Individuality and Social Identity: From small groups to ... fileIndividuality and Social Identity: From small groups to social categories End of Award Report Research Fellowship Award

Individuality and Social Identity: From small groups to social categoriesEnd of Award Report

Research Fellowship Award RES-000-27-0050, Prof Tom PostmesUniversity of Exeter

The ESRC intends that its research fellowships "provide a significant career development

opportunity for promising researchers." The purpose of this report is to enable the reader

to assess whether this has been put to good use. The proposal that secured the fellowship

did not specify a specific research project as a normal grant would. Instead, it identified an

agenda for two research programs, one old and one new. The agenda was (a) to round off

10 years of research on small group processes with a substantial contribution to the field,and (b) to start off a new programme of research on "social categories"—large groups and

the associated social identities such as gender, ethnicity, nationhood, and so on.

The programmes of research that were undertaken with support of this fellowship are

reported below under these two headings. I should explain that the reports of individual

studies do not have the detail that they would normally do in ESRC reports. That is partly

because there is simply too much to report. But it is also because an overview of the

different programmes seems more fitting labouring individual studies' background,

methods and results. At the end of the report, I mention some additional activities that

were undertaken during the fellowship, and I summarize how all this meets the specific

aims and objectives stated in the proposal.

1. Point of departure: Small GroupsOne objective was to review and integrate past research on small groups. A review article

was completed and published as planned (Postmes et al., 2005b).1 This paper aimed to bemore than a mere overview of past work: It integrated that work with an eye to resolving a

classic issue in the social sciences and in social psychology.

Background

It is generally assumed that in social relations, there is a trade-off between individualism

and collectivism. Although this assumption has been challenged on empirical grounds

(e.g., Bettencourt & Sheldon, 2001; e.g., Kim et al., 1994), it nevertheless persists. It is veryprevalent in debates about modern society, which tend to assume that individualization

erodes cohesion and community (e.g., Putnam, 2000).

But independence and individualism in contemporary society are not just individual

choices; they are also social norms. Society has a huge influence on the conceptions we

have of ourselves. Social identities, for example, shape perceptions of the individual self

(e.g., Tajfel & Turner, 1979). The classic assumption is that social identities produce

homogeneity, because they serve as anchors that group members deduce (essentially

uniform) personal attributes from. But if groups' social identities revolve around individual

autonomy and independence (e.g., in cultures which encourage individualism) this is not

the case. In past research we demonstrated that the most highly identified Americans (e.g.,

those who say they are "willing to make personal sacrifices for the US") are also those who

claim being most independent of social groups (Jetten et al., 2002).

1 Separate reviews of past work on the more specific subject of computer-mediated groups are also

forthcoming (Postmes, in press; Spears et al., in press).

To cite this output:Postmes, Tom (2007). Individuality and Social Identity: From Small Groups to Social Categories: Full Research Report.ESRC End of Award Report, RES-000-27-0050. Swindon: ESRC

T. Postmes End of Award Report RES 000 27 0050

–2–

In theory, therefore, it is possible to create conditions under which independent action is

the result of social cohesion. The problem with this past research, however, is that it still

assumes that the individual's sense of autonomy and independence is secondary to group

norms (cf. Hornsey & Jetten, 2004), and therefore somewhat delusional. Realindependence would still, it appear, be antagonistic to social cohesion. It is this problem

that our review sought to tackle.

Review and Theoretical Integration

The review paper (attached with this report) summarized past research, and formulated a

model that proposed that social identities could be formed and transformed so that

individual group members are involved in the process as active agents (the Interactive

Model of Identity Formation, Postmes et al., 2005b). The IMIF integrates ideas derived

from self-catgorization theory with classic notions of how solidarity is achieved (Durkheim,

1893/1984) and of how self is defined through symbolic interactionism (Cooley, 1902;

Mead, 1934). Its core proposal is that a shared identity is induced, this will form a basis for

cohesion and joint action that takes into account and builds on diversity within the group.

Thus, independence and solidarity should no longer be antagonistic.

This model has the practical implication, subsequently tested in research, that through

simple exercises of bottom-up negotiation of aspects of shared identity, a sense of social

identity would emerge that is characterized by tolerance for diversity and individual

autonomy. There are two components to this: A cognitive component which allows for the

emergence of shared cognitions about the relationship of individuals to the group, and an

interactive component through which group members achieve a tacit or explicit concensus

about common goals and values (Postmes et al., 2006a). The critical prediction is than ingroups which had successfully induced a social identity, independence (heterogeneity) and

social identification (solidarity) become positively interdependent and mutually reinforcing.

