Dual identity merges sub-group distinctiveness with super-group inclusion to reduce conflict

Evidence

A dual identity refers to a state in which individuals simultaneously identify with membership in a subgroup as well as in a superordinate group. The dual identity concept was born out of the literature on intergroup contact (Brown & Hewstone, 2005; Dovidio et al., 2009; Gaertner et al., 1993) and combines the value that the maintenance of subgroups brings with the value that a more inclusive superordinate group brings to intergroup conflict reduction. The maintenance of subgroup boundaries allows individuals to value the differences that each group brings to the interaction (as described by the mutual intergroup differentiation model; Brown & Hewstone, 2005), and establishing a more inclusive group identity allows for cooperative interdependence (as described by the common in-group identity model; Gaertner et al., 1993). — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 695 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Analysis of identity scores revealed a marginally significant threeway interaction. Mean subgroup and superordinate identity scores were calculated using the equation generated from the general linear model at 1 standard deviation (SD) below and above the mean of subgroup size measure within the need for inclusion and need for differentiation conditions. These mean scores are presented in Table 6.3. Additional analysis revealed that when the need for inclusion was aroused, individuals were more likely to identify with the superordinate group than the subgroup when the subgroup was extremely small. However, the differences between superordinate group and subgroup identity were not significant when the subgroup was moderately small or when the need for differentiation was aroused. Altogether, these data support the notion that individuals can simultaneously identify with the subgroup and the superordinate group. Furthermore, supplementary analyses revealed that whereas there was a negative trend for the correlation between subgroup and superordinate identity when the need for inclusion was aroused (r = −.30), consistent with the notion that there was an antagonism between the two identities, there was a positive relation between subgroup and superordinate identity scores when the need for differentiation was aroused (r = .46). — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 725 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Distinguishing identification dimensions improves prediction of intergroup outcomes — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt: Modes…, 143; Ingroup-outgroup pairing, not either alone, drives identity shifts — Brandon Randolph-Seng, Darcy A. Reich, and Kenneth G. DeMarree, On the Nonconscious Antecedents of…, 50; Shared superordinate identity is neither necessary nor sufficient for intergroup tolerance — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt: International…, 800 (+19 more)

Broader Connections

• Simultaneous subgroup and superordinate identification reduces intergroup conflict #corroborates (0.95) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 695
• Activated needs for inclusion versus differentiation invert the correlation between subgroup and superordinate identification #complicates (0.76) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 725
• Eliminating group salience backfires because identity is meaningful and perceptually unavoidable #complicates (0.73)
• High identity complexity requires recognizing one’s in-groups as distinct and non-overlapping #complicates (0.72) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 527
• Identification with one’s group is strongest when both ingroup and outgroup are made salient #complicates (0.72) — Brandon Randolph-Seng, Darcy A. Reich, and Kenneth G. DeMarree, On the Nonconscious Antecedents of…, 23