When a Label Becomes a LimitationHow We Categorise People Before We Know Them
An exploration of social psychology, cultural identity, and the assumptions we make about others.
We often think we understand people by learning a few basic things about them. Where they come from, what language they speak, where they grew up. These details help us place someone within a familiar framework, giving us a starting point for understanding who they might be.
But how much can we really know about a person from a label?
Imagine meeting someone who has lived in four different countries. You might assume they are adaptable, open-minded, or comfortable with change. Perhaps they are. But what if they find change exhausting? What if, despite having lived in several places, they feel most connected to one culture? Or what if none of these places feels entirely like home?
The moment we make an assumption about them, we begin turning a piece of information into a story. And sometimes, that story has very little to do with the person standing in front of us.
This is not necessarily because we intend to judge others. It is partly because of how we make sense of the world. We use categories to organise information, recognise patterns, and navigate unfamiliar situations. The difficulty begins when those categories stop being a starting point and become the limits of what we believe a person can be.
The psychology behind the labels we use
Social psychologist Susan T. Fiske has extensively studied how people form impressions of others and how stereotypes influence social perception.
In her 2012 article, Managing Ambivalent Prejudices: The Smart-But-Cold, and the Warm-But-Dumb Stereotypes, Fiske writes:
“Social categories such as gender, race, and age immediately impinge on impressions, whether we like it or not.”
Her observation highlights something important: the social categories we associate with people can shape our impressions, even before we know much about them as individuals.
We encounter this in everyday life. We may link a nationality to a particular personality, assume someone holds certain beliefs because of their background, or expect someone raised internationally to be comfortable in any environment.
These assumptions can happen quickly, sometimes without our awareness.
As Fiske also observes:
“People often act on these categories, unaware of their influence.”
The implications extend beyond obvious prejudice. Even assumptions that sound positive can shape how we perceive someone.
Calling a person independent, worldly, or naturally adaptable might seem like a compliment. Yet these descriptions can become expectations when we apply them simply because of someone's background.
A person can be proud of having grown up between cultures and still struggle with change. They can speak several languages without feeling equally connected to each one. They can have experienced many different environments without feeling that they belong everywhere.
The category may tell us something about their experiences. It cannot tell us everything about who they are.
The problem with positive stereotypes
When we talk about stereotypes, we often imagine negative assumptions: that someone is less capable, less intelligent, or less trustworthy because of their background.
But stereotypes do not always sound negative.
We might assume that someone who has travelled extensively must be open-minded. That a person who speaks several languages must be confident in unfamiliar situations. Or that someone who has grown up internationally must have a strong sense of belonging everywhere.
These assumptions may sound flattering, but they can still prevent us from seeing someone clearly.
Fiske's research examines how stereotypes can involve different, sometimes contradictory, judgements about groups. In her 2012 article, she writes:
“Not all bias is the same; prejudice is not one-size-fits-all.”
This is a useful reminder that our assumptions about others are not always straightforward. We can admire one aspect of a person while making an equally limiting assumption about another.
For example, we might admire a Third Culture Kid's adaptability while overlooking the uncertainty that can accompany frequent change. We might assume that someone who has experienced several cultures can easily navigate differences, without considering how much effort that requires.
The problem is not that positive qualities should not be recognised. It is that they should not be assigned to people automatically.
A compliment can become a limitation when it leaves no room for someone to be different from what we expect.
What happens when a label becomes an identity?
For people who grow up between cultures, labels can be both useful and complicated.
Terms such as Third Culture Kid, expat, international student and global citizen offer ways to describe experiences that might otherwise be difficult to explain. They can help people recognise shared experiences and find others who understand their backgrounds.
But a label can also create expectations.
Being described as a Third Culture Kid might suggest that someone has grown up between cultures, but it cannot tell us how they relate to those cultures. It does not tell us whether they feel connected to their parents' country, whether they consider the country where they grew up home, or whether they identify strongly with any national culture at all.
Two people can share the same label and have very different relationships with their identities.
One might feel that growing up internationally gave them a strong sense of connection to the world. Another might struggle to explain where they belong. Someone else might not think about their cultural identity very often.
None of these experiences makes someone more or less of a Third Culture Kid.
