The development of subjective group dynamics

By A. Rutland, Dominic Abrams. 2008

175 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/77e863259874c991d32b17df83d62c4b09a34998

How researchers see this paper

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

Citations in the corpus

Imagined contact as a prejudice‐reduction intervention in schools: the underlying role of similarity and attitudes (2014, unknown): “This is the case, for example, with ethnic groups, nationalities, teams, and even ad hoc minimal groups (see Abrams, Rutland, & Cameron, 2003; Brown, 1995; Cameron, Rutland, Brown, & Douch, 2006; Nesdale, 2001, 2008; Nesdale, Durkin, Maass, Kiesner, & Grifﬁths, 2008).”
When and why does extended contact work? (2011, background): “…of subjective group dynamics suggests that younger children are less aware than older children that normative and deviant members of a group will be differentially excluded depending on their adherence to an ingroup norm (Abrams & Rutland, 2008; Abrams, Rutland, Pelletier, & Ferrell, 2009).”
Ritual increases children’s affiliation with in-group members☆ (2016, unknown): “Novel group membership activates in-group biases in adults (Billig & Tajfel, 1973; Diehl, 1990; Tajfel, 1970; Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, & Flament, 1971; Tajfel & Turner, 1985) and children (Abrams & Rutland, 2008; Dunham, Baron, & Banaji, 2008; Nesdale & Flesser, 2001; Rhodes, 2012).”
A Developmental Science Approach to Reducing Prejudice and Social Exclusion: Intergroup Processes, Social‐Cognitive Development, and Moral Reasoning (2015, methodology): “Research employing the Developmental Subjective Group Dynamics (DSGD) model (Abrams & Rutland, 2008) reveals that the development of exclusion judgments between peers within groups from middle childhood is sensitive to the normative aspects of the group context (i.e., what is acceptable behavior…”