1 page 7 hours only...$5 bid only if you can manage

A Social Identity Theory of Leadership

Michael A. Hogg School of Psychology

University of Queensland

A social identity theory of leadership is described that views leadership as a group process generated by social categorization and prototype-based depersonalization processes associated with social identity. Group identification, as self-categorization, constructs an intragroup prototypicality gradient that invests the most prototypical member with the appearance of having influence; the appearance arises because members cognitively and behaviorally conform to the prototype. The appearance of influence becomes a reality through depersonalized social attraction processes that make followers agree and comply with the leader’s ideas and suggestions. Consensual social attraction also imbues the leader with apparent status and creates a sta- tus-based structural differentiation within the group into leader(s) and followers, which has characteristics of unequal status intergroup relations. In addition, a funda- mental attribution process constructs a charismatic leadership personality for the leader, which further empowers the leader and sharpens the leader–follower status differential. Empirical support for the theory is reviewed and a range of implications discussed, including intergroup dimensions, uncertainty reduction and extremism, power, and pitfalls of prototype-based leadership.

Over the past 25 years social psychology has placed relatively little emphasis on the study of leadership. This is probably associated with the well-documented decline during the 1960s and 1970s of interest in small group research, the associated ascendency of social cognition, the European emphasis on large scale inter- group relations, and the “outsourcing” of small group and leadership research to organizational and manage- ment departments (for historical overviews, see Abrams & Hogg, 1998; Hogg & Abrams, 1999; Jones, 1998; McGrath, 1997; Moreland, Hogg, & Hains, 1994; Sanna & Parks, 1997).

In recent years, however, the social identity perspec- tive has begun to provide an integrative conceptual fo- cus for a revival of interest among social psychologists in group phenomena and for a dynamic linkage of social cognitive and intergroup processes (Hogg & Abrams, 1999; Moreland et al., 1994). This has generated social identity analyses of a diverse range of phenomena (e.g., Abrams & Hogg, 1990, 1999; Capozza & Brown, 2000; Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 1999; Hogg & Abrams,

1988; Robinson, 1996; J. C. Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987; Worchel, Morales, Páez, & Deschamps, 1998) and has provided a social cognitive framework for social psychology to reexamine leader- ship as a group process. In this article I describe a social identity theory of group leadership.

I develop the theory with an introduction to relevant aspects of social identity and self-categorization the- ory, and then I contextualize by a short dissertation on leadership research. I describe in some detail the em- pirical support for core components of the leadership theory with the emphasis on direct tests. In the latter part of the article, I draw out and describe some direct implications and extensions of the theory for a range of aspects of leadership.

Brief Overview of Leadership Research

Leadership has long been a focus of research for so- cial psychology and the wider social sciences (e.g., Bass, 1990a; Chemers, 1987, 2001; Eagly, Karau, & Makhijani, 1995; Fiedler & House, 1994; Graumann & Moscovici, 1986; Hollander, 1985; Stogdill, 1974; Yukl, 1981). In recent years, however, it has waned in popularity for mainstream social psychology and is in- stead more commonly researched in other disciplines,

184

Personality and Social Psychology Review Copyright © 2001 by 2001, Vol. 5, No. 3, 184–200 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

This article was made possible by a research grant from the Aus- tralian Research Council.

I thank Kelly Fielding, Margaret Foddy, Sarah Hains, Leigh Mor- ris, and Sherry Schneider for their various intellectual contributions to the development of some of the ideas presented in this article.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Michael A. Hogg, School of Psychology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Austra- lia. E-mail: [email protected]

particularly organizational psychology (e.g., Wilpert, 1995; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1992).

Although personality perspectives identify some per- sonality correlates of leadership (e.g., talkativeness; Mullen, Salas, & Driskell, 1989), and personality ex- plains some variance in the emergence of leaders in ini- tially leaderless groups (Kenny & Zaccaro, 1983), scholars agree that personality alone is a relatively poor correlate of leadership (Stogdill, 1974; Yukl, 1981; but see Albright & Forziati, 1995). An alternative, situational perspective is that almost anyone can be an effective leader if the circumstances are right (e.g., Bales, 1950; Sherif, 1966). In the 1960s, drawing on a third strand of research that described the actual behavior of leaders (e.g., Bales, 1950; Lippitt & White, 1943; Stogdill, 1974), Fiedler (1965, 1971) introduced an interactionist model; the leadership effectiveness of a particular behav- ioral style is contingent on the favorability of the situation to that behavioral style. Fiedler’s contingency theory is generally reasonably well supported (e.g., Strube & Gar- cia, 1981) despite some continuing controversy (e.g., Pe- ters, Hartke, & Pohlmann, 1985).

Another perspective focuses on leadership as a dy- namic product of transactions between leaders and follow- ers (Bass, 1990b; Hollander, 1985; Lord & Maher, 1991; Nye & Simonetta, 1996). For example, because leaders play a significant role in helping followers achieve their goals, followers bestow power and status on leaders to re- store equity. Relatedly, followers may try to redress the power imbalance in groups by gaining personal informa- tion about the leader. This is an attributional process that imbues the leader with charisma and thus additional power (Fiske, 1993; Fiske & Dépret, 1996). Leaders may also ac- cumulate “idiosyncrasy credit” with the group by con- forming to group norms. This subsequently allows them to be innovative and effective leaders (Hollander, 1958; Hol- lander & Julian, 1970).

Recent transactional leadership perspectives, mainly in organizational psychology (Wilpert, 1995), focus on transformational leadership. Charismatic leaders are able to motivate followers to work for col- lective goals that transcend self-interest and transform organizations (Bass, 1990b; Bass & Avolio, 1993; see Mowday & Sutton, 1993, for critical comment). This focus on charisma is particularly evident in “new lead- ership” research (e.g., Bass, 1985, 1990b, 1998; Bryman, 1992; Burns, 1978; Conger & Kanungo, 1987, 1988), which proposes that effective leaders should be proactive, change oriented, innovative, mo- tivating and inspiring, and have a vision or mission with which they infuse the group. They should also be interested in others and be able to create commitment to the group and extract extra effort from, and gener- ally empower, members of the group.

Social psychology’s emphasis on social cognition has produced an extension of implicit leadership the-

ory (Hollander & Julian, 1969) called leader categori- zation theory (e.g., Lord, Foti, & DeVader, 1984; Nye & Forsyth, 1991; Palich & Hom, 1992; Rush & Rus- sell, 1988; also see Nye & Simonetta, 1996). People have preconceptions about how leaders should behave in general and in specific leadership situations. These preconceptions are cognitive schemas of types of leader (i.e., categories of leader that are represented as person schemas) that operate in the same way as other schemas (see Fiske & Taylor, 1991). When someone is categorized on the basis of their behavior as a leader, the relevant leadership schema comes into play to gen- erate further assumptions about behavior. Leadership schemas vary in situational inclusiveness. Subordinate schemas apply only to specific situations (they may re- late to specific status characteristics, as described by expectation states theory; e.g., Berger, Fisek, Norman, & Zelditch, 1977; Ridgeway, 2001), whereas superordinate schemas apply to a wide range of situa- tions and embody very general leadership characteris- tics. Good leaders are people who have the attributes of the category of leader that fits situational requirements. This perspective treats leader categories as nominal categories—that is, cognitive groupings of instances that share attributes but do not have any psychological existence as a real human group. Indeed, the notion of a social group only of leaders makes little sense; who would lead and who would follow? Leadership is viewed as a product of individual information process- ing, not as a structural property of real groups nor as an intrinsic or emergent property of psychological ingroup membership (see Hogg, 1996a).

Commentary on Leadership Research and a New Direction

With only a few notable exceptions, then, the recent study of leadership has been conducted outside of con- temporary mainstream social psychology and so has not benefitted from some of the recent conceptual ad- vances made within social psychology. Although most perspectives now recognize that leadership is a rela- tional property within groups (i.e., leaders exist be- cause of followers and followers exist because of leaders), there is no analysis of leadership that de- scribes how leadership may emerge through the opera- tion of ordinary social cognitive processes associated with psychologically belonging to a group.

In contrast, the most recent analytic emphasis is mainly on (a) individual cognitive processes that cat- egorize individuals as leaders—the social orientation between individuals is not considered, and thus group processes are not incorporated; or (b) whether indi- viduals have the charismatic properties necessary to meet the alleged transformational objectives of lead-

185

SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY OF LEADERSHIP

ership—leadership is a matter of situationally attrac- tive individual characteristics rather than group processes. Both these perspectives have recently in- vited some criticism for neglecting the effects of larger social systems within which the individual is embedded (e.g., Hall & Lord, 1995; Haslam & Platow, 2001; Lord, Brown, & Harvey, 2001; Pawar & Eastman, 1997). Lord et al. (2001) explained that leadership cannot be properly understood in terms of a leader’s actions or in terms of abstract perceptual categories of types of leader, and that a paradigm shift in how we understand leadership is called for. Their solution is to explore a connectionist, or parallel con- straint satisfaction, level model.

However, if leadership is indeed a structural feature of ingroups, then leaders and followers are interdepen- dent roles embedded within a social system bounded by common group or category membership. Thus, leadership dynamics may be significantly affected by the social cognitive processes associated with group membership (and group behaviors), specifically the processes of self-categorization and depersonalization now believed to be responsible for social identity pro- cesses, group behavior, and intergroup relations. Leaders may emerge, maintain their position, be effec- tive, and so forth, as a result of basic social cognitive processes that cause people

1. To conceive of themselves in terms of the defin- ing features of a common and distinctive ingroup (i.e., self-categorization, or identification, in terms of the ingroup prototype).