The label describes a broad experience. It does not determine what that experience means to each individual.
This distinction matters because identity is not simply something we inherit or something others assign to us. It is also shaped by how we interpret our experiences, how we relate to other people, and how we understand ourselves over time.
When we assume that a category tells us who someone is, we risk confusing a description of their background with an explanation of their identity.
The difference between recognising patterns and making assumptions
It would be unrealistic to expect people to approach every interaction without any assumptions. Categories help us process information and make sense of a complex social world. The research by Fiske and her colleagues does not suggest that categorisation can simply be switched off.
In their 1987 study, Category-Based and Attribute-Based Reactions to Others: Some Informational Conditions of Stereotyping and Individuating Processes, Fiske, Steven L. Neuberg, Ann E. Beattie and Sandra J. Milberg examined how people form impressions based on categories and individual characteristics.
Their research suggests that impression formation can range from relying primarily on categories to paying greater attention to information about the individual. The process depends partly on the information available and how easily the person can be placed into a familiar category.
This distinction offers a useful way to think about our everyday interactions.
When we meet someone, we may initially notice their nationality, profession, age or cultural background. But as we learn more about their experiences, opinions and behaviour, we have an opportunity to develop a more individual understanding of them.
The important question is whether we remain open to new information.
If we assume that someone is reserved because of their culture, will we notice the moments when they are expressive and outgoing? If we believe that someone who grew up abroad must be adaptable, will we recognise when they need stability? Or will we interpret everything they do as confirmation of what we already believe?
An initial impression does not have to become a permanent judgement. We can recognise a pattern without assuming that it applies to everyone.
Perhaps understanding another person begins with accepting that our first interpretation might be incomplete.
Learning to look beyond what we think we know
Growing up between cultures can make questions about identity particularly visible, but these questions are not exclusive to Third Culture Kids.
Everyone belongs to multiple social groups. We are shaped by family, language, education, friendships, communities and the environments in which we grow up. Each of these can influence how others perceive us, as well as how we understand ourselves.
Sometimes these influences align. At other times, they create expectations that do not quite fit together.
We may be seen as one thing by our family and another by our friends. We may identify with a particular culture while feeling that others do not fully recognise that connection. We may change over time, even as people continue to associate us with an older version of ourselves.
This is one reason why leaving room for individual experience matters.
Instead of assuming that we already understand someone because we know where they come from, we can ask questions. Instead of interpreting every behaviour through a familiar cultural framework, we can consider alternative explanations. And instead of expecting people to fit the labels associated with them, we can allow them to describe their own experiences.
These are small changes, but they shift the purpose of a category. Rather than using it to decide who someone is, we can use it as an invitation to learn more.
The same principle applies to the labels we give ourselves.
A term such as Third Culture Kid can offer language for an experience we have struggled to explain. It can help us recognise patterns and connect with others. But we do not have to make every part of our identity fit within that definition.
We can identify with a group without sharing every characteristic associated with it. We can value our cultural background without allowing it to dictate who we should become.
Understanding ourselves, like understanding others, requires more than finding the right label.
It requires being willing to look beyond it.
Beyond the label
Categories are part of how we make sense of the world. They help us organise information, recognise similarities and navigate social situations. The challenge is not to stop categorising people, but to recognise the limits of what those categories can tell us.
A person's background can offer valuable context. It can help us understand some of their experiences, but it cannot tell us what they believe, what they value, or how they see themselves.
The same is true of the labels we use to describe ourselves. They can provide a starting point for understanding our experiences without becoming a complete definition of who we are.
Perhaps the most important shift is learning to distinguish between what we know about someone and what we assume about them.
Because there is a difference between recognising a person and recognising a category.
And the next time we think we understand someone because we know where they come from, perhaps the more interesting question is this: how much of that person have we actually taken the time to know? Resources: 1. Fiske, S. T. (2012). Managing Ambivalent Prejudices: The Smart-But-Cold, and the Warm-But-Dumb Stereotypes. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 639(1), 33–48.
2. Fiske, S. T., Neuberg, S. L., Beattie, A. E., & Milberg, S. J. (1987). Category-Based and Attribute-Based Reactions to Others: Some Informational Conditions of Stereotyping and Individuating Processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 23(5), 399–427.
Comments