CiteULike is a free online bibliography manager. Register and you can start organising your references online.
Tags

Asymmetries in Attachments to Groups and to their Members: Distinguishing between Common-Identity and Common-Bond Groups

by: Deborah A. Prentice, Dale T. Miller, Jenifer R. Lightdale
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 20, No. 5. (1 October 1994), pp. 484-493, doi:10.1177/0146167294205005  Key: citeulike:8436377

Formatted Citation


Show HTML

Likes (beta)

This copy of the article hasn't been liked by anyone yet.

View FullText article


Abstract

Two studies sought to validate the distinction between common-identity groups, which are based on direct attachments to the group identity, and common-bond groups, which are based on attachments among group members. Study 1 focused on members of selective and nonselective university eating clubs. Study 2 focused on members of a diverse sample of campus groups. Both studies revealed asymmetries in group and member attachments: Individuals in common-identity groups were more attached to their group than to its members, whereas individuals in common-bond groups were as attached to the members as to the group (or more so). Study 2 also demonstrated that attachment to the group was more strongly related to various evaluations of individual group members in common-bond than in common-identity groups. The authors discuss the implications of these results for the development of groups over time and speculate on how the dynamics of the two types of groups might differ.


dartar's tags for this article

Citations (CiTO)

No CiTO relationships defined

X There are no reviews yet

X Find related articles with these CiteULike tags

X Posting History


X Export records

Privacy Statement | Terms & Conditions
CiteULike organises scholarly (or academic) papers or literature and provides bibliographic (which means it makes bibliographies) for universities and higher education establishments. It helps undergraduates and postgraduates. People studying for PhDs or in postdoctoral (postdoc) positions. The service is similar in scope to EndNote or RefWorks or any other reference manager like BibTeX, but it is a social bookmarking service for scientists and humanities researchers.