Research Stream 1: Processes

Many studies were conducted to shed light on the processes by which social identities are

induced. Some of this has been published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology(Postmes et al., 2005b). This research found direct support for the process by which

interaction in groups gives rise to deduction and induction of shared identity—most

notably it demonstrated that in groups where social identity was induced, disagreement

and debate promoted the achievement of consensus. Subsequent (as yet unpublished) workhas extended this and shown the predicted positive relationship between perceived

independence and group unity at a cognitive (intra-individual) level, too (Postmes et al.,2006b).

Research Stream 2: Outcomes for Group Products and Productivity

Additional research focused on the idea, prevalent in the interdependence literature, that

there is a tension between pro-self and pro-social behaviour. In integrative negotiations,these tensions were shown to be diminished when shared identities are induced (Postmes

et al., 2005a; Swaab et al., 2006; Swaab et al., in press). The process of inducing a socialidentity can therefore play an important part in achieving integrative solutions for complex

multi-party negotiations. But we believe that the same processes are at play in a range of

group processes—where interaction between group members gives rise to the emergence

of shared cognitions about the group, and thereby to a sense of shared identity. The core

prediction here is that it is this sense of shared identity (as much as the "colder" impact of



–3–

shared cognition on its own) that plays a key role in explaining why procedures such as

group training can give rise to increases in productivity (e.g., Moreland et al., 1996). Thefellowship has been used to explore these ideas (among others) through a meta-analysis of

the literature on shared cognition, which is currently under review at Psychological Bulletin(Swaab & Postmes, 2006). Follow-up research has confirmed that inductive identities are

associated with increased group performance (Postmes et al., 2006b). Other research has

shown that, even within groups where deductive social identities are salient (i.e., social

identities that are established without any input of individual group members) individuals

will display creativity—although the manner in which they do so will be channelled by in-

group norms (Adarves-Yorno et al., 2006, in press).

These strands of research have been very successful in engaging end-users. We currently

collaborate with Lane4 consultancy (http://www.lane4performance.com/) and theCommando Training Centre Royal Marines on projects to improve team performance and

recruit retention. Links with the British Royal Naval College have also been established

over this.

Research Stream 3: Implications for Theory

At a more abstract theoretical level, this work has implications for the idea that there is a

functional antagonism between the salience of personal identities and social identities

(Hogg, 2001; Turner et al., 1987). This idea is somewhat qualified by all research mentionedabove, in the sense that it shows that social identities can be construed on the basis of an

intra-group dynamic (a context in which personal identities should normally be salient,

Jetten & Postmes, 2006; Postmes & Jetten, 2006a). Although this conclusion is entirely

consistent with the interactive meta-theory on which classic theories of social identity are

based (Turner & Oakes, 1986), it is markedly different in its emphasis on the social

dynamic through which cognitions about groups and the individual self are constituted in

relation to each other (Postmes et al., 2006a). These ideas have also proven very useful forsubsequent research examining oppression and intergroup relations, discussed in greater

detail below.

In sum, the research has delivered on the objectives laid out in the original grant proposal.

Results of past research have been reviewed and integrated in journal articles and in two

edited books (Joinson et al., in press; Postmes & Jetten, 2006b). But, more so thanexpected, this work has also suggested and stimulated new research. It has influenced

other researchers' thinking about topics such as diversity in workgroups (Ensari & Miller,

2006; Harinck & Ellemers, 2006; Phillips et al., 2006), political attitude change (Price et al.,2006), and the formation of online communities (Ren et al., in press). Closer to home, it hasgiven rise to new lines of research on the consequences of interaction on social identity,

some of it already yielding dividends in terms of output. Examples of research in this vein

that has been started up during the grant are work on emergent norms for reproductive

behaviour (Newson & Postmes, 2005a, 2005b; Newson et al., in preparation) and researchon organizational and team identification among teleworkers and "hot-deskers" (Millward

et al., in press).

2. A new direction: Categories, Oppression and Intergroup behaviour

The second purpose of the fellowship was to provide the scope for a redirection of

research towards issues of intergroup relations and, more particularly, high status groups'

oppressive actions and intentions. With help of PhD students and postdoctoral RAs, a



–4–

large volume of research has been conducted, and a new theoretical framework has been

set up.

Background

Social psychological research has traditionally devoted a lot of attention to the attitudes andcognitions of dominant groups in society (so-called high-status groups). A lot of attentionhas also been devoted to disadvantaged groups, and the question of when they engage in

collective action to improve their lot. Thus, by and large, attention has focused on the

cognitions of the privileged as well as the actions of the disadvantaged. But the questionwhen the privileged act out their negative “attitudes” has not often been asked. When do

dominant groups move from attitudinal prejudice to oppression? Given the disturbingreality of a dramatic rise in right-wing anti-immigrant sentiments across mainland Europe,

to study oppression would appear to be of scientific and practical urgency.

