Suchergebnisse

In a recent article in this journal, Leonie Huddy (2001) asks whether the social identity approach developed by Tajfel, Turner, and their collaborators can "advance the study of identity within political science" (p. 128). She concludes that "various shortcomings and omissions in its research program" (p. 128) hinder the application of the approach to political phenomena. This paper presents a response to Huddy's evaluation of the social identity approach. Several aspects of her account of social identity work are challenged, especially her suggestion that it ignores subjective aspects of group membership. The interpretation of the minimal group paradigm is discussed in detail, as are issues of identity choice, salience, and variations in identity strength. The treatment of groups as process in social identity theory and self-categorization theory is given particular emphasis.

In a recent article in this journal, Leonie Huddy (2001) asks whether the social identity approach developed by Tajfel, Turner, and their collaborators can "advance the study of identity within political science" (p. 128). She concludes that "various shortcomings and omissions in its research program" (p. 128) hinder the application of the approach to political phenomena. This paper presents a response to Huddy's evaluation of the social identity approach. Several aspects of her account of social identity work are challenged, especially her suggestion that it ignores subjective aspects of group membership. The interpretation of the minimal group paradigm is discussed in detail, as are issues of identity choice, salience, and variations in identity strength. The treatment of groups as process in social identity theory and self-categorization theory is given particular emphasis.

This paper examines the impact of social division associated with the emergent "race debate" in Australia (and the so-called "Hanson phenomenon") on the consensus of Australian students' stereotypes of their national ingroup. It compares the stereotypes held by a sample of students in 1997 (N = 20) with those revealed in studies conducted from 1992 onwards (N = 102). Results provide strong evidence that stereotype consensus was reduced in the current phase of research and post-testing also indicates that participants themselves interpreted this as being the product of political change in Australian society. The findings are consistent with the argument that stereotypes are sensitive to changes in intergroup and intragroup relations, and that they respond to the reality of social division rather than to the rhetoric of unity.

This paper examines the impact of social division associated with the emergent "race debate" in Australia (and the so-called "Hanson phenomenon") on the consensus of Australian students' stereotypes of their national ingroup. It compares the stereotypes held by a sample of students in 1997 (N = 20) with those revealed in studies conducted from 1992 onwards (N = 102). Results provide strong evidence that stereotype consensus was reduced in the current phase of research and post-testing also indicates that participants themselves interpreted this as being the product of political change in Australian society. The findings are consistent with the argument that stereotypes are sensitive to changes in intergroup and intragroup relations, and that they respond to the reality of social division rather than to the rhetoric of unity.

In November, 2002, a randomly sampled body of citizens was brought together to participate in a deliberative poll on the issue of a bill of rights. Participation in deliberative polls is thought to cause attitude change and an increased sense of political engagement, but the underlying processes are little understood. We surveyed poll participants before and after the poll, proposing that either exposure to information, fair treatment or identification as a poll participant would predict attitude change and engagement. None of these affected attitude change but all three predicted political engagement. Results suggested that participation in the poll increases levels of political engagement through its capacities to (a) give people an opportunity to exchange views in a respectful atmosphere and (b) create or increase a sense of connection to a relevant social group.

In November, 2002, a randomly sampled body of citizens was brought together to participate in a deliberative poll on the issue of a bill of rights. Participation in deliberative polls is thought to cause attitude change and an increased sense of political engagement, but the underlying processes are little understood. We surveyed poll participants before and after the poll, proposing that either exposure to information, fair treatment or identification as a poll participant would predict attitude change and engagement. None of these affected attitude change but all three predicted political engagement. Results suggested that participation in the poll increases levels of political engagement through its capacities to (a) give people an opportunity to exchange views in a respectful atmosphere and (b) create or increase a sense of connection to a relevant social group.