Group membership hinges on self-categorization, not interaction frequency or shared goals

Evidence

Many orthodox definitions of “social groups” are unduly restrictive when applied to the context of intergroup relations. For example, when members of two national or ethnic categories interact on the basis of their reciprocal beliefs about their respective categories and of the general relations between them, this is clearly intergroup behavior in the everyday sense of the term. The “groups” to which the interactants belong need not depend upon the frequency of intermember interaction, systems of role relationships, or interdependent goals. From the social-psychological perspective, the essential criteria for group membership, as they apply to large-scale social categories, are that the individuals concerned define themselves and are defined by others as members of a group. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2714

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines the social-cognitive criterion distinguishing groups from mere aggregates: self-definition and being-defined-as, overriding interactionist requirements.
• XREF: connects to: Check-writing membership without member contact creates no social capital — Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone The Collapse and Revival…, 160; Group membership can be sustained through embodied co-presence without conversation — Nina Eliasoph, Avoiding politics: how Americans…, 685; Guilt requires self-categorizing as a group member — Torsten Masson and Markus Barth, The identification-guilt paradox…, 20 (+2 more)