SavedAdd your journal

Journals / International Journal on Lifelong Education and Leadership / 2025 / Cilt: 11 Sayı: 2

Teachers' Social Identity Scale: Development, Validation, and Mediation between Power Distance and Organizational Politics

Öğretmenlerin Sosyal Kimliği Ölçeği: Geçerlik, Güvenirlik ve Güç Mesafesi ile Örgütsel Politika Algısı Arasındaki Aracı Rolü

Didem Çelik Yılmaz(TC MİLLİ EĞİTİM BAKANLIĞI DÜZCE)0000-0001-7178-4840
Türkan Argon(BOLU ABANT İZZET BAYSAL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-0744-8647
Pages
88–107
Publication Date
2025-12-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The scale contributes to the literature on social identity in educational settings and aids in understanding the psychological structure of educational environments and the behaviors shaping them.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aimed to develop a valid and reliable measurement tool to determine teachers' perceptions of their social identity and construct a mediation model to measure their perceptions of power distance and organizational politics.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The EFA results revealed a ten-item single-factor structure, with factor loadings ranging from 0.667 to 0.828.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The scale contributes to the literature on social identity in educational settings and aids in understanding the psychological structure of educational environments and the behaviors shaping them.
🔬Design:Lab & Field Experiment
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Sosyal Kimlik · Öğretmen · Ölçek Geliştirme

Abstract

This study aimed to develop a valid and reliable measurement tool to determine teachers' perceptions of their social identity and construct a mediation model to measure their perceptions of power distance and organizational politics. The scale development process followed established steps, including a comprehensive literature review, item pool generation, expert review, and pilot testing. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were conducted to assess the validity of the scale, and reliability was determined via Cronbach's alpha. The EFA results revealed a ten-item single-factor structure, with factor loadings ranging from 0.667 to 0.828. The item‒total correlation coefficients ranged from 0.673 to 0.828, and the difference between the lower and upper 27% of the groups was statistically significant. The CFA confirmed the factor structure obtained from the EFA with excellent fit criteria (X2/df=1.243, RMSEA=0.024). Cronbach's alpha reliability analysis indicated high internal consistency (α=.906). The Teachers' Social Identity Scale is a valid and reliable instrument for understanding teachers' social relationships and professional performance. Teachers' social identity perceptions partially mediated the relationship between cultural value perceptions and organizational politics, with the bootstrapping process confirming that this indirect effect was statistically significant. The scale contributes to the literature on social identity in educational settings and aids in understanding the psychological structure of educational environments and the behaviors shaping them.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı öğretmenlerin sosyal kimliklerine ilişkin algılarını belirlemek için geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçüm aracı geliştirmek ve güç mesafesi ile örgütsel politikalara ilişkin algılarını ölçmek için bir aracılık modeli kurmaktır. Ölçek geliştirme süreci kapsamlı bir literatür taraması, madde havuzu oluşturma, uzman incelemesi ve pilot uygulama gibi belirlenmiş adımları izlemiştir. Ölçeğin geçerliliğini değerlendirmek için keşfedici faktör analizi (AFA) ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizi (DFA) yürütülmüş ve güvenirliği Cronbach'ın alfa ile belirlenmiştir. AFA sonuçları, faktör yüklerinin 0,667 ile 0,828 arasında değiştiği on maddelik tek faktörlü bir yapı ortaya koymuştur. Madde-toplam korelasyon katsayıları 0,673 ile 0,828 arasında değişmiş ve grupların alt ve üst %27'si arasındaki fark istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bulunmuştur. DFA, AFA'dan elde edilen faktör yapısını mükemmel uyum ölçütleriyle (X2/df=1,243, RMSEA=0,024) doğrulamıştır. Cronbach'ın alfa güvenilirlik analizi yüksek iç tutarlılık (α=.906) gösterdi. Öğretmenlerin Sosyal Kimlik Ölçeği, öğretmenlerin sosyal ilişkilerini ve mesleki performanslarını anlamak için geçerli ve güvenilir bir araçtır. Öğretmenlerin sosyal kimlik algıları, kültürel değer algıları ile örgütsel politikalar arasındaki ilişkiye kısmen aracılık etti ve önyükleme süreci bu dolaylı etkinin istatistiksel olarak anlamlı olduğunu doğruladı. Ölçek, eğitim ortamlarındaki sosyal kimlik literatürüne katkıda bulunur ve eğitim ortamlarının psikolojik yapısını ve onları şekillendiren davranışları anlamaya yardımcı olur.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yılmaz, D. Ç., Argon, T. (2025). Teachers' Social Identity Scale: Development, Validation, and Mediation between Power Distance and Organizational Politics. International Journal on Lifelong Education and Leadership, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 2, 88–107. https://doi.org/10.25233/ijlel.1691978

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (112)

  1. Akman, Y. (2017). Sosyal sermaye ve öğretmenlerin okulları ile özdeşleşmeleri ilişkisinde lider-üye etkileşiminin aracılık etkisi. Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(1), 263–281. https://doi.org/10.14686/buefad.281970
  2. Aminbeidokhti, A., Jafari, S., & Moradi Moghadam, M. (2016). The relationship between organizational socialization and teachers’ work engagement with the mediating role of organizational identity. Social Capital Management, 3(4), 563–582. https://doi.org/10.22059/jscm.2016.62098
  3. Argon, T. (2011). İlköğretim okulu öğretmenlerinin örgütsel sosyalleşme düzeylerinin çeşitli değişkenler açısından değerlendirilmesi. Education Sciences, 6(1), 197–207.