A Review and a Theoretical Integration

We recently reviewed the classic collective action literature. Results showed that this

literature does indeed focus almost exclusively on the collective action of disadvantaged

groups. In it, collective action is shown to be a consequence of relative deprivation, the

permeability and security of intergroup boundaries and (bound up with this) issues of

social identity and efficacy on collective action (Van Zomeren et al., 2006, currently underreview at Psychological Bulletin).

In line with the grant's objectives, a theory paper on oppression has been submitted

(Postmes & Smith, 2006b). This paper argues that, in part, the lack of concern with

oppression may be due to a tendency in social-cognitive research to study prejudices as

purely psychological "attitudes" (Allport, 1954), or a normal consequence of stereotyping

which, in turn, is a natural consequence of categorization (cf. McGarty et al., 2002), or anormal consequence of threat to the establishment (Jost & Banaji, 1994; Sidanius & Pratto,

1999). From various angles, therefore, the impression is created that oppression is a

natural by-product of groups' competition for scarce resources. Despite the intuitive

appeal of this idea, our review suggests that the actual relation between threat and

prejudice is far from straightforward. In research, oppression is rarer (and more subtle)

than expected. Some primary data are also presented to corroborate this argument (the

pilot data which is already mentioned in the proposal).

Given that oppression often occurs when there appears to be no objective need for it, its

onset can not be explained by the classic literature on intergroup relations (which suggests

oppression stems from a violated sense of entitlement, power and efficacy, etc.). Instead,

the theory paper proposes that we also need to focus on the role of intra-group factors.

The review suggests that oppression can be triggered by (a) group norms, (b) factors related

to the organization of a collective response such as shared identity and consensus, (c)

leadership and responsibility. Furthermore, the review also considers strategic factors such

as (d) political attempts to use inter-group conflict to influence the group, content ofidentity and norms, or (e) attempts to improve the position of self or own faction within

the in-group (as also described in Reicher & Hopkins, 2001). These ideas have been

explored in several lines of research.



–5–

Research Stream 1: Norms and their Development

One research stream focuses on the influence of in-group norms on inter-group behaviour(Postmes & Smith, 2006a). The context within which this is examined is a recent study of

Guimond and Dambrun (2002), which failed to find a satisfactory explanation for why

relative gratification (i.e., the sense that one's group's position relative to an out-group is

improving) can be associated with heightened levels of prejudice towards lower-status

groups. Our research manipulated the perception of the norms of the (prospective)ingroup of privileged people with respect to low status groups. Four studies have now

demonstrated that if this norm is benign, gratification is associated with less oppression.When it is hostile, however, oppression increases. This finding is important, because it

shows that the magnitude of inter-group divisions has no automatic impact (or backlash)

that can explain why oppression occurs (an argument which is also implied in Jetten et al.,2004). Instead, intergroup behaviour appears to be the product of intra-group factors and

dynamics. Ironically, the influence of these norms turns out to be stronger among peoplewho are moving into positions of relative advantage. In other words, anti-immigrant

sentiments arose particularly when participants felt they were on the way up, then when

they felt they were under threat.

This theme is continued in research that has focused on the way in which these norms and

justifications for intergroup hostility are produced through intra-group discussion and

elaboration. The first research we conducted to examine this issue was in so-called

minimal group settings in which people are assigned to ad-hoc groups on an arbitrary

basis. In such groups, hostility does not normally emerge (Otten et al., 1996). But ourfindings showed that if groups were given the opportunity to have a relatively brief

discussion about the outgroup and the "fair" allocations, this had two consequences: the

first was the formation of a norm to legitimize hostility (in those conditions in which it was

possible to punish the outgroup). The second was that subsequent individual behaviour

was anchored in these norms (Smith & Postmes, 2006).

Research Stream 2: Organizing Action

This initial research then became the impetus for a more ambitious project which

examines the conditions under which groups are able to organize a collective response.

Parts of this research have been prepared in collaboration with colleagues at ANU during

my visit there in 2004. The main focus has been on the way in which intra-group debate

prepares a group for (oppressive) actions. Although this is still ongoing research, the grant

allowed me to work on 5 studies which speak to this issue. We are currently preparing two

papers. The consistent finding is that if groups are able to reach consensus on outgroup

stereotypes (e.g., of immigrants) group members are subsequently more likely to have

hostile intentions towards immigrants as apparent from action intentions, voting

intentions, etc.

I believe this research is most interesting for the insights it provides into the process bywhich consensualization prepares for action. It turns out that social validation of negative

perceptions of the outgroup and legitimization of hostile actions are the two key processes.

