A rejoinder to our critics and some of their misapprehensions
A response to Craig McGarty's "Social Identity Theory Does Not Maintain that Identification Produces Bias, and Self-Categorization Theory Does Not Maintain that Salience Is Identification: Two Comments on Mummendey, Klink, and Brown," Susan Condor's "Nations and Nationalism:...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | British journal of social psychology 2001-06, Vol.40 (2), p.187-191 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 191 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 187 |
| container_title | British journal of social psychology |
| container_volume | 40 |
| creator | Mummendey, Amélie Klink, Andreas Brown, Rupert |
| description | A response to Craig McGarty's "Social Identity Theory Does Not Maintain that Identification Produces Bias, and Self-Categorization Theory Does Not Maintain that Salience Is Identification: Two Comments on Mummendey, Klink, and Brown," Susan Condor's "Nations and Nationalism: Particular Cases and Impossible Myths," & Nick Hopkins's "National Identity: Pride and Prejudice?" An overview of the authors' (2001) objectives & findings in studying German & British citizens' attitudes towards their own nations is presented. McGarty's & Hopkins' respective contentions that the authors miscomprehended the principal tenets of social identity theory are addressed. Moreover, McGarty's & Hopkins's respective repudiations of the authors' assertion that social identities can be preserved outside of biased intergroup comparisons are answered. Although Condor's suggestion that the authors' treatment of the nation as a singular entity may be fallacious, it is noted that the data demonstrated a strong similarity in German & British participants' understanding of the connection between psychological processes & national identities. Several different points raised by the aforementioned critics are also considered, eg, McGarty's & Hopkins' respective claims that category identities are necessarily relational. 17 References. J. W. Parker |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1348/014466601164803 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70994794</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>60409072</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5209-e72fb7eec8a05ff71ff9c1609ec1925ea5c3d29a0c857921ecf2633e110532943</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkT1PHDEQhi2UCA6SOl3kIqLbMP5eFxSAEkh0hHwQUVrGNxaGvfVh74nw77OnOyVRGqimmOd5ZzRDyBsG75mQ7QEwKbXWwJiWLYgtMuEgZdMKsC_IZNVtxrbaIbu13gIwIcBskx220jjXE3J4RAve5tTPsNAh07wsNJQ0pFCp72e05jnSHOlwg6nQeap-sSh4g31Nua-vyMvou4qvN3WP_Pz44fLkrJlenH46OZo2QXGwDRoerw1iaD2oGA2L0QamwWJgliv0KogZtx5Cq4zlDEPkWghkDJTgVoo9sr_OXZR8v8Q6uHGTgF3ne8zL6gxYK80zQA3KGK6eA0qwYPgIHqzBUHKtBaNblDT35dExcKsfuP9-MBpvN9HL6znO_vKbo4_Auw3ga_BdLL4Pqf6TK7iWqxXFGntIHT4-NdYdf_5xYexoNWsr1QF__bF8uXPaCKPc1ZdT930qzs6vvl26r-I3rxiqBQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>60409072</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A rejoinder to our critics and some of their misapprehensions</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><creator>Mummendey, Amélie ; Klink, Andreas ; Brown, Rupert</creator><creatorcontrib>Mummendey, Amélie ; Klink, Andreas ; Brown, Rupert</creatorcontrib><description><![CDATA[A response to Craig McGarty's "Social Identity Theory Does Not Maintain that Identification Produces Bias, and Self-Categorization Theory Does Not Maintain that Salience Is Identification: Two Comments on Mummendey, Klink, and Brown," Susan Condor's "Nations and Nationalism: Particular Cases and Impossible Myths," & Nick Hopkins's "National Identity: Pride and Prejudice?" An overview of the authors' (2001) objectives & findings in studying German & British citizens' attitudes towards their own nations is presented. McGarty's & Hopkins' respective contentions that the authors miscomprehended the principal tenets of social identity theory are addressed. Moreover, McGarty's & Hopkins's respective repudiations of the authors' assertion that social identities can be preserved outside of biased intergroup comparisons are answered. Although Condor's suggestion that the authors' treatment of the nation as a singular entity may be fallacious, it is noted that the data demonstrated a strong similarity in German & British participants' understanding of the connection between psychological processes & national identities. Several different points raised by the aforementioned critics are also considered, eg, McGarty's & Hopkins' respective claims that category identities are necessarily relational. 