Talk:Social identity theory

message: would like more specific information on what constitutes a persons identity and details about the mental and physical development of an adolescent...? thanks
This is not a help forum, you might want to try elsewhere. Nick 13:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  need help for exam 

message: Most of the content on this page seems to be lifted verbatim from this URL: http://psychology.anu.edu.au/groups/categorisation/socialidentity.php There is a link to this page at the bottom of the article, but I'm fairly certain this is not justification to copy and paste the author's work. The ANU page does not make it clear what book the sample chapters are from, but after some digging I found out it is from Categorization in Social Psychology by Craig McGarthy. SAGE, 1999. InfinityDUCK 01:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible copyright infringement 

message: Shouldn't this article be merged with Collective identity? --64.50.95.2 (talk) 04:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it has been a while since this discussion, but the handling of collective identity vs. social identity needs some work. I have had a look at the collective identity page and think that if the page gets neglected then I foresee that all sorts of mediocre work will be dumped in there (Check out recent addition of pop evolutionary theory as an example). I also note that this page title is still "social identity" rather than "social identity theory", which isn't really congruent with the above discussion. My current thoughts are that the collective identity page should include a more robust definition, and then a clear link to social identity theory. The hope would be that anyone who is seriously interested in collective identities will see social identity theory as an obvious next port of call. Hmmm, I wonder how you change the title of a page. Andrew (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger with [[Collective identity]] 

message: This is very much a sofixit- what is wrong with the article a few changes of terms won't fix, even then it seems sophistry to a simple person like me. Rich Farmbrough, 08:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this should be moved - and renamed to Social identity theory  Earlypsychosis (talk) 08:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sky mine?

message: -Possible complete rewrite of the article (previous comment  on talk had mentioned an issue of the lifting large portions of material from another website, which is no longer currently active to check: http://psychology.anu.edu.au/groups/categorisation/socialidentity.php).
-The organization of current article makes little sense.  The intro section, titled “social identity” goes into too much detail. The list below the first paragraph really shouldn't be there and does not fit in with the rest of that section at all.  The first header after the intro makes the article seem like it should be a general social psychology topic, instead of focusing on one group of theories.  There are sections on other theories.  Basically, past work on this article created a very rudimentary social psychology article instead of an article focusing on social identity.  A better article would, if there's really need to list these other theories, attempt to link to other pages.
-The overall organization of the article seems rather confusing especially starting from the section named “Social psychology theories”. Some of the theories are not actually all theories, but some are models. Therefore we need to rename the section, change the contents of it, or create two separate sections. Lastly the individual sections within the listed theories look like sections of their own rather than part of a theory. For example, the parts named identities, group distinctness, and low status groups under the theory of social identity theory is highly confusing as if they are their own theory rather than used to explain another theory.
- Add more real-world examples, so there are more than just slight connections to economics or alternatively, to just remove that material.
Jfwang (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  possible edit to social identity article page 

message: The article's been recently updated to address concerns of plagiarism and to provide a more thorough/more heavily cited entry on the topic.  Does anyone have any strong feelings about summing up the state of social psychology section to a one-liner in the Development of Tajfel's theory section?  It's been suggested that we remove the Historical background of social identity theory section and just add the line, "The social identity theory was an attempt to reestablish a more collectivist approach to social psychology of the self and social groups" Tabularasasm (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey there. In an attempt to break down the theory into something a bit more digestible to a layman, and set the page up so that is more reflective of the original statements of the theory, much of the “development” content was made redundant. This has abbreviated this section somewhat. I also truncated the historical context content as I believed it was too in-depth for a page designed to be an encyclopaedic account of SIT. I think such content really belongs on the social psychology page, or as a page unto itself. Cheers Andrew (talk) 04:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoughts on recent changes? 

