Katherine J. Reynolds

Social Identity Salience and the Emergence of Stereotype Consensus

In recent years, there has been a renewal of interest in the processes through which groups coordinate social perceptions and judgement. This topic is particularly important for the study of stereotyping, as most of the impact of stereotypes derives from the fact that they are widely shared within social groups. The present experiment (N = 132) tests the assertion that perceivers are more likely to generate a shared in-group stereotype to the extent that they define themselves and interact in terms of a common social category membership. Results supported predictions, indicating that manipulations intended to heighten social identity salience affected the content of self-categorizations leading to enhanced stereotype consensus and favorableness. As predicted, effects apparent when individuals completed stereotype checklists were also enhanced when checklists were completed in groups. These results are consistent with predictions derived from self-categorization theory and point to the capacity for internalized group memberships to structure and regulate cognition.

The ASPIRe model: Actualizing Social and Personal Identity Resources to enhance organizational outcomes

A growing body of research points to the contribution of social identity and self-categorization processes to organizational social capital. In particular, this is because all facets of collective behaviour (e.g., trust, communication, leadership, productivity) are facilitated to the extent that individuals define themselves in terms of higher-order social categories (i.e., as members of a common ingroup). However, very little work has sought to translate these social and cognitive insights into models of organizational practice. In an attempt to do this, the present paper outlines a four-phase model for Actualizing Social and Personal Identity Resources (the ASPIRe model). Within a relevant organizational unit, an initial phase involves ascertaining which social identities employees use collectively to define themselves (AIRing). In intermediate phases, relevant subgroups and then the organizational unit as a whole develop goals that are relevant to those identities (Sub-Casing and Super-Casing). In a final phase, organizational planning and direction are informed by the outcomes of the previous two phases and by the new organic organizational identity they produce (ORGanizing). Points of contact with alternative models are identified and the models potential to encourage sustainable productivity is discussed.

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.

When are we better than them and they worse than us? A closer look at social discrimination in positive and negative domains.

This article argues that in-group favoritism occurs on positive and negative dimensions only when the dimensions of comparison provide an appropriate and meaningful basis for self-other definition, that is, when traits comparatively and normatively fit in-group-out-group categorizations. Three studies are reported in which groups were evaluated on positive or negative traits that varied in their degree of normative fit to in-group and out-group identity. In line with predictions, fit rather than stimulus valence was the crucial determinant of (a) in-group favoritism and (b) absolute level of differentiation between groups. Implications of the findings for explanations of positive-negative asymmetry and broader understandings of intergroup discrimination are discussed.

The Group as a Basis for Emergent Stereotype Consensus

The fact that stereotypes are shared within groups is essential to stereotype definition and operationalization. Nonetheless, stereotype consensus remains under-researched and under-explained. To address this problem we present a theoretical analysis of the process through which stereotype consensus develops. Derived from self-categorization theory, this argues that consensus is produced by shared social identification and the collective co-ordination of perception and behaviour that flows from it. This analysis is examined in a review of relevant research and in studies where dynamic processes of category representation and social influence are shown to contribute to consensual stereotypes of both out-groups and ingroups.

Why social dominance theory has been falsified

Schmitt, Branscombe and Kappen (2003) and Wilson and Lui (2003) present a persuasive series of studies which raise major problems for the conceptualization of social dominance orientation in social dominance theory. Building on these and other data in the literature, this commentary summarizes six fundamental criticisms which can be made of the theory. We conclude that social dominance theory is flawed by conceptual inconsistencies and has been disconfirmed empirically in relation to its key hypothesis of behavioural asymmetry. The reaction of subordinate groups to the social hierarchy is better explained by social identity theory.

Social Identity and Negotiation: Subgroup Representation and Superordinate Consensus

Some models of conflict resolution propose that group membership be downplayed in negotiation because social categorization leads to ingroup bias. Challenging this view, this article argues that social conflict occurs partly as a collective attempt to establish a positive and distinct social identity. Restoration of this identity should therefore be important to negotiating groups. Two interactive studies (Ns = 104, 195) tested the effects over time of emphasizing identity-based group boundaries prior to negotiation with another group. Results indicated that where group members had the opportunity to interact with ingroup members (Study 1) or within a group (Study 2) prior to a superordinate negotiation, they consistently identified more at the subcategory level but were also more satisfied with the negotiation process. Evidence from the second study suggests that these effects were mediated by the development of a superordinate identity.

Social identity and the romance of leadership: The importance of being seen to be 'doing it for us'

Previous research by Meindl (e.g. 1993) on the ‘romance of leadership’ suggests that individuals in leadership roles are perceived to be more charismatic to the extent that the organization they lead undergoes a crisis turnaround (e.g. moving from loss to profit) rather than a crisis decline (e.g. moving from profit to loss). Building on a social identity approach to leadership and previous research by Haslam and Platow (in press-a), this paper argues that this pattern should be tempered by the degree to which a leader’s behavior serves to affirm and promote an ingroup identity shared with followers. Consistent with this analysis, an experimental study (N = 120) revealed that, independent of organizational performance, a (male) leader was seen as more charismatic in an intergroup context when his previous behavior had been identity-affirming or even-handed rather than identity-negating. Even-handed leaders also tended to be seen as particularly charismatic when they were associated with crisis turnaround, while identity-affirming leaders were protected from negative attributions in the context of crisis decline. These results suggest that social identity and self-categorization processes have a complex role to play in the emergence and perception of charismatic leadership.

From personal pictures in the head to collective tools in the world: How shared stereotypes allow groups to represent and change social reality.

Stereotyping and stereotype formation: two metatheories When it was initiated some seventy or so years ago, research into stereotype formation was primarily oriented to the question of why it is that certain attributes come to be associated with particular social groups in the minds of members of the same or other groups. Confronted with findings from the very first empirical studies of stereotype content in which Princeton students were asked to select five traits from a list of eighty-four to describe various national and ethnic groups, Katz and Braly (1933) asked why the students believed that Americans were industrious, Germans scientifically minded, Jews shrewd and Negroes superstitious. As can be seen from Table 8.1, social psychology went on to provide a rich array of answers to such questions. Amongst other things, these pointed to the role of processes that are psychodynamic, socio-cultural and cognitive in origin, and to the mediating role of specific mechanisms such as projection, ethnocentrism, learning, accentuation and illusory correlation. Varied as these mechanisms are, all this research has the shared features of, on the one hand, explaining stereotype content as a product of psychological shortcomings. It suggests, amongst other things, that people hold their stereotypes because of their aberrant personalities, their biased learning and cognition, or their limited information processing capacity. On the other hand, the research also sees that content as itself inappropriate. It suggests that stereotype content is biased, distorted and erroneous (see Oakes, Haslam & Turner, 1994, for a review).

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