Home

You are here

Self and Identity Stream Materials (Viv Vignoles)

Background

 

Since social scientists first became interested in the concept of culture, a running theme in the literature has been the idea that people raised in different cultural environments come to see themselves in different ways, and that these different cultural conceptions of “self” or “identity” may be important in accounting for cultural variations in behaviour. In their classic paper published in April 1991, Markus and Kitayama brought this idea into focus, by introducing the theoretical constructs of “independent and interdependent self-construals”. Their paper has now been cited over 6000 times, and the theory of self-construals has become one of the most influential ideas to emerge from cross-cultural psychology. Hence, 20 years after Markus and Kitayama’s theoretical contribution, the aim of this workshop will be to consider the current state of research into culture and self, and to explore several interesting directions for future development.

 

Orientation to the assignments

 

You will organize yourself into groups of four or five individuals and develop ideas for a research project with the goal of advancing knowledge about the interplay between cultural and self and identity processes. Below are several ‘problems’ that future research in this area needs to address. You should bring insights from your own research and study to bear on your selected problem. Creative solutions require multiple perspectives. In the process, you may also gain some insights that will be beneficial for your own research topic.

 

You are the future research leaders in this field. Comparative research on self and identity processes is very much needed, in order to understand which aspects of self and identity processes are universal and which are culturally specific. So, one of the key outcomes of this workshop is helping you to develop international comparative networks with fellow students. You may want to engage with your fellow workshop participants in future research.

 

The aim of the workshop is to develop a research proposal that is feasible, useful and promising. The ‘problems’ are described in quite general terms. You need to think of ways that cross-cultural psychology can contribute to these issues with an empirical and research driven voice. You should have a more specific problem definition, relevant literature or theories, hypotheses and an outline of the methods. Some of these problems may include side-issues or sub-problems that may need investigation first or may need to be put aside for later investigation. It is alright to focus on one specific issue or detail and develop a specific research proposal consisting of a single study or a few studies that contribute to resolving some smaller aspect of the problem area.

 

In our experience, those projects that are most specific and concrete (e.g., specifying which cultural groups to target and clearly identifying a narrow set of variables to be studied or interventions to be conducted) are most valuable.

 

 

Below I have provided some basic readings and a brief description of each of the ‘problems’. The readings are either freely available online (in which case, I have included the links below) or you can access them as 'attachments' at the bottom of this page. Please note that these files are for your private study only and not for redistribution.

 

I expect you to have done some initial reading and, if possible, some discussion prior to the workshop in Turkey. Please make sure that you have read the four introductory readings, as well as the core readings for at least two of the research problems. I encourage you to conduct a literature search on existing studies addressing these problems and theoretical frameworks that may help in developing a good research proposal. You may also start to brainstorm ideas with other students in this stream before coming to the Summer School.

 

We will start off the workshop with some lectures and seminar style sessions. Then you will break into your groups and develop your proposal to be presented on June 30. You are advised to keep the whole afternoon and evening of June 29 free for working on your proposals in your groups. At the end of the group work, one or two people in each group will present for the rest of the class how you have dealt with the ‘problem’, and this will be followed by a discussion.

 

Introductory readings on self and identity processes across cultures

 

These five articles and chapters introduce some of the key theoretical issues, findings and debates up to now regarding the relationship between culture and identity processes. Markus and Kitayama’s (1991) perspective on independent and interdependent self-construals has dominated the literature for the last 20 years, and forms the backdrop for all that follows. Matsumoto (1999) provides an interesting critical appraisal of Markus and Kitayama’s perspective. Smith (in press) and Cross et al. (2011) review of some of the key findings relevant to the theory, as well as some more recent criticisms and extensions. Jensen et al. (in press) introduce a rather different approach to looking at the relation between culture and identity processes, introducing some of the ways in which ‘cultures’ can become ‘cultural identities’ with important implications.

