This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Farsides, T. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Social Identity Theory-a Foundation to Build Upon, Not Undermine

A Comment on Schiffmann & Wicklund (1992)

London School Of Economics And Polmcal Science

Schiffmann and Wicklund (1992) argue that social identity theory (SIT) excludes psychological variables and `is superfluous as an account of systematic social-psychological phenomena' (p. 29). They also claim that the theory is dependent upon experiments which confound categorization and similarity effects, and which are susceptible to alternative explanations in terms of demand characteristics. They conclude that even an improved version of SIT would be `little more than an imitation of existing theories, and should therefore be rejected in favour of them (p. 46). The present paper argues that SIT is not vulnerable to Schiffmann and Wicklund's criticisms, and that their conclusion is, at best, premature.

Theory & Psychology, Vol. 3, No. 2, 207-215 (1993)
DOI: 10.1177/0959354393032004


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. Schiffmann Social Identity Notions and Theories: A Reply to Farsides Theory Psychology, May 1, 1993; 3(2): 217 - 222. [Abstract]