  4. Argon, T., & Demirer, S. (2017). Okul yöneticilerinin sosyal sorumluluk ve örgütsel kimlik algıları. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, (59), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.9761/jasss7016
  5. Argon, T., & Ertürk, R. (2013). İlköğretim okulu öğretmenlerinin içsel motivasyonları ve örgütsel kimliğe yönelik algıları. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 19(2), 159–179.
  6. Arslan, C., & Uğurlu, C. T. (2015). An examination of teachers’ organizational identity and their level of trust in school by means of some variables. Elementary Education Online, 14(1), 72–85. https://doi.org/10.17051/io.2015.13413
  7. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.
  8. Beauchamp, C., & Thomas, L. (2009). Understanding teacher identity: An overview of issues in the literature and implications for teacher education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(2), 175–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640902902252
  9. Beijaard, D., Meijer, P. C., & Verloop, N. (2004). Reconsidering research on teachers’ professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(2), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2003.07.001
  10. Beyhan, A. (2019). İlkokul yönetici ve öğretmenlerinin informal gruplara ve yöneticilerin informal grupları yönetme tarzlarına ilişkin görüşleri [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Ankara University.
  11. Boyd, D., Grossman, P. L., Ing, M., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2011). The influence of school administrators on teacher retention decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 48(2), 303–333. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831210380788
  12. Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 307–324. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.307
  13. Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “we”? Levels of collective identity and self-representation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.83
  14. Brown, P. M., & Turner, J. (2002). The role of theories in the formation of stereotype content. In C. McGarty, V. Y. Yzerbyt, & R. Spears (Eds.), Stereotypes as explanations: The formation of meaningful beliefs about social groups (pp. 63–73). Cambridge University Press.
  15. Brown, R. (2000). Social identity theory: Past achievements, current problems, and future challenges. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30(6), 745–778. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-0992(200011/12)30:6 3.0.CO;2-O
  16. Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). Routledge.
  17. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2020). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı: İstatistik, araştırma deseni, SPSS uygulamaları ve yorum (27. bs.). Pegem Akademi.
  18. Caena, F. (2019). Developing a European framework for the personal, social & learning to learn key competence. Publications Office of the European Union.
  19. Christ, O., van Dick, R., Wagner, U., & Stellmacher, J. (2003). When teachers go the extra mile: Foci of organisational identification as determinants of different forms of organisational citizenship behavior among schoolteachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(3), 329–341. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709903322
  20. Chubbuck, S. M., & Zembylas, M. (2008). The emotional ambivalence of socially just teaching: A case study of a novice urban school teacher. American Educational Research Journal, 45(2), 274–318. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207311586
  21. Coşkun, H. (2004). Kimlik ölçeği’nin bir Türk örnekleminde geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 7(14), 49–60.
  22. Coşkun, H. (2005). Sosyal kimlik ile rol üstlenmenin bireysel beyin fırtınasında üretkenliğe etkisi. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 20(56), 119–132.