message: This article, if aiming for GA+ level, needs an increased density of references. One per para is not enough, as content on a wiki can be moved, or added. Each sentence should have its own reference. Once this happens, I think this article would fulfill B-class requirements, at the very least. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  20:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insufficient references 

message: I've moved this text out of the article for now because it is not written in understandable English. I've tried to paraphrase it to make sense, but it needs to be out of the article for now.
While this macro-economic theory deals exclusively with already well-established categories of social identity, Laszlo Garaiapplied the concept of social identity to economic psychologyGarai, Laszlo:Identity Economics takes into consideration identitiesin statu nascendi.Cf. e.g. Garai, Laszlo: The Bureaucratic State Governed by an Illegal Movement: Soviet-Type societies and Bolshevik-Type Parties. Political Psychology. 1991. 10:1. 165-179. A further feature of Garai's theory is that he presentedIn his keynote paper on the International Conference dedicated to the 100thanniversary of Lev Vygotsky. Vygotskian implications:On the meaning and its brain.Proceedings, No. 3. Pre-published: The brain and the mechanism of psychosocial phenomena. Journal of Russian and East-European Psychology. 31:6. 71-91. a complementary theory on an inter-individual mechanism the inter-individual phenomena studied by the social psychology may be accorded to. The theory that is referred to the macro-processes based on a large-scale production later has been applied by L. Garai to individual psychology.Identities of Attila Jozsef:study in psychology of creativity
MartinPoulter (talk) 12:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seconded. Andrew (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved text about Laszlo Garai's theory 

message: I think a section on how social identity can be tested for would be a useful addition. Thoughts? Kansaikiwi (talk) 01:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like if anything that would be content for the social identity approach page. And yes, content reflecting the challenge of measuring identification vs. salience could be of real value. I would support an addition along those lines. I think Haslam’s 2001 'Psychology in Organizations' book would be a good starting point. Cheers Andrew (talk) 04:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  testing 

message: The theory is microeconomic in nature, so using the term "macro-economic" confuses. 138.251.14.34 (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  macro-economic 

message: Following  the GA discussion above, the article has been substantionally improved, e.g. through the contributions by U3964057. I shink it is now worth being classified as a "Good Article". I don't know how the formal procedure is: maybe expression opinions on this same page ist the best way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aflis (talk • contribs)  17:14, 26 January 2013
:Hi Aflis. Firstly, thanks for the positive feedback. The process for nominating articles for good article review is quite straight forward and instructions can be found here. This is something that I have not done myself for two reasons. One is that it would have felt a little conceited on my part (given that much of the content was my doing). The other is that it is quite an involved processes and I was not sure I could commit the time. A good article review can be quite detailed and there are often many small issues that need to be addressed. If you or others, however, are confident that it meets the good article criteria and are happy to stay involved in the process then by all means nominate the article. I will help where I can. Cheers all Andrew (talk) 01:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think someone should go ahead and nominate, but first check 1) that there is enough density of references in all sections: a paragraph without a terminating reference, or any references at all, is suspect (see "The interpersonal-intergroup continuum" and "Social creativity". If that text is based on refs that are already used, create a duplicate ref just to make sure it's clear what those statements are based on. 2) that the text early on in the article doesn't require a very high level of English or technical knowledge. The article generally does well on this count, which is admirable given the topic, but early on we have the phrase "permeability of the intergroup environment": even knowing some social psychology, it takes some unpacking to see what this means, and it might put off people who don't have a very high level of confidence in English. Would "how easy it is to move from one group to others" serve as a (nearly) words-of-one-syllable explation of that concept, or have I misunderstood? MartinPoulter (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi all. I have gone ahead and tried to address the concerns that Martin has raised (hi Martin, to my knowledge your straight forward summary was spot on). I will obviously be around and will try to help further deal with these and other issues. Cheers Andrew (talk) 11:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi all. I will be around and so have nominated the article as suggested. Fingers crossed all goes well. Cheers Andrew (talk) 08:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposal for "good article" 

