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