Threats to distinctiveness drive simplified views of one’s multiple group memberships

Evidence

Social identity complexity pertains to the cognitive representation of one’s multiple in-group categories in more or less complex ways. Hence, if one’s need for distinctiveness is under threat, one may not, or not only, be inclined to seek greater exclusiveness surrounding the single category under threat but perhaps will hold more exclusive, simplified multiple in-group perceptions. — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 578

Categorization

Category: Causal Relationships

• DEFINE: Defines social identity complexity as the cognitive representation of multiple in-group categories as more or less complex.

Related

• Multiple in-group categories can be cognitively represented in simplified or complex ways (similarity 0.95)
• Threat to distinctiveness drives more complex identity structures, but evidence is sparse (similarity 0.92)
• Perceived threat to group distinctiveness reduces social identity complexity (similarity 0.90)
• People vary in how much their multiple group memberships overlap cognitively (similarity 0.88)
• High identity complexity requires recognizing one’s in-groups as distinct and non-overlapping (similarity 0.87)
• Representing multiple group memberships as overlapping raises tolerance for diversity (similarity 0.87)
• Social identity complexity is an individual difference tied to personally central categories. (similarity 0.87)
• People differ in how they integrate their multiple group memberships into self-identity. (similarity 0.87)
• Social identity complexity mediates how intergroup contact shapes out-group attitudes (similarity 0.86)
• Increasing cognitive complexity of one’s own identities reduces out-group prejudice without abandoning those identities (similarity 0.86)
• Social identity complexity governs who counts as an in-group member (similarity 0.85)
• Social identity complexity is an individual-difference variable, not a manipulable experimental condition. (similarity 0.85)
• In-group identity is defined only through contrast with out-groups (similarity 0.85)
• Threat from similar outgroups drives more bias than threat from dissimilar ones. (similarity 0.85)
• Improving intergroup relations requires changing identity thinking, not identity categories. (similarity 0.85)