  23. Collins, J. (2019). Do teachers want democracy? Deliberative culture and teachers’ evaluations of schools. Urban Affairs Review, 56(5), 1529–1552. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087419869550
  24. Cruess, R. L., Cruess, S. R., Boudreau, J. D., Snell, L., & Steinert, Y. (2015). A schematic representation of the professional identity formation and socialisation of medical students and residents. Academic Medicine, 90(6), 718–725. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000700
  25. Çelik, O. T., & Üstüner, M. (2019). Örgütsel politika algısı ölçeğinin okul örgütleri için Türkçeye uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Kuramsal Eğitim Bilim Dergisi, 12(1), 77–96. https://doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.425250
  26. Çetin, F., & Çelebi, M. A. (2021). Çok boyutlu örgütsel kimlik ölçeğinin geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(1), 228–243. https://doi.org/10.25287/ohuiibf.737996
  27. DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
  28. Demirer, S. (2014). Öğretmenlerin örgütsel sosyalleşme ve özdeşleşme düzeyleri ile birlikte çalışma yeterlikleri arasındaki ilişki [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal University.
  29. Demirtaş, H. A. (2003). Sosyal kimlik kuramı: Temel kavram ve varsayımlar. İletişim Araştırmaları, 1(1), 123–144.
  30. Dick, R. van, & Wagner, U. (2002). Social identification among school teachers: Dimensions, foci, and correlates. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11(2), 129–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320143000889
  31. Doğan, T. (2011). İki boyutlu benlik saygısı: Kendini sevme ve öz-yeterlik ölçeğinin Türkçe uyarlaması ve psikometrik özelliklerinin incelenmesi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 36(162), 126–137.
  32. Eisenberger, N. I., Inagaki, T. K., Muscatell, K. A., Haltom, K. E. B., & Leary, M. R. (2011). The neural sociometer: Brain mechanisms underlying state self-esteem. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(11), 3448–3455. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00027
  33. Eksi, H., Özgenel, M., & Demirci, M. E. (2020). The mediator role of organizational support in the relationship between organizational identity and organizational stress. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 6(4), 643–653. https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.6.4.643
  34. Erdem, A. R. (1999). Okullarda grup davranışı. Balıkesir Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 2(3), 79–99.
  35. Erkuş, A. (2014). Psikolojide ölçme ve ölçek geliştirme I: Temel kavramlar ve işlemler (2. bs.). Pegem Akademi.
  36. Ersanlı, K., & Şanlı, E. (2015). Self-perceived identity scale: A scale development study. American International Journal of Social Science, 4(6), 184–194.
  37. Falomir, J. M., Mugny, G., & Pérez, J. A. (1999). Social influence and identity conflict. In D. J. Terry, & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Attitudes, behavioour, and social context: The role of norms and group membership (pp. 245-264). Psychology Press.
  38. Falomir, J. M., Mugny, G., & Pérez, J. A. (1999). Social influence and identity conflict. In D. J. Terry & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Attitudes, behaviour, and social context: The role of norms and group membership (pp. 245–264). Psychology Press.
  39. Flores, M. A., & Day, C. (2006). Contexts which shape and reshape new teachers’ identities: A multiperspective study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(2), 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.09.002
  40. Geijsel, F., Sleegers, P., Stoel, R., & Krüger, M. (2009). The effect of teacher psychological and school organisational and leadership factors on teachers' professional learning in Dutch schools. The Elementary School Journal, 109(4), 406–427. https://doi.org/10.1086/593940
  41. Genç, D., Altuntaş, N., & Hapakaz, K. (2021). Öğretmenlerin mesleki kimlik oluşumlarına yönelik görüşlerinin incelenmesi. Journal of European Education, 11(1), 31–51.
  42. George, D., & Mallery, M. (2010). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference (10th ed.). Pearson.
  43. Guerriero, S. (Ed.). (2017). Pedagogical knowledge and the changing nature of the teaching profession. OECD Publishing.
  44. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.
  45. Hanna, F., Oostdam, R., Severiens, S. E., & Zijlstra, B. J. (2019). Domains of teacher identity: A review of quantitative measurement instruments. Educational Research Review, 27, 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.01.003
  46. Haslam, S. A. (2001). Psychology of organizations: The social identity approach. SAGE.
  47. Haslam, S. A., & Ellemers, N. (2005). Social identity in industrial and organizational psychology: Concepts, controversies and contributions. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 20, 39–118.
  48. Haslam, S. A., Postmes, T., & Ellemers, N. (2003). More than a metaphor: Organizational identity makes organizational life possible. British Journal of Management, 14(4), 357–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2003.00384.x
  49. Haslam, C., Holme, A., Haslam, S. A., Iyer, A., Jetten, J., & Williams, W. (2008). Maintaining group memberships: Social identity continuity predicts well-being after stroke. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 18(5–6), 671–691. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602010701643449
  50. Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
  51. Heatherton, T. F., & Polivy, J. (1991). Development and validation of a scale for measuring state self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(6), 895–910.
