A Three-Factor Model of Social Identity

By J. Cameron. 2004

1,230 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/112a3f0a339738f13567eaa1c7f07abe220e110e

How researchers see this paper

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

In Applied Psychology

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Religiosity as Identity: Toward an Understanding of Religion From a Social Identity Perspective (2010, background): “Those who are highly identified with their religious group not only share common beliefs but also, by definition, perceive their group membership as central to their self-concept, thereby gaining a sense of personal or collective self-esteem from that membership (Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992) and a stro”
Populism as Identity Politics (2018, methodology): “National identification was measured with the Social Identification Scale (Cameron, 2004) which includes 12 items, capturing in-group ties, for example, “I have a lot in common with other Brits,” centrality, for example, “In general, being British is an important part of my self-image,” and…”
Understanding defensive and secure in-group positivity: The role of collective narcissism (2016, background): “Positive correlations were also noted between scores on the Collective Narcissism Scale and Cameron’s (2004) Social Identification Scale (e.g., Golec de Zavala et al., 2013) as well as Leach and colleagues’ (2008) inEUROPEAN REVIEW OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 289”
Testing and extending the group engagement model: linkages between social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and extrarole behavior. (2009, neutral): “As do many other identity researchers (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Ashmore et al., 2004; Cameron, 2004; Ellemers, Kortekaas, & Ouwerkerk, 1999; Haslam, 2004; Ouwerkerk et al., 1999; Pratt, 2000), we feel that social identity is fundamentally different from affective commitment because of its reliance on…”
Identity, Perceived Religious Discrimination, and Psychological Well‐Being in Muslim Immigrant Women (2012, background): “According to Phinney (1990) and Cameron (2004), the key components of these identities include: (1) self-identification (self-definition or selflabelling); (2) sense of belonging; (3) attitudes toward the in-group (an emotional evaluation, including ethnic pride); (4) centrality (subjective…”
The experience of collective participation: shared identity, relatedness and emotionality (2011, methodology): “The strength of social identity scale contained the following two items adapted from (Cameron, 2004)(3) (r 1⁄4 0.”
Identification in Organizations: An Examination of Four Fundamental Questions (2008, background): “That said, a case can be made for including positive affect in the formulation of identification—if it is couched as generally applicable (e.g., “In general, I’m glad to be a(n) (ingroup member),” Cameron, 2004: 244).”
Identification With All Humanity: The role of self‐definition and self‐investment (2015, background): “Consequently, several conceptualizations of multidimensional group identification have been developed (Cameron, 2004; Jackson, 2002; Leach et al., 2008; Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz, Halevy, & Eidelson, 2008).”
Opinion‐based group membership as a predictor of commitment to political action (2007, background): “It is widely recognized that social identity is a multidimensional construct consisting of a range of distinct elements (Ashmore, Deaux, & McLaughlin-Volpe, 2004; Cameron, 2004).”
Social identities facilitate and encapsulate action-relevant constructs (2012, background): “The first was Cameron’s (2004) three-factor measure of social identification.”
“We for She”: Mobilising men and women to act in solidarity for gender equality (2018, background): “Further, the related concept of feminist solidarity—capturing the ingroup-ties aspect of social identification as particularly relevant for collective action mobilisation (Cameron, 2004; Leach et al., 2008; Wiley, Srinivasan, Finke, Firnhaber, & Shilinsky, 2012)—has been shown to fully explain the r”