Ellemers, Spears and Doosje (2002) ‘Self and Social Identity.’
Citation:
Ellemers, Naomi, Spears, Russell and Doosje, Bertjan (2002) ‘Self and Social Identity,’ Annual Review of Psychology, 53, pp. 161-186.
Time Period Covered:
Theory, Research Question, Hypothesis:
Ellemers, Spears and Doosje (2002): Seek to examine the conditions under which identity are formed and affected by group membership, rather than just viewing identity at the individual level. Seek to understand when individual identity might trump collective identity or vice versa.
Relationship to Other Research/Ideas Contested/Noted Gaps:
Ellemers, Spears and Doosje (2002): Existing research on identity has mostly been carried out in Western contexts, where personal identities and individuality are stressed; there is also a heavy reliance on laboratory experiments where groups are assigned arbitrarily and temporarily. However, other research shows that people can identify strongly with groups and participate in them, even when risks are involved, even when there is no or limited personal benefit.
Concepts and Definitions:
Method:
Primary/Original Data:
Argument/Conclusion:
Limitations/Flaws:
Abstract:
In this chapter, we examine the self and identity by considering the different conditions under which these are affected by the groups to which people belong. From a social identity perspective we argue that group commitment, on the one hand, and features of the social context, on the other hand, are crucial determinants of central identity concerns.We develop a taxonomy of situations to reflect the different concerns and motives that come into play as a result of threats to personal and group identity and degree of commitment to the group. We specify for each cell in this taxonomy how these issues of self and social identity impinge upon a broad variety of responses at the perceptual, affective, and behavioral level.
Notes:
Ellemers, Spears and Doosje (2002:164-165): “A central point of departure in the social identity approach is that the impact of social groups on the way people see themselves and others around them cannot be understood without taking into consideration the broader social context in which they function.”
Ellemers, Spears and Doosje (2002:167):