  52. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture and organizations. International Studies of Management & Organization, 10(4), 15–41.
  53. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
  54. Hogg, M. A. (1996). Social identity, self-categorization, and the small group. In E. H. Witte & J. H. Davis (Eds.), Understanding group behavior: Small group processes and interpersonal relations (pp. 227–254). Psychology Press.
  55. Hogg, M. A. (2018). Social identity theory. In P. J. Burke (Ed.), Contemporary social psychological theories (pp. 112–138). Stanford University Press.
  56. Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1998). Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203135457
  57. Hogg, M. A., & Reid, S. A. (2006). Social identity, self-categorization, and the communication of group norms. Communication Theory, 16(1), 7–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00003.x
  58. Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 121–140. https://doi.org/10.2307/259266
  59. Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2014). Social identity theory and organisational processes. In M. A. Hogg & D. J. Terry (Eds.), Social identity processes in organisational contexts (pp. 1–12). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315800530
  60. Hortaçsu, N. (2014). Grup içi ve gruplar arası süreçler (2. bs.). İmge Kitabevi.
  61. İşeri, E. (2019). The relationship between the cultural structure of schools and the political behaviors of teachers. Journal of Education and Learning, 8(5), 248–256. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v8n5p248
  62. Izadinia, M. (2013). A review of research on student teachers' professional identity. British Educational Research Journal, 39(4), 694–713. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2012.679614
  63. Jiang, S., Zhang, D., & Irwin, D. D. (2020). Semiformal organisations and control during the COVID-19 crisis in China. Asian Journal of Criminology, 16(1), 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11417-020-09334-z
  64. Jurs, P., & Kulberga, I. (2021). Multidimensional characteristics of teacher’s professional competence—Challenge and perspectives during education transformation process. Society, Integration, Education. Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference, 2, 244–252. https://doi.org/10.17770/sie2021vol2.6234
  65. Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç. (2017). Dünden bugüne insan ve insanlar: Sosyal psikolojiye giriş (20. bs.). Evrim Yayınevi.
  66. Kan, A., & Akbaş, A. (2005). Lise öğrencilerinin kimya dersine yönelik tutum ölçeği geliştirme çalışması. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(2), 227–237.
  67. Kavrayıcı, C. (2020). Öğretmenlerin mesleki kimlik algıları ve örgütsel bağlılıkları arasındaki ilişki [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Anadolu University.
  68. Kernis, M. H., Lakey, C. E., & Heppner, W. L. (2008). Secure versus fragile high self‐esteem as a predictor of verbal defensiveness. Journal of Personality, 76(3), 477–512. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00493.x
  69. Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). The Guilford Press.
  70. Liu, S., & Hallinger, P. (2020). Unpacking the effects of culture on school leadership and teacher learning in China. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 49(2), 214–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143219896042
  71. Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(3), 302–318.
  72. Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 103–123.
  73. Mamatoğlu, N. (2008). Öğretmenlerde kimliklenme ve kimliklenmenin işe yönelik tutum ve algıları yordayıcılığı. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 11(22), 47–62.
  74. Mamatoğlu, N. (2010). Lider davranışları algıları ve örgütsel kimliklenme boyutları. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 25(65), 82–97.
  75. Mayes, B. T., & Allen, R. W. (1977). Toward a definition of organizational politics. Academy of Management Review, 2(4), 672–678.
  76. Medd, K. D. (2010). An application of Hofstede's values survey module with Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal governments in Canada [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Carleton University.
  77. Memduhoğlu, H. B. (2012). Okullarda informel ilişkiler ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi. YYÜ Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(1), 1–21.
  78. Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and around organizations. Prentice Hall.
  79. Mlicki, P., & Ellemers, N. (1996). National stereotypes and identifications. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26(1), 97–114. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199601)26:1 3.0.CO;2-F
  80. Moody, J., & White, D. R. (2003). Structural cohesion and embeddedness. American Sociological Review, 68(1), 103–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240306800105
  81. Nartgün, Ş. S., & Demirer, S. (2016). Öğretmenlerin örgütsel sosyalleşme ve özdeşleşme düzeylerinin birlikte çalışma yeterliklerine etkisi. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(1), 474–503. https://doi.org/10.17860/efd.21683
  82. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Contemporary approaches to assessing mediation in communication research. In A. F. Hayes, M. D. Slater, & L. B. Snyder (Eds.), The SAGE sourcebook of advanced data analysis methods for communication research (pp. 13–54). Sage Publications.
