Two opposing needs for inclusion and differentiation jointly drive social identification.

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 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

The optimal distinctiveness model (Brewer, 1991; Leonardelli, Pickett, & Brewer, 2010) posits that human beings are characterized by two opposing needs. The first is a need for assimilation and inclusion, a desire for belonging that motivates immersion in social groups. The second is a need for differentiation from others that operates in opposition to the need for inclusion. As group membership becomes more and more inclusive, the need for inclusion is satisfied but the need for differentiation is activated; conversely, as inclusiveness decreases, the differentiation need is reduced but the need for inclusion is activated. These competing drives hold each other in check, assuring that interests at one level are not consistently sacrificed for interests at the other. — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 667 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Ending gender dualism needs both continuity and difference recognition. — Val Plumwood, Feminism and the Mastery of Nature, 263; People are driven by opposing needs for inclusion and distinctiveness; Identification balances competing needs for inclusion and distinctiveness — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 577 (+9 more)

Broader Connections

• Identification balances competing needs for inclusion and distinctiveness #corroborates (0.95) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 577
• Inclusion and differentiation needs counterbalance each other in group identification #corroborates (0.95) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 667