You Can’t Always Do What You Want: Social Identity and Self-Presentational Determinants of the Choice to Work for a Low-Status Group

By Manuela Barreto, N. Ellemers. 2000

181 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Gender Studies, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3a9d42efa1c3e42bae134f54d63d78486ae10e37

How researchers see this paper

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

In Gender Studies

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

From political opponents to enemies? The role of perceived moral distance in the animalistic dehumanization of the political outgroup (2016, methodology): “We measured identification with the political ingroup through seven balanced items with a 6-point response format (from 1 = absolutely unimportant to 6 = very important), adapted from Barreto and Ellemers’ (2000) Identification Scale (α = .68).”
SOCIAL IDENTITY IN INDUSTRIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY: CONCEPTS, CONTROVERSIES AND CONTRIBUTIONS (2006, background): “…although this itself depends on the status of those groups, the positions of individuals within them, and the security of intergroup relations (Barreto & Ellemers, 2001; Ellemers, Barreto, & Spears, 1999; Haslam & Reicher, 2002; Jetten et al., 2004; Noel, Wann, & Branscombe, 1995; Reicher &…”
Morality and behavioural regulation in groups: A social identity approach (2013, methodology): “Participants in this study were divided into groups, by means of a bogus “associative thinking” task (Doosje, Spears, & Koomen, 1995; see also, Barreto & Ellemers, 2000).”
Social Movement Participation in the Digital Age (2002, background): “It is possible that this transformation reinforces the emphasis on the cognitive calculations involved in movement participation discussed above, because peripheral group members and low identifiers are more likely to take these essentially strategic factors into account (Barreto & Ellemers, 2000).”
Identity and Cooperative Behavior in Groups (2001, background): “Barreto and Ellemers (2000) show that those who identify highly with a group can be relied upon to work on behalf of the improvement of the group, whereas low identifiers only do so in the face of situational pressures.”
Self and social identity. (2002, background): “Although ingroup helping clearly qualifies as behavior that may earn approval of other ingroup members, displays of allegiance to the group may also result in individualistic (Barreto & Ellemers 2000) or even antisocial behavior, depending on the relevant group norms.”
The effects of being categorised: The interplay between internal and external social identities (2003, unknown): “Moreover, in order to make sure that displays of loyalty were indeed specific to the group in question, we manipulated which behavioural strategy for group improvement was seen as normative for the group (see also Barreto & Ellemers, 2000, Study 2).”
Identity-Based Consumer Behavior (2012, background): “…Theory (Arsel & Thompson, 2011), and sociology (Callero, 2003; Howard, 2000); as well as the approaches that arose from more specific investigations of identity in areas like impression management (Barreto & Ellemers, 2000) and implicit social cognition (Greenwald, Pickrell, & Farnham, 2002).”
Social influence in small groups: An interactive model of social identity formation (2005, background): “Moreover, it is argued that identity-mediated communication lies at the heart of this process, largely as a result of its capacity, under specific conditions, to promote group consensualisation and socially shared cognition.”
The Psychology of Middle Power: Vertical Code-Switching, Role Conflict, and Behavioral Inhibition (2017, background): “…of the threat of punishment from higher-power others, this pattern of behavior should only emerge when lowpower employees’ behavior is easily observable to higher-power others who have the authority to punish them for deviating (cf. Barreto & Ellemers, 2000; Ellemers, De Gilder, & Haslam, 2004).”
Behavior Online: Does Anonymous Computer Communication Reduce Gender Inequality? (2002, background): “Indeed, identifiability increases the control that powerful others may exert and makes one susceptible to the influence of their social expectations and social stereotypes, as proposed by self-presentation theory (see also Barreto & Ellemers, 2000; Baumeister, 1982).”
Attitudes in social context: A social identity perspective (2007, background): “In contrast, high identifiers, or individuals in high-salience contexts, were more likely to follow the ingroup norm with respect to the attitude – behaviour relationship in the anonymous than the accountable conditions (cf. Barreto & Ellemers, 2000; see Figure 7).”