Antecedents and Consequences of Social Identity Complexity: Intergroup Contact, Distinctiveness Threat, and Outgroup Attitudes

Abstract

Social identity complexity defines people's more or less complex cognitive representations of the interrelationships among their multiple ingroup identities. Being high in complexity is contingent on situational, cognitive, or motivational factors, and has positive consequences for intergroup relations. Two survey studies conducted in Northern Ireland examined the extent to which intergroup contact and distinctiveness threat act as antecedents, and outgroup attitudes as consequences, of social identity complexity. In both studies, contact was positively, and distinctiveness threat negatively, associated with complex multiple ingroup perceptions, whereas respondents with more complex identity structures also reported more favorable outgroup attitudes. Social identity complexity also mediated the effects of contact and distinctiveness threat on attitudes. This research highlights that the extent to which individuals perceive their multiple ingroups in more or less complex and differentiated ways is of central importance to understanding intergroup phenomena.

Building National Identity in Newborn Kosovo: Challenges of Integrating National Identity with Ethnic Identity Among Kosovar Albanians and Kosovar Serbs

“…Indeed, higher social identity complexity has been shown to positively predict a number of positive intergroup outcomes, including more favourable attitudes towards out-groups, more support for diversity policies and less distinctiveness threat (Brewer & Pierce, 2005 ;Miller, Brewer, & Arbuckle, 2009 ;Roccas & Brewer, 2002 ;Schmid, Hewstone, Tausch, Cairns, & Hughes, 2009 ). In this study we also examine whether, over and above the effects of superordinate categorisation, increased identity complexity is related to more positive intergroup relations.…”

“…Work on the antecedents of social identity complexity has suggested that identities tend to be more complex when people become more aware of the non-overlapping parts of their identities, for example, when they interact with ethnic out-groups or live in more diverse neighbourhoods, and when they experience lower distinctiveness threat (Brewer & Pierce, 2005 ;Schmid et al, 2009 ;Schmid, Hewstone, & Al Ramiah, 2013 ). Indeed, in the current study we also found that Kosovar Albanians displayed higher identity complexity to the degree that they reported less concern for the distinctiveness of their ethnic identity within the Kosovar identity.…”

“…Indeed, attesting the subjectivity of complexity research on minority groups in Australia (Brewer, Gonsalkorale, & Van Dommelen, 2013 ) found that minority members showed signifi cantly lower complexity (high overlap) than majority members, despite them being objectively less represented in the population (Brewer et al, 2013 ). We aimed to test whether for both ethnic groups higher identity complexity predicted more positive intergroup attitudes, including higher warmth towards the ethnic out-group, more willingness for intergroup contact and more positive evaluations of out-group members (Brewer & Pierce, 2005 ;Miller et al, 2009 ;Roccas & Brewer, 2002 ;Schmid et al, 2009 ). We also wanted to examine how social identity complexity relates to distinctiveness threat for these groups as previous research showed that higher distinctiveness threat is associated with lower social identity complexity (e.g.…”

“…We also wanted to examine how social identity complexity relates to distinctiveness threat for these groups as previous research showed that higher distinctiveness threat is associated with lower social identity complexity (e.g. Roccas & Brewer, 2002 ;Schmid et al, 2009 ).…”

Global Social Tolerance Index and multi-method country rankings sensitivity

“…First, our tolerance dimensions are not exhaustive and future research could examine other tolerance components. Second, individual-level tolerance research has considered both attitudes and behavioral intentions (e.g., Sagiv & Schwartz, 1995;Schmid, Hewstone, Tausch, Cairns, & Hughes, 2009), and future research could extend this distinction to the country level. Third, our tolerance component measures varied based on the current state of acceptance of a group in society and their representation within the WVS.…”