Cited by 1,826Social and Intergroup PsychologyCultural Differences and ValuesConsumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and Identification

Group-level self-definition and self-investment: A hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group identification.

Open access
Leach, Colin Wayne, van Zomeren, Martijn, Zebel, Sven, Vliek, Michael L. W., Pennekamp, Sjoerd F., Doosje, Bertjan, Ouwerkerk, Jaap W., Spears, Russell·2008·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Abstract

Recent research shows individuals' identification with in-groups to be psychologically important and socially consequential. However, there is little agreement about how identification should be conceptualized or measured. On the basis of previous work, the authors identified 5 specific components of in-group identification and offered a hierarchical 2-dimensional model within which these components are organized. Studies 1 and 2 used confirmatory factor analysis to validate the proposed model of self-definition (individual self-stereotyping, in-group homogeneity) and self-investment (solidarity, satisfaction, and centrality) dimensions, across 3 different group identities. Studies 3 and 4 demonstrated the construct validity of the 5 components by examining their (concurrent) correlations with established measures of in-group identification. Studies 5-7 demonstrated the predictive and discriminant validity of the 5 components by examining their (prospective) prediction of individuals' orientation to, and emotions about, real intergroup relations. Together, these studies illustrate the conceptual and empirical value of a hierarchical multicomponent model of in-group identification.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.144

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The political identity strength scale showed excellent internal consistency (α = .93) and was aggregated to form a composite measure.

    “Scale items showed excellent internal consistency (α = .93) and thus were aggregated to form a composite measure of political identity strength.”

    From Everyone I Don’t Like Is Biased: Affective Evaluations and the Bias Blind Spot (2026) · cites this paper as Leach et al., 2008

    The available indexed passages contain bibliographic information for Leach et al. (2008), but none reports an α of .93 or aggregation into a political identity strength composite. Searches for political identity, internal consistency, and the stated alpha found no passage addressing those claims. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Leach, C. W., van Zomeren, M., Zebel, S., Vliek, M. L. W., Pennekamp, S. F., Doosje, B., Ouwerkerk, J. W., & Spears, R.
Affiliations
University of Sussex (GB)
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Published
2008
Volume
95
Issue
1
Pages
144-165
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
OpenAlex
W2157069646
Cited by
1,826
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 112 · 2025: 173 · 2024: 177 · 2023: 163 · 2022: 157 · 2021: 132 · 2020: 116 · 2019: 150 · 2018: 104 · 2017: 109 · 2016: 81 · 2015: 84 · 2014: 65 · 2013: 59 · 2012: 49
FWCI
104.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Cultural Differences and Values
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Consumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and Identification
Keywords
ingroup identification, self-definition, self-investment, self-stereotyping, solidarity, group satisfaction, group centrality, intergroup relations, group identity, multicomponent model, construct validity
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Culture, Emotions, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Psychological, Self Concept, Social Desirability, Social Identification, Stereotyping, Personal Construct Theory

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review