# How does ethnic minority youth's dual self‐identification affect the formation of interethnic ties in friendship networks?

## TL;DR

This study explores how youth who identify with both a national majority and an ethnic minority form friendships, finding that they often connect more with their minority peers rather than bridging both groups.

## Contribution

The study introduces the role of dual identity construction in shaping interethnic friendship patterns, challenging assumptions about dual identifiers as social bridges.

## Key findings

- Dual identifiers primarily formed friendships with peers from their mono-minority group.
- Stronger national identification increased acceptance by the majority group but did not change friendship preferences.
- Different types of dual identifiers showed similar friendship patterns, indicating identity construction had little impact on network preferences.

## Abstract

In an increasingly ethnically diverse Europe, this study examined the potential of dual identifiers, those identifying with both a national majority and an ethnic minority, such as German–Turkish individuals, to facilitate integration. As members of two groups, dual identifiers may be in the advantageous position to form more interethnic connections in ethnically diverse social networks. We propose that dual identifiers' intergroup behavior and their attractiveness as friends depends on how they construct their dual identity, such as identifying with both identities equally (compartmentalization), identifying more with the majority group (dominance‐majority), or more with the minority group (dominance‐minority). We analyzed three waves of German school data (averagely 1965 students per wave, 45% dual identifiers). Longitudinal social network analysis (stochastic actor–oriented models) indicated that dual identifiers primarily befriended peers from their mono‐minority group rather than forming connections to both groups they belong to. Analyses that took the different constructions of dual identity into account further showed that (1) stronger national identification did not alter friendship preferences but increased acceptance by the majority group; (2) mono‐majority identifiers treated dual and mono‐minority identifiers similarly; and (3) different types of dual identifiers exhibited similar friendship patterns, suggesting that identity construction did not significantly correlate with network preferences. These findings challenge assumptions that dual identifiers can connect different ethnic groups in interethnic networks, highlighting the complexity of interethnic social ties.