Intergroup relational identity: Development and validation of a scale and construct
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In their theory of intergroup leadership, Hogg, van Knippenberg, and Rast proposed the novel concept of intergroup relational identity. An intergroup relational identity (IRI) refers to a form of social identity that is defined in terms of the cooperative and mutually promotive relationship between subgroups. This article outlines the development of a five-item scale to measure IRI. We conducted five studies with over 1,700 participants from different countries. The unidimensional factor structure of the five-item scale replicated across studies, and the latter three studies provided evidence of construct (convergent and discriminant) and criterion-related validity. Intergroup relations are often overlooked in organizational behavior and management research. However, our results support the idea that IRI affects intergroup or inter-team cooperation and collaboration, as well as leadership effectiveness—enhanced perceptions of an IRI is a promising way to reduce conflict between subgroups within a larger collective. To date, no measure of IRI has been published. These studies present the first empirical test of and support for the newly developed IRI measure, and provide evidence demonstrating the benefit of promoting an IRI for both leadership and intergroup relations more broadly.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it