Abstract
This article examines the conflict between the King-men and Freemen in Alma 51 of the Book of Mormon through the framework of Social Identity Theory (SIT). The analysis explores how group identities and dynamics contributed to political dissension and societal division within Nephite society. SIT posits that individuals derive self-concept from their group affiliations, leading to in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination. By applying SIT's core processes, the article illuminates how the King-men and Freemen defined their opposing identities and escalated tensions. The King-men, aligned with monarchy, sought power and control, while the Freemen, committed to the system of judges, defended their liberties. The analysis demonstrates that social identity itself is not inherently destructive; rather, its consequences depend partly on the principles and purposes around which group identity is organized. While SIT explains the mechanisms through which the King-men and Freemen developed and maintained competing identities, Alma 51 provides a moral framework for distinguishing identities organized around status and power from those grounded in covenant, liberty, and the common good.
Keywords: Social identity theory, Book of Mormon, Group dynamics, Political conflict
Social Identity Theory in Alma 51:
The King-men, Freemen, and the Dynamics of Group Identity
Social Identity Theory (SIT) provides a powerful framework for understanding how group identities shape conflict, loyalty, and collective behavior. Alma 51 of the Book of Mormon offers a particularly clear illustration of these processes through the political conflict between the King-men and Freemen. Their division demonstrates how social categorization, identification, comparison, and positive distinctiveness can transform political disagreement into competing group identities with significant consequences for an entire society.
The conflict occurs at a critical moment in Nephite history, when internal political dissension coincided with an external military threat. The King-men sought to overthrow the existing system of judges and establish a monarchy, while the Freemen sought to preserve the system of government and liberties established by their forefathers. Applying SIT to this account reveals more than a political disagreement. It demonstrates how competing identities can shape perceptions of loyalty, morality, authority, and belonging, eventually becoming powerful enough to influence whether individuals place the interests of their group above the security of the larger society.
The King-men, primarily composed of the Nephite elite, sought to alter the existing political system to establish a monarchy, which they believed would grant them greater power and control. Their push for a kingship was driven by a combination of pride, ambition, and a rejection of the voice of the people. On the other hand, the Freemen, led by Captain Moroni, supported the existing system of judges and sought to preserve their freedoms and rights under what the text describes as a free government. This ideological clash not only threatened the internal stability of the Nephite nation, but also exposed them to increased vulnerability from external threats, specifically the Lamanite invasion led by Amalickiah.
This study conducts a theory-guided rhetorical analysis of Alma 51 using SIT’s three central processes (social categorization, social identification, and social comparison) along with positive distinctiveness. The analysis examines how the narrative constructs the identities of the King-men and Freemen, links those identities to competing values and motives, and demonstrates how political disagreement developed into factional conflict. In doing so, the study highlights the consequences of group division and the importance of unity, integrity, and shared principles in preserving societal stability.
Theoretical Framework: Social Identity Theory
Social Identity Theory (SIT), developed by Henri Tajfel in the 1970s, examines how group membership shapes identity, self-concept, and intergroup behavior. Building on Festinger’s (1954) concept of social comparison, Tajfel (1974) argued that individuals derive part of their self-concept from the social groups to which they belong. These memberships can foster belonging and self-esteem, but they can also encourage in-group favoritism and negative evaluations of out-groups as individuals seek to maintain a favorable sense of social identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1979).
SIT centers on three processes: social categorization, social identification, and social comparison. Social categorization involves classifying individuals into groups based on perceived similarities and differences, often emphasizing distinctions between “us” and “them” (Tajfel, 1974; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Social identification occurs when individuals incorporate group membership into their self-concept and adopt values, attitudes, or behaviors associated with that group. As identification strengthens, group successes and failures can take on personal significance and contribute to greater group cohesion (Steffens et al., 2021). Social comparison occurs when individuals evaluate their own group relative to others, often emphasizing favorable characteristics of the in-group while highlighting differences from competing groups (Tajfel & Turner, 1979).