Markus, H. R. & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
Available from: http://faculty.washington.edu/mdj3/MGMT580/Readings/Week%205/Markus.pdf

Matsumoto, D. (1999). Culture and self: An empirical assessment of Markus and Kitayama's theory of independent and interdependent self-construal. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 289-310.
Available from: http://www.davidmatsumoto.com/content/1999%20Culture%20and%20Self.pdf

Smith, P. B. (in press). Cross-cultural perspectives on identity. In S. J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx, & V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research. New York: Springer.

Cross, S. E., Hardin, E. E., & Gercek-Swing, B. (2011). The what, how, why, and where of self-construal. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 142-179.

Jensen, L. A., Arnett, J. J., & McKenzie, J. (in press). Globalization and cultural identity. In S. J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx, & V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research. New York: Springer.

 

Problem 1:

What are ‘self-construals’—and therefore how should we measure them?

 

Although Markus and Kitayama’s theory of self-construals has played a dominant role in the literature for the last 20 years, there remains surprisingly little agreement about how--if at all--independent and interdependent self-construals can or should be measured. The introductory reading by Smith (in press) summarises the main approaches to measuring cultural differences in self-construal, including content analyses of open-ended self-descriptions as well as specially developed Likert-type measures. However, several authors have noted that these different measures typically fail to converge, and that the Likert measures often show complex factorial structures and often do not discrimate in the expected direction across different cultural groups (see Levine et al., 2003). In response, Kitayama et al. (2009) have proposed that cultural differences in independence and interdependence exist at an implicit level, and thus they are not measurable with explicit scales: instead, differences in independence and interdependence should be inferred from the outcomes that they predict. Owe et al. (2011) describe some early results from two large new cross-cultural studies suggesting that cultural differences in self-construal follow a more complex pattern than was originally suggested by Markus and Kitayama, with up to seven distinguishable dimensions of individual and cultural variation.

 

At the very least, these diverging perspectives indicate that self-construals differ across cultures in more complex and diverse ways than just the simple contrast between independence and interdependence initially proposed by Markus and Kitayama. Your task is to generate some new theoretical predictions about the likely impact of different aspects or dimensions of self-construal, and to design a feasible cross-cultural study that will allow you to test your predictions.

 

Core readings

Levine, T. R., Bresnahan, M. J., Park, H. S., Lapinsky, M. K., Wittenbaum, G. M., Shearman, S. M., Lee, S. Y., et al. (2003). Self-construal scales lack validity. Human Communication Research., 29(2), 210-252.
Available from: https://www.msu.edu/~lapinsk3/Maria_Lapinski/Publications_files/20.%20j.1468-2958.2003.tb00837.x.pdf

Kitayama, S., Park, H., Sevincer, A. T., Karasawa, M., & Uskul, A. K. (2009). A cultural task analysis of implicit independence: Comparing North America, Western Europe, and East Asia. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(2), 236-255.

Owe, E., Vignoles, V. L., and members of the Culture and Identity Research Network (2011). Culture and self-construals: Clarifying the differences. Working paper, University of Sussex, UK.

 

Some further readings

Bochner, S. (1994). Cross-cultural differences in the self concept. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 25 (1), 273-283.

Gudykunst, W. B. & Lee, C. M. (2003). Assessing the validity of self-construal scales: A response to Levine et al. Human Communication Research, 29, 253-274.

Ho, D. Y. F. (1995). Selfhood and identity in Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism, and Hinduism: Contrasts with the West. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 25, 115-139.

Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç. (2005). Autonomy and relatedness in cultural context: Implications for self and family. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36, 403-422.

Kanagawa, C., Cross, S. E. & Markus, H. R. (2001). “Who am I?” The cultural psychology of the conceptual self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 90-103.
Available from: http://sites.google.com/site/kariterzino/KanagawaCrossMarkusPSPB01.pdf

Kashima, E. S., & Hardie, E. A. (2000). The development and validation of the Relational, Individual, and Collective self-aspects (RIC) scale. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 19-48.
Available from: http://www.cbd.ucla.edu/announcements/1467-839x.00053.pdf

Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580-591.

