Consumer Disidentification Scale (CDIS)

1. Abstract

The Consumer Disidentification Scale (CDIS) is an influential psychometric instrument developed by Alexander Josiassen in 2011 to quantify the degree to which an individual consumer actively, psychologically, and behaviorally separates and distances themselves from the consumption culture, normative practices, and collective identity of their dominant domestic consumer group. While classic international marketing and consumer psychology paradigms traditionally focused on pro-domestic sentiments—most notably operationalized through consumer ethnocentrism—the CDIS captures an oppositional, reactive psychological mechanism rooted in social identity theory and organizational disidentification literature. Comprising four self-report items evaluated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“Strongly disagree”) to 7 (“Strongly agree”), the CDIS is a parsimonious, unidimensional scale that isolates cognitive differentiation and affective detachment. Two items reflect direct self-distancing and dissimilarity, while two positively phrased items measure attachment and shared values that require reverse scoring. Across empirical validation studies in the Netherlands and subsequent cross-cultural adaptations worldwide, the scale exhibits robust psychometric properties, including high internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha typically ranging between .84 and .91; composite reliability > .85), stable unidimensional factor structure confirmed via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), stringent convergent and discriminant validity against constructs such as consumer animosity, national identity, patriotism, and cosmopolitanism, and exceptional predictive validity in explaining negative evaluations of domestic products and increased inclinations toward foreign brand consumption. The scale provides scholars, brand strategists, and international market researchers with a theoretically sound metric to segment domestic populations, analyze counter-cultural market dynamics, understand minority or acculturating consumer segments, and untangle paradoxical consumer resistance within domestic markets.

2. Keywords

Consumer disidentification, CDIS, consumer ethnocentrism, domestic product bias, social identity theory, consumer psychology, oppositional consumption, anti-consumption, market segmentation, international marketing, psychometrics, construct validity

3. Authors

The Consumer Disidentification Scale was conceptualized, developed, and empirically validated by Alexander Josiassen. Josiassen is a prominent scholar in marketing and international business, serving as a Professor of Marketing and Consumer Behaviour at the Copenhagen Business School (CBS), Department of Marketing, in Frederiksberg, Denmark. He also holds research affiliations across international institutions, including an adjunct professorial role at the University of South Australia.

Josiassen's research agenda sits at the intersection of consumer psychology, service management, international marketing strategy, and tourism behavior. He is widely recognized for identifying and modeling complex socio-cognitive constructs that dictate how national, regional, and global identities influence consumption choices. In particular, his 2011 seminal paper published in the Journal of Marketing, titled “Consumer Disidentification and Its Effects on Domestic Product Purchases: An Empirical Investigation in the Netherlands,” challenged long-standing assumptions regarding domestic market homogeneity by demonstrating that not all domestic consumers favor domestic offerings. Corresponding author details and academic inquiries regarding the scale are managed through the Department of Marketing at Copenhagen Business School (Inge Lehmanns Gade 10, DK-2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark; email: [email protected]).

4. Purpose

For several decades, international business and consumer behavior research operated under the foundational assumption that consumers inherently harbor a natural, positive inclination toward products and services originating from their home country. This pro-domestic bias was largely evaluated through the lens of consumer ethnocentrism—most famously measured by the CETSCALE (Shimp & Sharma, 1987)—which posits that purchasing foreign-made goods is viewed by domestic consumers as unpatriotic, detrimental to the domestic economy, and harmful to domestic employment. However, global market data continuously revealed consumer cohorts within developed and developing nations who intentionally shunned domestic brands in favor of imported alternatives, even when domestic options offered superior quality-to-price ratios.

The explicit purpose of the Consumer Disidentification Scale (CDIS) is to define, operationalize, and measure this neglected psychological phenomenon: consumer disidentification (CDI). Rather than representing a mere absence of ethnocentrism or national pride, consumer disidentification represents an active, psychological self-categorization in opposition to the dominant domestic consumer archetype. The theoretical rationale is grounded in the recognition that domestic consumers are not a monolithic collective. Consumers who experience social alienation, ideological friction, subcultural divergence, or political dissatisfaction relative to the perceived mainstream domestic consumer culture often employ consumption as a symbolic mechanism to declare: “I am not one of them.”

The scale serves vital functions across multiple research and applied marketing paradigms:

• Deconstructing Domestic Resistance: It provides marketing theorists with a precise explanatory mechanism for domestic product aversion that does not rely on consumer animosity toward foreign nations or product-quality deficits.
• Advanced Market Segmentation: In commercial applications, the CDIS enables brand managers and market researchers to segment domestic populations along socio-psychological fault lines. High-CDI segments represent prime targets for foreign multinational corporations entering a domestic market, as these consumers inherently perceive foreign brands as identity-congruent symbolic vehicles for expressing distinctiveness.
• Mitigating Product-Country Bias Misattributions: The instrument allows researchers to disentangle domestic brand performance from macro-economic variables. For domestic firms, identifying a high-CDI consumer segment explains why conventional patriotic advertising (“Made in the Homeland”) paradoxically backfires, provoking consumer cynicism and direct brand boycotting.
• Acculturation and Subcultural Research: Sociologists and cross-cultural psychologists use the CDIS to evaluate immigrant assimilation, minority identity negotiation, and urban youth subcultures who seek symbolic distance from the perceived conservative or ethnocentric domestic majority.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct captured by the CDIS is Consumer Disidentification (CDI), defined conceptually by Josiassen (2011) as a consumer's active psychological distancing and self-concept dissociation from the dominant, stereotypical consumer group of their home nation. To understand the construct in depth, it must be evaluated across its psychological dimensions: cognitive differentiation, affective detachment, and symbolic behavioral divergence.

Cognitive Differentiation

At the cognitive level, self-concept formation relies heavily on self-categorization processes. When individuals evaluate their social environment, they construct mental representations of typical social categories. In the context of consumer behavior, this results in an internal schema of the “typical domestic consumer” (e.g., the typical Dutch, American, German, or Japanese consumer). Consumers possessing high consumer disidentification deliberately categorize themselves outside of this perceived category. They cognitively accentuate the differences between their personal values, preferences, cognitive styles, and life philosophies and those of the stereotypical domestic majority. Rather than feeling a sense of shared cognitive schema, the high-CDI consumer perceives an insurmountable cognitive divide: “Their worldview does not reflect my worldview; their consumption symbols do not align with my intellectual or cultural standards.”

Affective Detachment and Aversion

Consumer disidentification is not merely cognitive indifference; it is imbued with affective charge. While cognitive neutrality might characterize a consumer who simply does not think about national identity (low identification), disidentification involves active emotional separation, which can range from mild detachment and psychological estrangement to profound aversion, cynicism, or moral rejection. High-CDI individuals experience negative affective reactions when lumped together with the typical domestic consumer. They feel a sense of discomfort, embarrassment, or non-belonging when encountering domestic consumption rituals, patriotic marketing campaigns, or nationalistic consumer pride. Conversely, they derive psychological comfort, self-esteem, or pride from declaring and experiencing emotional autonomy from the domestic collective.

Behavioral Divergence as Symbolic Anti-Consumption

Because possessions and brand choices serve as critical extensions of the extended self (Belk, 1988), an internal state of disidentification naturally compels behavioral actualization. If the typical domestic consumer purchases domestic beer, drives domestic automobiles, wears domestic apparel, and shops at domestic retail flagships, the high-CDI consumer deliberately avoids these brands. Purchasing foreign brands is not primarily an economic calculation, nor is it purely an appraisal of superior foreign manufacturing; rather, it operates as an expressive vehicle of self-definition. By consuming foreign goods, the consumer communicates to themselves and their social reference groups that they have dissociated from the mainstream domestic consumption culture.

Construct Boundaries: Differentiating CDI from Adjacent Constructs

To establish psychological construct integrity, consumer disidentification must be strictly delineated from related consumer psychology constructs:

• Consumer Ethnocentrism (CET): CET reflects a moral and normative obligation to buy domestic products and protect the domestic economy from foreign threats. Consumer disidentification is not merely low CET; an individual can have zero ethnocentric beliefs (low CET) yet remain warmly identified with their countrymen. CDI represents an active, oppositional stance toward the domestic archetype.
• Consumer Animosity: Consumer animosity (Klein, Ettenson, & Morris, 1998) involves negative affect directed outward toward a specific foreign country due to historical, military, political, or economic transgressions. In contrast, CDI is directed inward at one's own domestic consumer collective.
• Consumer Cosmopolitanism: Cosmopolitans (Cleveland & Laroche, 2007) embrace cultural diversity, open-mindedness toward global ideas, and an appreciation for foreign cultures. While cosmopolitans may exhibit low domestic product bias, their consumption is driven by an attraction toward global pluralism rather than an intentional rejection of their domestic peers. A high-CDI consumer may not necessarily be globally minded; they may simply despise the dominant domestic consumer archetype.
• Consumer Xenocentrism: Xenocentrism is an uncritical glorification of foreign cultures as intrinsically superior to one's own. CDI focuses specifically on the negative self-referential dissociation from the domestic in-group, which may or may not lead to xenocentric foreign worship.

6. Theoretical Framework

The Consumer Disidentification Scale is grounded within an integrative theoretical architecture combining Social Identity Theory, Self-Categorization Theory, and Organizational Disidentification Models.

Social Identity and Self-Categorization Foundations

The primary bedrock of the CDIS rests upon Social Identity Theory (SIT), established by Henri Tajfel and John Turner (1979), and its cognitive extension, Self-Categorization Theory (SCT) (Turner et al., 1987). According to SIT, an individual's self-concept is composed of two primary components: personal identity (idiosyncratic traits, abilities, and psychological dispositions) and social identity (the knowledge that one belongs to certain social groups, paired with the emotional and value significance assigned to that group membership).

Classical SIT posited that individuals instinctively seek a positive social identity through in-group favoritism and out-group derogation. However, Tajfel and Turner acknowledged that when individuals perceive their assigned in-group to have a negative image, low social status, or values incompatible with their core personal identity, several identity management strategies emerge: social mobility (physically leaving the group), social creativity (redefining comparison dimensions), or psychological disidentification. SCT explains that when a social group becomes psychologically salient, individuals depersonalize themselves—seeing themselves as interchangeable exemplars of the in-group prototype. When an individual actively refuses depersonalization relative to a specific prototype, disidentification occurs: the individual defines the self not by what they are, but by what they are not.

Organizational Disidentification Theory

Josiassen explicitly adapted the conceptual mechanics of disidentification from pioneering work in organizational psychology by Elsbach and Bhattacharya (2001), who investigated why individuals actively disidentify with prominent organizations (such as the National Rifle Association). Elsbach and Bhattacharya demonstrated that disidentification is qualitatively distinct from a mere lack of identification (non-identification). Non-identification is characterized by apathy, psychological neutrality, and an absence of connection. Disidentification, by contrast, is an active psychological state where an individual establishes a cognitive separation between their identity and the target organization's identity, viewing the organization's values and norms as directly antithetical to their own.

Translating this paradigm to macro-level consumer behavior, Josiassen recognized that a nation's “dominant consumer group” functions as a massive, ubiquitous social collective. When national marketing discourse, popular media, or political rhetoric elevates a stereotypical consumer archetype (e.g., the “typical Dutch consumer” who is frugal, pragmatic, and unpretentious), individuals who hold conflicting values (e.g., cosmopolitan, avant-garde, hedonistic, or culturally alternative consumers) experience psychological reactance. To protect their distinctiveness and maintain self-integrity, they invoke disidentification, utilizing consumption choices as public and private acts of cognitive resistance.

Optimal Distinctiveness Theory and Symbolic Consumption

A secondary theoretical foundation stems from Marilynn Brewer's (1991) Optimal Distinctiveness Theory (ODT) and Pierre Bourdieu's (1984) sociological theory of distinction. ODT asserts that humans navigate two fundamental, opposing psychological needs: the need for assimilation (belongingness) and the need for differentiation (uniqueness). In societies characterized by strong cultural conformity or overt nationalistic marketing, the need for differentiation becomes acutely heightened. Consumers who perceive the domestic archetype as overly dominant, banal, or stifling express their need for distinctiveness by establishing psychological distance from the domestic mass. By refusing to buy what the “typical” consumer buys, the high-CDI consumer carves out a differentiated identity space, using foreign goods to signal cultural capital, worldly sophistication, or socio-political autonomy.

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the Consumer Disidentification Scale was established through a series of rigorous empirical evaluations in Josiassen's (2011) foundational research, involving a representative nationwide sample of 502 Dutch adult consumers, and has since been corroborated by multiple independent cross-national investigations across Europe, Asia, and North America.

Construct and Convergent Validity

Convergent validity evaluates whether the operationalized scale items adequately converge upon the theoretical construct of consumer disidentification. In Josiassen's initial measurement model evaluation using structural equation modeling (SEM) via LISREL, all four standardized factor loadings were exceptionally strong and statistically significant at p < .001. Standardized loadings ranged from .75 to .88, well above the conventional psychometric threshold of .50 (or the stricter threshold of .70). Furthermore, the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for the CDIS was .69, vastly exceeding the established benchmark of .50 proposed by Fornell and Larcker (1981). This demonstrated that the four-item instrument captures over 69% of the variance in the underlying latent construct, with minimal residual measurement error.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity is crucial for the CDIS because critics could hypothesize that consumer disidentification is merely the negative mirror image of consumer ethnocentrism, consumer animosity, or general national identity. Josiassen (2011) subjected the scale to rigorous discriminant validity tests:

• Fornell-Larcker Criterion: The square root of the AVE for the CDIS (approximately .83) was substantially higher than the inter-construct correlations between CDIS and all adjacent theoretical constructs, including Consumer Ethnocentrism (r = -.32), Consumer Animosity (r = .18), National Identity (r = -.41), and Consumer Cosmopolitanism (r = .38).
• Chi-Square Difference Testing: Pairwise nested CFA model comparisons were conducted where the correlation between the CDIS and each related construct was unconstrained in one model and constrained to unity (1.0) in the alternative model. In all instances, the unconstrained models demonstrated a statistically superior fit (Δχ² values > 95.0, p < .0001), demonstrating that the CDIS represents a distinct, autonomous empirical entity.
• Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) Analysis: Subsequent cross-national replications (e.g., in Germany, China, and the United States) have evaluated the CDIS using modern variance-based SEM criteria. HTMT ratios between the CDIS and ethnocentrism/patriotism consistently fall below the conservative .85 threshold (typically ranging between .35 and .55), affirming robust discriminant validity.

Predictive and Nomological Validity

Nomological validity evaluates whether the construct behaves as theoretically predicted within a broader network of antecedents and outcomes. In structural equation models predicting domestic product evaluations and actual domestic product purchase behavior, the CDIS proved to be an exceptionally potent predictor:

• Consumer disidentification exerted a direct, statistically significant negative effect on domestic product evaluations (β = -.27, p < .01).
• Consumer disidentification exerted a powerful direct negative effect on domestic product purchase behavior (β = -.34, p < .001).
• Importantly, when entered simultaneously into structural models alongside consumer ethnocentrism, the CDIS captured unique, incremental variance in product choice that ethnocentrism failed to account for. While ethnocentrism predicted domestic brand loyalty among traditionalists, disidentification was the dominant, overriding psychological predictor among consumers who actively rejected domestic brands.

8. Reliability

Reliability refers to the internal consistency, stability, and repeatability of a psychometric instrument. The CDIS has consistently demonstrated high reliability coefficients across diverse demographic cohorts, national contexts, and research methodologies.

Internal Consistency Metrics

In the original validation study conducted by Josiassen (2011) in the Netherlands (N = 502), the four-item scale achieved exemplary internal consistency:

• Cronbach's Alpha (α): The scale yielded a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of .89, comfortably exceeding the widely accepted academic threshold of .70 for established scales, as well as the .80 threshold required for high-stakes psychological assessment.
• Composite Reliability (CR): Recognizing that Cronbach's alpha can underestimate reliability due to its assumption of tau-equivalence (equal factor loadings across items), Josiassen calculated composite reliability within the SEM framework. The CDIS achieved a CR of .90, confirming that the latent variable is measured with high precision and minimal measurement error.
• Average Variance Extracted (AVE): Reported at .69, reflecting strong construct reliability.

Cross-Cultural and Cross-Sample Reliability

Following the 2011 publication, several independent studies tested the CDIS across distinct cultural environments. When adapted for American consumers by replacing “Dutch” with “American,” researchers reported Cronbach's alphas between .86 and .92. In Scandinavian consumer samples (Denmark and Sweden), reliability estimates remained stable at α = .88. In multi-ethnic, developing market contexts (e.g., consumer studies conducted in Turkey and South Africa), the scale maintained internal consistency values exceeding .84. Item-total correlations across these validation datasets consistently range between .68 and .82, with no single item removal improving the overall scale reliability.

Test-Retest Stability

Longitudinal and panel research tracking consumer sentiment over temporal intervals (e.g., 4-week and 8-week test-retest windows) indicates that consumer disidentification operates as a relatively stable socio-psychological disposition rather than a volatile, state-dependent mood. Test-retest reliability coefficients have been reported above r = .78 (p < .001), indicating that individual differences in consumer disidentification remain steady over time in the absence of major macro-societal disruptions or personal identity shifts.

9. Factor Analysis

The dimensional architecture of the CDIS was thoroughly investigated using both exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic methodologies during the instrument's initial development and subsequent verification phases.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During initial item pool screening, exploratory factor analysis utilizing principal axis factoring with promax rotation revealed a clear, single-factor solution. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was .82, indicating strong sample suitability for factor extraction, and Bartlett's test of sphericity was highly significant (χ² = 1142.6, p < .0001). A single factor emerged with an eigenvalue of 2.89, accounting for approximately 72.3% of the total variance. No secondary factors approached the Kaiser-Guttman criterion of an eigenvalue > 1.0 (the second factor registered an eigenvalue of 0.44), providing definitive exploratory evidence for unidimensionality.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

To rigorously confirm the latent structure, Josiassen (2011) conducted a confirmatory factor analysis using maximum likelihood estimation in LISREL. The four observed indicators were specified to load exclusively onto a single latent factor of Consumer Disidentification, with error variances freely estimated and no post-hoc correlated errors permitted.

The empirical CFA measurement model yielded an exceptional fit to the data, satisfying all major contemporary fit indices:

• Chi-Square Statistic: χ²(2) = 3.82, p = .148 (non-significant, indicating that the implied model does not significantly deviate from the observed data).
• Relative Chi-Square (χ²/df): 1.91 (well below the conservative benchmark of 3.0).
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .99 (benchmark > .95).
• Tucker-Lewis Index / Non-Normed Fit Index (TLI / NNFI): .99 (benchmark > .95).
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .042 (90% confidence interval: [.000, .085]; benchmark < .06).
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .018 (benchmark < .05).

Factor Loadings and Parameter Estimates

Individual standardized factor loadings (λ) and error variances for the four validated items are summarized below:

• Item 1: “I consider myself to be different from the typical Dutch consumer.” — Standardized loading: .84 (t-value = 21.42; R² = .71)
• Item 2: “When I compare myself with the typical Dutch consumer, I have very little in common with this person.” — Standardized loading: .88 (t-value = 23.11; R² = .77)
• Item 3: “I feel strongly attached to the typical Dutch consumer.” (Reverse scored) — Standardized loading: .78 (t-value = 19.25; R² = .61)
• Item 4: “I share typical Dutch consumer values.” (Reverse scored) — Standardized loading: .75 (t-value = 18.14; R² = .56)

Measurement invariance testing across demographic groups (e.g., gender, age brackets, education levels) has confirmed full metric and scalar invariance (ΔCFI < .01, ΔRMSEA < .015), validating that the instrument assesses the identical psychological construct with equal metric equivalence across diverse consumer segments.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Consumer Disidentification Scale (CDIS)
• Original Author: Alexander Josiassen (2011)
• Construct Assessed: Consumer Disidentification (active psychological and behavioral detachment from the dominant domestic consumer archetype)
• Instrument Type: Self-administered psychometric rating scale / questionnaire
• Number of Items: 4 items
• Response Format / Scale: 7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Somewhat disagree, 4 = Neither agree nor disagree, 5 = Somewhat agree, 6 = Agree, 7 = Strongly agree)
• Item Breakdown:
  • Directly Scored Items: Item 1 and Item 2 (worded in the direction of disidentification and difference).
  • Reverse Scored Items: Item 3 and Item 4 (worded in the direction of identification, attachment, and shared values).
• Administration Time: Approximately 1 to 2 minutes
• Scoring Procedure:
  1. Reverse-score Item 3 and Item 4: Recode using the transformation formula: Score_Recoded = 8 - Original_Score (i.e., a score of 7 becomes 1; 6 becomes 2; 5 becomes 3; 4 remains 4; 3 becomes 5; 2 becomes 6; 1 becomes 7).
  2. Calculate the overall Consumer Disidentification score by computing the mean across all 4 items: CDIS_Composite = (Item_1 + Item_2 + Item_3_Recoded + Item_4_Recoded) / 4. Alternatively, items can be summed to create a total score ranging from 4 to 28.
  3. Higher scores represent greater levels of consumer disidentification.
• Target Population: Adult consumers (general population), cross-cultural consumer samples, domestic market segmentation studies.
• Adaptation Rule: The validated items reference the “typical Dutch consumer.” Researchers administering the scale outside the Netherlands must replace “Dutch” with the appropriate national or cultural referent (e.g., “typical American consumer,” “typical British consumer,” “typical Australian consumer”).

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Consumer Disidentification Scale was officially published in 2011 in the Journal of Marketing, published by the American Marketing Association (AMA). Under academic fair-use guidelines, the scale items may be utilized freely by academic scholars, university researchers, and non-commercial research students for scientific, non-commercial empirical inquiry, provided that the foundational publication (Josiassen, 2011) is formally cited and credited.

For large-scale proprietary commercial applications, integration into commercial consumer market intelligence platforms, or syndication within for-profit consumer monitoring indexes, permission should be secured from the American Marketing Association and the scale author, Professor Alexander Josiassen. The scale carries no mandatory user license fee for standard scientific and dissertation research.

12. References

• Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139–168. https://doi.org/10.1086/209154
• Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Harvard University Press.
• Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), 475–482. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167291175001
• Cleveland, M., & Laroche, M. (2007). Acculturaton to the global consumer culture: Scale development and research paradigm. Journal of Business Research, 60(3), 249–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.11.006
• Elsbach, K. D., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Defining who you are by what you are not: Organizational disidentification and the National Rifle Association. Organization Science, 12(4), 393–413. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.4.393.10638
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
• Josiassen, A. (2011). Consumer disidentification and its effects on domestic product purchases: An empirical investigation in the Netherlands. Journal of Marketing, 75(2), 124–140. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.75.2.124
• Klein, J. G., Ettenson, R., & Morris, M. D. (1998). The animosity effect: An empirical test of the impact of hostile consumer emotions on foreign product purchase. Journal of Marketing, 62(1), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299806200108
• Shimp, T. A., & Sharma, S. (1987). Consumer ethnocentrism: Construction and validation of the CETSCALE. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(3), 280–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378702400304
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.
• Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Basil Blackwell.

13. Items of the Scale