Concealability of an identity and its normative status shape mixed-identity processes.

Evidence

Along with these similarities, there may be important differences and idiosyncrasies of (complex) social identities that affect these identification processes, for example, the visibility, salience or concealability of certain identities (e.g., sexual orientation vs. racial identity). Furthermore, we assume that sociohistorical contexts significantly shape complex identities: For example, in many cultures and societies, gender is normatively defined as binary and fixed, and the mere existence of further (e.g., non-binary) gender identities is questioned or even prohibited. — Anna X. Huang, Jacqueline M. Chen, and Juliane Degner, Being One or the Other, Both or Neither, 125

Categorization

• XREF: Directly relevant to the reading purpose on how internal heterogeneity interacts with ingroup essentialism; normatively-binary gender is the clearest analogue of a high-entitativity ingroup where pressure to conform would be maximal. — connects to: Ingroup rejection lowers belonging yet paradoxically heightens the need for it — Anna X. Huang, Jacqueline M. Chen, and Juliane Degner, Being One or the Other, Both or…, 118; Mixed individuals face recurring identity questions, denials of belonging, and family pressures to choose — Anna X. Huang, Jacqueline M. Chen, and Juliane Degner, Being One or the Other, Both or…, 86; Mixed individuals shift identification within a single social domain. — Anna X. Huang, Jacqueline M. Chen, and Juliane Degner, Being One or the Other, Both or…, 79 (+4 more)

Related

• Mixed individuals shift identification within a single social domain. (similarity 0.87)
• Mixed individuals face recurring identity questions, denials of belonging, and family pressures to choose (similarity 0.87)
• Identity denial may make mixed-race people shift identification to a different ingroup (similarity 0.84)
• Identity denial decreases belonging, then increases effort to regain inclusion in the excluding group. (similarity 0.83)
• Mixed individuals categorically shift toward whichever mono-racial prototype is absent (similarity 0.81)
• Mixed individuals’ identity choices are frequently invalidated by mono-racial others. (similarity 0.81)
• Different identity motives drive Mixed individuals toward different target groups. (similarity 0.81)
• Social identity theories presume unambiguous single-category membership that mixed individuals lack (similarity 0.81)
• Shared discrimination or invalidation experiences shape Mixed individuals’ felt similarity to groups. (similarity 0.81)
• Identity shifting to a higher-status group risks poorer well-being and distrust for mixed individuals (similarity 0.80)
• Mixed-identity individuals shift ingroup identification according to which dimension holds higher status (similarity 0.80)
• Identity threats named by social identity research split into individual versus group-level types (similarity 0.80)
• Mixed people face most identity threats in settings that force mono-racial categories (similarity 0.80)
• Uncertainty reduction may push mixed-race people toward the most entitative available group. (similarity 0.80)
• Mixed individuals endorse less essentialist racial beliefs than monoracial peers. (similarity 0.80)

Broader Connections

• Social identity complexity splits into quantifiable overlap and perceived similarity components #expands (0.80) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 526
• Perceiving one’s own multiple identities as overlapping less predicts broader tolerance #expands (0.78)
• Visible minority identity blocks victims’ comforting assumption of random victimization. #exemplifies (0.75) — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 362