Spiro, M. E. (1993). Is the Western conception of the self “peculiar” within the context of the world cultures? Ethos, 21, 107-153.

 

 

Problem 2:

To what extent are individual differences in self-construals sufficient to account for cultural differences in behaviour? What are the mechanisms involved?

 

As discussed by Matsumoto (1999), the theory of self-construals implies that individual differences in independent and interdependent self-construals will be mediating variables between cultural contexts and individual cognitive, affective, motivational or behavioural outcomes. It is implied that individuals internalise the prevailing beliefs and values in their cultural contexts; this internalisation process leads them to construe themselves in culturally appropriate ways, which in turn leads to the various outcomes predicted by Markus and Kitayama (1991). Many studies using explicit self-construal scales have appeared to support this model (e.g. Singelis et al., 1999; for reviews, see Cross et al., 2011; Gudykunst & Lee, 2003), but as Matsumoto has noted, many others have not. Kitayama et al. (2009) suggest two reasons why this might be the case: first, independence and interdependence may be operating at a more implicit level, and thus the relevant differences may not be measurable by direct self-reports; second, indepedence and interdependence may be better reconceptualised as properties of cultural systems: characteristics of the ‘cultural tasks’ that individuals need to fulfil, rather than characteristics of the individuals, themselves.

 

Kitayama’s arguments lead to several important questions for the self-construal literature. Why do studies using explicit measures of self-construal sometimes show the predicted results and at other times not? Could this depend on some characteristics of the cultural groups being studied, or perhaps on aspects of the context in these studies? If effects of independence and interdependence do not depend on individuals internalising and endorsing construals of themselves as independent or interdependent, then what are the underlying processes? For example, might they function through intersubjective perceptions (Chiu et al., 2010), or through social systemic processes (Yamagishi, 2010)? A further source of complexity, suggested by the research of Salvatore and Prentice (2011), is that members of individualistic cultures may sometimes express independence as a subtle way of conforming with the norms of one’s cultural group.

 

Your task is to design a feasible cross-cultural study that will help to answer one of more of these important unresolved issues in the literature.

 

Core readings

Singelis, T. M., Bond, M. H., Sharkey, W. F., & Lai, S. Y. (1999). Unpackaging culture’s influence on self-esteem and embarrassability: The role of self-construals. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 315-341.

Kitayama, S., Park, H., Sevincer, A. T., Karasawa, M., & Uskul, A. K. (2009). A cultural task analysis of implicit independence: Comparing North America, Western Europe, and East Asia. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(2), 236-255. doi:10.1037/a0015999

Salvatore, J., & Prentice, D. (2011). The independence paradox. In J. Jetten & M. J. Hornsey (Eds.), Rebels in groups: Dissent, deviance, difference and defiance. (pp. 201-218). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

 

Some further readings

Chiu, C.-Y., Gelfand, M. J., Yamagishi, T., Shteynberg, G., & Wan, C. (2010). Intersubjective culture: The role of intersubjective perceptions in cross-cultural research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 482-493.

Gudykunst, W. B. & Lee, C. M. (2003). Assessing the validity of self-construal scales: A response to Levine et al. Human Communication Research, 29, 253-274.

Jetten, J., Postmes, T., & McAuliffe, B. J. (2002). “We’re all individuals”: Group norms of individualism and collectivism, levels of identification and identity threat. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32(2), 189-207.

Yamagishi, T. (2010). Micro-macro dynamics of the cultural construction of reality: A niche construction approach to culture. In M. J. Gelfand, C.-Y. Chiu, & Y.-y. Hong (Eds.), Advances in Culture Psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 251-308). Oxford University Press.
Available from: http://lynx.let.hokudai.ac.jp/members/yamagishi/english/articles/index.cgi?ctg=1

 

 

Problem 3:

What is the relationship between contextual variation in self-construals produced by priming studies and chronic individual differences?