2. To cognitively and behaviorally assimilate themselves to these features (i.e., cognitive and behav- ioral depersonalization in terms of the ingroup proto- type producing ingroup stereotypic or normative perceptions, attitudes, feelings, and behaviors).

3. To perceive others not as unique individuals but through the lens of features that define relevant ingroup or outgroup membership (i.e., perceptual depersonal- ization of others in terms of the ingroup or outgroup prototype, producing stereotypical homogenization).

If leadership is produced by these group processes contingent on psychologically belonging to the group, then having the prototypical or normative characteris- tics of a psychologically salient ingroup (i.e., being a prototypical ingroup member) may be at least as im- portant for leadership as being charismatic or having schema-consistent characteristics of a particular type or category of leader (i.e., being schematic of a nomi- nal leader category).

My aim in this article is to show that a social iden- tity analysis can provide this sort of new, group mem- bership oriented analysis of leadership processes. First, I briefly review social identity and self-categori-

zation theory, then describe the proposed leadership theory followed by empirical support for its core ten- ets, and finally I explore a range of specific implica- tions, extensions, and future directions.

Social Identity and Self-Categorization

The social identity perspective contains a number of compatible and interrelated components and empha- ses, in particular an original emphasis by Tajfel and Turner and their associates on social identity, social comparison, intergroup relations, and self-enhance- ment motivation (often simply called social identity theory; e.g., Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and a later cogni- tive emphasis by J. C. Turner and his associates on the categorization process (called self-categorization the- ory; e.g., J. C. Turner et al., 1987). Social identity the- ory and self-categorization theory have been extensively overviewed as an integrated whole else- where (e.g., Hogg, 1996a, 2000a, 2001; Hogg & Abrams, 1988, 1999; Hogg, Terry, & White, 1995; J. C. Turner, 1999).

Social Identity and Intergroup Relations

Tajfel (1972) introduced the idea of social identity to theorize how people conceptualize themselves in in- tergroup contexts, how a system of social categoriza- tions “creates and defines an individual’s own place in society” (p. 293). He defined social identity as “the in- dividual’s knowledge that he belongs to certain social groups together with some emotional and value signif- icance to him of this group membership” (Tajfel, 1972, p. 292). Because groups only exist in relation to other groups, they derive their descriptive and evaluative properties, and thus their social meaning, in relation to these other groups.

Furthermore, because social identity is self-evaluative and derives its value from the evaluative properties of the ingroup, social compari- sons between groups are focused on establishing evaluatively positive distinctiveness for one’s own group. Intergroup relations involve a process of com- petition for positive identity (J. C. Turner, 1975) in which groups and their members strive to protect or en- hance positive distinctiveness and positive social iden- tity. The specific way this occurs is governed by people’s subjective understanding of the psychological permeability of group boundaries and the stability and legitimacy of status relations between groups (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). This aspect of social identity theory has had a significant impact on social psychology (see Ellemers, 1993; Hogg & Abrams, 1988).

186

HOGG

Self-Esteem Hypothesis

The drive for evaluatively positive social identity through positive distinctiveness is underpinned by a ba- sic human need for positive self-esteem (e.g., J. C. Turner, 1982; J. C. Turner, Brown, & Tajfel, 1979), a self-enhancement motive. The implication is that self-esteem motivates social identification and group behavior, and social identification satisfies the need for self-esteem (Abrams & Hogg, 1988). Reviews of re- search on this self-esteem hypothesis reveal inconsistent findings that suggest a distinction between individual and group membership based self-esteem, and that the relationship between self-esteem and group behavior may be affected by other variables such as self-esteem extremity, identity strength, and group threat (see Abrams & Hogg, 1988; Hogg & Abrams, 1990; Long & Spears, 1997; Rubin & Hewstone, 1998). Crocker and her colleagues (e.g., Crocker, Blaine, & Luhtanen, 1993; Crocker & Luhtanen, 1990; Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992) have explored self-esteem processes in inter- group behavior extensively and have developed a col- lective self-esteem scale that some researchers employ as a measure of social identity.

Self-Categorization, Prototypicality, and Depersonalization

The cognitive dimension of social identity is speci- fied by self-categorization theory (J. C. Turner, 1985; J. C. Turner et al., 1987) in terms of the causes and con- sequences of social categorization of self and others (Hogg, 2001). The process of social categorization perceptually segments the social world into ingroups and outgroups that are cognitively represented as pro- totypes. These prototypes are context specific, multidi- mensional fuzzy sets of attributes that define and prescribe attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that charac- terize one group and distinguish it from other groups. Social categorization of other people perceptually as- similates them to the relevant ingroup or outgroup pro- totype and thus perceptually accentuates prototypical similarities among people in the same group and prototypical differences between people from different groups; there is an accentuation effect (e.g., Tajfel, 1959, 1969) that underpins stereotyping. This overall process is called depersonalization because people are not viewed as unique and multifaceted individuals but as matches to the relevant ingroup or outgroup proto- type; prototypicality, not individuality, is the focus of attention. Depersonalization refers to change in the ba- sis of perception; it does not have the negative conno- tations of deindividuation or dehumanization.

Social categorization of self, self-categorization, has the same effect but more so. It not only depersonal-

izes self-perception but goes further in actually trans- forming self-conception and assimilating all aspects of ones attitudes, feelings, and behaviors to the ingroup prototype; it changes what people think, feel, and do. Depersonalization is the basic process underlying group phenomena; it perceptually differentiates groups and renders perceptions, attitudes, feelings, and behav- iors stereotypical and group normative.

Prototypes are often stored in memory to be “called forth” by social categorization in a particular context to guide perception, self-conception, and action. How- ever, they are almost always modified to varying de- grees, and they can be entirely constructed by specifics of a particular social context. Prototypes are contextu- ally responsive, and the principle governing this con- textual sensitivity is metacontrast. New prototypes form, or existing ones are modified, in such a way as to maximize the ratio of perceived intergroup differences to intragroup similarities; prototypes form to accentu- ate similarities within a category and differences be- tween categories.

Social Attraction Hypothesis

Depersonalization affects people’s feelings about one another. They become based on perceived prototypicality (called social attraction) rather than idiosyncratic prefer- ences or personal relationships (called personal attrac- tion), which is the social attraction hypothesis (Hogg, 1992, 1993; for direct empirical tests, see Hogg, Coo- per-Shaw, & Holzworth, 1993; Hogg & Hains, 1996, 1998; Hogg & Hardie, 1991; Hogg, Hardie, & Reynolds, 1995). Ingroup members are liked more than outgroup members because the former are perceptually assimilated to a relatively positive ingroup prototype, or because their prototypical similarity to self is perceptually accentuated, or because self-liking (self-esteem) is extended to em- brace people who are to some extent now viewed as prototypical extensions of self. Within the ingroup there is consensual liking that is stronger for more prototypical than for less prototypical members; there is a proto- type-based social attraction gradient.

Uncertainty Reduction Hypothesis

It has recently been suggested that social identity processes are not only motivated by self-enhancement (the self-esteem hypothesis) but also by an epistemic or self-evaluative motive to reduce subjective uncer- tainty (the uncertainty reduction hypothesis; Hogg, 2000b; Hogg & Abrams, 1993; Hogg & Mullin, 1999; for direct empirical evidence, see Grieve & Hogg, 1999; Hogg & Grieve, 1999; Jetten, Hogg, & Mullin,

187

SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY OF LEADERSHIP

2000; Mullin & Hogg, 1998, 1999). This motive is closely tied to social categorization.

Subjective uncertainty about important, usually self-conceptually relevant matters is aversive; thus, subjec- tive uncertainty reduction is a powerful human motive. The processes of self-categorization and prototype-based depersonalization reduce uncertainty because perceptions, attitudes, feelings, and behavior are now prescribed by an ingroup prototype that usually has consensual validation from other group members. Groups with high entitativity (e.g., Campbell, 1958; see Brewer & Harasty, 1996; Ham- ilton & Sherman, 1996), with clear, unambiguous, and consensual prototypes, and which are located in a clearly delineated intergroup structure, are most effective at re- ducing subjective uncertainty.

Salience

A key question for social identity theory is what causes social identity (as defined earlier) as opposed to personal identity (self-conception in terms of unique properties of self or of one’s personal relationships with specific other individuals), or one social identity rather than another, to become the contextually salient basis of perception, thought, and behavior? Theory and research suggest that there is an interaction between category accessibility and category fit (e.g., Oakes, Haslam, & Turner, 1994) that operates within the moti- vational framework provided by self-esteem and un- certainty reduction (see Hogg, 1996a, 2001).

People, influenced by self-enhancement and uncer- tainty reduction motives, categorize the social context in terms of categories, represented as prototypes, which are chronically accessible in memory or rendered acces- sible by the immediate context, or both. That categoriza- tion becomes salient, which best accounts for relevant similarities and differences among people in the context (structural or comparative fit), which best accords with the social meaning of the context (normative fit), and which best satisfies self-enhancement and self-evaluative concerns. Situational cues or personal agenda, or both, cause people to “try out” different cate- gories or prototypes to make sense of the social field in ways that also evaluate self relatively favorably. This is a fast and relatively automatic cognitive perceptual iter- ative process that stabilizes when fit is optimized. Only then does self-categorization occur, in the sense of de- personalized self-conception, cognition, and behavior.

