Measuring multiple identities: what is lost with a zero-sum approach

Abstract

This paper demonstrates the substantive and methodological flaws of a zero-sum, oppositional approach to conceptualizing multiple identities and suggests that each identity should be measured separately. Using original survey data from secondary school students in the Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia (N = 4417), the paper demonstrates that the oppositional approach is only appropriate where individuals perceive the identities to be incongruent. However, I argue that even where this commonly used oppositional approach fits the macro-level context, it is a normatively tainted measure of identity. Moreover, it can only gauge the relative importance of the two identities, and does not shed light on the absolute strength of either identity. By comparing the performance of each measurement approach as predictors of out-group antipathy, the paper demonstrates how the zero-sum approach clouds important relationships between each form of identification and other variables of interest.