Social Identity and Self-Categorization Processes in Organizational Contexts

By M. Hogg, D. Terry. 2000

3,911 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Communication, Gender Studies, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/99223e46d1c143e27bc79140f6410cad786ea66f

How researchers see this paper

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

In Communication

In Gender Studies

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Employee Adjustment to an Organizational Merger: An Intergroup Perspective (2001, background): “The potential relevance of social identity theory to organizational psychology, and the importance of examining intergroup relations in this context, has recently been pointed out by a number of commentators in the area (e.g., Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Hogg & Terry, 2000; Kramer, 1991).”
The Impact of Method, Motivation, and Empathy on Diversity Training Effectiveness (2015, background): “Indeed, individuals tend to categorize themselves and others into in-groups and out-groups based on meaningful social variables such as ethnicity and sexual orientation (Hogg and Terry 2000).”
Integrating who “we” are with what “we” (will not) stand for: A further extension of the Social Identity Model of Collective Action (2018, background): “As such, social “category specifications account for context-specific behaviours (i.e., normative fit)” (Hogg & Terry, 2000, p. 125), which makes it easier for individuals to self-categorise and identify with the relevant group.”
Cooperation as a function of leader self-sacrifice, trust, and identification (2005, background): “In fact, the literature on social identity suggests that identification with the in-group installs positive beliefs about this in-group and as such influences trust (Hogg and Terry, 2000; Hogg and Abrams, 1988).”
Status Differentiation and the Protean Self: A Social-Cognitive Model of Unethical Behavior in Organizations (2011, background): “Categorization of the self as part of a social group reduces the uncertainly of social relations (Hogg and Terry, 2000).”
Hiding behind a mask? Cultural intelligence, knowledge hiding, and individual and team creativity (2017, background): “Therefore, based on the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), we argue employees will hide knowledge from culturally diverse colleagues, while individuals will categorize themselves by their cultural similarities and differences within groups (Hogg & Terry, 2000).”
Working While Liberal/Conservative: A Review of Political Ideology in Organizations (2020, positive): “This literature largely draws on psychological theories of social identity and self-categorization of in-groups and out-groups (Hogg & Terry, 2000; Huddy, 2001).”
A multi-level investigation of psychological contract breach and organizational identification through the lens of perceived organizational membership: testing a moderated-mediated model (2013, background): “According to SIT, another basic motive for identifying with a group is the enhancement of one’s sense of collective self-esteem (Sluss & Ashforth, 2007) which requires that group membership be rewarding and instrumental for members’ feelings of self-worth.”
Group Emotions: Cutting the Gordian Knots Concerning Terms, Levels of Analysis, and Processes (2015, background): “Because people hold multiple group memberships simultaneously (Hogg & Terry, 2000; Turner et al., 1987), their emotional responses to events depend on the particular group membership that is salient to them in the moment.”
The value of value congruence. (2009, background): “Attraction is also conducive to organizational identification because when employees have positive relationships with one another, they are more likely to view their organizational membership as part of their personal identity (Hogg & Terry, 2000; Sluss & Ashforth, 2007).”
Intergroup Leadership in Organizations: Leading Across Group and Organizational Boundaries (2012, background): “…identity; they in- vite cognitive-evaluative representation of the self in terms of attributes of and membership in the group or organization (i.e., “we”; Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Hogg & Terry, 2000; Sluss & Ashforth, 2007; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987).”