Ashmore, R. D., Deaux, K. & McLaughlin-Volpe, T. (2004). Psychological Bulletin, 130(1), 80–114.
Not read. The summary is drawn from the abstract or from what the work is standardly cited for. A reading should check it first.
Why this is here
The framework of identification used by Reimer et al. (NOTE-1251), Biel (NOTE-1299) and Čater et al. (LIT-1138).
Read in its place
The work cannot be read here, so the record holds it at second hand.
Leach et al. 2008 (NOTE-1262) cite the review for its case that unitary identification measures are inadequate (p. 144), for identification as perceiving oneself in terms of the membership (p. 146), and for satisfaction as positive evaluation and centrality as chronic salience and importance (p. 147). They build a narrower model in the review’s spirit and show its components separate and predict differently. Missing still: the review’s own framework, its elements (among them, as the LIT’s summary lists them, social embeddedness, behavioural involvement, and content and meaning, which Leach et al. do not measure), its review of measures, and its argument that the elements need not covary.