Social Identity and Intragroup Processes and Structures

Social identity theory originally focused on inter- group behavior in the context of large social categories:

intergroup social comparisons, positive distinctiveness, stereotypes, discrimination, and intergroup relations. Intragroup behavior was generally treated as an unproblematic by-product of intergroup relations; ingroups were largely treated as homogenous and undif- ferentiated. In contrast, the recent emphasis on self-cate- gorization and depersonalization has prompted recognition that groups are internally structured with re- spect to prototypicality. Within a group, some people are more prototypical than others. Therefore, deperson- alized social identity processes within groups may in- volve differentiation among people that is not interpersonal but is genuinely grounded in common cat- egory membership.

Initially, this idea was explored in the context of group cohesion and social attraction (Hogg, 1992, 1993), and group polarization (e.g., Abrams, Wetherell, Cochrane, Hogg, & Turner, 1990; McGarty, Turner, Hogg, David, & Wetherell, 1992; see J. C. Turner, 1991), but it has subsequently pro- duced other research on social identity-based intragroup processes (Hogg, 1996a, 1996b): for ex- ample, structural differentiation into subgroups within groups (e.g., Hornsey & Hogg, 1999, 2000a, 2000b), and deviance and the “black sheep effect” (e.g., Marques & Páez, 1994). However, perhaps the most basic and pervasive structural differentiation within groups is into leader(s) and followers.

Social Identity, Self-Categorization, and Leadership

Building on preliminary ideas in a book chapter (Hogg, 1996a), I describe how social identity pro- cesses influence leadership, followed in the next sec- tion by discussion of empirical support for these ideas. Leadership is about how some individuals or cliques have disproportionate power and influence to set agenda, define identity, and mobilize people to achieve collective goals. The differential ability of some peo- ple to stamp their mark on attitudes, practices, deci- sions, and actions is endemic to all social groups—for example, nations, communities, organizations, com- mittees, cliques, and families. Leaders are people who have disproportionate influence, through possession of consensual prestige or the exercise of power, or both, over the attitudes, behaviors, and destiny of group members. Leadership is very much a group process (Chemers, 2001). I propose that there are three core processes that operate in conjunction to make prototypicality an increasingly influential basis of leadership processes as a function of increasing social identity salience: prototypicality, social attraction, and attribution and information processing. These pro- cesses are described mainly in terms of emergent lead-

188

HOGG

ership in new groups. However, they also apply to situations in which established leadership roles are structurally assigned; this is explicitly addressed later.

Prototypicality

We have seen that when group membership is psy- chologically salient, social categorization of self and other ingroup members depersonalizes perception, cognition, affect, and behavior in terms of the contex- tually relevant ingroup prototype. The more salient the group the more profound is the effect. Group members conform to, and thus are influenced by, the prototype. Those people who are more prototypical to begin with will be less influenced than those who are less prototypical to begin with; the former make fewer changes than the latter to approximate the prototype. (For a review of evidence for prototypical depersonal- ization as the basis for conformity see J. C. Turner, 1991.) In salient groups, people are highly sensitive to prototypicality, as it is the basis of perception and eval- uation of self and other group members. Thus, they no- tice and respond to even very subtle differences in how prototypical fellow members are; there is a clearly per- ceived gradient of prototypicality within the group, with some people perceived to be more prototypical than others (e.g., Haslam, Oakes, McGarty, Turner, & Onorato, 1995; Hogg, 1993). Within a salient group then, people who are perceived to occupy the most prototypical position are perceived to best embody the behaviors to which other, less prototypical members are conforming. There is a perception of differential in- fluence within the group, with the most prototypical member appearing to exercise influence over less prototypical members. In new groups, this is an “ap- pearance” because the most prototypical person does not actively exercise influence; it is the prototype that he or she happens to embody that influences behavior. In established groups the appearance is backed up by actual influence (see following).

We have seen that prototypes are contextually sen- sitive to the intergroup social comparative context (the metacontrast principle). Thus, if the context re- mains unchanged, the prototype will remain un- changed, and the same individual group member will occupy the most prototypical position. It follows that the longer a particular individual occupies the most prototypical position, the stronger and more en- trenched will be the appearance that he or she has ac- tively exercised influence over others. In new groups this person is perceived to occupy an embryonic lead- ership role, although leadership has not been exer- cised. There is an embryonic role differentiation into leader and followers.

As group membership becomes more salient, and members identify more strongly with the group, prototypicality becomes an increasingly influential ba- sis for leadership perceptions. People also, of course, rely on general and more task-specific schemas of lead- ership behaviors (what Lord and his colleagues call leader categories; e.g., Lord et al., 1984). However, the importance of these schemas is either unaffected by self-categorization, or they become less important as group prototypicality becomes more important. In either case, leadership schemas should become less influential relative to group prototypicality as group membership becomes psychologically more salient.

Social Attraction

Leadership is more than passively being a prototypical group member; it involves actively influ- encing other people. One way in which this is made possible is through the social attraction process. We have seen that self-categorization depersonalizes the basis of attraction within groups, such that more prototypical members are liked more than less prototypical members, and that where there is a con- sensual prototype this has the effect of producing consensually greater liking for prototypical members (e.g., Hogg, 1992, 1993). The person occupying the most prototypical position may acquire, in new groups, or possess, in established groups, the ability to actively influence because he or she is socially attractive and thus able to secure compliance with suggestions and recommendations he or she makes.

A well-researched consequence of liking is that it in- creases compliance with requests. If you like someone you are more likely to agree with them and comply with requests, suggestions, and orders (e.g., Berscheid & Reis, 1998). In this way, the most prototypical person is able to exercise leadership by having his or her ideas ac- cepted more readily and more widely than ideas sug- gested by others. This empowers the leader and publicly confirms his or her ability to exercise influence. Con- sensual depersonalized liking, particularly over time, confirms differential popularity and public endorsement of the leader. It imbues the leader with prestige and sta- tus and begins to reify an intragroup status differential between leader(s) and followers.

Social attraction may also be enhanced by the be- havior of highly prototypical members. More prototypical members tend to identify more strongly and thus display more pronounced group behaviors; they will be more normative, show greater ingroup loy- alty and ethnocentrism, and generally behave in a more group serving manner. These behaviors further con- firm their prototypicality and thus enhance social at- traction. A leader who acts as “one of us” by showing

189

SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY OF LEADERSHIP

strong ingroup favoritism and intragroup fairness is not only more socially attractive but is also provided with legitimacy. Indeed, research on justice consider- ations in group contexts confirms that although distrib- utive justice is complicated (intragroup fairness conflicting with intergroup bias), intragroup proce- dural justice is critical. According to the group value model of procedural justice, members feel more satis- fied and more committed to the group if the leader is procedurally fair (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler, 1997; Tyler, DeGoey, & Smith, 1996; Tyler & Lind, 1992; also see Platow, Reid, & Andrew, 1998).

Attribution and Information Processing

Prototypicality and social attraction work in con- junction with attribution and information processing to translate perceived influence into active leadership. As elsewhere, attribution processes operate within groups to make sense of others’ behavior. Also as in other con- texts, attributions for others’ behavior are prone to the fundamental attribution error (Ross, 1977) or corre- spondence bias (Gilbert & Jones, 1986; also see Gilbert & Malone, 1995; Trope & Liberman, 1993), a tendency to attribute behavior to underlying disposi- tions that reflect invariant properties, or essences, of the individual’s personality. This effect is more pro- nounced for individuals who are perceptually distinc- tive (e.g., figural against a background) or cognitively salient (e.g., Taylor & Fiske, 1978).

We have seen that when group membership is sa- lient, people are sensitive to prototypicality and attend to subtle differences in prototypicality of fellow mem- bers. Highly prototypical members are most informa- tive about what is prototypical of group membership (see J. C. Turner, 1991), and so, not surprisingly, in a group context they attract most attention. They are sub- jectively important and are distinctive or figural against the background of other less informative mem- bers. Research in social cognition shows that people who are subjectively important and distinctive are seen to be disproportionately influential and have their be- havior dispositionally attributed (e.g., Erber & Fiske, 1984; Taylor & Fiske, 1975).

We have also seen how highly prototypical mem- bers may appear to have influence due to their relative prototypicality, and may actively exercise influence and gain compliance as a consequence of consensual social attraction. Together, the leadership nature of this behavior and the relative prominence of prototypical members is likely to encourage an internal attribution to intrinsic leadership ability, or charisma. This attri- bution will be facilitated if cultural theories of the causes of leadership favor the belief that leadership re-

flects personality (e.g., in individualist cultures; see Morris & Peng, 1994).

In groups, then, the behavior of highly prototypical members is likely to be attributed, particularly in stable groups over time, to the person’s personality rather than the prototypicality of the position occupied. The consequence is a tendency to construct a charismatic leadership personality for that person that, to some ex- tent, separates that person from the rest of the group and reinforces the perception of status-based structural differentiation within the group into leader(s) and fol- lowers. This may make the leader stand out more starkly against the background of less prototypical fol- lowers, as well as draw attention to a potential power imbalance, thus further fueling the attributional effect.

The fact that followers do tend to focus on the leader and make dispositional attributions for that person’s be- havior has some empirical support. Fiske (1993; Fiske & Dépret, 1996) showed how followers pay close atten- tion to leaders and seek dispositional information about leaders because detailed individualized knowledge helps redress the perceived power imbalance between leader and followers. Conger and Kanungo (1987, 1988) described how followers attributionally construct a charismatic leadership personality for organizational leaders who have a “vision” that involves substantial change to the group. Meindl, Ehrlich, and Dukerich (1985) showed that simplified dispositional attributions for leadership were more evident for distinctive leader- ship behaviors and under crisis conditions.

