology and social psychology there is a trajectory of theory and research that has its roots in Gestalt psychology and interactionism. This work is outlined in this paper along with an exploration of the hitherto neglected points of connection it offers these two fields. In personality psychology the focus is on dynamic interactionism and in social psychology, mainly through social identity theory and self‐categorization theory, it is on the interaction between the individual (‘I’) and group (‘we’) and how the environment (that includes the perceiver) is given meaning. What emerges is an understanding of the person and behaviour that is more integrated, dynamic and situated. The aim of the paper is to stimulate new lines of theory and research consistent with this view of the person. Copyright

Does personality explain in-group identification and discrimination? Evidence from the minimal group paradigm

The idea that a persons personality can help explain prejudice has a long history in social psychology. The classic counter-argument has been that prejudice is much more a function of peoples group memberships and the nature of intergroup relations rather than individual differences. Bringing these two lines of research together, it has been suggested that personality factors may not only affect intergroup discrimination directly, but also indirectly by predisposing some individuals to identify more strongly with some relevant in-group membership. Two experiments were conducted to investigate this possibility. The participants completed various personality measures (e.g. authoritarianism, personal need for structure and ethnocentrism as well as social dominance orientation (SDO) in Experiment 2). They were then assigned to minimal groups either randomly, by choice, or (supposedly) on the basis of attitudinal similarity. In Experiment 2, the minimal group paradigm was also adapted to examine the role of SDO. Overall, there was no evidence of significant relationships between traditional personality measures and either in-group identification or discrimination. In-group identification alone emerged as the strongest predictor of discrimination. There was evidence that those participants who scored higher in SDO were more likely to act in ways that supported the creation of a power hierarchy. The implications for broader understanding of prejudice are discussed.

Well-being, school climate, and the social identity process: a latent growth model study of bullying perpetration and peer victimization.

The present study concerns longitudinal research on bullying perpetration and peer victimization. A focus is on school factors of school climate (academic support, group support) and school identification (connectedness or belonging), which are conceptualized as related but distinct constructs. Analysis of change on these factors as well as individual well-being across time contributes to understanding bullying behavior. Latent growth modeling was employed to examine the predictors of anxiety, depression, 2 school climate factors and school identification in understanding change in physical and verbal bullying behavior. The sample included 492 Australian school students (means age 15 years, 53.5% male) in Grades 7 to 10 who completed measures over 3 years. Academic support and group support were the strongest predictors of change in bullying and victimization. Positive change in school identification also predicted a decrease in bullying behavior over time. An increase in depression or anxiety across time predicted an increase in rates of both bullying and victimization over time. Future research should continue to examine the complex relationship between individual-psychological and social-psychological variables in impacting on incidence of school-based bullying. On a practical note, school-based intervention programs may benefit from an approach that aims to target the school climate, social identity with the school, and promote individual psychological well-being.

Are we all in this together? Co-victimization, inclusive social identity and collective action in solidarity with the disadvantaged

Common experience of injustice can be a potent motivator of collective action and efforts to achieve social change - and of such efforts becoming more widespread. In this research, we propose that the effects of co-victimization on collective action are a function of inclusive social identity. Experiment 1 (N= 61) demonstrated that while presence (compared to absence) of co-victimization positively predicted consumer (i.e., participants) willingness to act collectively in solidarity with sweatshop workers, this effect was mediated by inclusive social identity. In Experiment 2 (N= 120), the salience of inclusive social identity was experimentally manipulated and interacted with co-victimization to predict collective action. When inclusive social identity was salient, co-victimization enhanced collective action, including willingness to pay extra for products made ethically and in support of fair wages for workers. In contrast, collective action was attenuated when co-victimization took place in the absence of inclusive social identity. Implications for understanding when co-victimization is transformed into common fate and political solidarity with the disadvantaged are discussed.

Power Consolidation in Leadership Change Contexts: A Social Identity Perspective

Whether or not Zoe’s reaction epitomized the mood of the British nation on the 27 June 2007 is an empirical question.2 Even in the absence of such extreme reactions from the general public, however, there was little doubt that Gordon Brown’s task in succeeding Tony Blair was a difficult one. About the same time in Australia, after a decade as Treasurer and quite a few years of harbouring hopes of becoming the next Liberal Party leader and Prime Minister, it was becoming clear that Peter Costello’s chances of succeeding John Howard were rather slim. Fast-forward to early 2008 and the morning of the apology to Indigenous Australians, Costello may have counted himself a lucky man.

