Identity antagonism emerges specifically when an exclusive subgroup meets an activated inclusion need.

Evidence

The researchers thus expected a three-way interaction between need state (inclusion, differentiation), the subgroup’s relative size, and identity type (subgroup, superordinate) to predict identity scores. Specifically, identity antagonism would occur—where individuals identify more with the superordinate group than the subgroup—when the subgroup’s size was extremely small and the need for inclusion was aroused. Otherwise, individuals were expected to identify to similar degrees with their subgroup and superordinate group categories (thereby reporting a dual identity). — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 721

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines ‘identity antagonism’ precisely: identifying more with the parent category than one’s own exclusive subgroup.
• XREF: connects to: Antagonism is an ever-present possibility inherent to collective identity formation — Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, 65