Emergence and Endurance of Leaders

Social identity processes associated with leadership do not only apply to emergent leaders but also to endur- ing and structurally designated leaders. Whether you are an emergent or an established leader, prototypicality processes influence leadership perceptions and effec- tiveness when group membership salience is elevated.

Under conditions of depersonalization, prototypicality becomes a significant basis for all leadership percep- tions. In new groups, the associated processes of so- cial attraction and prototype-based attribution and information processing can translate these percep- tions into proactive leadership behavior. The longer an individual remains in a leadership position the more they will be socially liked, the more consensual will be the social attraction, and the more entrenched will be the fundamental attribution effect. Having ac- quired effective influence in these ways, the person occupying the prototypical position can, just like an established leader whose position is structurally des- ignated, adopt more active aspects of being a leader, including the ability to actively maintain his or her leadership position.

190

HOGG

Although an established leader has the power base sim- ply to maintain his or her position, it is often advantageous if the group continues to view them as highly prototypical. However, as we have seen, social contextual changes im- pact prototypicality. Thus, over time and across contexts, the leader may decline in prototypicality whereas other members become more prototypical, opening the door, particularly under high salience conditions, to a redistribu- tion of influence within the group. An established leader is well placed in terms of resources to combat this by redefin- ing, usually through rhetoric and polemic (e.g., Reicher & Hopkins, 1996), the prototype in a self-serving manner to prototypically marginalize contenders and prototypically centralize self. This can be done by accentuating the exist- ing ingroup prototype, by pillorying ingroup deviants, or by demonizing an appropriate outgroup. Generally all three tactics are used, and the very act of engaging in these tactics is often viewed as further evidence of effective leadership. National leaders often engage in these tactics. During the 1982 Falklands War between Britain and Ar- gentina, Margaret Thatcher, the British Prime Minister, ac- centuated her nationalistic prototype of Britain, pilloried deviant groups within Britain who did not represent her prototype, and demonized the Argentinian outgroup. Her leadership ratings rose significantly.

Leadership endurance also benefits from consensual prototypicality because of the effect of consensual pop- ularity on social attraction. In groups with less consen- sual prototypes, there is less consensus of perceptions of and feelings for the leader, and thus the leader may have less power and may occupy a less stable position. It is in the leaders’s interest to maintain a consensual proto- type. Simple and more clearly focused prototypes are less open to ambiguity and alternative interpretations and are thus better suited to consensuality. In addition, ingroup deviants serve an important function; by creat- ing and rejecting such deviants the leader is well able to clarify the self-serving focus of the prototype. Another strategy is to polarize or extremitize the ingroup relative to a specific “evil” outgroup. Leaders can also accentu- ate or create intergroup conflict to achieve these ends (e.g., Rabbie & Bekkers, 1978). These processes clearly operate in extremist groups with all-powerful leaders. For example, in Cambodia in the 1970s, Pol Pot con- structed a simple and orthodox national prototype; he engaged in a campaign of prototypical purification that involved exterminating deviants, and he polarized from and demonized the “decadent” West.

Tests of the Social Identity Theory of Leadership

The central prediction from the social identity the- ory of leadership is that as people identify more strongly with a group, the basis for leadership percep-

tions, evaluations, and endorsement becomes increas- ingly influenced by prototypicality; prototypical mem- bers are more likely to emerge as leaders, and more prototypical leaders will be perceived to be more effec- tive leaders. This idea has been directly tested and sup- ported in a series of studies.

Hains, Hogg, and Duck (1997) conducted a labora- tory study of emergent leadership perceptions and eval- uations in ad hoc and relatively minimal groups. Three independent variables (group salience, group prototypicality, and leader schema congruence) were manipulated in a 2 × 2 × 2 design. Under conditions of high or low group salience, student participants (N = 184) anticipated joining a small discussion group formed on the basis of attitude congruence. They were informed that a randomly appointed group leader was group prototypical or nonprototypical (group prototypicality) in terms of the attitude dimension and had a behavioral style (on the basis of a pretest) that was congruent or incongruent with a leader schema (leader schema congruence). Dependent measures were taken ostensibly in anticipation of the upcoming discussion. In addition to checks on each of the three manipulations, we also measured group identification (11-item scale) and perceived leader effectiveness (10-item scale). As predicted, when group membership was salient people identified more strongly with the group and endorsed the prototypical leader as being much more effective than the nonprototypical leader; low-salience partici- pants did not differentiate between prototypical and nonprototypical leaders. Although leader schema con- gruent leaders were perceived overall to be more effec- tive than schema incongruent leaders, we found that this effect disappeared for high-salience participants on one leadership effectiveness item. Although social attrac- tion for the leader was not explicitly tested, the 10-item leadership effectiveness scale contained an item mea- suring liking for the leader; thus, leadership effective- ness was associated with liking.

To complement this highly controlled laboratory experiment, we conducted a naturalistic field study of leadership in small interactive “outward bound” groups in which real leaders emerged and actually lead the groups in wilderness and outdoor experiences (Fielding & Hogg, 1997). There were 13 mixed-sex, approximately 11-person groups of people mainly in their 20s from around Australia (N = 143). The groups stayed together for 3 weeks. We replicated the labora- tory experiment as closely as we could, but of course in a measurement-based regression format. Leadership schemas, group membership variables, and leadership effectiveness perceptions were measured a week to 10 days apart. In this study we were also able to measure social attraction. As predicted, (a) group identification, perceived leadership effectiveness, and social attrac- tion for the leader increased over time as the group be-

191

SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY OF LEADERSHIP

came a more cohesive entity; and (b) perceived leadership effectiveness was a positive function of so- cial attraction for and group prototypicality of the leader, and this was amplified among high identifying participants. Perceived leader schema congruence of the leader was a predictor of perceived leadership ef- fectiveness but was uninfluenced by identification.

We now returned to the laboratory where we con- ducted two minimal group studies based closely on Hains et al.’s (1997) methodology (Hogg, Hains, & Mason, 1998). The main aim of these somewhat com- plex studies was to treat prototypicality and leadership as relativistic properties of a comparative frame of ref- erence in which individuals are perceived and evalu- ated in relation to other individuals who are ingroup or outgroup members. The first study had student partici- pants (N = 82) nominate a leader for a small high sa- lience discussion group they were ostensibly going to join. They were provided with a carefully constructed transcript of an earlier meeting of the group that pro- vided leadership schema congruence and group prototypicality information for each of the other mem- bers. They rated the group, their nominated leader and all other group members, and their identification with the group. The second study was a 2 × 2 × 2 experiment (N = 164) in which group salience, leadership schema congruence of the leader, and group prototypicality of the leader were orthogonally manipulated. The key feature of this experiment was that the prototypicality of the leader was indirectly manipulated by construct- ing an intergroup comparative context that, on the ba- sis of metacontrast, influenced the location of the prototype in precisely calculable ways.

Across these two studies, we found that leadership schema congruence became a less influential, and group prototypicality a more influential, determinant of leadership endorsement in more cohesive groups with which people identified more strongly. We also found, as expected, that identification accentuated per- ceived prototypical similarities between ingroup mem- bers and thus between leader and nonleaders, and that this weakened the prototype–leadership relation when leadership and prototypicality were measured relativ- istically (leaders relative to nonleaders). We argued, however, that this effect was due to the ad hoc and emergent nature of the group, and that over time the perceptual gulf between leader and followers, de- scribed by the theory, would gradually develop.

There is further support for the proposed theory from recent social identity-based research into leadership. I describe this work more briefly. First, Platow and van Knippenberg (1999) have recently replicated the find- ing from Hains et al. (1997) that prototypicality be- comes an increasingly influential basis for leadership endorsement as group membership becomes more sa- lient. Second, Duck & Fielding (1999), drawing directly

on the social identity theory of leadership, conducted two laboratory experiments that, in a relatively minimal way, simulated equal status subgroups nested within a larger organization (total of 328 participants). They measured group identification and evaluations of orga- nization leaders who were randomly appointed from participants’ own or the other subgroup. Ingroup, thus prototypical, leaders were more strongly supported than outgroup, thus nonprototypical, leaders, and this effect was more pronounced to the extent that participants identified strongly with their own subgroup. Again, the basis of leadership perception and endorsement is more firmly grounded in prototypicality as people identify more strongly with the group.

Platow, Reid, and Andrew (1998) provided some in- direct support for the leadership theory from a laboratory experiment in which they manipulated group salience (interpersonal vs. intergroup context), and whether a ran- domly appointed leader was procedurally fair–unfair and distributively fair–unfair (N = 132). If it is assumed that fairness is a general property of leadership schemas, but that ingroup favoritism is a generally prototypical and so- cially attractive property of group membership, then we would predict that distributively and procedurally ingroup favoring leaders would be more strongly en- dorsed under high- than low-salience conditions. This is precisely what Platow and his colleagues found.

Haslam et al. (1998) reported three experiments (to- tal N = 387) that support the idea that systematically se- lected leaders may be less favorably perceived than randomly appointed leaders. They argue, from social identity theory, that this may be because a systematic se- lection process draws attention away from the group and toward individuality. It personalizes the leader and sep- arates him or her from the group and thus renders the leader perceptually less prototypical. It may even also weaken group identification. In contrast, a random pro- cess keeps attention on the group as a whole. It does not personalize the leader, and thus allows him or her to be viewed as a prototypical group member. It may also strengthen group identification. Again, prototypicality becomes an increasingly important basis of leadership as group membership becomes more salient.

