Negational identification unites out-groups through shared non-membership rather than shared membership.

Evidence

Our conceptualization of negational identification shares theoretical connections with intergroup theories of recategorization and common enemies. Unlike the recategorization schemes that have been previously examined in the literature (Gaertner et al., 1989), which tend to focus on highlighting similarities through common membership, negational identification highlights distinctions and non-membership. Negational identification can be seen as an alternative form of recategorization: former out-groups are united around non-membership and as a result become in-group members. Our results demonstrate that negational categorization can be a powerful force in social interaction, even compared to the more conventional categorization strategies that focuses on affirmational ties (e.g., we are all Democrats). — Chen-Bo Zhong, Adam D. Galinsky, and Miguel M. Unzueta, Negational racial identity and…, 37

Categorization

• DEFINE: Sharp definition of negational identification as an inversion of recategorization: in-grouping emerges from what members are NOT, not what they share.
• XREF: The ‘we are all not X’ vs ‘we are all X’ inversion is a theoretical hinge for how the We-They Engine could classify identity mechanics. — connects to: Negational identity can build coalitions across minority groups by de-emphasizing in-group. — Chen-Bo Zhong, Adam D. Galinsky, and Miguel M. Unzueta, Negational racial identity and…, 47; Identity can be formed negationally by focusing on group non-membership. — Chen-Bo Zhong, Adam D. Galinsky, and Miguel M. Unzueta, Negational racial identity and…, 17; Negational identification can unite people who cannot agree on positive identity — Chen-Bo Zhong, Adam D. Galinsky, and Miguel M. Unzueta, Negational racial identity and…, 19 (+8 more)

Broader Connections

• Intergroup warmth is a hypothesized mechanism for the negational identity effect #expands (0.85) — Chen-Bo Zhong, Adam D. Galinsky, and Miguel M. Unzueta, Negational racial identity and…, 27
• Making negational identity salient shifts voting choices toward shared out-group members #exemplifies (0.82) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1115
• Negational identities produce both out-group derogation and in-group favoritism #expands (0.78) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1112
• Mere identification with a category can produce ingroup bias without any conflict #complicates (0.76) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 2003
• Simultaneous subgroup and superordinate identification reduces intergroup conflict #complicates (0.75) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 695
• Reframing outgroups as part of a shared superordinate identity reduces bias #complicates (0.74) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 564
• Identification with one’s group is strongest when both ingroup and outgroup are made salient #qualifies (0.72) — Brandon Randolph-Seng, Darcy A. Reich, and Kenneth G. DeMarree, On the Nonconscious Antecedents of…, 23