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 Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Schiffmann, R. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Social Identity Notions and Theories

A Reply to Farsides

University Of Bielefeld

According to Farsides (1993), Schiffmann and Wicklund's (1992) criticism of social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979, 1986) is untenable. In particular, their claim that social identity theory should be abandoned in favour of Tesser's (1980, 1986) self-evaluation maintenance model or Wicklund and Gollwitzer's (1981, 1982) symbolic self-completion theory is rejected by Farsides. In the reply to Farsides, it is shown that his argumentation is not conclusive. In the same vein, Schiffmann and Wicklund's (1992) claim to abandon social identity notions is pursued. Extra-theoretical reasons underlying adherence to these notions are discussed, and a direction for investigating social identity processes more productively is proposed.

Theory & Psychology, Vol. 3, No. 2, 217-222 (1993)
DOI: 10.1177/0959354393032005


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