 

As reviewed by Cross et al. (2011) and Smith (in press), researchers are increasingly starting to use experimental manipulations to test predictions about self-construals, rather than relying on measures of individual or cultural differences. Manipulations have included priming with cultural symbols and language (in bicultural or bilingual participants), as well as primes designed to focus attention on similarities or differences in relation to others, primes designed to shift self-categorisation from “I” to “we” (see also Hong et al., 2000; Oyserman & Lee, 2008). However, relatively little attention has been paid to the differences among these various priming manipulations, and what those differences might mean theoretically, or to the question of whether priming studies and studies using individual difference measures are really tapping into the same phenomena or not.

 

This raises some important theoretical and empirical questions for the self-construal literature. What exactly is each of these various primes activating, and how does it relate to Markus and Kitayama’s (1991) original conceputalisation of independent and interdependent self-construals? To what extent are these priming manipulations activating the same constructs tapped by measures of individual differences? Your task is to design a feasible cross-cultural study that will help to answer one of more of these questions.

 

Core readings

Oyserman, D., & Lee, S. W. S. (2008). Does culture influence what and how we think? Effects of priming individualism and collectivism. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 311-342.
Available from: http://sitemaker.umich.edu/daphna.oyserman/files/oyserman_lee_2008_psychbulletin.pdf

 

Kühnen, U., & Hannover, B. (2000). Assimilation and contrast in social comparisons as a consequence of self-construal activation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 799-811.
Available from: http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/34567/1/16_ftp.pdf

Stapel, D. A., & van der Zee, K. I. (2006). The self-salience model of other-to-self effects: Integrating principles of self-enhancement, complementarity, and imitation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 258-271.

 

Some further readings

Hong, Y. Y., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C. Y. & Benet-Martínez, V. (2000). Multicultural minds: A dynamic constructivist approach to culture and cognition. American Psychologist, 55, 709-720.
Available from: http://test.scripts.psu.edu/users/n/x/nxy906/COMPS/indivdualismandcollectivism/culture%20lit/Hongminds.pdf

Kühnen, U., & Oyserman, D. (2002). Thinking about the self influences thinking in general: Cognitive consequences of salient self-concept.  Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 492-499.
Available from: http://sitemaker.umich.edu/daphna.oyserman/files/kuehnen___oyserman_jesp_2002.pdf

Oyserman, D., Sorensen, N., Reber, R., & Chen, S. X. (2009). Connecting and separating mind-sets: Culture as situated cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 217-235.
Available from: http://sitemaker.umich.edu/daphna.oyserman/files/oysermansorensenreberchenjpsp2009.pdf

Ross, M., Xun, W. Q. E., & Wilson, A. E. (2002). Language and the bicultural self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1040-1050.

Stapel, D. A., & Koomen, W. (2001). I, we, and the effects of others on me: How self-construal level moderates social comparison effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 766-781.
Available from: http://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=73262

Trafimow, D., Triandis, H. C., & Goto, S. G. (1991). Some tests of the distinction between the private self and the collective self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 649-655.
Available from: http://www-psych.nmsu.edu/faculty/trafimow/Pub/Some%20tests%20of%20the%20distinction%20between%20the%20private%20self%20and%20the%20collective%20self.pdf

 

 

Problem 4:

How does culture impact on motivated identity construction processes? What are the implications for culturally sensitive interventions?

 

People from different cultures tend to describe themselves somewhat differently when asked to do so, but it is not clear to what extent these differences in content reflect differences in underlying identity motives (motives that influence people’s understandings of who they are). Many theorists take a 'relativist' view, arguing that identity motives are simply reflections of particular cultural beliefs and values (e.g., Heine, 2005; Heine et al., 1999). However, evolutionary and philosophical arguments suggest a 'universalist' view, arguing that each of the motives has a function that should not depend on culture. So who is right?

 

Recently, studies have begun to support a ‘middle-ground’ between pure universalism and pure relativism. Results suggest that several core identity motives transcend cultural differences, but that members of different cultural groupings show different characteristic ways of satisfying each motive (e.g., Becker et al., 2011; Sedikides et al., 2003). Thus, a common set of underlying motives leads to different outcomes in different cultural contexts.

