People are driven by opposing needs for inclusion and distinctiveness

Evidence

Optimal distinctiveness theory (Brewer, 1991) advocates that individuals are driven by two opposing needs—a need for inclusion and assimilation and a need for differentiation and distinctiveness. These needs may differ across individuals and contexts. In order to reconcile these opposing needs, individuals are thought to self-categorize and identify with categories that are optimally distinct, that is, that are sufficiently inclusive to meet their needs for assimilation, but sufficiently exclusive to meet needs for distinctiveness (see Leonardelli, Pickett, & Brewer, 2010, for a detailed review; see also Leonardelli, Pickett, Joseph, & Hess, Chapter 6, this book). … Group boundaries may change, for example, and groups may become too inclusive, thus posing a threat to the individuals’ need for distinctiveness. Such threats to distinctiveness may, then again, have consequences for in-group perceptions. Thus, since high threats to distinctiveness may prompt a high need for distinctiveness, they should lead to stronger preferences for exclusive than inclusive identities (see Pickett, Silver, & Brewer, 2002). — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 577 (#expands, via linked claim)

According to ODT (Brewer, 1991), social identity is conceptualized as deriving from a “fundamental tension between human needs for validation and similarity to others (on the one hand) and a countervailing need for uniqueness and individuation (on the other)” (p. 477). Membership in moderately sized groups is considered to be optimal because there is a sufficient number of other individuals in the group, which allows for a sense of inclusion and belonging with other group members. At the same time, however, the group can be used as the basis for distinguishing the individual from nongroup members, thereby satisfying the need for distinctiveness. For example, a person may choose to join a group of sailing enthusiasts because doing so provides a sense of belonging with fellow sailors, while simultaneously allowing the individual to be distinguished from others (e.g., runners). — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 830 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Humans balance opposing needs for belonging and uniqueness through group identification. — Anna X. Huang, Jacqueline M. Chen, and Juliane Degner, Being One or the Other, Both or…, 96; Humans evolved opposing drives for inclusion and exclusion that keep group sizes bounded; Two opposing needs for inclusion and differentiation jointly drive social identification. (+8 more)

Broader Connections

• Two opposing needs for inclusion and differentiation jointly drive social identification. #expands (0.96)
• Identification balances competing needs for inclusion and distinctiveness #expands (0.94) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 577
• Group memberships satisfy conflicting needs for inclusion and distinctiveness #expands (0.93) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 830
• Group membership is chosen to balance simultaneous needs for inclusion and distinctiveness. #expands (0.92) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 830