Show me the theory: Response to Birdsong et al. 2024

Birdsong et al. (2024) contend social identity (SI) has profound influence on human cognition and behavior, and social identity theory (SIT) can explain group attitude differences toward grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) among "hunters" and "nonhunters" in Montana (United States).However, there is a conspicuous lack of SIT to inform Birdsong et al.'s conceptualization, operationalization, and interpretation of SI and its subsequent influence on group attitudes.Though the authors acknowledge certain limitations ("identity strength and salience were not directly assessed"), what is more limiting is that SIT was not rigorously used (i.e., the fundamental processes of identification, categorization, and comparison are absent) and SI was not appropriately measured (i.e., an action is not equivalent to an identity).In these respects, Birdsong et al. illustrate common pitfalls of purportedly theory-based research.Here, I examine their general use of theory and specific use of SIT to explicate these pitfalls, suggest potential mitigation steps researchers can take, and urge Conservation Biology's readership to be aware of these fundamentals of theory-based research.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Conservation Biology
Published
2024-09-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14379
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Social Power and Status Dynamics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.13
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Show me the theory: Response to Birdsong et al. 2024

Kenneth Wallen
1 citations
Conservation Biology
Social Power and Status Dynamics
1.13
article

Show me the theory: Response to Birdsong et al. 2024

Kenneth Wallen
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Birdsong et al. (2024) contend social identity (SI) has profound influence on human cognition and behavior, and social identity theory (SIT) can explain group attitude differences toward grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) among "hunters" and "nonhunters" in Montana (United States).However, there is a conspicuous lack of SIT to inform Birdsong et al.'s conceptualization, operationalization, and interpretation of SI and its subsequent influence on group attitudes.Though the authors acknowledge certain limitations ("identity strength and salience were not directly assessed"), what is more limiting is that SIT was not rigorously used (i.e., the fundamental processes of identification, categorization, and comparison are absent) and SI was not appropriately measured (i.e., an action is not equivalent to an identity).In these respects, Birdsong et al. illustrate common pitfalls of purportedly theory-based research.Here, I examine their general use of theory and specific use of SIT to explicate these pitfalls, suggest potential mitigation steps researchers can take, and urge Conservation Biology's readership to be aware of these fundamentals of theory-based research.

Conservation BiologyVol. 38(6)
Idaho Department of Fish and Game (US), University of Idaho (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 17%
Social Power and Status Dynamics
1.13
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Show me the theory: Response to Birdsong et al. 2024 — Kenneth Wallen · Conservation Biology (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS