Social identity complexity splits into quantifiable overlap and perceived similarity components

Evidence

Social identity complexity refers to the perceived interrelationships among individuals’ multiple social group memberships, that is, their multiple in-groups. Hence, it defines individuals’ more or less complex cognitive representations of their multiple social identities (Roccas & Brewer, 2002). Individuals may thus perceive their multiple in-groups as either largely overlapping or not overlapping. In the case of overlapping in-groups, only individuals who share membership on the sum of these identities are regarded as fellow in-group members, while people who share none, or only a few, of these identities are regarded as out-group members. Alternatively, individuals may be aware of the potential nonoverlap between categories, and thus acknowledge that others do not always share in-group membership on all of these self-descriptive categories, that is, that not all their multiple in-groups overlap (Brewer & Pierce, 2005; Roccas & Brewer, 2002). Although the former case reflects relatively lower and the latter case relatively higher social identity complexity, one should think of social identity complexity as being continuous, with variations in complexity ranging from low to high. — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 526

Actual category overlap will thus be, to some extent, predictive of social identity complexity, yet primarily so for the overlap complexity component of social identity complexity. Those individuals who identify with categories that are already characterized by a relatively high degree of actual overlap are, thus, likely to have relatively lower overlap complexity scores than will individuals whose important categories show considerably less actual overlap. For example, when seeking to assess overlap complexity based on self-categorized nationality and religion, Bangladeshi Muslims are likely to yield lower overlap complexity scores at an absolute level than German Muslims, based on the simple fact that the vast majority of people of Bangladeshi background are Muslim, whereas a tiny minority of German people is Muslim. — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 540

Social identity complexity may be conceptually divided into two distinct but related subcomponents: overlap complexity and similarity complexity. Overlap complexity most readily relates to the examples of actual versus perceived overlap mentioned above. It thus refers to the perceived quantifiable boundaries between categories, that is, the subjective perception of actual overlap in numbers or proportions between different categories. Similarity complexity, on the other hand, refers more to the perceived similarity between categories, that is, to the perceived defining, prototypical or evaluative properties of categories. Similarity complexity, thus, concerns the perceived similarities or differences in meaning associated with multiple in-groups, for example, whether an individual perceives being a member of one particular in-group as meaning very much the same as being a member of another in-group. To illustrate, a New York Democrat might perceive high overlap between the categories “New Yorker” and “Democrat” (e.g., he or she thinks that most New Yorkers are Democrats), as well as high similarity between the two categories (e.g., he or she thinks that the typical New Yorker is very similar to the typical Democrat or that being a New Yorker means very much the same as being a Democrat). Consequently, we might regard this individual as being relatively low in both overlap and similarity complexity, that is, as low in social identity complexity in general. Conversely, an individual showing less perceived overlap and similarity would be characterized by relatively higher overlap and similarity complexity, respectively, that is, as relatively higher in social identity complexity. — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 528

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines social identity complexity as the perceived interrelationships among multiple in-group memberships, ranging from overlapped (low) to nonoverlapping (high).
• XREF: Connects to the reader’s earlier material on social capital and in-group/out-group boundary drawing (Coleman chapter), and to generalized trust mechanisms. — connects to: Concealability of an identity and its normative status shape mixed-identity processes. — Anna X. Huang, Jacqueline M. Chen, and Juliane Degner, Being One or the Other, Both or…, 125; Identity alignment requires perceived sufficiency of similarity rather than actual sameness — Mary Bucholtz and Kira Hall, Identity and Interaction: A…, 75; the MOC “The False Compass: How Racial Categories Reorder Bodies, Minds, and the Self”
• QUESTION: This raises a measurement artifact concern: are nationality-religion complexity scores measuring democratic diversity rather than individual cognition? Worth chasing the construct validity debate.
• corroborated: 5 independent passages support this claim — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 526; Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 540; Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 528