Digital Mind 🧠

🪵 The Threshold

Identities defined by what one is not breed out-group hostility without competition

Properties2
tagsja-picks, causal_relationships, singleton, xref, category/causal-relationships
aliases@roderick_m_kramer_social_2011, loc. 1112, @roderick_m_kramer_social_2011, loc. 1113, @roderick_m_kramer_social_2011, loc. 1120

4 min read

Identities defined by what one is not breed out-group hostility without competition

Evidence

Another possible answer comes from research on negational identities-identities defined by what one is not (e.g., not a Republican) rather than what one is (e.g., a Democrat; Zhong, Galinsky, & Unzueta, 2008a; Zhong, Phillips, Leonardelli, & Galinsky, 2008b). It may be the case that white supremacists are prone to negational identification, defining themselves partially in terms of who they are not (not black, Jewish, Asian, etc.). Negational identification leads to a distinct pattern of intergroup bias. In a minimal group study (Zhong et al., 2008b, study 2), participants who were given a negational identity (“you do not belong to the Type M group”) displayed higher levels of out-group derogation but not in-group favoritism than participants given an affirmational identity (“you belong to the Type M group”). Affirmational identity resulted in in-group favoritism but not out-group derogation, whereas negational identity resulted in both in-group favoritism and out-group derogation. This suggests that positive distinctiveness was achieved via somewhat different routes, with the negational identity condition deviating from the typical finding that intergroup bias is primarily a function of in-group favoritism (e. — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1112 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Notably, in Zhong et al.’s (2008a, 2008b) research, the intergroup context was devoid of competition, threat, or other factors associated with zero-sum conditions; out-group derogation resulted from negational categorization alone. Out-group derogation may be “a natural consequence” of negational identification because negational identities focus on how the self is dissimilar to an out-group (i.e., contrast from the out-group; Zhong et al., 2008b, p. 798). For affirmational identities, the focus is on how the self is similar to other in-group members 184 • Karen Gonsalkorale and William von Hippel (i. — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1113 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Whites who are not white supremacists may be less likely to perceive a dichotomy between their racial in-group and out-groups. When people do perceive an out-group as defining their in-group, they may be more likely to exhibit out-group negativity and show interdependence between in-group and out-group attitudes. In cases where groups are reciprocally defining, it should be very difficult for individuals who identify with their group to achieve positive distinctiveness without derogating the out-group. This idea can be tested in future research by examining groups that define “us” as not being “them.” For example, the identity of some atheists (who are identified as such) may rest heavily on the fact that they are not people who subscribe to religious beliefs. In contrast, the identity of agnostics may not necessarily depend on comparisons with religious people. This difference implies that people who identify themselves as atheists will display reciprocally negative attitudes toward people who are high in religiosity, whereas the intergroup attitudes of agnostic people will not exhibit this relationship. Thus, although evidence of reciprocity in the current research was based on an extreme group, more mainstream groups that have reciprocally defining features may also show a negative relationship between in-group and out-group attitudes. — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1120 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

  • XREF: connects to: German group identity was defined by being least like outgroups — Leonard S. Newman and Ralph Erber (eds.), Understanding Genocide: The Social…, 913; Defining identity by who one is not produces out-group hate, not just in-group love — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1112; Groups whose identity means not being an out-group inevitably derogate that out-group — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1120 (+5 more)

Broader Connections

✉️

Backlinks