These factors are qualitatively different to those traditionally considered in the collective

action literature (e.g., anger, efficacy, social identification, see Van Zomeren et al., 2006).

One could say it is logical that different processes crop up when group members are given

the opportunity to interact with one another. But it has to be noted that the effect of these

kinds of social interaction on actions are generally ignored in the literature (Stott & Drury,



–6–

2004 is one important exception), and that the intra-group dimension of oppression tends

to be neglected.

Research Stream 3: Effects of Human Level Categorization

In 2005, Wohl and Branscombe published a paper on forgiveness, suggesting that if we

cognitively categorize ourselves as "human," we are more likely to forgive others. Togetherwith Thomas Morton, I conducted 4 studies to extend this work by considering the effects

of human categorization on both victim and perpetrator groups across a range of settings.

Our first studies showed that human categorization limits feelings of responsibility amongperpetrators (i.e., it makes oppression and hostility more likely, not less). Contrary to past

research, we also found that under certain conditions human categorization made victims

of past violence less forgiving. Follow-up research demonstrated that whether human

categorization resulted in more or less forgiveness among victims was dependent on

whether the conflict was framed as one- or two-sided respectively. Together these studies

demonstrate that humanity is not a neutral category: Groups construct images of human

nature that justify past and present actions and use the human category as a vehicle for

subgroup interests, particularly when the intergroup struggle is ongoing. Results have now

been submitted to Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (Morton & Postmes, 2006).

A follow-up paper has also been written (although we have decided to wait with

submission until the first has found a home). This paper reports 2 further studies which

show explore how perceptions of human nature might explain the variable effects of

human categorisation. In Study 1 (N = 89) British participants contemplated the torture ofIraqi prisoners by representatives of their group. In this setting human nature beliefs

(positive, negative) and the salient categorisation (human, national) were manipulated.

Results showed that British participants felt less guilt about the actions of their groupmembers and saw these as more justifiable when categorised at the human level and when

human nature was presented as fundamentally negative. The reverse effects of human

categorisation were evident when human nature was presented as fundamentally positive.

In Study 2 (N = 70) British participants contemplated acts of terrorism perpetrated againsttheir group. Human nature beliefs and the salient categorisation were again manipulated.

Results showed that British participants were more understanding of, and gave more

external attributions for, terrorist actions when categorised at the human level and when

human nature was presented as fundamentally negative. However, under the same

conditions, participants also endorsed the use of extreme force by the ingroup more

strongly. The results show that the effects of shared humanity on responses to intergroup

hostility depend on what it means to be human.

Research Stream 4: The Politics and Psychology of Essentialism

Finally, Thomas Morton and I have been examining the political uses and psychological

consequences of essentialism. Essentialist beliefs argue that the characteristics of humansand their social groupings (e.g., based on gender, sexuality, race, etc.) are evolved and/ or

biologically determined. In a series of studies we are examining how dominant groups and

low-status groups alike use these beliefs, and what the consequences of those uses are. In

several studies we explored the possible consequences of expressing essentialist theories

for prejudice and oppressive intent. For instance, two studies indicated that exposure to

essentialist theories of gender difference reinforced men’s intentions to oppress women

and undermined women’s likelihood of resisting such actions. Two further studies

showed, however, that men are not always inclined to essentialize gender differences.



–7–

Among men sexism was only associated with essentialism when societal gender relations

were perceived to be changing (i.e., when men's position was under threat). In contrast,

women’s beliefs were less responsive to social context. These patterns demonstrate that

although essentialism is linked to prejudice, this link is itself not essential. Rather,

essentialist arguments are invoked and denied strategically within the context of particular

debates over equality. A revision of this paper has now been invited by Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology (Morton et al., 2006). A proposal to follow up this researchhas recently been awarded ESRC funding.

Other relevant research

Additional research in the broader area of intergroup relations has also been carried out.

Because of space restrictions it is impossible to go into detail. Several studies have been

carried out examining consequences of segregation for well-being (Postmes &

Branscombe, 2002). The model developed in the past was tested on different populations

including homeless people and ethnic minorities (with Julie Christian at Birmingham) and

Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland (2 representative samples, with Miles

Hewstone and others). These are very promising data, which confirm and extend past

research. Papers are in preparation. A further series of studies have been conducted to

integrate some of the insights of the small group developments into the intergroup

literature (Baray et al., 2005; Postmes et al., 2006a). Finally, research has been conducted to

examine the personal group discrimination discrepancy (Dumont et al., 2006), and achapter was written (partly on basis of research mentioned above) exploring the intergroup

dimension of internet (Postmes & Baym, 2005).

In sum, a series of projects has been set up to address issues of oppression and intergroup

relations more generally. For the most part this is ongoing (or submitted) research, but the

first results of these projects are beginning to appear in press.