 

An improved understanding of the interface between culture and identity motives may be especially beneficial to practitioners seeking to intervene in a culturally sensitive manner in domains ranging from psychotherapy to education, health promotion, business management, social cohesion, and international relations. But the practical implications of these findings remain to be theorised or tested up to now. Hence, your task is generate some diverging theoretical predictions derived from alternative perspectives about the relationship between culture and identity motives (i.e. whether people in different cultures have different motives, or whether they have different ways of satisfying the same motives), perhaps in relation to one of the applied domains listed above. Then, design a feasible cross-cultural study that will allow you to test your theoretical predictions.

 

Core readings

Becker, M., Owe, E., Vignoles, V. L., Brown, R., Smith P. B., Herman, G., […] & Yamakoglu, N. (2011). Culture and the distinctiveness motive: Constructing identity in individualist and collectivist contexts. Manuscript submitted for publication, University of Sussex, UK.

Sedikides, C., Gaertner, L. & Toguchi, Y. (2003). Pancultural self-enhancement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 60-79.
Available from: http://www.soton.ac.uk/~crsi/pancultural2003.pdf

Muramoto, Y. (2003). An indirect self-enhancement in relationship among Japanese. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 552-566.

Cai, H., Sedikides, C., Gaertner, L., Wang, C., Carvallo, M., Xu, Y., O’Mara, E. M., & Eckstein Jackson, L. (2011). Tactical self-enhancement in China: Is modesty at the service of self-enhancement in East Asian culture? Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 59-64.

 

Some further readings

Brown, J. D. & Kobayashi, C. (2002). Self-enhancement in Japan and America. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 145-168.
Available from: http://faculty.washington.edu/jdb/articles/AJSP012.pdf

Endo, Y., Heine, S. J. & Lehman, D. R. (2000). Culture and positive illusions in close relationships: How my relationships are better than yours. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1571-1586.
Available from: http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~heine/docs/2000rsb.pdf

Eriksson, E. L., Becker, M., & Vignoles, V. L. (2011). Just another face in the crowd? Distinctiveness seeking in Sweden and Britain. Psychological Studies, 56, 125-134.
Available from: http://www.springerlink.com/content/a4h36734634678l4/fulltext.pdf

Heine, S. J. (2005). Where is the evidence for pancultural self-enhancement?: A reply to Sedikides, Gaertner, and Toguchi (2003). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 531-538.
Available from: http://persweb.wabash.edu/facstaff/hortonr/articles%20for%20class/Heine%20reply.pdf

Heine, S. J., Kitayama, S., Lehman, D. R., Takata, T., Ide, E., Leung, C. & Matsumoto, H. (2001). Divergent consequences of success and failure in Japan and North America: An investigation of self-improving motivations and malleable selves. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 599-615.
Available from: http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~heine/docs/2001persist.pdf

Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Markus, H. R. & Kitayama, S. (1999). Is there a universal need for positive self-regard? Psychological Review, 106, 766-794.
Available from: http://humancond.org/_media/papers/heine99_universal_positive_regard.pdf

Kitayama, S., Markus, H., Matsumoto, H., & Norasakkunkit, V. (1997). Individual and collective processes in the construction of the self: Self-enhancement in the United States and self-criticism in Japan. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1245-1267.
Available from: http://faculty.washington.edu/janleu/Courses/Cultural%20Psychology/547%20Readings/Kitayama%20Markus%20Matsumoto%20Norasakkunkit%201997.pdf

Kurman, J. (2003). Why is self-enhancement low in certain collectivist cultures? An investigation of two competing explanations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 496-510.