message: Hi MicheleJackson. As promised, here is a bit of an elucidation on why I thought that this addition was too tenuously related (having already talked above about the grammar and referencing issues). I hope it is ok if we start by talking about this part of your contribution. I suspect it will inform any subsequent discussion about your further addition.
I guess there are two key points:
# I wouldn't really say that the source "explores the triggers for ingroup favoritism in virtual teams". That would imply to me that the article delves into the common categorization schemes that play out in virtual teams. Instead the article tests the applicability of SIT and SCT to subgrouping in virtual teams, which is related, but is not quite the same and is a more niche topic.
# Given that the source article is about testing the effects of social categorization on virtual team subgrouping, it seems like there are other articles where such content is more relevant (e.g. virtual team). Yes, the source does invoke SIT, but so do thousands of other articles (10,000+ so far I believe) in countless other domains. Attempting to cover all here seems futile, and also might distract wiki readers from the primary purpose of this article; what is SIT?.
Another concern of mine is that the source seems to be an example of SIT-light. That is, it simplifies SIT down to categorization -> ingroup favoritism (see page 335). This is disappointing, and I personally would avoid linking to the article for this reason also, but if it can get past peer review then I should grudgingly accept it for wikipedia.
I would be happy to see the application to virtual teams mentioned in the article, but in a way that does not give this particular application to much weight in amongst discussion of the facets of SIT. One suggestion would be to add an "applications section" and begin a paragraph about virtual teams there. Alternatively, the content could be added to the ingroup favoritism article or the social identity approach article, where I also think it might be more appropriate. How does that sound to you (or other editors)? Regards Andrew (talk) 11:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Vitual teams

message: Can someone take a look at Draft:Social identity theory and comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Social identity theory if it's useful? If so, I'll withdraw the request immediately and leave it be. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Draft:Social identity theory]] 

message: — Assignment last updated by Trolleyman32 (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Communication Theory

message: Hello  and thanks for your attempts to improve this article, which I understand from the above announcement you are doing as part of a course. I hope you don't mind some feedback on your recent work.
* This is a Good Article, meaning that it has been reviewed as already meeting a high standard, which means it's a very bad choice for someone to work on in their first Wikipedia edits. This isn't your fault; the course leader should not have included it in the target articles of the course.
* Your edits didn't cite any sources! This is an important failing: Wikipedia is a summary of published knowledge, so we need to know and be able to check what published knowledge is being summarised, especially on a Good Article. You wrote "I was able to find supporting knowledge by using my sources". If that's the case, you should indicate what the sources are by clicking the "Cite" button. "Favorable self-perception increases the likelihood that an individual would relate well to other members of the group and experience favorable feelings about themselves.  People's perceptions of themselves are shaped by the group they identify with more strongly." - maybe or maybe not; how do we know that self-perceptions are shaped in this way, or have these effects? What's the nature of the evidence and where was the evidence published?
* Lots of the statements you inserted are extremely general and vague. "Identification is more in depth than we think."- what does that actually mean. You're describing a difference between what "we"(?) think and what is backed up by evidence; you need sources for both those things.
* Wikipedia shouldn't give advice to the reader or use first-person or second-person language ("I", "we", "you"). So "...if we know how to control it in efficient way like this example, we will find success." has to be phrased a different way, as well as supported with citations.
* Wikipedia should be written in proper English. "...we can find out how efficient and injustice they are." A fluent English speaker would not talk about "how injustice" something is. "However, ultimately the value of understanding and knowing a cultures identity is ideal." - what does this mean as an English sentence? What does "ideal" mean in this context?
* The first few sentences of an article should define the article's topic and give the most basic introduction to it for people who have not encountered the topic before. Your version talks about social identity and goes straight into talking about student athletes, when the reader just wants to know what social identity theory is.
Please take great care when editing Wikipedia. It's better to add just one cited, carefully checked sentence than to add multiple paragraphs of text that leave the reader wondering what they really mean and what the evidence is. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for this feedback and I am sure this will help the learner understand different writing genres, how to choose articles, and the importance of citations and word choice. Regards. Kwv2014 (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes to article