Mixed individuals’ self-categorization often conflicts with how others categorize them.

Evidence

Tajfel et al. never explicitly accounted for the possibility of ambiguity in group membership, such as when a participant’s random assignment to only the Klee group may have disagreed with their additional personal identification with the Kandinsky group. Third, SIT and SCT do not account for situations in which self-identification and perceived identification (by others) are incongruent. Yet in real-life groups and interactions, Mixed individuals’ self-categorization frequently differs from how they are categorized by others (Franco et al. 2019). — Anna X. Huang, Jacqueline M. Chen, and Juliane Degner, Being One or the Other, Both or Neither, 16

Categorization

  • XREF: Central to the reader’s research question: incongruent self vs. perceived identification is the core pressure point that entitativity-based ingroup demands would exploit for mixed-identity members. — connects to: Mixed individuals receive contradictory phenotypic similarity cues across their parental categories — Anna X. Huang, Jacqueline M. Chen, and Juliane Degner, Being One or the Other, Both or…, 39; Mixed individuals’ identity choices are frequently invalidated by mono-racial others. — Anna X. Huang, Jacqueline M. Chen, and Juliane Degner, Being One or the Other, Both or…, 105; Mixed individuals shift self-categorization across situations because similarity tests prove inconclusive. — Anna X. Huang, Jacqueline M. Chen, and Juliane Degner, Being One or the Other, Both or…, 65 (+2 more)
  • QUESTION: How does the requirement that group members both self-define and be defined by others interact with a heterogeneous group under essentialist pressure? This is exactly the contested node worth designing around.

Broader Connections