Superordinate inclusiveness stems from social comparisons about relative category size
Evidence
As theory stipulates (Brewer, 1993) and evidence supports (Hornsey & Hogg, 1999), group members identify with and prefer the more exclusive subgroup particularly as the superordinate category’s inclusiveness increases. Moreover, group inclusiveness originates from social comparisons (Brewer, 1991; Leonardelli et al., 2010), and, in particular, the size of one category relative to another. However, what has not been addressed, but has important implications for group identification in nested category contexts, is what social comparison is defining the superordinate category’s inclusiveness. We distinguish between two such comparisons: (1) vertical and (2) horizontal comparisons. — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 684
Categorization
Category: Causal Relationships
Related
- Group identification in inclusive categories depends on which social comparison defines the category’s inclusiveness (similarity 0.92)
- Horizontal comparisons enable dual subgroup-superordinate identity where vertical ones force a choice (similarity 0.88)
- Whether people hold dual identities depends on the comparison type used to judge inclusiveness (similarity 0.88)
- Vertical comparisons create identity antagonism while horizontal ones allow dual identity (similarity 0.86)
- Shifting comparison frames can motivate recategorization toward superordinate groups. (similarity 0.85)
- Only highly inclusive superordinate categories trigger subgroup favoritism, a nonlinear effect (similarity 0.85)
- Dual identification occurs when both subgroup and superordinate group are moderately inclusive (similarity 0.84)
- Individuals prefer superordinate identity when the subgroup is too small to satisfy inclusion needs. (similarity 0.83)
- Recategorization succeeds only if the superordinate category is perceived as distinctive (similarity 0.82)
- Extremely small ingroups trigger antagonism toward them only under an aroused need for inclusion (similarity 0.81)
- People gravitate toward subgroup over superordinate identities in nested categories (similarity 0.81)
- Dual identification requires the superordinate group to feel optimally distinct (similarity 0.81)
- Intergroup comparisons operate within nested levels of more inclusive group identities (similarity 0.80)
- Excessive group inclusion triggers subgroup formation rather than full individuation (similarity 0.80)
- Activated needs for inclusion versus differentiation shift which nested group members identify with. (similarity 0.79)