Those categories that align most the perceived relations between self and others - "in terms of normative fit or content" (Oakes et. al 1991). Individuals use personal theories and perspectives on what social categories are "supposed to be like" based on their background knowledge and experiences (Murphy and Medin 1985)

In-group composition on the salience of self-categories

Members within a group must not just be more similar with each-other than different from other groups (comparative fit).  They must also have the similarities and differences that are consistent with our beliefs and theories about the particular group (the perceived social meaning of the social category)

University of Michigan - Ann Arbor

The fit of the self-category is based on two aspects (Turner et al. 1987):
- 1) The comparative fit (metacontrast)
- 2) The normative fit

Fit of self-categories

Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & McGarty, C. (1994). Self and collective: Cognition and social context. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 20(5), 454-463.

 Self and collective: Cognition and social context (Turner 1994)

Normative fit of self-categorization

A collection of stimuli is more likely to be categorized as a group if the perceived average difference among them (intragroup difference) is less than the perceived average difference between them and the remaining reference stimuli (intergroup difference).

Learn Before

Related

Learn After