3. Other activities

Dissemination of research has take place via a variety of channels. A total of 16 invited

talks were given to academic audiences on topics of small group processes, oppression and

intergroup relations. This included one keynote at an international conference. I also gave4 talks to non-academic audiences and 6 CPD sessions which covered aspects of the grant

research. Research has received coverage in the media, and the results have been

communicated to end-users via various avenues. In some cases, direct collaboration with

end-users is in progress.

The grant was instrumental in the development of new ideas for research. Fellowship

research was the basis for the preparation of grant proposals which brought in nearly £1.6

million (of which less than £100k was spent during the fellowship term). I was invited to

join editorial boards of Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, the British Journal of Social Psychology, Group Dynamics, HumanCommunication Research and Communication Monographs.

During the grant term I have received excellent mentoring from Professor Paul Webley.

During the fellowship I followed some courses to prepare for administrative roles I might

take up when the fellowship ended. And the University of Exeter promoted me to

Professor in October 2004. In all areas, this grant has made a significant difference. One

particular activity that the grant has allowed me to devote time to, which I am very grateful



–8–

for, was the organization of several advanced statistical and methodological workshops at

Exeter for the benefit of students and colleagues.

At a personal level therefore, the fellowship has been an immensely enriching experience

and a very productive period. The activities described above are indications of the major

steps forward this fellowship has allowed me to make with respect to many areas of

professional performance, including PhD supervision, media contacts, journal work, grant

writing, and indeed research.

4. Summary: How objectives were met

The overall purpose of the grant was to round off existing research on small groups, and

move into a different direction. As the overview of activities thus far has sought to

demonstrate, both objectives have been achieved. Certainly in terms of productivity thisgrant has been a great success in getting started on numerous new lines of research related

to oppression and intergroup relations more broadly. Admittedly, the insights generated

from the review of the literature (Postmes et al., 2005a) and the book (Postmes & Jetten,

2006b) have given new momentum to the research on small group processes too. Hence

the "rounding off" has in some ways turned out to be a new start, not least because many

of the ideas about small groups developed during this fellowship proved to be so relevant

to intergroup processes (Postmes et al., 2006a).

With regard to the specific aims and objectives of the original proposal, this is how they

were met:

1. A review article was written for the European Review of Social Psychology. A

theoretical integration on the related topic of shared cognition has been submitted

to Psychological Bulletin

2. Two edited books were produced. One of these contains extensive reviews and

integrations of our past work on "computer-mediated communication". The second

reviews and integrates past research on small groups and culture, and seeks toreconcile these insights with self-categorization and social identity theory.

3. A literature review and position paper about oppression was written. In addition,

the classic literature on collective action was integrated and submitted for

publication to Psychological Bulletin.

4. Pilot studies have been submitted for publication.

5. End users have been involved in various aspects of the research. Close

collaboration with various agencies exist to apply insights from small groups

(including consultancy, Navy, and Royal Marines, see above). With respect to

oppression, talks to general public have been given at various fora, including the

BA festival of science (may 2005), the Café scientifique (Exeter, October 2004), and

the Southwest Business Leaders Forum (attended by representatives of nearly all

large employers in the region--December 2005). Work was also presented at a

special workshop on diversity was also organized with business leaders who are

affiliated with the Centre for Leadership Studies (March 2006). The results of

ongoing research have been presented at 6 separate CPD courses on Psychology inOrganizations that we have organized since fall 2004. Four of these were held with

members of the armed forces (including a large number of senior officers). Two

were with senior and middle managers of a variety of organizations in the

Southwest. As part of these CPD courses participants wrote assignments regarding



–9–

the relevance and implications of research findings for their organizations—their

feedback tended to be positive. Talks and press releases have led to presentation of

some findings in the media (including an interview on regional identity for Radio

Cornwall's Sunday morning talkshow in 2004; and an interview for Radio Devon's

breakfast show, 2006; articles in a publication from Brighton called "Argus Lite",

the Dutch newspaper NRC and the Irish independent, all sept. 2006). For

forthcoming papers that are suitable, further press releases will appear a few days

prior to the publication.

In sum, the ESRC research fellowship has presented me with a wonderful opportunity. I

am extremely grateful to the ESRC for providing it, and I hope this report shows that I did

my very best to realize its potential.

4647 words

References (grant output is marked with an *)

*Adarves-Yorno, I., Postmes, T., & Haslam, S. A. (2006). Social identity and the recognition of

creativity in groups. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 479-497.

*Adarves-Yorno, I., Postmes, T., & Haslam, S. A. (in press). Creative innovation or crazyirrelevance? The contribution of group norms and social identity to creative behavior.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison Wesley.

