In-group identity is defined only through contrast with out-groups
Evidence
This form of depersonalization occurs in a comparative context between in-groups and out-groups. That is, the categorization of the self as a group member is more likely to occur insofar as the perceived differences between in-group members are less than the perceived differences between in-group and out-group members. Accordingly, social identity theory posits that in-groups cannot be defined in isolation from out-groups, but rather that they gain their definition from comparisons and contrasts to out-groups. Because the self is defined at the level of the in-group, value is derived from maximizing positive distinctiveness between in-groups and out-groups. Thus, intergroup status differentials and one’s group having higher status are critical. — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1608
Categorization
Category: Causal Relationships
Related
- In-groups acquire definition only through comparison and contrast with out-groups (similarity 0.99)
- Social identity derives its value from comparisons against out-groups (similarity 0.88)
- Groups only compare themselves with relevant out-groups, not all available ones. (similarity 0.88)
- Multiple in-group categories can be cognitively represented in simplified or complex ways (similarity 0.87)
- Defining oneself by what one is not can recategorize former out-groups as in-group members. (similarity 0.87)
- Group behavior arises from depersonalized self-representation as interchangeable category exemplars (similarity 0.85)
- In-group bias arises from preferential in-group treatment rather than out-group hostility (similarity 0.85)
- Threats to distinctiveness drive simplified views of one’s multiple group memberships (similarity 0.85)
- People derive self-worth from group membership and denigrate outsiders to protect it (similarity 0.85)
- Awareness of an out-group alone suffices to trigger intergroup competition (similarity 0.85)
- Outgroups are not typically salient when people think about their ingroup (similarity 0.85)
- Recategorizing outgroup members as ingroup members diminishes perceived threat. (similarity 0.84)
- Social identity complexity governs who counts as an in-group member (similarity 0.84)
- Only emotional attachment to one’s group, not categorization or self-esteem, drives in-group favoritism (similarity 0.84)
- Hate of the out-group can arise from mere self-definition by contrast, no competition needed (similarity 0.84)