Here is one good scale that has been validated in subsequent research
Roccas, S., Klar, Y., & Liviatan, I. (2006). The paradox of group-based guilt: Modes of national identification, conflict vehemence, and reactions to the in-group’s moral violations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 698-711.
This is another perpective and good review
https://www.rug.nl/staff/m.van.zomeren/leach_van_zomeren_et_al_2008.pdf
Here is one good scale that has been validated in subsequent research
Roccas, S., Klar, Y., & Liviatan, I. (2006). The paradox of group-based guilt: Modes of national identification, conflict vehemence, and reactions to the in-group’s moral violations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 698-711.
This is another perpective and good review
https://www.rug.nl/staff/m.van.zomeren/leach_van_zomeren_et_al_2008.pdf
Hi Jane, as Salomon did, I would also propose a sociometric approach - i.e. if you have relational information about who contacts who (n x n matrix), the actors with reciproce relations ("symmetry") tend to have more identical views than those with asymmetrical or no relations (see Homans). You might start by calculating cliques of a given network and after compare the ratios of symmetric/asymmetric relations within cliques in order to estimate different levels of ingroup identification.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology
- Social Psychology