Dual identification requires the superordinate group to feel optimally distinct

Evidence

In other words, identification with both the superordinate group and the subgroups increased to the extent that each group was seen as satisfying the needs for inclusion and differentiation. In addition, indices of optimal distinctiveness were computed for the superordinate group and the participants’ subgroups by summing participants’ ratings of inclusion and differentiation need satisfaction for the two groups. Values on these indices were higher to the extent that participants viewed their superordinate group and their subordinate group as satisfying the needs for inclusion and differentiation. As shown in Table 6.2, the more optimally distinct participants perceived the superordinate group to be, the more they identified with both the superordinate group and the subgroup. Subgroup optimal distinctiveness only predicted subgroup identification. Finally, in this sample, subgroup identification and superordinate group identification were significantly positively related (r = .24, p < .01). However, the magnitude of this correlation varied depending on the optimal distinctiveness of the superordinate group. Among those participants who perceived the superordinate group to be less optimally distinct (based on a median split of the index of superordinate group optimal distinctiveness), the relation between superordinate group identification and subgroup identification was not significant (r = .06). By contrast, among those participants who perceived the superordinate group to be more optimally distinct, superordinate group identification and subgroup identification were positively related (r = .31, p < .01). These data support the proposal that dual identification (identification with both the superordinate group and the subgroup) is more likely to occur when the superordinate group is perceived to be optimally distinct. — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 705

With this assumption in mind, the authors predicted that the local employees would exhibit dueling identities, that is, the more they perceived the local–foreign categories to reflect a meaningful difference among employees, the less they would identify with the organization. Consistent with this prediction, analysis revealed that the more local employees perceived local and foreign coworker categories to be meaningfully distinct, the less the employees identified with the organization as a whole (r = −.26). This effect is also consistent with other research in nested categorization contexts (e.g., Sidanius, Feshbach, Levin, & Pratto, 1997; Waldzus, Mummendey, Wenzel, & Boettcher, 2004); for example, the more the ethnic minorities in the United States identified with their ethnic group, the less they identified with the United States (Sidanius et al., 1997). Overall, evidence supports the notion that in nested categorization contexts, individuals gravitate to identify more with the subgroup than the superordinate group, and defend the subgroup when the superordinate category is more inclusive. — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 683

Categorization

• XREF: Complicates and extends the Allport/prejudice thread: shows subordinate vs. superordinate group identification as competitive (dueling), paralleling how immigrant minorities may treat host-nation identity as subtractive relative to ethnic identity. — connects to: Assuming shared identity permits recognizing differences across experience. — Farhan Samanani, Conviviality and its others: for a…, 46; Shared superordinate identity is neither necessary nor sufficient for intergroup tolerance — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt: International…, 800; Superordinate identities reduce bias and can mitigate perceived threat between groups. — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup…, 174 (+1 more)
• corroborated: 3 independent passages support this claim — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 705; Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 683