Related to these processes is positive distinctiveness, or the desire to maintain a favorable and distinctive social identity by viewing one’s in-group positively in comparison with relevant out-groups (Coombs, 2022). This process can strengthen group cohesion, but it can also intensify competition and conflict when groups increasingly define themselves in opposition to one another. Contemporary applications of SIT have therefore examined intergroup conflict, prejudice, cultural identity, and the ways individuals navigate multiple group memberships (Becker & Barreto, 2019; Coombs et al., 2023; Hogg et al., 2017; Smith, 2020). Because group affiliations occur across political, religious, professional, cultural, and other social settings, SIT has broad applicability for understanding how individuals construct belonging and respond to competing identities (Scheepers & Ellemers, 2019; Sears & Cianfrone, 2021).
The relationship between identity and group behavior also has important roots in rhetorical scholarship. Burke (1969) argued that identification is central to persuasion and social interaction because individuals establish connections through perceptions of shared interests, values, and characteristics. For Burke, identification also implies division because identifying with one group creates some distinction between those who belong and those who do not. Although Burke’s rhetorical theory of identification developed separately from SIT, both perspectives emphasize the role of perceived group membership in shaping human behavior. SIT provides a social psychological framework for examining this process through categorization, identification, comparison, and the pursuit of positive distinctiveness.
Although SIT has been widely applied throughout the social sciences, it has received less attention as a framework for examining religious texts and scriptural narratives. Its focus on group boundaries, collective identity, competing loyalties, and intergroup conflict makes it particularly useful for analyzing narratives in which individuals or communities organize themselves around shared political, religious, or moral commitments.
This study conducts a theory-guided rhetorical analysis of Alma 51, focusing on passages that label, describe, contrast, or depict the actions of the King-men and Freemen. The analysis applies social categorization, social identification, social comparison, and positive distinctiveness to examine how the narrative constructs group boundaries, associates each faction with particular values and motives, and links social identity to collective action. Social categorization is reflected in the naming and differentiation of the two factions, while social identification appears in their alignment with competing values and political objectives. Social comparison and positive distinctiveness further explain how each group defined itself in relation to the other and reinforced the legitimacy of its own position. Together, these processes provide a framework for examining how political disagreement developed into entrenched group identities and ultimately contributed to broader conflict within Nephite society.
Results
The application of SIT to the conflict between the King-men and Freemen in Alma 51 offers a deeper understanding of how group identities can escalate tensions and lead to significant societal division. The King-men's refusal to defend their nation during the Lamanite invasion is a clear example of the destructive consequences of factionalism, where personal ambitions are prioritized over collective security. Additionally, Captain Moroni’s strategic response to unite the Freemen under the ‘title of liberty’ emphasizes the critical role of unity, righteous leadership, and the collective defense of shared values in maintaining societal stability against both internal and external threats.
Social Categorization
Alma 51: 5-7
5 And it came to pass that those who were desirous that Pahoran should be dethroned from the judgment-seat were called king-men, for they were desirous that the law should be altered in a manner to overthrow the free government and to establish a king over the land.
6 And those who were desirous that Pahoran should remain chief judge over the land took upon them the name of freemen; and thus was the division among them, for the freemen had sworn or covenanted to maintain their rights and the privileges of their religion by a free government.
7 And it came to pass that this matter of their contention was settled by the voice of the people. And it came to pass that the voice of the people came in favor of the freemen, and Pahoran retained the judgment-seat, which caused much rejoicing among the brethren of Pahoran and also many of the people of liberty, who also put the king-men to silence, that they durst not oppose but were obliged to maintain the cause of freedom.
Social Categorization refers to the process by which individuals classify themselves and others into distinct social groups based on shared characteristics, beliefs, or values (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). This categorization simplifies social environments by grouping people into “us” (in-group) and “them” (out-group), often leading to stereotyping and solidified group boundaries (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). In the conflict between the King-men and the Freemen, this process of social categorization is vividly evident, as each group defines itself based on distinct political and moral ideologies.
The Freemen, for instance, categorize themselves around the concept of liberty, identifying deeply with the principles of freedom and self-governance. Their identity is tied to the preservation of the laws and judicial systems established by their forefathers, which they view as divinely inspired and central to their societal structure. For the Freemen, these laws are not just legal frameworks, but are symbolic of their heritage and the sacrifices of their ancestors. Their commitment to these ideals creates a strong in-group identity, reinforcing their belief that they are the protectors of true Nephite values. This categorization binds them together, creating a collective sense of purpose and identity that is anchored in the preservation of their freedoms.
On the other hand, the King-men categorize themselves based on a contrasting set of beliefs. Their identity is rooted in monarchy, high birth, and the pursuit of political authority. Alma 51 associates them directly with those who sought to become kings and obtain power over the people. By categorizing themselves in this way, the King-men create a strong in-group identity centered on monarchy, status, and political power.
This process of social categorization leads to the formation of rigid group boundaries, where the Freemen and the King-men see each other not just as political opponents but as fundamentally different in their core values and societal roles. The Freemen view the King-men’s desire for a monarchy as a betrayal of Nephite principles, while the King-men see the Freemen’s commitment to liberty as a threat to the order and control they believe is necessary for governance. These categorizations deepen the divide between the groups, making compromise difficult and fostering a sense of inevitability of conflict.
Moreover, the act of categorization itself reinforces the internal cohesion of each group. As the Freemen and King-men continue to define themselves in opposition to one another, the distinctions between the groups become more pronounced. This results in greater in-group loyalty and out-group hostility, where members of each group increasingly view those on the other side not just as different, but as adversaries. The Freemen’s categorization focused on liberty and the King-men’s focused on monarchy thus become rallying points that strengthen their respective identities and heighten the animosity between the groups.
Social Identification
Alma 51:13
13 And it came to pass that when the men who were called king-men had heard that the Lamanites were coming down to battle against them, they were glad in their hearts; and they refused to take up arms, for they were so wroth with the chief judge, and also with the people of liberty, that they would not take up arms to defend their country.
Social Identification occurs when individuals not only categorize themselves into a group but also adopt the values, beliefs, and norms of that group as part of their personal identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). This process leads individuals to see the group’s successes and failures as their own, creating a powerful sense of belonging and loyalty. In the conflict between the King-men and the Freemen in Alma 51, the strength of social identification is evident as both groups align so deeply with their respective values and norms that these become central to their personal and collective identities.
For the Freemen, their identity is inseparable from their commitment to liberty, self-governance, and the system of free government they had covenanted to preserve. They see themselves not just as individuals, but as guardians of the freedoms that define Nephite society. Their identification with these values is so strong that they are willing to defend them at all costs, even if it means engaging in civil conflict. The Freemen’s willingness to fight reflects how their social identification has transcended mere political affiliation and become a core part of who they are. To compromise on these principles would be to betray their identity and the legacy of their forefathers.
Similarly, the King-men strongly identify with monarchy and the pursuit of political authority. Their willingness to challenge the existing system of judges, even amid an external military threat, demonstrates how deeply their group identity had become tied to their political objectives. Their refusal to defend the nation further demonstrates the extent to which loyalty to their faction had superseded loyalty to the larger Nephite society.
The strength of social identification in both groups leads to a willingness to fight for their beliefs, even when this threatens societal harmony. The Freemen, driven by their identification with liberty, view the King-men’s attempt to establish a monarchy as a direct attack on their way of life. Conversely, the King-men, identifying with the need for centralized control, see the Freemen’s resistance as a threat to the order they believe is crucial for stability. In both cases, social identification fuels the conflict, as members of each group are willing to sacrifice peace and unity to protect their group’s norms and values.
This intense identification also leads to a polarization of perspectives. The more the Freemen and King-men identify with their respective groups, the more they view that defeating the other group is necessary for the survival of their own identity. This polarization is exacerbated by the fact that each group’s identity is tied to a vision of Nephite society that is fundamentally incompatible with the other’s. The Freemen’s commitment to free government and the system of judges and the King-men’s desire for monarchy are not just political differences; they represent mutually exclusive futures for Nephite civilization. As a result, the conflict becomes not just a struggle for power, but a battle for the soul of the society.
Social Comparison
Alma 51:8
8 Now those who were in favor of kings were those of high birth, and they sought to be kings; and they were supported by those who sought power and authority over the people.
Social Comparison refers to the process by which groups evaluate themselves relative to other groups (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). This comparison is often biased, with each group emphasizing its own positive qualities while downplaying or criticizing those of the out-group. Through this process, groups not only reinforce their own identity, but also justify their actions, which often leads to heightened tensions and conflict. In the conflict between the King-men and the Freemen, social comparison plays a crucial role as each group perceives itself as superior to the other, reinforcing their justifications for non-cooperation and open hostility.
For the Freemen, social comparison is centered on their identity as defenders of liberty, free government, and the rights and privileges they had covenanted to preserve. By defining themselves in opposition to the King-men, who sought to establish a monarchy and obtain greater power and authority, the Freemen reinforce the legitimacy of their own political and moral position. This comparison strengthens their group identity and frames resistance to the King-men not simply as a political disagreement, but as a defense of the system of government and liberties they believed should be preserved.
The narrative provides less direct access to how the King-men understood or rhetorically justified their own position. Alma 51:8, however, explicitly associates them with high birth and with the pursuit of kingship, power, and authority. Their social comparison is therefore expressed less through stated arguments about governance and more through hierarchical status and their claim to a privileged position within Nephite society. In this sense, the King-men distinguish themselves from the Freemen by aligning their identity with rank, authority, and political elevation, reinforcing the division between the two groups.
This process of social comparison deepens the divide between the two groups as each becomes increasingly defined in opposition to the other. The Freemen’s defense of liberty and free government directly conflicts with the King-men’s pursuit of monarchy and political authority, leaving little room for compromise. As these competing identities become more entrenched, political disagreement increasingly becomes a struggle over which group’s vision will define the future of Nephite society.
Positive Distinctiveness
Alma 51:17
17 And it came to pass that Moroni commanded that his army should go against those king-men, to pull down their pride and their nobility and level them with the earth, or they should take up arms and support the cause of liberty.
Positive Distinctiveness refers to the efforts made by groups to establish and maintain a positive and unique identity in comparison to other groups (Coombs, 2022). This often involves emphasizing the qualities and values that set the group apart and demonstrating the superiority of the group's vision or way of life. In the context of the King-men and Freemen, the pursuit of positive distinctiveness is a driving force behind the actions and attitudes of both groups, as each seeks to assert the correctness of its vision for Nephite society. This competition for distinctiveness, however, ultimately contributes to significant internal strife and societal division.
For the Freemen, positive distinctiveness is closely tied to their identity as defenders of liberty, free government, and the system of judges. They strive to distinguish themselves from the King-men by showcasing their commitment to the principles of self-governance and individual rights, which they believe are the foundation of a just and prosperous society. The Freemen’s efforts to highlight these values are not just about self-affirmation; they are also about demonstrating to others, both within Nephite society and beyond, their vision of a free government in which the voice of the people retained political authority is the true and rightful path. By doing so, they aim to solidify their group’s reputation as the moral and ideological standard-bearers of the Nephite nation.
For the King-men, positive distinctiveness is rooted in social rank and the pursuit of political authority. Alma 51:8 identifies them as individuals of high birth who sought to become kings and were supported by others seeking power and authority over the people. Their distinctiveness is therefore expressed through hierarchy, status, and access to political power. By defining themselves in relation to these forms of privilege, the King-men reinforce an identity that separates them from the Freemen and positions their group above others within Nephite society.
The pursuit of positive distinctiveness by both groups, however, leads to significant internal strife. As the Freemen and King-men each work to prove the superiority of their respective visions, the gap between them widens, making compromise and cooperation increasingly difficult. The Freemen’s insistence on the righteousness of their ideals leaves little room for the King-men’s desire for a monarchy, while the King-men’s portrayal of themselves as the saviors of Nephite society undercuts the legitimacy of the Freemen’s commitment to liberty. Each group’s efforts to distinguish itself only serve to deepen the division between them, as they become more entrenched in their positions and less willing to acknowledge the validity of the other’s perspective.
This competition for positive distinctiveness also leads to actions that exacerbate the conflict. The Freemen, in their quest to prove the moral superiority of their cause, may adopt increasingly rigid and uncompromising stances, refusing to tolerate any perceived threats to their liberties. The King-men, in turn, may become more aggressive in their pursuit of power, seeing the need to assert their vision as a matter of existential importance. These dynamics create a cycle of escalation, where each group’s efforts to assert its distinctiveness provoke stronger resistance from the other, leading to a breakdown of dialogue and an increase in hostility.
Ultimately, the pursuit of positive distinctiveness by the King-men and Freemen contributes to the significant internal strife that threatens to tear Nephite society apart. As each group becomes more focused on proving the superiority of its vision, the possibility of finding common ground diminishes. The conflict between the King-men and Freemen thus illustrates how the desire for positive distinctiveness, while a natural part of group identity formation, can lead to destructive outcomes when it is pursued in a way that alienates and antagonizes other groups. The resulting strife not only weakens the unity of Nephite society, but also leaves it vulnerable to external threats, as internal divisions consume the energy and resources that might otherwise be used to defend against common enemies.
Discussion
This study applied Social Identity Theory (SIT) to the conflict between the King-men and Freemen in Alma 51 to better understand the social and psychological dynamics underlying one of the Book of Mormon's most significant episodes of political division. The findings demonstrate that the conflict can be understood through the core processes of social categorization, social identification, social comparison, and positive distinctiveness. At the same time, the narrative illustrates an important distinction that extends beyond the explanatory power of SIT itself. While the theory effectively describes how social identities develop and shape behavior, it remains descriptive rather than normative. It explains the formation of group identities but does not determine whether those identities are morally justified. The Book of Mormon provides that moral framework by distinguishing identities organized around the pursuit of power from those organized around covenant principles.
The process of social categorization is central to the division between the King-men and Freemen, with each group defining itself according to distinct political and moral commitments. The Freemen anchored their identity in liberty, self-governance, and the preservation of the system of judges, while the King-men defined themselves by their desire for monarchy and centralized authority. As predicted by SIT, these categories became increasingly rigid, encouraging members of each faction to interpret events through the lens of in-group and out-group distinctions. Once these identities solidified, disagreement ceased to be merely political and instead became existential. Each side came to view the success of the other not simply as a policy disagreement but as a threat to the future of Nephite society itself.
Social identification further intensified this division as members internalized the beliefs and values of their respective groups as part of their personal identities. The Freemen viewed the preservation of liberty as inseparable from their covenant obligations and heritage, while the King-men increasingly viewed the establishment of a monarchy as both desirable and necessary. These identities became emotionally significant, making compromise progressively more difficult. As SIT predicts, attacks on the group's values were experienced as attacks on the self, resulting in greater loyalty to the in-group and greater hostility toward the out-group.
The processes of social comparison and positive distinctiveness accelerated this polarization. Each faction increasingly viewed itself as morally and politically superior while portraying the opposing group as dangerous or misguided. The Freemen aligned their identity with liberty and the preservation of free government, while the King-men aligned theirs with high birth, monarchy, and political authority. This reciprocal comparison reinforced each group's sense of legitimacy while diminishing opportunities for dialogue and reconciliation. The result was a cycle of escalating conflict in which preserving group identity became as important as preserving the nation itself. Although SIT explains these processes well, this research does not suggest that social identities are inherently beneficial or inherently harmful. Rather, it simply explains how identities form and influence behavior. The moral question, therefore, is not whether individuals organize themselves into groups but what those groups are ultimately organized around.
Viewed through this lens, the Book of Mormon presents a far more nuanced picture than one that merely warns against strong group identities. Indeed, righteous collective identities appear throughout scripture. Covenant Israel, the people of Ammon, the Stripling Warriors, and the Church itself are all examples of communities united by shared beliefs, covenants, and divine purposes. These identities strengthen faith, encourage sacrifice, and promote unity. The existence of these examples suggests that collective identity is neither avoidable nor undesirable. Instead, it appears to be an essential feature of covenant communities.
The distinction in Alma 51, therefore, is not between having or lacking a social identity but between identities organized around fundamentally different objectives. The King-men constructed an identity centered on acquiring political power, social status, and authority over others. Their cohesion depended upon opposition to the existing government and ultimately placed personal ambition above the welfare of the nation. By contrast, Captain Moroni did not simply create an opposing political faction. His Title of Liberty reminded the people of preexisting covenant commitments to God, family, religion, and liberty. Rather than inventing a new identity, Moroni called the people back to an identity they had already embraced through covenant. His leadership unified rather than divided because it directed loyalty toward eternal principles rather than personal or political gain.
This distinction carries important implications for contemporary applications of SIT. Modern societies continue to experience increasing political, ideological, religious, and cultural polarization. SIT helps explain why these divisions emerge and why they become increasingly resistant to compromise. The Book of Mormon, however, contributes something the theory alone cannot provide. It offers a moral framework for evaluating competing identities by asking not simply how identities function but what they seek to accomplish. Identities organized primarily around power, status, or opposition naturally encourage exclusion, rivalry, and domination. Identities organized around covenant principles invite sacrifice, service, persuasion, and concern for the common good.