Finally, there are studies conducted within a social dilemmas tradition. Drawing on social identity theory and on Tyler and Lind’s (1992) group value model, van Vugt and de Cremer (1999) conducted two experi- ments (total of 189 participants) in which they found that when people strongly identify with a group faced by a social dilemma they prefer a leader who shares the group’s values (i.e., is prototypical) and believe that such a leader will actually be more effective. Van Vugt and de Cremer explicitly viewed this as supporting the social identity theory of leadership. In another social dilemma study, de Cremer and van Vugt (in press) ma- nipulated a number of variables including how much

192

HOGG

participants identified with the group and how much a randomly appointed leader ostensibly identified with the group (N = 94). Dependent measures focused mainly on cooperation with the leader as a reflection of leader approval, support, and effectiveness. The results showed that members cooperated more with a high- than low-identifying leader, and that this was particu- larly the case for members who identified strongly with the group. In addition, the effect was clearly me- diated by social attraction. De Cremer and van Vugt (in press) explicitly stated that these data support the so- cial identity theory of leadership. Finally, Foddy and Hogg (1999) reported some data of their own that sug- gest that where there are leaders managing a scarce re- source, those leaders who identify more strongly with the group (and thus consider themselves to be more prototypical) tend to be more conserving of the scarce resource and are thus more effective leaders.

In this section I have reviewed social identity re- search that directly tests or indirectly tests the leader- ship theory presented here. There is consistent and reliable support for the core idea that as groups become more salient and people identify more strongly with them, prototypicality of the leader becomes an increas- ingly significant basis for leadership perceptions. There is some evidence that as prototypicality be- comes more important, leadership schema congruence becomes less important. There is also support for the idea that prototype-based depersonalized social attrac- tion may facilitate leadership. There is some direct evi- dence from the studies by Fielding and Hogg (1997) and de Cremer and van Vugt (in press), whereas in other studies social attraction is a component of the leadership evaluation measure (e.g., Hains et al., 1997; Hogg et al., 1998). The attribution and associated structural differentiation components of the theory have indirect support (e.g., Fiske, 1993; Fiske & Dépret, 1996), but remain to be directly tested.

Some Implications, Extensions, and Future Directions

The social identity theory of leadership has a num- ber of qualifications, elaborations, and implications for our understanding of leadership processes. Although mainly speculative, these ideas point to promising di- rections for future research.

Intergroup Context of Leadership

Social identity theory is an intergroup theory, and thus the model presented here is an intergroup model of lead- ership. Leadership in salient groups can only be under- stood in its intergroup context, because groups can only

be understood in their intergroup context. Prototypes are determined by metacontrast involving both intragroup and intergroup comparisons, and thus leadership is influ- enced by intergroup relations. In turn, although leaders provide a focus for ingroup members, they often lead their groups against outgroups and struggle to promote their group in competition with other groups (e.g., Rabbie & Bekkers, 1978). Also, as discussed earlier, leaders ma- nipulate followers’ intergroup representations and com- parisons in ways that secure or promote tenure by ensuring that the leader is highly prototypical.

Groups often interact and communicate with one another through their leaders; indeed, most intergroup bargaining and negotiation is via group leaders. These are intergroup encounters. Social identity research shows that intergroup encounters generally strengthen identification and polarize prototypes (e.g., Abrams et al., 1990), and the proposed leadership theory suggests that leaders under high-salience conditions tend to be prototypical and highly identified with the group. We have also seen that justice considerations specify that leaders should be fair within groups but should favor ingroup over outgroup (e.g., Platow et al., 1998). To- gether, these ideas point to the clear prediction that in- tergroup bargaining tends to accentuate competitive- ness, particularly when leaders feel accountable to and under surveillance by their group; research con- firms this (e.g., Carnevale, Pruitt, & Britton, 1979; Morley, Webb, & Stephenson, 1988).

Uncertainty Reduction and Leadership

Social identity processes are motivated by self-en- hancement (e.g., J. C. Turner, 1982) and by uncertainty reduction (e.g., Hogg, 2000b; Hogg & Mullin, 1999). We have seen how depersonalized social attraction (e.g., Hogg, 1993), which perhaps owes more to self-enhancement, influences leadership. How might uncertainty reduction affect leadership?

As described earlier, the more that people feel self-conceptually uncertain about things that matter, the more they are inclined to identify with groups, par- ticularly with groups that have clearly focused and consensual prototypes, groups that are often thought to be extreme. From a leadership perspective, these are precisely the conditions that favor prototype-based leadership that may be enduring enough to entrench a strong leader. Under high self-conceptual uncertainty, members strive for a simple and distinct prototype, support witch-hunts to purify the group of deviants, ex- press consensual social attraction, are highly attuned to prototypicality, and invest the leader with a highly charismatic leadership personality.

A good example of this is “totalist” groups such as cults (e.g., Curtis & Curtis, 1993; Galanter, 1989). In

193

SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY OF LEADERSHIP

these groups, leaders are often distinct and remote from followers. There is a steep and rigid prestige dif- ferential between leaders and followers that provides a clearly delineated intragroup status structure. This ar- rangement contributes further to uncertainty reduction under conditions of extreme uncertainty because it im- bues the intragroup structural arrangement, and thus the leader, with perceived legitimacy that protects the system from change (see Jost & Banaji’s, 1994, system justification theory). Leaders may also maintain or strengthen their leadership position through strategic management of uncertainty (see Marris’s, 1996, notion that certainty is power). Specifically, they can deliber- ately raise uncertainty (e.g., the specters of war, eco- nomic collapse, cultural disintegration), and at the same time define a clear social identity predicated on a prototype that closely matches the leader. Uncertainty reduction automatically endorses the leader.

Leadership, Influence, and Power

Definitions of leadership usually distinguish leader- ship from power (e.g., Chemers, 2001; Lord et al., 2001). Leadership is a process of influence that enlists and mobilizes the involvement of others in the attain- ment of collective goals; it is not a coercive process in which power is exercised over others. The social iden- tity theory of leadership is consistent with this type of definition (Hogg & Reid, 2001). Prototypical leaders do not need to exercise power to have influence; they are influential because of their position and the deper- sonalization process that assimilates members’ behav- ior to the prototype. They and their suggestions are intrinsically persuasive because they embody the norms of the group; they have referent power (Raven, 1965), or position power, and therefore do not need to exercise personal power (Yukl & Falbe, 1991). In ad- dition to not needing to exercise power, it is possible that prototypical leaders may be unable to exercise power. High prototypicality is associated with strong ingroup identification; self and group are tightly fused prototypically, and thus any form of negative behavior directed against fellow members is effectively directed against self. There may exist an empathic bond be- tween leader and followers that protects against any desire to exercise power over others let alone the de- structive use of power or the abuse of power.

However, leaders sometimes do exercise power in harmful ways. Why does this happen? How can it be curbed? One possibility, based on the leadership the- ory, is that increasing status-based differentiation be- tween leader and followers effectively instantiates an intergroup relationship. The empathic ingroup bond that protects against abuse of power is severed. In addi- tion, the leader is now no longer prototypical for the

followers. Leadership through ingroup proto- type-based influence is no longer effective, therefore the leader now needs to, and can, gain influence by ex- ercising power over other members of the group as if they were outgroup members. Such a relationship will be competitive and potentially exploitative, far re- moved from prototype-based leadership. This is likely to be more pronounced in hierarchical extremist groups in which leader–follower role differentiation is more tangible and stark, and in groups in which there is a leadership clique rather than a single leader. The po- tential for the abuse of power is likely to be much ac- centuated in these types of groups.

The progression from benign influence to destructive wielding of power can be curbed by anything that inhib- its the process of structural differentiation and that regrounds leadership in prototypicality. External threat from an outgroup might be particularly effective in this regard, as it enhances identification and depersonaliza- tion and increases solidarity and social attraction (e.g., Hogg, 1993). Power may, paradoxically, also be curbed by quite the opposite circumstances. If a group becomes less cohesive, more diverse, and less consensual about its prototype, it is less likely that followers will endorse the same person as the leader. Thus, the leader’s power base will fragment, and numerous new “contenders” may emerge. Although this limits the leader’s ability to abuse power, it also undermines prototype-based lead- ership. Also note that leaders who have become accus- tomed to exercise power may vigorously resist any threats to their ability to exercise power.

The social identity analysis of leadership and power presented here is explored fully by Hogg and Reid (2001). It suggests that leaders only exercise power when the self-categorization contingent processes of social attraction and prototypical attribution structur- ally differentiate the leader from the rest of the group and thus change the leader–group relationship from an intragroup relationship into some form of unequal sta- tus intergroup relationship. The exercise of power now becomes associated with other intergroup behaviors (e.g., stereotyping, intergroup discrimination, social dislike) that inevitably widen the gulf between leaders and followers. This analysis remains to be formally tested; however, there is evidence that people in power do tend to stereotype followers (e.g., Fiske, 1993; Fiske & Dépret, 1996; Goodwin & Fiske, 1996; Goodwin, Gubin, Fiske, & Yzerbyt, 2000).

Pitfalls of Prototype-Based Leadership

Prototype-based leadership can be very effective and mutually satisfying because there is no need to be coer- cive, and attitude change occurs automatically via the depersonalization process associated with self-categori-

194

HOGG

zation and social identification. However, we have seen that other processes such as social attraction and prototypical attribution can change the leader–follower relationship in ways that may have undesirable effects. There are some pitfalls to prototype-based leadership.

