Abstract
According to Farsides (1993), Schiffmann and Wicklund's (1992) criticism of social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979, 1986) is untenable. In particular, their claim that social identity theory should be abandoned in favour of Tesser's (1980, 1986) self-evaluation maintenance model or Wicklund and Gollwitzer's (1981, 1982) symbolic self-completion theory is rejected by Farsides. In the reply to Farsides, it is shown that his argumentation is not conclusive. In the same vein, Schiffmann and Wicklund's (1992) claim to abandon social identity notions is pursued. Extra-theoretical reasons underlying adherence to these notions are discussed, and a direction for investigating social identity processes more productively is proposed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
