Identifying the Ingroup: A Closer Look at the Influence of Demographic Dissimilarity on Employee Social Identity

By Prithviraj Chattopadhyay, M. Tluchowska, Elizabeth George. 2004

333 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Gender Studies, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/fa05ac710ea617010aec736f1ff22a47eb5f857f

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 Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

To Disclose or Not to Disclose? Status Distance and Self-Disclosure in Diverse Environments (2009, background): “…& Martins, 1996; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998), but they have devoted less attention to the status differences and status concerns that abound in diverse environments (for notable exceptions see Bacharach et al., 2005; Chatman & O’Reilly, 2004; Chattopadhyay, 1999; Chattopadhyay et al., 2004).”
CEO Succession Origin and Firm Performance: A Multilevel Study (2017, unknown): “While socio-demographic differences among team members are related to stereotyping and infrequent cooperation, similarity in relational socio-demographic attributes results in cohesion, information exchange and ease of communication (Chattopadhyay et al., 2004).”
Who Defers to Whom and Why? Dual Pathways Linking Demographic Differences and Dyadic Deference to Team Effectiveness (2015, result): “Our findings for gender and ethnicity also contradict the notion that social affinity is less likely among low-status groups such as women or nonWhites (e.g., Chattopadhyay et al., 2004).”
A review of perceived diversity in teams: Does how members perceive their team's composition affect team processes and outcomes? (2016, result): “It is also in accordance with calls for a more nuanced and thorough consideration of the theoretical predictions that can be drawn from social identity theory and self-categorization theory to the effects of dissimilarity (Chattopadhyay et al., 2004).”
Does Diversity-Valuing Behavior Result in Diminished Performance Ratings for Non-White and Female Leaders? (2017, background): “, women and ethnic minorities) advance the social standing of members of high-status groups (i.e., White men; Chattopadhyay et al., 2004; Derks, Ellemers, van Laar, & de Groot, 2011) because advancing highstatus group members is thought to provide lowstatus group members with a psychic reward in ter”
Pathways for Positive Identity Construction at Work: Four Types of Positive Identity and the Building of Social Resources (2010, background): “This allows individuals to activate various identities in a given context (i.e., the identity structure is also compatible ; Chattopadhyay et al., 2004; George & Chattopadhyay, 2005; Hornsey & Hogg, 2000).”
Surface- and deep-level dissimilarity effects on social integration and individual effectiveness related outcomes in work groups: a meta-analytic integration (2012, background): “In contrast, surface-level dissimilarity attributes such as race/ethnicity and gender might be more salient in organizations than age and tenure, and therefore should elicit stronger social categorization effects in particular under low team interdependence (Chattopadhyay et al., 2004).”
Identity Dynamics in Occupational Dirty Work: Integrating Social Identity and System Justification Perspectives (2006, background): “…occur when the status quo is perceived to be “insecure” (p. 22), that is, unstable (group members may be able to change how others see the group) and illegitimate (group members do not accept the stigmas associated with the dirt as being appropriate; e.g., Chattopadhyay et al. 2004, Ellemers 1993).”