17 References. J. W. Parker]]></description><identifier>ISSN: 0144-6665</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2044-8309</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1348/014466601164803</identifier><identifier>PMID: 11446226</identifier><identifier>CODEN: BJSPDA</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; Ethnic Groups ; Federal Republic of Germany ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Great Britain ; Humans ; Intergroup Relations ; National Identity ; Nationalism ; Patriotism ; Psychological Theory ; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry ; Psychology. Psychophysiology ; Social attribution, perception and cognition ; Social Identification ; Social Identity ; Social Perception ; Social psychology ; Social Theories</subject><ispartof>British journal of social psychology, 2001-06, Vol.40 (2), p.187-191</ispartof><rights>2001 The British Psychological Society</rights><rights>2001 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5209-e72fb7eec8a05ff71ff9c1609ec1925ea5c3d29a0c857921ecf2633e110532943</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1348%2F014466601164803$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1348%2F014466601164803$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,1413,27906,27907,33757,45556,45557</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=1032644$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11446226$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mummendey, Amélie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Klink, Andreas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brown, Rupert</creatorcontrib><title>A rejoinder to our critics and some of their misapprehensions</title><title>British journal of social psychology</title><addtitle>Br J Soc Psychol</addtitle><description><![CDATA[A response to Craig McGarty's "Social Identity Theory Does Not Maintain that Identification Produces Bias, and Self-Categorization Theory Does Not Maintain that Salience Is Identification: Two Comments on Mummendey, Klink, and Brown," Susan Condor's "Nations and Nationalism: Particular Cases and Impossible Myths," & Nick Hopkins's "National Identity: Pride and Prejudice?" An overview of the authors' (2001) objectives & findings in studying German & British citizens' attitudes towards their own nations is presented. McGarty's & Hopkins' respective contentions that the authors miscomprehended the principal tenets of social identity theory are addressed. Moreover, McGarty's & Hopkins's respective repudiations of the authors' assertion that social identities can be preserved outside of biased intergroup comparisons are answered. Although Condor's suggestion that the authors' treatment of the nation as a singular entity may be fallacious, it is noted that the data demonstrated a strong similarity in German & British participants' understanding of the connection between psychological processes & national identities. Several different points raised by the aforementioned critics are also considered, eg, McGarty's & Hopkins' respective claims that category identities are necessarily relational. 17 References. J. W. Parker]]></description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Ethnic Groups</subject><subject>Federal Republic of Germany</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Great Britain</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intergroup Relations</subject><subject>National Identity</subject><subject>Nationalism</subject><subject>Patriotism</subject><subject>Psychological Theory</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychophysiology</subject><subject>Social attribution, perception and cognition</subject><subject>Social Identification</subject><subject>Social Identity</subject><subject>Social Perception</subject><subject>Social psychology</subject><subject>Social Theories</subject><issn>0144-6665</issn><issn>2044-8309</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2001</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkT1PHDEQhi2UCA6SOl3kIqLbMP5eFxSAEkh0hHwQUVrGNxaGvfVh74nw77OnOyVRGqimmOd5ZzRDyBsG75mQ7QEwKbXWwJiWLYgtMuEgZdMKsC_IZNVtxrbaIbu13gIwIcBskx220jjXE3J4RAve5tTPsNAh07wsNJQ0pFCp72e05jnSHOlwg6nQeap-sSh4g31Nua-vyMvou4qvN3WP_Pz44fLkrJlenH46OZo2QXGwDRoerw1iaD2oGA2L0QamwWJgliv0KogZtx5Cq4zlDEPkWghkDJTgVoo9sr_OXZR8v8Q6uHGTgF3ne8zL6gxYK80zQA3KGK6eA0qwYPgIHqzBUHKtBaNblDT35dExcKsfuP9-MBpvN9HL6znO_vKbo4_Auw3ga_BdLL4Pqf6TK7iWqxXFGntIHT4-NdYdf_5xYexoNWsr1QF__bF8uXPaCKPc1ZdT930qzs6vvl26r-I3rxiqBQ</recordid><startdate>200106</startdate><enddate>200106</enddate><creator>Mummendey, Amélie</creator><creator>Klink, Andreas</creator><creator>Brown, Rupert</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>British Psychological Society</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>WZK</scope><scope>7UB</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200106</creationdate><title>A rejoinder to