*Baray, G., Postmes, T., & Jetten, J. (2005). When “i” equals “we”: Exploring the relation betweensocial and personal identity in extremist groups. Manuscript Submitted for Publication.

Bettencourt, B. A., & Sheldon, K. (2001). Social roles as mechanisms for psychological needsatisfaction within social groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1131-

1143.

Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York: C. Scribner's Sons.

*Dumont, M., Seron, E., Yzerbyt, V., & Postmes, T. (2006). Social comparison and the personal-

group discrimination discrepancy. In S. Guimond (Ed.), Social comparison and socialpsychology (pp. 228-246). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Durkheim, E. (1893/1984). The division of labour in society. London: Macmillan. (Original workpublished in 1893).

Ensari, N. K., & Miller, N. (2006). The application of the personalization model in diversitymanagement. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9, 589-607.

Guimond, S., & Dambrun, M. (2002). When prosperity breeds intergroup hostility: The effects of

relative deprivation and relative gratification on prejudice. Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 28, 900-912.

Harinck, F., & Ellemers, N. (2006). Hide and seek: The effects of revealing one's personal interestsin intra- and intergroup negotiations. European Journal Of Social Psychology, 36, 791-813.

Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social PsychologyReview, 5, 184-200.

Hornsey, M. J., & Jetten, J. (2004). The individual within the group: Balancing the need to belongwith the need to be different. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 248-264.

*Jetten, J., & Postmes, T. (2006). The puzzle of individuality and the group. In T. Postmes & J.

Jetten (Eds.), Individuality and the group: Advances in social identity (pp. 1-10). London:Sage.



–10–

*Jetten, J., Postmes, T., & McAuliffe, B. J. (2002). 'we're all individuals': Group norms ofindividualism and collectivism, levels of identification, and identity threat. EuropeanJournal of Social Psychology, 32, 189-207.

*Jetten, J., Spears, R., & Postmes, T. (2004). Intergroup distinctiveness and differentiation: A meta-analytic integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 862-879.

Joinson, A. N., McKenna, K. Y. A., Postmes, T., & Reips, U.-D. (Eds.). (in press). Oxford handbookof internet psychology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and theproduction of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1-27.

Kim, U., Triandis, H. C., Kâgitçibasi, Ç., Choi, S.-C., & Yoon, G. (Eds.). (1994). Individualism and

collectivism: Theory, method, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McGarty, C., Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Spears, R. (2002). Stereotypes as explanations: The formation ofmeaningful beliefs about social groups. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

*Millward, L. J., Haslam, S. A., & Postmes, T. (in press). Putting employees in their place: Theimpact of hot-desking on organizational and team identification. Organization Science.

Moreland, R. L., Argote, L., & Krishnan, R. (1996). Socially shared cognition at work: Transactivememory and group performance. In J. Nye & A. Brower (Eds.), What's social about social

cognition? Research on socially shared cognition in small groups (pp. 57-84). Newbury Park,

CA: Sage.

*Morton, T. A., & Postmes, T. (2006). What does it mean to be human? A closer look at the effectsof shared humanity on relations between victims and perpetrators of historical wrongdoing.

Manuscript submitted for publication.

*Morton, T. A., Postmes, T., Hornsey, M. J., & Haslam, S. A. (2006). Theorising gender in the faceof social change: Is there anything essential about essentialism? Manuscript submitted for

publication.

*Newson, L., & Postmes, T. (2005a). Less restricted mating, low contact with kin and the role ofculture. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 291.

*Newson, L., & Postmes, T. (2005b). Why are modern families small? Toward an evolutionary andcultural explanation of the demographic transition. Personality and Social Psychology

Review, 9, 360-375.

*Newson, L., Postmes, T., Lea, S. E. G., Webley, P., Richerson, P. J., & McElreath, R. (inpreparation). Influences on communication about reproduction: The cultural evolution oflow fertility. Evolution and Human Behavior.

Otten, S., Mummendey, A., & Blanz, M. (1996). Intergroup discrimination in positive and negativeoutcome allocations: Impact of stimulus valence, relative group status, and relative group

size. Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 568-581.

Phillips, K. W., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (2006). Surface-level diversity and decision-makingin groups: When does deep-level similarity help? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,9, 467-482.

*Postmes, T. (in press). The psychological dimensions of collective action, online. In A. N. Joinson,K. Y. A. McKenna, T. Postmes & U.-D. Reips (Eds.), Oxford handbook of internet

psychology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

*Postmes, T., Baray, G., Haslam, S. A., Morton, T., & Swaab, R. I. (2006a). The dynamics ofpersonal and social identity formation. In T. Postmes & J. Jetten (Eds.), Individuality andthe group: Advances in social identity (pp. 215-236). London: Sage.

