A Social Identity Analysis of Leadership Endorsement: The Effects of Leader Ingroup Prototypicality and Distributive Intergroup Fairness

331 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

With malice toward none and charity for some: ingroup favoritism enables discrimination. (2014, neutral): “Platow and Van Knippenberg (2001), using the MGP, showed that subjects expect and believe it is fair for an ingroup member to treat all ingroup members fairly.”
Leadership, self, and identity: A review and research agenda (2004, result): “This proposition is supported in an experiment by Platow and van Knippenberg (2001), who showed that followers who highly identified with the collective endorsed a group-prototypical leader regardless of whether the leader’s intergroup allocation behavior favored the ingroup, an outgroup, or was…”
Leadership and fairness: The state of the art (2006, background): “Platow and van Knippenberg (2001) demonstrated experimentally that endorsement of ingroup-favouring versus outgroup-favouring versus distributively even-handed leaders was contingent on leader group prototypicality (i.e., the extent to which the leader is representative of the group identity; see…”
Social Identity, Self-Categorization, and the Communication of Group Norms (2006, background): “High-and low-prototypical leaders need to behave differently to manage their prototypicality (e.g., Platow & van Knippenberg, 2001).”