Further integration of social psychology and personality psychology: Choice or necessity?

The aim of the Reynolds et al. paper was to advance understanding of the points of connection between personality and social psychology and to open up and stimulate new lines of theory and research. We believe that those reading the paper and commentaries, whether in agreement or disagreement, will find the experience thought-provoking and stimulating. Major issues at the heart of both fields have been identified, debated and discussed. In the paper, we sought to investigate whether the self-categorization theory of the self-process, and related work in personality psychology on dynamic interactionism, can provide a more integrated explanation of the person and behaviour. This task is complicated by the need to orient the arguments to personality and social psychology audiences and the complexity of the issues involved, many of which have long been debated in both fields. Our mission in this rejoinder is to build on these commentaries and to focus the debate and discussion on issues of substance. We, therefore, in the next few pages seek to highlight points of consensus, address misunderstandings and map out future directions.

“We for She”: Mobilising men and women to act in solidarity for gender equality

Gender (in)equality is typically studied as a women’s issue to be addressed via systemic measures (e.g., government policy). As such, research focusing on mobilising men (and women) towards achieving gender equality is rare. In contrast, this paper examines the mobilisation of both men and women towards gender equality as common cause. Experiment 1 shows that men’s collective action intentions increase after reading messages that position men as agents of change towards gender equality, compared to messages that frame this issue as stemming from inadequate government policy. Experiments 2 and 3 demonstrate that messages framing gender equality as an issue for both men and women increase men’s collective action intentions, compared to when gender inequality is framed as primarily concerning women. However, this effect emerges primarily under conditions where the source of message is male (Experiment 3). Practical and theoretical implications for mobilising political solidarity in gender equality contexts are discussed.

How Does School Climate Impact Academic Achievement? An Examination of Social Identity Processes.

In explaining academic achievement, school climate and social belonging (connectedness, identification) emerge as important variables. However, both constructs are rarely explored in one model. In the current study, a social psychological framework based on the social identity perspective (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) is introduced that provides a way to integrate these two areas of enquiry. Using this framework, the current study (N = 340 grade 7 and 9 students) investigates: (a) school climate and social identification as distinct predictors of academic achievement; and (b) social identification as a mediator of the school climate and achievement relationship. Achievement in reading, numeracy and writing was assessed by a national standardized test. The three variables most significantly associated with achievement were parental education, socio-economic status, and school identification. In line with predictions, school identification fully mediated the relationship between school climate and academic achievement in numeracy and writing, but not reading. The research highlights the importance of feeling psychologically connected to the school as a group for academic success.

From Prejudice to Social Change: A Social Identity Perspective

For more than 80 years, understanding the causes, consequences, and remedies for prejudice has been a central theme in social psychology. Prejudice, by definition, refers to the holding of negative attitudes toward others based exclusively on their membership of a given group (Brown, 1995, p. 6). Prejudice is a major area of academic enquiry because it is considered a necessary condition for discrimination, which affects the opportunities and well-being of its targets – the victims. Furthermore, when negative views about a particular group become widespread and shared, then intergroup conflict, violence, and civil unrest are more likely. Much of social psychology, though, has focused on the concepts of prejudice and social change as largely distinct areas of inquiry underpinned by different levels of analysis. Many approaches to explaining prejudice are directed at individual-level factors such as personality and cognitive and motivation processes (which are potentially faulty and irrational). Other explanations of prejudice emphasize the role of system-level factors and argue that maintenance of the status quo and preservation of stable social hierarchies consequently result in the subjugation of particular minority groups. An alternative analysis is that prejudice and social change are both outcomes of ongoing and fluid intergroup relations whereby peoples group memberships and relationships between groups play a central explanatory role. The overarching and fundamental questions of interest within this trajectory of work are how is the intergroup relationship perceived now and when and how does it change. Drawing on the social identity perspective, which incorporates both social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and self-categorization theory (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987), the aim of this chapter is to make a case for the interdependence of prejudice and social change. This more integrated analysis relies on a new understanding of prejudice that rejects the premise that such attitudes and associated negative treatment are the product of flawed and faulty cognitive and motivational psychological processes (Oakes, Haslam, & Turner, 1994; Reynolds, Haslam, & Turner, 2012). Instead prejudice needs to be conceptualized, first and foremost, as an outcome of group processes and intergroup dynamics, whereby members of the majority and minority groups are positioned in a particular social relationship. Majority and minority do not refer to the simple numbers but to positions of power through cultural and economic dominance within a social system.