*Postmes, T., & Baym, N. (2005). Intergroup dimensions of internet. In J. Harwood & H. Giles(Eds.), Intergroup communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 213-238). New York: Peter

Lang Publishers.



–11–

*Postmes, T., & Branscombe, N. R. (2002). Influence of long-term racial environmental compositionon subjective well-being in african americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,83, 735-751.

*Postmes, T., Brooke, D., & Jetten, J. (2006b). How the group dynamics of social identity formationinfluence team performance. Manuscript submitted for publication.

*Postmes, T., Haslam, S. A., & Swaab, R. I. (2005a). Social influence in small groups: An interactivemodel of social identity formation. European Review of Social Psychology, 16, 1-42.

*Postmes, T., & Jetten, J. (2006a). Reconciling individuality and the group. In T. Postmes & J.Jetten (Eds.), Individuality and the group: Advances in social identity (pp. 258-269).London: Sage.

*Postmes, T., & Jetten, J. (Eds.). (2006b). Individuality and the group: Advances in social identity.London: Sage.

*Postmes, T., & Smith, L. G. E. (2006a). Relative deprivation, gratification and oppressive intent: Anormative account. Manuscript in Preparation, University of Exeter.

*Postmes, T., & Smith, L. G. E. (2006b). Why do the privileged resort to oppression? A look at someintra-group factors. Manuscript submitted for publication.

*Postmes, T., Spears, R., Lee, T., & Novak, R. (2005b). Individuality and social influence in groups:Inductive and deductive routes to group identity. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 89, 747-763.

Price, V., Nir, L., & Cappella, J. N. (2006). Normative and informational influences in onlinepolitical discussions. Communication Theory, 16, 47-74.

Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of american community. New York:Simon & Schuster.

Reicher, S., & Hopkins, N. (2001). Self and nation. London: Sage.

Ren, Y., Kraut, R. E., & Kiesler, S. (in press). Applying common identity and bond theory to designof online communities. Organization Studies.

Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy andoppression. New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.

*Smith, L. G. E., & Postmes, T. (2006). The development of norms which reverse the positive-negative asymmetry effect. Manuscript submitted for publication.

*Spears, R., Lea, M., & Postmes, T. (in press). Social identity in cmc. In A. N. Joinson, K. Y. A.

McKenna, T. Postmes & U.-D. Reips (Eds.), Oxford handbook of internet psychology.Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Stott, C., & Drury, J. (2004). The importance of social structure and social interaction in stereotypeconsensus and content: Is the whole greater than the sum of its parts? European Journal of

Social Psychology, 34, 11-23.

*Swaab, R. I., & Postmes, T. (2006). The importance of shared cognition for groups and teams: A

meta-analysis of how, why, and when shared cognition affects performance. Manuscriptsubmitted for publication.

*Swaab, R. I., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2006). Identity formation in multiparty negotiations:Manuscript Revised for Publication, British Journal of Social Psychology.

*Swaab, R. I., Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Van Beest, I. (in press). Shared cognition as a product of,and precursor to, shared identity in negotiations. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In S. Worchel & W.G. Austin (Eds.), The psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks-

Cole.

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering thesocial group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.



–12–

Turner, J. C., & Oakes, P. J. (1986). The significance of the social identity concept for socialpsychology with reference to individualism, interactionism and social influence. BritishJournal of Social Psychology, 25, 237-252.

*Van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2006). Collective action: A meta-analysis. Manuscriptsubmitted for publication.

Grant output not in reference list

Book

Postmes, T., & Branscombe, N. R. (Eds.). (in preparation). Rediscovering social identity: Core sources.New York: Psychology Press.

Peer-Reviewed Publications

Morton, T. A., Postmes, T., & Jetten, J. (in press). Playing the game: When group success is moreimportant than downgrading deviants. European Journal of Social Psychology.

Ryan, M. K., Haslam, S. A., & Postmes, T. (in press). Reactions to the glass cliff: Gender differencesin the explanations for the precariousness of women’s leadership positions. Journal ofOrganizational Change Management.

Tanis, M., & Postmes, T. (2007). Two faces of anonymity: Paradoxical effects of cues to identity inCMC. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 955-970.

Haslam, S. A., Ryan, M. K., Postmes, T., Spears, R., Jetten, J., & Webley, P. (2006). Sticking to our

guns: Social identity as a basis for the maintenance of commitment to falteringorganizational projects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 607–628.

Tanis, M. & Postmes, T. (2005). A social identity approach to trust: Interpersonal perception, groupmembership and trusting behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 413-424.

Haslam, S. A., Postmes, T., & Jetten, J. (2004). Beyond balance: To understand 'bias', socialpsychology needs to address issues of politics, power and social perspective [commentary].

Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 241-242.

O'Brien, A. T., Haslam, S. A., Jetten, J., Humphrey, L., O'Sullivan, L., Postmes, T., Eggins, R.A., &Reynolds, K. J. (2004). Cynicism and disengagement among devalued employee groups: Theneed to ASPIRe. Career Development International, 9, 28-44.

Swaab, R. I., Postmes, T., & Neijens, P. (2004). Negotiation support systems: Communication andinformation as antecedents of negotiation support. International Negotiation Journal, 9, 59-78.

Tanis, M., & Postmes, T. (2003). Social cues and impression formation in CMC. Journal ofCommunication, 53, 676-693.

Haslam, S. A., Postmes, T., & Ellemers, N. (2003). More than a metaphor: Organizational identitymakes organizational life possible. British Journal of Management, 257-272.

Book Chapters and Other Publications

Postmes, T. (in press). Deindividuation. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Encyclopedia ofSocial Psychology. London: Sage.

Spears, R., Scheepers, D., Jetten, J., Doosje, B., Ellemers, N., & Postmes, T. (2004). Grouphomogeneity, entitativity and social identity: Dealing with/in social structure. In V. Yzerbyt,

C. M. Judd & O. Corneille (Eds.), The psychology of group perception: Contributions to the studyof homogeneity, entitativity and essentialism (pp. 293-316). New York: Psychology Press.

Postmes, T. (2003). A social identity approach to communication in organizations. In S. A. Haslam

& D. van Knippenberg & M. J. Platow & N. Ellemers (Eds.), Social identity at work:Developing theory for organizational practice (pp. 81-98). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.



–13–

Academic Presentations

Postmes, T. (2006, March). Group membership and well-being: Some social and psychologicalconsequences of segregation. Keynote address at the COE International Symposium

"Management of Social Problems and Justice in Group Contexts", Tohoku University,Japan. [KEYNOTE]

Postmes, T. (2006, October). Productivity in inductive and deductive social identity groups. Paperpresented at the Social Psychology seminar series of the Free University, Amsterdam, the

Netherlands.

Postmes, T. (2006, March). Extremism and the relation between social and personal identity. Paperpresented at the seminar series of the Laboratoire de Psychologie Sociale et Cognitive,

Université Blaise Pascal, Clermont Ferrand, France.

Postmes, T. (2005, December). Managing social identity: Harnessing individual abilities for the group.Paper presented at the Faculty of Management and Organization, University of Groningen,

the Netherlands.

Postmes, T. (2005, December). Group membership and well-being: Some social and psychologicalconsequences of segregation. Paper presented at the Heijmans Institute Colloquium series,

Department of Psychology, University of Groningen, the Netherlands.

Postmes, T. (2005, November). Effects of inter-group segregation on well-being. Paper presented at the

Psychology seminar series, University of Essex, UK.

Postmes, T. (2005, April). Individuality and social influence in online teams: Inductive and deductive routesto group identity. Paper presented at the Management & Organizations Colloquium Series,Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, Chicago, USA.

Postmes, T. (2005, April). Theorising gender in the face of social change. Paper presented at thePsychology Seminar series, University of Purdue, IN, USA.

Postmes, T. (2005, February). Personal privilege and collective entitlement as motives for oppression.Paper presented at the Psychology Seminar series, University of Cardiff, UK.

Postmes, T. (2004, November). Social Identity Formation. Paper presented at the 1st Annual SpringWorkshop in Social Psychology, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.

Postmes, T. (2004, November). Personal privilege and collective entitlement as motives for oppression.Paper presented at the Dynamics of Social Change research meeting, Australian National

University, Canberra, Australia.

Postmes, T. (2004, November). An interactive model of social identity formation. Paper presented at the

Social Psychology Seminar series, University of Queensland, Australia.

Postmes, T. (2004, September). An interactive model of social identity formation. Paper presented at the

annual meeting of the British Social Psychological Society Social Section, Liverpool, UK.

Postmes, T. (2004, June). Social effects of computer mediated communication in teams and organizations.Paper presented at the Organizational Psychology Seminar series, University of Bochum,Germany.

Postmes, T. (2003, November). The evolutionary psychology of gender: Exploring consequences of ascience without values. Paper presented at the Social Psychology Seminar series, University of

Sussex, UK .

Postmes, T. (2003, September). The evolutionary psychology of gender: Exploring consequences of ascience without values. Paper presented at the ESRC Centre for Genomics in Society

(EGENIS), University of Exeter, UK .


Documents

Individuality and Social Identity: From small groups to ... fileIndividuality and Social Identity: From small groups to social categories End of Award Report Research Fellowship Award