Penelope J. Oakes’s research while affiliated with Macquarie University and other places

presents a new theory of group processes and illustrates its application to the related problems of social influence and group polarization self-categorization theory and social identity: social change, social categorization and the interpersonal-intergroup continuum / self-categorization theory: the relationship between personal and social identity / self-categorization and social influence / an explanation of group polarization / some distinctive implications and directions for research (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

The distinctive metatheoretical and empirical significance of the social identity concept for social psychology is outlined with special reference to social influence and group polarization. ‘Individualism’ and ‘interactionism’ are summarized and contrasted as alternative metatheories of social psychology and it is argued that the social identity concept embodies the latter. A social identity theory of group behaviour (and the individual-group relationship) is introduced and from it are derived further theories of social influence and group polarization. The latter is explained as a special case of normal intragroup influence. It is shown how the social identity theory (theories) of group behaviour, social influence and group polarization explicitly assumes a functional interaction between psychological and social processes, in contrast to individualism, and at the same time generates distinctive, testable, empirical predictions. It is concluded that the social identity concept represents a mechanism of social-psychological interaction and as such demonstrates that social psychology need not be an individualistic science.

Since the advent of the ‘cognitive revolution’ in stereotyping research, interest in the consensual nature of stereotypes and its social psychological basis has declined dramatically. Reversing this trend, this paper examines the manner in which the strength of shared stereotypes and the links between particular content and particular groups are mediated by processes of social influence. Two experiments (Ns = 300, 230) are reported in which participants' pre-existing stereotypes about Australians and Americans were confirmed or contradicted by either an in-group or an out-group source. As predicted, this social validation had powerful effects on the perceived applicability of content to groups (Expt 1) as well as stereotype consensus and favourableness (Expt 2). Stereotypes were typically bolstered when they were confirmed by an in-group or contradicted by an out-group, relative to conditions in which they were contradicted by an in-group or confirmed by an out-group. It is argued that the theoretical integration of principles from stereotyping and social influence research offers the potential for a fuller understanding of the inter-subjective, group based properties of stereotypes and stereotype change.

The fact that stereotypes are shared within groups is essential to stereotype definition and operationalization. Nonetheless, stereotype consensus remains under-researched and under-explained. To address this problem we present a theoretical analysis of the process through which stereotype consensus develops. Derived from self-categorization theory, this argues that consensus is produced by shared social identification and the collective co-ordination of perception and behaviour that flows from it. This analysis is examined in a review of relevant research and in studies where dynamic processes of category representation and social influence are shown to contribute to consensual stereotypes of both out-groups and ingroups.

IntroductionActivationConstrualDiscriminationConclusions: Categorization and Intergroup ConflictReferences

In November, 2002, a randomly sampled body of citizens was brought together to participate in a deliberative poll on the issue of a bill of rights. Participation in deliberative polls is thought to cause attitude change and an increased sense of political engagement, but the underlying processes are little understood. We surveyed poll participants before and after the poll, proposing that either exposure to information, fair treatment or identification as a poll participant would predict attitude change and engagement. None of these affected attitude change but all three predicted political engagement. Results suggested that participation in the poll increases levels of political engagement through its capacities to (a) give people an opportunity to exchange views in a respectful atmosphere and (b) create or increase a sense of connection to a relevant social group.

This article outlines a new approach to the social psychology of power. Specifically, it challenges the currently influential conflictoriented dependence analysis, in which power operates as an almost exclusively repressive force. Drawing on relevant work from other social science disciplines, the article presents an identity model of power, in which both consensus and conflict play important roles. The model theorizes power as a productive as well as repressive force, and differentiates between social power toachieve desired outcomes and social power overothers (domination). The implications of the model for two classic issues in the power literature are considered: the relationship between power and status, and challenges to power (resistance and social change). The model's empirical potential is also discussed.

This paper presents research findings suggesting that unacceptable behaviour in schools is a group strategy adopted for coping with negative social comparison and academic failure. Participants are adolescents in Singapore schools who are identified through self-reports as misbehaving and conforming students. They are presented with a vignette of a student who has failed an examination and is thus faced with the threat of negative social comparison. Two coping strategies are given, one is a strategy of competition adopted by the individual; the other is a group strategy of derogating the more successful and hypothetical outgroup. Two other conditions are included, that of attribution of the failure to lack of effort and to lack of ability. Findings revealed that although there is an overall preference for the individual-competitive strategy, misbehaving students showed relatively higher evaluation of the outgroup-derogation strategy compared to conforming students, but only when the attribution of failure was to lack of ability rather than lack of effort. Misbehaving students who showed a higher preference for the outgroup-derogation coping strategy tend to perceive the self-derogation levels of the target who adopts this strategy to be lower than the target who adopts the individual-competitive strategy.

This chapter begins by describing human rights use as a psychological response to injustice and is then followed by a discussion of the empirical findings. It presents empirical findings that suggest Australians assert human rights as one of a number of possible political responses to felt harm and perceived injustice. It also talks about the responses of the Australians to the existence of a mandatory sentencing scheme, and the exclusion of lesbians and single women from using assisted reproductive technology. It notes that despite the absence of an Australian bill of rights, respondents were motivated to use human rights arguments to press social justice claims. It explains that this willingness to use rights concepts challenges people to consider how to best provide mechanisms of human rights protection that remain relevant to the needs of aggrieved persons.