our critics and some of their misapprehensions</title><author>Mummendey, Amélie ; Klink, Andreas ; Brown, Rupert</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5209-e72fb7eec8a05ff71ff9c1609ec1925ea5c3d29a0c857921ecf2633e110532943</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2001</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Ethnic Groups</topic><topic>Federal Republic of Germany</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Great Britain</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intergroup Relations</topic><topic>National Identity</topic><topic>Nationalism</topic><topic>Patriotism</topic><topic>Psychological Theory</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychophysiology</topic><topic>Social attribution, perception and cognition</topic><topic>Social Identification</topic><topic>Social Identity</topic><topic>Social Perception</topic><topic>Social psychology</topic><topic>Social Theories</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mummendey, Amélie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Klink, Andreas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brown, Rupert</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>British journal of social psychology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mummendey, Amélie</au><au>Klink, Andreas</au><au>Brown, Rupert</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A rejoinder to our critics and some of their misapprehensions</atitle><jtitle>British journal of social psychology</jtitle><addtitle>Br J Soc Psychol</addtitle><date>2001-06</date><risdate>2001</risdate><volume>40</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>187</spage><epage>191</epage><pages>187-191</pages><issn>0144-6665</issn><eissn>2044-8309</eissn><coden>BJSPDA</coden><abstract><![CDATA[A response to Craig McGarty's "Social Identity Theory Does Not Maintain that Identification Produces Bias, and Self-Categorization Theory Does Not Maintain that Salience Is Identification: Two Comments on Mummendey, Klink, and Brown," Susan Condor's "Nations and Nationalism: Particular Cases and Impossible Myths," & Nick Hopkins's "National Identity: Pride and Prejudice?" An overview of the authors' (2001) objectives & findings in studying German & British citizens' attitudes towards their own nations is presented. McGarty's & Hopkins' respective contentions that the authors miscomprehended the principal tenets of social identity theory are addressed. Moreover, McGarty's & Hopkins's respective repudiations of the authors' assertion that social identities can be preserved outside of biased intergroup comparisons are answered. Although Condor's suggestion that the authors' treatment of the nation as a singular entity may be fallacious, it is noted that the data demonstrated a strong similarity in German & British participants' understanding of the connection between psychological processes & national identities. Several different points raised by the aforementioned critics are also considered, eg, McGarty's & Hopkins' respective claims that category identities are necessarily relational. 17 References. J. W. Parker]]></abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>11446226</pmid><doi>10.1348/014466601164803</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0144-6665 |
| ispartof | British journal of social psychology, 2001-06, Vol.40 (2), p.187-191 |
| issn | 0144-6665 2044-8309 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70994794 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; Sociological Abstracts |
| subjects | Biological and medical sciences Ethnic Groups Federal Republic of Germany Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology Great Britain Humans Intergroup Relations National Identity Nationalism Patriotism Psychological Theory Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry Psychology. Psychophysiology Social attribution, perception and cognition Social Identification Social Identity Social Perception Social psychology Social Theories |
| title | A rejoinder to our critics and some of their misapprehensions |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-17T09%3A53%3A28IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20rejoinder%20to%20our%20critics%20and%20some%20of%20their%20misapprehensions&rft.jtitle=British%20journal%20of%20social%20psychology&rft.au=Mummendey,%20Am%C3%A9lie&rft.date=2001-06&rft.volume=40&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=187&rft.epage=191&rft.pages=187-191&rft.issn=0144-6665&rft.eissn=2044-8309&rft.coden=BJSPDA&rft_id=info:doi/10.1348/014466601164803&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E60409072%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=60409072&rft_id=info:pmid/11446226&rfr_iscdi=true |