Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 433

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Superordinate Identification, Subgroup Identification, and Justice Concerns: Is Separatism the Problem; Is Assimilation the Answer?

Huo, Yuen J., Smith, Heather J., Tyler, Tom R., Lind, E. Allan·1996·Psychological Science

Abstract

The diversity of American society raises concerns about whether authorities can maintain social cohesion amid competing interests and values The group-value model of justice suggests that authorities function more effectively when they are perceived as fair (e g, benevolent, neutral, and respectful) However, such relational evaluations may be effective only if authorities represent a group with which people identify In a diverse society, subgroup memberships may assume special importance People who identify predominantly with a subgroup may focus on instrumental issues when evaluating a superordinate-group authority, and conflicts with that authority may escalate if those people do not receive favorable outcomes Results indicate that subgroup identification creates problems for authorities only when people have strong subgroup identification and weak superordinate-group identification As long as people identify strongly with the superordinate group, even if they also identify strongly with their subgroup, relational issues will dominate reactions to authorities

Overview

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 · 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00664.x

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 433

Metadata

Authors
Huo, Y. J., Smith, H. J., Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A.
Venue
Psychological Science
Published
1996-01
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
40-45
ISSN
  • 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9280
OpenAlex
W2128833583
Cited by
433
References
5
FWCI
52.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.