The good, the bad, and the manly: Threats to one's prototypicality and evaluations of fellow in-group members.

By Michael T. Schmitt, N. Branscombe. 2001

204 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c122e587101a44e8017a8baae12f24e08cf38267

How researchers see this paper

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

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

The Role of Team Identification in the Dissimilarity-Conflict Relationship (2006, background): “For example, Schmitt and Branscombe (2001) found that high identifiers who were non-prototypical, favored a prototypical ingroup individual and devalued a non-prototypical ingroup individual.”
The Proof is in the Punch: Gender Differences in Perceptions of Action and Aggression as Components of Manhood (2010, background): “While past studies documented numerous actions that men can take to certify or “prove” their manhood (for examples, see Holmes 1971; Maass et al. 2003; Schmitt and Branscombe 2001), we propose that the most successful 242 Sex Roles (2010) 62:241–251”
When Self-View Is at Stake: Responses to Ostracism Through the Lens of Self-Verification Theory (2017, background): “Being ostracized makes people feel marginalized and leads them to question whether they are still in-group members (Schmitt & Branscombe, 2001).”
Self and social identity. (2002, background): “However, the generality of this strategy has been disputed (e.g., Schmitt & Branscombe 2001); unless they can hide their group membership, members of stigmatized groups are likely to be chronically treated in terms of their devalued group membership, regardless of their group commitment.”
Does job insecurity threaten who you are? Introducing a social identity perspective to explain well-being and performance consequences of job insecurity (2017, background): “In a series of laboratory experiments Jetten et al. (2003) and Schmitt and Branscombe (2001) demonstrated that people who were peripheral or felt threatened in their prototypicality to a group were less likely to expend effort for that group.”
Anti-Norm and Pro-Norm Deviance in the Bank and on the Campus: Two Experiments on Subjective Group Dynamics (2002, background): “In Abrams et al. (2000, Experiment 1), participants viewed gender stereotype information about both anti-norm and pro-norm deviants in the context of several normative members (cf. Schmitt & Branscombe, 2001).”
Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students (2012, methodology): “Using validated scales, participants rated student competence, their own likelihood of hiring the student, selected an annual starting salary for the student, indicated how much career mentoring they would provide to such a student, and completed the Modern Sexism Scale.”
No Longer “All-American”? Whites’ Defensive Reactions to Their Numerical Decline (2015, background): “Although well-articulated outlines of intergroup and identity threats exist in the literature (e.g., Branscombe, Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 1999; Riek, Mania, & Gaertner, 2006; Schmitt & Branscombe, 2001; Stephan & Stephan, 2000), none directly address threat to prototypicality.”
How intragroup dynamics affect behavior in intergroup conflict: The role of group norms, prototypicality, and need to belong (2010, unknown): “Besides exhibiting ingroup favoritism and/or out-group derogation (see Noel et al., 1995), an additional way in which peripheral group members may improve their position within the group is by stressing characteristics that they share with the ingroup prototype (Schmitt & Branscombe, 2001).”