Dual-identity members cannot elevate one ingroup’s status at the other’s expense.

Evidence

For example, changing the value of the salient comparative dimension (option a) only constitutes a satisfactory change of status differences if, consequently, both groups’ characteristics are evaluated positively. Similarly, changing the comparison dimension (option b) may only constitute a satisfactory change of status differences if both identity-relevant ingroups have a similar status on that alternative dimension. For example, a Black/White individual can hardly derive positive collective self-esteem from focusing on the interpersonal warmth of Blacks if it is at the expense of Whites being seen as cold. If, as in this example, a change of comparison or value system results in the reversal of the groups’ positions on the status hierarchy relative to each other, this would not resolve the presumably unsatisfactory state of belonging to both the high and the low status groups. — Anna X. Huang, Jacqueline M. Chen, and Juliane Degner, Being One or the Other, Both or Neither, 75

Categorization

• XREF: Directly relevant to the reader’s dissertation on how entitativity/ingroup pressures bear on internally heterogeneous group members. — connects to: 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; Dual identity reduces bias in some contexts but increases it in others. — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 592

Related

• Mixed-identity individuals shift ingroup identification according to which dimension holds higher status (similarity 0.87)
• Dual identity reduces bias in some contexts but increases it in others. (similarity 0.84)
• Raising identification with a high-status group need not lower lower-status identification. (similarity 0.83)
• Identity shifting to a higher-status group risks poorer well-being and distrust for mixed individuals (similarity 0.82)
• Mixed individuals shift identification within a single social domain. (similarity 0.82)
• Different identity motives drive Mixed individuals toward different target groups. (similarity 0.81)
• Mixed individuals shift self-categorization across situations because similarity tests prove inconclusive. (similarity 0.81)
• Mixed-identity people shift self-categorizations situationally because prototype-similarity assessments stay inconclusive (similarity 0.81)
• Dual identity reduces intergroup bias when subgroup identities are recognized and valued (similarity 0.81)
• Identity denial may make mixed-race people shift identification to a different ingroup (similarity 0.80)
• Mixed individuals seek high-entitativity ingroups to reduce identity uncertainty (similarity 0.80)
• Mixed individuals endorse less essentialist racial beliefs than monoracial peers. (similarity 0.80)
• Status-improvement strategies fail when targets belong to both high- and low-status groups (similarity 0.80)
• Social identity theories presume unambiguous single-category membership that mixed individuals lack (similarity 0.80)
• Constructivist mixed individuals shift identification toward higher-status groups for personal gain. (similarity 0.80)

Broader Connections

• Dual identity reduces bias in some contexts but increases it in others. #complicates (0.82) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 592