 

Sedikides, C., Gaertner, L., & Vevea, J. L. (2005). Pancultural self-enhancement reloaded: A meta-analytic reply to Heine. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 539-551.
Available from: http://persweb.wabash.edu/facstaff/hortonr/articles%20for%20class/sedikides%20reply%20to%20heine.pdf

Tafarodi, R. W., Lo, C., Yamaguchi, S., Lee, W. W. S., & Katsura, H. (2004). The inner self in three countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 97-117.
Available from: http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/users/christop/inner_self.pdf

Tafarodi, R. W., Marshall, T. C., & Katsura, H. (2004). Standing out in Canada and Japan. Journal of Personality, 72, 785-814.
Available from: http://psych.utoronto.ca/~tafarodi/Papers/JOP04.pdf

Vignoles, V. L. (2009). The motive for distinctiveness: A universal, but flexible human need. In C. R. Snyder & S. Lopez (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive psychology (2nd ed., pp. 491-499). New York: Oxford University Press.

Vignoles, V. L. (in press). Identity motives. In Schwartz, S. J., Luyckx, K., & Vignoles, V. L. (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research. New York: Springer.

 

 

Problem 5:

When does a culture become an identity? How does ‘cultural identification’ change the dynamics of cultural and intercultural processes?

 

Traditionally, cross-cultural psychologists have tended to view culture as a set of largely implicit assumptions about reality. Although individuals may be able to voice these assumptions when specifically asked to do so, the fact that they are shared within a group means that they are rarely problematised or talked about. However, when members of different cultures come into contact—or even when they learn about each other by vicarious means—this view of culture becomes increasingly problematic. As evidenced in the introductory reading by Jensen et al. (in press), an important implication of cultural contact is that people become much more aware of their cultural backgrounds, and they often come to see their cultural backgrounds as important and self-definining (this is consistent with the principles of self-categorisation theory: for a summary, see Spears, in press).

 

Hence, researchers have begun to explore a number of new questions regarding the interface between cultural and identity processes that go well beyond the kinds of questions asked in more traditional cross-cultural research. What are the contextual factors that make cultural identities become salient, leading people to behave ‘as cultural members’ rather than ‘as individuals’ (Jetten et al., 2002)? To what extent is cultural identity salience driven by perceived identity threats, and associated with increased defensiveness, and to what extent does this depend on the content of the identities in question (Pehrson et al., 2009)? How do individuals cope with multiple—and potentially conflicting—cultural identities (Huynh et al., in press)? What are the implications of viewing independence and interdependence as aspects of cultural identity, rather than as internalized cultural assumptions (Salvatore & Prentice, 2011)?

 

Your task is to design a feasible cross-cultural study that will help to advance the literature in relation to one of more of these questions.

 

Core readings

Jetten, J., Postmes, T., & McAuliffe, B. J. (2002). “We’re all individuals”: Group norms of individualism and collectivism, levels of identification and identity threat. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32(2), 189-207. doi:10.1002/ejsp.65

Huynh, Q.-L., Nguyen, A.-M. D., & Benet-Martínez (in press). Bicultural identity integration. In Schwartz, S. J., Luyckx, K., & Vignoles, V. L. (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research. New York: Springer.

Pehrson, S., Vignoles, V. L., & Brown, R. (2009). National identification and anti-immigrant prejudice: Individual and contextual effects of national definitions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 72, 24-38.

Salvatore, J., & Prentice, D. (2011). The independence paradox. In J. Jetten & M. J. Hornsey (Eds.), Rebels in groups: Dissent, deviance, difference and defiance. (pp. 201-218). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

 

 

Some further readings

Heine, S. J ., Lehmann, D. R., Peng, K. P ., & Greenholz , J. (2002). What's wrong with cross-cultural comparisons of subjective Likert scales? The reference group effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 903-918.
Available from: http://image.sciencenet.cn/olddata/kexue.com.cn/upload/blog/file/2009/3/2009318111257156614.pdf

Spears, R. (in press). Group identities: The social identity perspective. In Schwartz, S. J., Luyckx, K., & Vignoles, V. L. (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research. New York: Springer.

Drupal theme by pixeljets.com D7 ver.1.1