Why and how are you attached to your <scp>S</scp> ocial <scp>G</scp> roup? Investigating different forms of social identification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social identity is a key social psychological variable to understand intergroup behaviours. Over and above the different dimensions of social identity (e.g., quality or degree of identification), recent research has looked at different forms of social identity, such as the clarity of one's collective identity, the self-determined motivations underlying one's identification, and the contingencies attached to social identification. These forms of social identification reveal how and why group members are attached to their social group. The current research aims to directly test how these three forms of social identification regroup together and predict different individual and intergroup outcomes. Findings from three studies conducted in Québec (Ns = 119, 91) and Australia (N = 136) confirmed that the more comparative and competitive forms of social identification (i.e., non-self-determination to identify, collective self-esteem contingency) tend to predict nationalism and ingroup bias. In contrast, the forms of social identity that capture the inherent satisfaction of being part of the group and the cognitive clarity of this group membership (i.e., self-determined motivation to identity, clarity of collective identity) predict outcomes pertaining to patriotism, personal self-esteem, and positive emotions. Results are interpreted in light of social identity theory and social psychological models of the self.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".