Processes associated with prototype-based leader- ship may, paradoxically, distance the leader from the group, sever the empathic intragroup bond, and recon- struct a form of intergroup relationship between leader and followers. This encourages stereotypic perception and treatment of followers, and the exercise of power to have influence; taken in tandem, this provides a framework for abuse of power that resembles the ethnocentric and competitive nature of intergroup be- havior. It also allows leaders to engage in typically re- pressive dominant group strategies to protect their status from apparent threats (e.g., Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Where leadership is in- vested in a group rather than a single individual, these processes are likely to be much amplified.

Another potential problem with prototype-based leadership arises because as people identify more strongly with a group (the group becomes more co- hesive), leadership becomes increasingly based on prototypicality rather than leader schemas or intrin- sic status characteristics. In group decision-making contexts this can degrade decision-making pro- cesses. Rather than basing leadership on leader schemas that generally contain optimal situation and task-specific leadership prescriptions, a situation can exist where there is a powerful leader who em- bodies a group prototype that does not prescribe op- timal decision-making procedures. This may produce groupthink (Janis, 1972); powerful leaders and the absence of norms for optimal decision mak- ing conspire in highly cohesive groups to produce suboptimal decision-making procedures that lead to poor decisions (Hogg & Hains, 1998; M. E. Turner, Pratkanis, Probasco, & Leve, 1992).

Another pitfall of prototype-based leadership is that social minorities (e.g., based on race, ethnicity, gender, disability) may find it difficult to assume leadership roles in some contexts. For example, if the normative environment for business, or the organizational culture within specific organizations, renders social minorities intrinsically less prototypical than majorities, then mi- norities will find it more difficult to achieve and main- tain an effective leadership role (see Hogg & Terry, 2000). Highly cohesive groups with focused proto- types also often have members who identify very strongly with the group because the group very effec- tively reduces extreme subjective uncertainty. These groups are particularly prone to hierarchical leadership structures with remote and powerful leaders who are invested with enormous charisma and who can exer- cise and abuse their position of power.

Some Caveats and Clarifications

The theory of leadership I present here is intended to describe the role of social identity processes in all forms of leadership: Under appropriate conditions prototypicality has a significant effect on emergent as well as established leadership in groups ranging from small task-oriented teams to entire nations. Most direct tests of the theory have, however, focused—under controlled experimental conditions—on emergent leadership in short-lived laboratory groups. Although this research has been essential, it has operationalized prototypes as a unidimensional construct, whereas in fact prototypes are complex multidimensional fuzzy sets. Leaders probably have much greater latitude to maintain power when they are located by a multidi- mensional prototype than a unidimensional prototype. It may be easier for leaders to acquire and maintain power by emphasizing different aspects of the proto- type than by trying to keep unchanged a single group-defining attribute.

Many groups exist primarily to perform specific tasks (e.g., work teams), and thus, members of these groups may focus on how competent the leader is—leadership effectiveness may rest heavily on per- ceived leader competence. Indeed, specific status char- acteristics and situation/task-specific leader schemas embody leadership attributes such as competence. These are very sound bases for effective leadership that often dominate leadership processes. My theory does not disagree with this. The theory simply states that under certain circumstances, self-definition as a group member may be extremely salient, in which case group prototype-based depersonalization becomes an important basis of leadership. This process may be more powerful in groups that are strongly defined in terms of identity rather than the performance of a spe- cific task, but given the right circumstances, even task-oriented groups may focus on self-definitional group norms rather than task performance.

Concluding Comments

Leadership research along with research on small groups and intragroup processes lost popularity with social psychologists in the 1960s. Since the early 1970s, social psychology has made enormous ad- vances in the study of social cognition and intergroup relations, which together have recently revived interest in the study of group phenomena. Social identity the- ory has become an important part of this integration and shift of interest within social psychology. Social psychology is now poised to revisit group phenomena with new, more sophisticated theories, concepts, and

195

SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY OF LEADERSHIP

methodologies. In this article I have sketched out a so- cial identity theory of group leadership.

Aggregates of individuals mainly base their leader- ship perceptions and endorsements on judgements of how well individuals fit the specifications of situation and task-specific schemas of types of leaders. How- ever, as the aggregate increasing becomes a psycho- logical group—a collection of people who categorize themselves in terms of the same descriptive and pre- scriptive ingroup prototype—leadership perceptions and endorsements are increasingly influenced by how well individuals match the group prototype. In very co- hesive groups with which members identify very strongly, leadership processes will be strongly deter- mined by prototypicality. However, prototypicality alone does not imply active leadership. Prototypical members do not actively lead but rather appear to have influence; they act as the attitudinal and behavioral fo- cus of the group due to self-categorization based prototypical depersonalization processes. It is social attraction, an associated effect of depersonalization, that facilitates active influence.

Group membership based social attraction enables the leader to secure compliance with suggestions and recommendations and also endows the leader with sta- tus and evaluative differentiation from the rest of the group. The leader now occupies a high-status role and is able to be actively innovative. The third process is an attributional one through which followers, influenced by correspondence bias and the fundamental attribu- tion error, attribute the leaders influence, status, popu- larity, and ability to innovate and lead, internally to the leader’s personality, thus constructing a charismatic leadership personality for the leader that further reifies the leader’s distinctive status within the group.

I reviewed empirical evidence for this analysis of leadership. Direct tests have focused on the fundamen- tal core prediction that as a group becomes more sa- lient emergent leadership processes and leadership effectiveness perceptions become less dependent on leader schema congruence and more dependent on group prototypicality. There is solid support for this idea from laboratory experiments (e.g., Duck & Fielding, 1999; Hains et al., 1997; Hogg et al., 1998; Platow & van Knippenberg, 1999) and a naturalistic field study (Fielding & Hogg, 1997). There is also indi- rect support from a range of studies of leadership that are in the social identity tradition (de Cremer & van Vugt, in press; Foddy & Hogg, 1999; Haslam et al., 1998; Platow et al., 1998; van Vugt & de Cremer, 1999). There is also support for the idea that proto- type-based depersonalized social attraction may facili- tate leadership. There is some direct evidence from the studies by Fielding and Hogg (1997) and de Cremer and van Vugt (in press), whereas in other studies social attraction is a component of the leadership evaluation

measure (e.g., Hains et al., 1997; Hogg et al., 1998). The attribution and associated structural differentia- tion components of the theory have indirect support (e.g., Fiske,1993; Fiske & Dépret, 1996), but remain to be directly tested. This and further research is currently under way. It should, however, be recognized that the empirical status of the leadership theory rests on good evidence for social identity theory as a whole.

On the basis of what we know so far, we could now advise leaders of cohesive groups to pay attention to how prototypical they are to remain in power, and lead- ers of less cohesive groups to pay attention to how well they match task and situation specific leader schemas. Put differently, prototypical leaders would do well to raise group solidarity and cohesion while accentuating their prototypicality, whereas nonprototypical leaders should lower solidarity and cohesion while accentuat- ing how well they match leader schemas.

The social identity theory of leadership has many additional complexities that are described in this arti- cle; these are extensions and implications that are spec- ulative and still need to be fully explored conceptually and empirically. For example, social attraction and prototypical attribution processes may transform a prototypical ingroup leader into a high status role oc- cupant who has a charismatic leadership personality. A structural differentiation is created within the group that severs the empathic bond between leader(s) and followers and instantiates a form of intergroup rela- tions. This transforms influence into power and pro- vides a social structural framework that makes very real the opportunity to abuse power. Another example is that conditions of high subjective uncertainty en- courage the formation of very cohesive groups with high entitativity and clearly focused and consensual prototypes. These groups tend not only to be very ex- treme, but also to have a steep and rigid leadership structure with a highly charismatic leader. The leader is often considered God-like by followers and exer- cises enormous power, often in deleterious ways. A fi- nal example is that encounters between leaders of different groups can be particularly effective in engag- ing prototype-based leadership processes, which can have undesirable consequences if the encounter was intended to provide a context for negotiation to resolve intergroup differences.

In conclusion, the social identity theory of leader- ship views leadership as a group process that arises from the social categorization and depersonalization processes associated with social identity. Proto- type-based depersonalization and the behavior of fol- lowers play a critical role: They empower individuals as leaders, imbue them with charisma, create a status differential between leader(s) and followers that has some of the typical characteristics of uneven status in- tergroup relations, and set up conditions that are con-

196

HOGG

ducive to the exercise and possible abuse of power. These ideas are a potentially rich source of conceptual explorations and basic and applied empirical research into social identity and leadership.

References

Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1988). Comments on the motivational status of self-esteem in social identity and intergroup discrimi- nation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 317–334.

Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (Eds.). (1990). Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances. Hemel Hempstead, Eng- land: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1998). Prospects for research in group processes and intergroup relations. Group Processes and Inter- group Relations, 1, 7–20.

Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (Eds.). (1999). Social identity and social cognition. Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Abrams, D., Wetherell, M. S., Cochrane, S., Hogg, M. A., & Turner, J. C. (1990). Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: Self-categorization and the nature of norm formation, confor- mity, and group polarization. British Journal of Social Psychol- ogy, 29, 97–119.

Albright, L., & Forziati, C. (1995). Cross-situational consistency and perceptual accuracy in leadership. Personality and Social Psy- chology Bulletin, 21, 1269–1276.

Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expecta- tions. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1990a). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research and managerial applications. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1990b). From transactional to transformational leader- ship: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18, 19–31.

Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, mili- tary, and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership: A response to critiques. In M. M. Chemers & R. A. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 49–80). London: Academic.

Berger, J., Fisek, M. H., Norman, R. Z., & Zelditch, M., Jr. (1977). Status characteristics and social interaction. New York: Elsevier.

Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. T. (1998). Attraction and close relation- ships. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 193–281). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Brewer, M. B., & Harasty, A. S. (1996). Seeing groups as entities: The role of perceiver motivation. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition, Vol. 3: The interpersonal context (pp. 347–370). New York: Guilford.

Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organizations. Lon- don: Sage.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Campbell, D. T. (1958). Common fate, similarity, and other indices

of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities. Behav- ioral Science, 3, 14–25.

Capozza, D., & Brown, R. (Eds.). (2000). Social identity processes. London: Sage.

Carnevale, P. J. D., Pruitt, D. G., & Britton, S. D. (1979). Looking tough: The negotiator under constituent surveillance. Personal- ity and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 118–121.

Chemers, M. M. (1987). Leadership processes: Intrapersonal, inter- personal, and societal influences. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 252–277). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Chemers, M. M. (2001). Leadership effectiveness: An integrative re- view. In M. A. Hogg & R. S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell hand- book of social psychology: Group processes (pp. 376–399). Ox- ford, England: Blackwell.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Towards a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12, 637–647.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). Behavioral dimensions of charismatic leadership. In J. A. Conger & R. N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor on organizational effectiveness (pp. 309–323). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Crocker, J., Blaine, B., & Luhtanen, R. (1993). Prejudice, intergroup behaviour and self-esteem: Enhancement and protection mo- tives. In M. A. Hogg & D. Abrams (Eds.), Group motivation: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 52–67). Hemel Hempstead, England: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Crocker, J., & Luhtanen, R. (1990). Collective self-esteem and ingroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 60–67.

Curtis, J. M., & Curtis, M. J. (1993). Factors related to susceptibility and recruitment by cults. Psychological Reports, 73, 451–460.

de Cremer, D., & van Vugt, M. (in press). Intergroup and intragroup dynamics of leadership in social dilemmas: A relational model of cooperation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.

Duck, J. M., & Fielding, K. S. (1999). Leaders and sub-groups: One of us or one of them? Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 2, 203–230.

Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani, M. G. (1995). Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulle- tin, 117, 125–145.

Ellemers, N. (1993). The influence of socio-structural variables on identity enhancement strategies. European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 27–57.

Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (Eds.). (1999). Social identity. Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Erber, R., & Fiske, S. T. (1984). Outcome dependency and attention to inconsistent information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 709–726.

Fiedler, F. E. (1965). A contingency model of leadership effective- ness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 149–190). New York: Academic.

Fiedler, F. E. (1971). Leadership. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

Fiedler, F. E., & House, R. J. (1994). Leadership theory and research: A report of progress. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), Key reviews in managerial psychology: Concepts and research for practice (pp. 97–116). Chichester, England: Wiley.

Fielding, K. S., & Hogg, M. A. (1997). Social identity, self-categori- zation, and leadership: A field study of small interactive groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1, 39–51.

Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48, 621–628.

Fiske, S. T., & Dépret, E. (1996). Control, interdependence and power: Understanding social cognition in its social context. Eu- ropean Review of Social Psychology, 7, 31–61.

Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Foddy, M., & Hogg, M. A. (1999). Impact of leaders on resource con- sumption in social dilemmas: The intergroup context. In M. Foddy, M. Smithson, S. Schneider, & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Re- solving social dilemmas: Dynamic, structural, and intergroup aspects (pp. 309–330). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

197

SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY OF LEADERSHIP

Galanter, M. (Ed.). (1989). Cults and new religious movements. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

Gilbert, D. T., & Jones, E. E. (1986). Perceiver-induced constraint: Interpretations of self-generated reality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 269–280.

Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995). The correspondence bias. Psy- chological Bulletin, 117, 21–38.

Goodwin, S. A., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). Judge not, lest …: The ethics of power holders’ decision making and standards for social judgment. In D. M. Messick & A. E. Tenbrunsel (Eds.), Codes of conduct: Behavioral research into business ethics (pp. 117–142). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Goodwin, S. A., Gubin, A., Fiske, S. T., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2000). Power can bias impression processes: Stereotyping subordi- nates by default and by design. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 3, 227–256.

Graumann, C. F., & Moscovici, S. (Eds.). (1986). Changing concep- tions of leadership. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Grieve, P., & Hogg, M. A. (1999). Subjective uncertainty and inter- group discrimination in the minimal group situation. Personal- ity and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 926–940.

Hains, S. C., Hogg, M. A., & Duck, J. M. (1997). Self-categorization and leadership: Effects of group prototypicality and leader stereotypicality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1087–1100.

Hall, R. J., & Lord, R. G. (1995). Multi-level information processing explanations of followers’ leadership perceptions. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 265–287.

Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, S. J. (1996). Perceiving persons and groups. Psychological Review, 103, 336–355.

Haslam, S. A., McGarty, C., Brown, P. M., Eggins, R. A., Morrison, B. E., & Reynolds, K. J. (1998). Inspecting the emperor’s clothes: Evience that random selection of leaders can enhance group performance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2, 168–184.

Haslam, S. A., Oakes, P. J., McGarty, C., Turner, J. C., & Onorato, S. (1995). Contextual changes in the prototypicality of extreme and moderate outgroup members. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 509–530.

Haslam, S. A., & Platow, M. J. (2001). Your wish is our command: The role of shared social identity in translating a leader’s vision into followers’ action. In M. A. Hogg & D. J. Terry (Eds.), So- cial identity processes in organizational contexts (pp. 213–228). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

Hogg, M. A. (1992). The social psychology of group cohesiveness: From attraction to social identity. New York: New York Uni- versity Press.

Hogg, M. A. (1993). Group cohesiveness: A critical review and some new directions. European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 85–111.

Hogg, M. A. (1996a). Intragroup processes, group structure and so- cial identity. In W. P. Robinson (Ed.), Social groups and identi- ties: Developing the legacy of Henri Tajfel (pp. 65–93). Oxford, England: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Hogg, M. A. (1996b). Social identity, self-categorization, and the small group. In E. H. Witte & J. H. Davis (Eds.), Understanding group behavior. Vol. 2: Small group processes and interper- sonal relations (pp. 227–253). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Hogg, M. A. (2000a). Social identity and social comparison. In J. Suls & L. Wheeler (Eds.), Handbook of social comparison: The- ory and research (pp. 401–421). New York: Plenum.

Hogg, M. A. (2000b). Subjective uncertainty reduction through self-categorization: A motivational theory of social identity processes. European Review of Social Psychology, 11, 223–255.

Hogg, M. A. (2001). Social categorization, depersonalization, and group behavior. In M. A. Hogg & R. S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes (pp. 56–85). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. Lon- don: Routledge.

Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1990). Social motivation, self-esteem and social identity. In D. Abrams & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances (pp. 28–47). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1993). Towards a single-process uncer- tainty-reduction model of social motivation in groups. In M. A. Hogg & D. Abrams (Eds.), Group motivation: Social psycho- logical perspectives (pp. 173–190). London: Har- vester-Wheatsheaf.

Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1999). Social identity and social cogni- tion: Historical background and current trends. In D. Abrams & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity and social cognition (pp. 1–25). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Hogg, M. A., Cooper-Shaw, L., & Holzworth, D. W. (1993). Group prototypicality and depersonalized attraction in small interactive groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 452–465.

Hogg, M. A., & Grieve, P. (1999). Social identity theory and the crisis of confidence in social psychology: A commentary, and some research on uncertainty reduction. Asian Journal of Social Psy- chology, 2, 79–93.

Hogg, M. A., & Hains, S. C. (1996). Intergroup relations and group solidarity: Effects of group identification and social beliefs on depersonalized attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 295–309.

Hogg, M. A., & Hains, S. C. (1998). Friendship and group identifica- tion: A new look at the role of cohesiveness in groupthink. Euro- pean Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 323–341.

Hogg, M. A., Hains, S. C., & Mason, I. (1998). Identification and leadership in small groups: Salience, frame of reference, and leader stereotypicality effects on leader evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1248–1263.

Hogg, M. A., & Hardie, E. A. (1991). Social attraction, personal at- traction and self-categorization: A field study. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 175–180.

Hogg, M. A., Hardie, E. A., & Reynolds, K. (1995). Prototypical sim- ilarity, self-categorization, and depersonalized attraction: A perspective on group cohesiveness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 159–177.

Hogg, M. A., & Mullin, B.-A. (1999). Joining groups to reduce un- certainty: Subjective uncertainty reduction and group identifi- cation. In D. Abrams & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity and social cognition (pp. 249–279). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Hogg, M. A., & Reid, S. A. (2001). Social identity, leadership, and power. In A. Y. Lee-Chai & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The use and abuse of power: Multiple perspectives on the causes of corrup- tion (pp. 159–180). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categori- zation processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Man- agement Review, 25, 121–140.

Hogg, M. A., Terry, D. J., & White, K. M. (1995). A tale of two theo- ries: A critical comparison of identity theory with social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58, 255–269.

Hollander, E. P. (1958). Conformity, status, and idiosyncracy credit. Psychological Review, 65, 117–127.

Hollander, E. P. (1985). Leadership and power. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 485–537). New York: Random House.

Hollander, E. P., & Julian, J. W. (1969). Contemporary trends in the analysis of leadership processes. Psychological Bulletin, 71, 387–391.

198

HOGG

Hollander, E. P., & Julian, J. W. (1970). Studies in leader legitimacy, influence, and innovation. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 34–69). New York: Academic.

Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (1999). Subgroup differentiation as a response to an overly-inclusive group: A test of optimal distinc- tiveness theory. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 543–550.

Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000a). Intergroup similarity and subgroup relations: Some implications for assimilation. Person- ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 948–959.

Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000b). Subgroup relations: A com- parison of mutual intergroup differentiation and common ingroup identity models of prejudice reduction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 242–256.

Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Jetten, J., Hogg, M. A., & Mullin, B.-A. (2000). Ingroup variability and motivation to reduce subjective uncertainty. Group Dynam- ics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4, 184–198.

Jones, E. E. (1998). Major developments in five decades of social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 3–57). New York: McGraw-Hill.

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

Kenny, D. A., & Zaccaro, S. J. (1983). An estimate of variance due to traits in leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 678–685.

Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of proce- dural justice. New York: Henry Holt.

Lippitt, R., & White, R. (1943). The ‘social climate’ of children’s groups. In R. G. Barker, J. Kounin, & H. Wright (Eds.), Child behavior and development (pp. 485–508). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Long, M. K., & Spears, R. (1997). The self-esteem hypothesis revis- ited: Differentiation and the disaffected. In R. Spears, P. J. Oakes, N. Ellemers, & S. A. Haslam (Eds.), The social psychol- ogy of stereotyping and group life (pp. 296–317). Oxford, Eng- land: Blackwell.

Lord, R. G., Brown, D. J., & Harvey, J. L. (2001). System constraints on leadership perceptions, behavior and influence: An example of connectionist level processes. In M. A. Hogg & R. S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group pro- cesses (pp. 283–310). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & DeVader, C. L. (1984). A test of leadership categorization theory: Internal structure, information process- ing, and leadership perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 343–378.

Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1991). Leadership and information pro- cessing: Linking perceptions and performance. Winchester, MA: Unwin Hyman.

Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one’s social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 302–318.

Marques, J. M., & Páez, D. (1994). The black sheep effect: Social cat- egorization, rejection of ingroup deviates, and perception of group variability. European Review of Social Psychology, 5, 37–68.

Marris, P. (1996). The politics of uncertainty: Attachment in private and public life. London: Routledge.

McGarty, C., Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., David, B., & Wetherell, M. S. (1992). Group polarization as conformity to the prototypical group member. British Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 1–20.

McGrath, J. E. (1997). Small group research, that once and future field: An interpretation of the past with an eye to the future. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1, 7–27.

Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The romance of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 78–102.

Moreland, R. L., Hogg, M. A., & Hains, S. C. (1994). Back to the fu- ture: Social psychological research on groups. Journal of Exper- imental Social Psychology, 30, 527–555.

Morley, I. E., Webb, J., & Stephenson, G. M. (1988). Bargaining and arbitration in the resolution of conflict. In W. Stroebe, A. W. Kruglanski, D. Bar-Tal, & M. Hewstone (Eds.), The social psy- chology of intergroup conflict: Theory, research, and applica- tions (pp. 117–134). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Morris, M. W., & Peng, K. (1994). Culture and cause: American and Chinese attributions for social and physical events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 949–971.

Mowday, R. T., & Sutton, R. I. (1993). Organizational behavior: Linking individuals and groups to organizational contexts. An- nual Review of Psychology, 44, 195–229.

Mullen, B., Salas, E., & Driskell, J. E. (1989). Salience, motivation, and artifact as contributions to the relation between participa- tion rate and leadership. Journal of Experimental Social Psy- chology, 25, 545–559.

Mullin, B.-A., & Hogg, M. A. (1998). Dimensions of subjective un- certainty in social identification and minimal intergroup dis- crimination. British Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 345–365.

Mullin, B.-A., & Hogg, M. A. (1999). Motivations for group mem- bership: The role of subjective importance and uncertainty re- duction. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 21, 91–102.

Nye, J. L., & Forsyth, D. R. (1991). The effects of prototype-based bi- ases on leadership appraisals: A test of leadership categorization theory. Small Group Research, 22, 360–379.

Nye, J. L., & Simonetta, L. G. (1996). Followers’ perceptions of group leaders: The impact of recognition-based and infer- ence-based processes. In J. L. Nye & A. M. Bower (Eds.), What’s social about social cognition: Research on socially shared cognition in small groups (pp. 124–153). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & Turner, J. C. (1994). Stereotyping and social reality. Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Palich, L. E., & Hom, P. W. (1992). The impact of leader power and behavior on leadership perceptions: A lisrel rest of an expanded categorization theory of leadership model. Group and Organi- zation Management, 17, 279–296.

Pawar, B. S., & Eastman, K. (1997). The nature and implications of contextual influences on transformational leadership. Academy of Management Review, 22, 80–109.

Peters, L. H., Hartke, D. D., & Pohlmann, J. T. (1985). Fielder’s con- tingency theory of leadership: An application of the meta-ana- lytic procedure of Schmidt and Hunter. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 287–300.

Platow, M. J., Reid, S., & Andrew, S. (1998). Leadership endorse- ment: The role of distributive and procedural behavior in inter- personal and intergroup contexts. Group Processes and Inter- group Relations, 1, 35–47.

Platow, M. J., & van Knippenberg, D. (1999, July). The impact of leaders’ ingroup prototypicality and normative fairness on leadership endorsements in an intergroup context. Paper pre- sented at the XII General Meeting of the European Association of Experimental Social Psychology, Oxford, England.

Rabbie, J. M., & Bekkers, F. (1978). Threatened leadership and inter- group competition. European Journal of Social Psychology, 8, 9–20.

Raven, B. H. (1965). Social influence and power. In I. D. Steiner & M. Fishbein (Eds.), Current studies in social psychology (pp. 371–382). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

199

SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY OF LEADERSHIP

Reicher, S. D., & Hopkins, N. (1996). Seeking influence through characterising self-categories: An analysis of anti-abortionist rhetoric. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 297–311.

Ridgeway, C. L. (2001). Social status and group structure. In M. A. Hogg & R. S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psy- chology: Group processes (pp. 352–375). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Robinson, W. P. (Ed.). (1996). Social groups and identities: De- veloping the legacy of Henri Tajfel. Oxford, England: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychol- ogy (Vol. 10, pp. 174–220). New York: Academic.

Rubin, M., & Hewstone, M. (1998). Social identity theory’s self-es- teem hypothesis: A review and some suggestions for clarifica- tion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 40–62.

Rush, M. C., & Russell, J. E. A. (1988). Leader prototypes and proto- type-contingent consensus in leader behavior descriptions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 88–104.

Sanna, L. J., & Parks, C. D. (1997). Group research trends in social and organizational psychology: Whatever happened to intragroup research? Psychological Science, 8, 261–267.

Sherif, M. (1966). In common predicament: Social psychology of in- tergroup conflict and cooperation. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Stogdill, R. (1974). Handbook of leadership. New York: Free Press. Strube, M. J., & Garcia, J. E. (1981). A meta-analytic investigation of

Fiedler’s contingency model of leadership effectiveness. Psy- chological Bulletin, 90, 307–321.

Tajfel, H. (1959). Quantitative judgement in social perception. Brit- ish Journal of Psychology, 50, 16–29.

Tajfel, H. (1969). Cognitive aspects of prejudice. Journal of Social Issues, 25, 79–97.

Tajfel, H. (1972). Social categorization. English manuscript of ‘La catégorisation sociale.’ In S. Moscovici (Ed.), Introduction à la Psychologie Sociale (Vol. 1, pp. 272–302). Paris: Larousse.

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

Taylor, S. E., & Fiske, S. T. (1975). Point-of-view and perceptions of causality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 439–445.

Taylor, S. E., & Fiske, S. T. (1978). Salience, attention, and attribu- tion: Top of the head phenomena. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Ad- vances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 249–288). New York: Academic.

Trope, Y., & Liberman, A. (1993). The use of trait conceptions to identify other people’s behavior and to draw inferences about their personalities. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 553–562.

Turner, J. C. (1975). Social comparison and social identity: Some prospects for intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 5–34.

Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup rela- tions (pp. 15–40). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A so- cial cognitive theory of group behavior. In E. J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes: Theory and research (Vol. 2, pp. 77–122). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.

Turner, J. C. (1999). Some current issues in research on social iden- tity and self-categorization theories. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity (pp. 6–34). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Turner, J. C., Brown, R. J., & Tajfel, H. (1979). Social comparison and group interest in ingroup favouritism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 9, 187–204.

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categoriza- tion theory. Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Turner, M. E., Pratkanis, A. R., Probasco, P., & Leve, C. (1992). Threat, cohesion, and group effectiveness: Testing a social iden- tity maintenance perspective on groupthink. Journal of Person- ality and Social Psychology, 63, 781–796.

Tyler, T. R. (1997). The psychology of legitimacy: A relational per- spective on voluntary deference to authorities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 323–345.

Tyler, T. R., DeGoey, P., & Smith, H. (1996). Understanding why the justice of group procedures matters: A test of the psychological dynamics of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 913–930.

Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115–191). New York: Academic.

van Vugt, M., & de Cremer, D. (1999). Leadership in social dilem- mas: The effects of group identification on collective actions to provide public goods. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- chology, 76, 587–599.

Wilpert, B. (1995). Organizational behavior. Annual Review of Psy- chology, 46, 59–90.

Worchel, S., Morales, J. F., Páez, D., & Deschamps, J.-C. (Eds.). (1998). Social identity: International perspectives. London: Sage.

Yukl, G. (1981). Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Yukl, G. A., & Falbe, C. M. (1991). Importance of different power sources in downward and lateral relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 416–423.

Yukl, G., & Van Fleet, D. D. (1992). Theory and research on leader- ship in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 147–197). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

200

HOGG