This perspective also sheds light on the relationship between agency and conflict. The account of the King-men and Freemen suggests that conflict may become unavoidable once a power-seeking identity refuses to coexist with covenantal principles. Scripture repeatedly demonstrates that agency permits competing loyalties, values, and identities. The War in Heaven represents the ultimate example of this reality. Once one group sought to compel rather than persuade, conflict became tragic but inevitable. The same principle appears in Alma 51. Captain Moroni did not seek conflict for its own sake, but once the King-men refused to defend their nation and instead pursued their own ambitions, decisive action became necessary to preserve both liberty and societal stability. The moral issue, therefore, is not the existence of competing identities but whether those identities seek persuasion or coercion, service or domination.
Alma 51 is just one of many Book of Mormon narratives that could be examined through SIT. The recurring distinctions between Nephites and Lamanites provide perhaps the clearest opportunity, particularly as those identities change across generations and sometimes persist despite changes in belief, ancestry, and political allegiance. The Anti-Nephi-Lehies offer an example of individuals deliberately rejecting one social identity and constructing another around covenant commitment, while the Stripling Warriors demonstrate how shared faith, heritage, and covenant identity can produce group cohesion and sacrifice. The Zoramites illustrate the relationship between social status, religious identity, and exclusion, while Fourth Nephi provides an inverse example in which traditional group distinctions disappear before eventually reemerging. Together, these narratives suggest that SIT provides a broader framework for examining how the Book of Mormon portrays belonging, division, conversion, conflict, and covenant identity.
Ultimately, the conflict between the King-men and Freemen illustrates both the explanatory strengths and limitations of Social Identity Theory. SIT accounts for the mechanisms through which social identities develop, intensify, and contribute to intergroup conflict, while the Book of Mormon provides the moral context necessary to distinguish between identities that strengthen covenant communities and those that undermine them. Alma 51 does not suggest that strong social identities are inherently dangerous; rather, it demonstrates that identities untethered from righteous principles, or organized primarily around status, power, or opposition, can become destructive. Conversely, identities centered on covenant commitments, liberty, faith, and the common good can unify individuals while preserving agency and societal stability. Alma 51 therefore offers not only a compelling illustration of Social Identity Theory in action but also a scriptural refinement of the theory itself, demonstrating how revealed truth can deepen and enrich contemporary social scientific understanding.
REFERENCES:
Becker, J. C., & Barreto, M. (2019). Personal, collective, and group-distancing motives underlying confrontation of prejudice. In Confronting Prejudice and Discrimination (pp. 141-158). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-814715-3.00014-X
Burke, K. (1969). A rhetoric of motives. University of California Press.
Coombs, H. V. (2022). The complex identities of international student-athletes competing in the NCAA: an exploratory qualitative case study [Doctoral dissertation, Northcentral University]. ProQuest. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.28354.04802
Coombs, H., Bagley, B., Barnhart, R., & Graudins, M. (2023). Sociolinguistic accommodation strategies utilized by international student-athletes & their interlocutors. Comunicação Pública, 18(35).
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human relations, 7(2), 117-140.
Hogg, M. A., Abrams, D., & Brewer, M. B. (2017). Social identity: The role of self in group processes and intergroup relations. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20(5), 570–581. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217690909
Scheepers, D., & Ellemers, N. (2019). Social Identity Theory. In: Sassenberg, K., Vliek, M. (eds) Social Psychology in Action. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13788-5_9
Sears, L. & Cianfrone, B. A. (2021). Social identity theory (pp. 437-438). In P. M. Pedersen (Ed.). Encyclopedia of sport management. Edward Elgar.
Smith, J. R. (2020). Group norms. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.453
Steffens, N. K., Munt, K. A., van Knippenberg, D., Platow, M. J., & Haslam, S. A. (2021). Advancing the social identity theory of leadership: A meta-analytic review of leader group prototypicality. Organizational Psychology Review, 11(1), 35–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386620962569
Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Social Science Information, 13(2), 65–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901847401300204
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.
Full Citation for this Article: Coombs, Hayden (2026) "Social Identity Theory in Alma 51: The King-men, Freemen, and the Dynamics of Group Identity," SquareTwo, Vol. 19 No. 2 (Summer 2026), http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleCoombsKingMen.html, accessed <give access date>.
Would you like to comment on this article? Thoughtful, faithful comments of at least 100 words are welcome.