  83. Rahman, A., & Ali, A. (2021). Investigating the organisational climate of secondary schools in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. International Research Journal of Education and Innovation, 2(2), 191–202. https://doi.org/10.53575/irjei.19-v2.2(21)191-202
  84. Rijnhart, J. J., Lamp, S. J., Valente, M. J., MacKinnon, D. P., Twisk, J. W., & Heymans, M. W. (2021). Mediation analysis methods used in observational research. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 21, Article 226. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01426-3
  85. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton University Press.
  86. Ruedas-Gracia, N., Jiang, G., & Maghsoodi, A. (2023). Is belonging stable over time? Emerging Adulthood, 11(4), 1022–1038. https://doi.org/10.1177/21676968231181720
  87. Saylık, A. (2017). Okul müdürlerinin paternalist (babacan) liderlik davranışları ile Hofstede'nin kültür boyutları arasındaki ilişki [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Ankara University.
  88. Scherer, R. F., Luther, D. C., Wiebe, F. A., & Adams, J. S. (1988). Dimensionality of coping. Psychological Reports, 62(3), 763–770.
  89. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23–74.
  90. Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422
  91. Smith, W. R. (2021). On relationality and organizationality. Organization Studies, 43(11), 1815–1837. https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406211035497
  92. Somech, A., & Bogler, R. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of teacher organisational and professional commitment. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(4), 555–577. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316102237672
  93. Soundararajan, L. (2018). Emotional dynamics among teaching professionals. International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development, 3(1), 287–294. https://doi.org/10.31142/ijtsrd18969
  94. Sözen, E. (1991). Sosyal kimlik kavramının sosyolojik ve sosyal psikolojik bir incelemesi. Sosyoloji Konferansları, 23, 93–108.
  95. Steffens, N. K., Haslam, S. A., Schuh, S. C., Jetten, J., & van Dick, R. (2016). A meta-analytic review of social identification and health. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21(4), 303–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868316656701
  96. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson Education.
  97. Tabak, H., & Boyacı, M. (2019). Öğretmen örgütsel kimlik algısı ölçeği’nin geliştirilmesi. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 52, 96–117. https://doi.org/10.21764/maeuefd.568144
  98. Tahili, M. H., Tolla, I., Ahmad, M. A., Saman, A., & Samad, S. (2021). Strategic collaboration and educational standards. Research in Social Sciences and Technology, 6(1), 53–82. https://doi.org/10.46303/ressat.2021.4
  99. Tajfel, H. (1978). Intergroup behavior. Penguin.
  100. 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.
  101. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Nelson-Hall.
  102. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (2004). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In J. T. Jost & J. Sidanius (Eds.), Political psychology: Key readings (pp. 276–293). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203505984-16
  103. Tavşancıl, E., & Keser, H. (2001). İnternete yönelik Likert tipi bir tutum ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 34(1), 45–60. https://doi.org/10.1501/Egifak_0000000043
  104. Totan, T., Aysan, F., & Bektaş, M. (2010). Öğretmen adaylarının mizaç, karakter ve kimlik özellikleri. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(2), 19–44.
  105. Trepte, S., & Loy, L. S. (2017). Social identity theory and self-categorization theory. In P. Rössler (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of media effects (pp. 1–13). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118783764.wbieme0088
  106. Tukuş, L. (2010). The self-esteem rating scale–short form Türkçe geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Kocaeli University.
  107. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Blackwell.
  108. van Dick, R. (2001). Identification and self-categorization processes in organisational contexts. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3, 265–283.
  109. van Dick, R., Wagner, U., Stellmacher, J., & Christ, O. (2004). The utility of a broader conceptualization of organisational identification. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(2), 171–191.
  110. Yaykıran, Z. (2020). İlköğretim okulu öğretmenlerinin örgütsel kimlik algıları ve örgütsel özdeşleşme düzeyleri arasındaki ilişki [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Hacettepe University.
  111. Yazıcı, F. (2016). Kimlik tutumları ölçeği: Bir ölçek geliştirme çalışması. Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education, 5(4), 41–54. https://doi.org/10.30703/cije.321414
  112. Yılmaz, E., & Turgut, M. (2016). Teachers' perceptions of organizational identity. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 3(1), 25–33.