Assimilation and Diversity: An Integrative Model of Subgroup Relations

By Matthew J. Hornsey, M. Hogg. 2000

672 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1aa0a3d21e0ac911e561a9e164d75378306bfd42

How researchers see this paper

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

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

When do interprofessional teams succeed? Investigating the moderating roles of team and professional identity in interprofessional effectiveness (2011, background): “In addition, substantial recent work supports a mutual intergroup differentiation model (Hewstone, 1996; Hewstone and Brown, 1986) whereby group members exhibit lower levels of bias when both team identity and subgroup identity are made salient (Hornsey and Hogg, 2000a).”
Social Identity and Negotiation: Subgroup Representation and Superordinate Consensus (2002, positive): “Hornsey and Hogg (2000) argue that an emphasis on a dual identity may be more successful than simple recategorization, particularly where superordinate identities are threatening to existing subgroups.”
Dual identities in intergroup contact: group status and size moderate the generalization of positive attitude change (2006, methodology): “Group diversity is recognized when everyone has dual identities, all within a shared social framework (Brown & Wade, 1987; Deschamps & Brown, 1983; Dovidio et al., 1998; Hornsey & Hogg, 2000a, 2000b; van Leeuwen, van Knippenberg, & Ellemers, 2002).”
Does a common ingroup identity reduce intergroup threat? (2010, background): “Furthermore, if a “one group” representation created a distinctiveness threat (Hornsey & Hogg, 2000) a dualidentity representation could alleviate this problem by allowing the subgroups to maintain their uniqueness.”
The Social Identity Perspective (2004, background): “Subordinate subgroups can often feel that their distinct identity within the larger collective is threatened, which can cause them to fight strongly for their independence within the wider collective (e.g., Hewstone, 1996; Hornsey & Hogg, 2000).”
The American Identity Measure: Development and Validation across Ethnic Group and Immigrant Generation (2012, background): “Such parallel measurement could be used to investigate the extent to which individuals are bicultural; that is, they are identified simultaneously with the ethnic group and with the superordinate ‘‘American’’ category (e.g., Berry, Phinney, Sam, & Vedder, 2006; Hornsey & Hogg, 2000).”
The effects of being categorised: The interplay between internal and external social identities (2003, positive): “…intergroup competition and bias were successfully reduced when people who were addressed on the basis of a (new) super-ordinate identity were also encouraged to maintain their (prior) sub-group identity (Hornsey & Hogg, 2000; see also Gonzales & Brown, 1999; Huo, Smith, Tyler, & Lind, 1996).”
Diversity in the person, diversity in the group: Challenges of identity complexity for social perception and social interaction (2009, background): “…psychological and socialstructural features of the task environment are still relevant in either affording the opportunity for successfully exploiting the potential value of these individual assets or, alternatively, blocking their expression (Hornsey & Hogg, 2000; SanchezBurks & Lee, 2007).”
Social identity: The role of self in group processes and intergroup relations (2017, background): “Overall, a carefully managed strategy of “cultural” pluralism within an overarching entity can be very effective in managing relations between distinct subgroups (Hogg, 2015; Hornsey & Hogg, 2000; Verkuyten, 2006).”
Managerial Gender Diversity and Firm Performance (2016, neutral): “This can decrease communication and trust with organizational members who belong to different subgroups (Hornsey & Hogg, 2000; van Knippenberg et al., 2004).”
Intergroup Leadership in Organizations: Leading Across Group and Organizational Boundaries (2012, background): “These obstacles are particularly significant when groups are central and important to how people define themselves, when groups are perceived to be in a competitive relationship, and when groups feel that there is some threat to their distinct and valued identity (Hornsey & Hogg, 2000).”