Ingroup membership is a shifting, context-dependent self-definition tied to self-enhancement

Evidence

Anticipating some later theoretical developments (see below), he suggested that an ingroup exists when “members [of it] all use the term we with the same essential significance” (p. 31). Thus, at the outset Allport opts for a subjective conception of the ingroup rather than one based purely on objective criteria, emphasizing that ingroup attachment is a shifting and elastic process, dependent on the particular context in which one finds oneself. He explains that “ingroup memberships are not permanently fixed. For certain purposes an individual may affirm one category of membership, for other purposes a slightly larger category. It depends on his need for self-enhancement” (p. 35). — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 424

Anticipating some later theoretical developments (see below), he suggested that an ingroup exists when “members [of it] all use the term we with the same essential significance” (p. 31). Thus, at the outset Allport opts for a subjective conception of the ingroup rather than one based purely on objective criteria, emphasizing that ingroup attachment is a shifting and elastic process, dependent on the particular context in which one finds oneself. He explains that “ingroup memberships are not permanently fixed. For certain purposes an individual may affirm one category of membership, for other purposes a slightly larger category. It depends on his need for self-enhancement” (p. 35). — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 424

Allport begins by considering what ingroups are. Anticipating some later theoretical developments (see below), he suggested that an ingroup exists when “members [of it] all use the term we with the same essential significance” (p. 31). Thus, at the outset Allport opts for a subjective conception of the ingroup rather than one based purely on objective criteria, emphasizing that ingroup attachment is a shifting and elastic process, dependent on the particular context in which one finds oneself. He explains that “ingroup memberships are not permanently fixed. For certain purposes an individual may affirm one category of membership, for other purposes a slightly larger category. It depends on his need for self-enhancement” (p. 35). — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 424

Categorization

• XREF: The self-enhancement-driven elasticity of group membership connects to Optimal Distinctiveness Theory later in this chapter, and to the broader social identity literature. — connects to: Self-interest is redefined by whatever level the collective self-categorisation occupies — John Drury, The role of social identity processes…, 50; Participation itself changes participants’ self-conceptions before any external victory
• QUESTION: Allport’s ‘need for self-enhancement’ as the driver of shifting group boundaries — worth probing how this relates to threat-based ingroup narrowing (e.g., ethnic group salience spikes under threat).
• DEFINE: Allport defines ingroup membership subjectively (shared ‘we’) rather than by objective criteria, and as elastic across contexts.
• corroborated: 5 independent passages support this claim — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 424; , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 424