Different prejudice-reduction strategies may work sequentially rather than in competition

Evidence

With respect to the first direction, although decategorization or personalization, mutual intergroup differentiation, and recategorization through cross-cutting group memberships or superordinate group identities represent different perspectives for reducing prejudice, rather than viewing these as competing positions and arguing which one is correct, future research will likely consider these as complementary rather than as competing frameworks. … Indeed, it is possible that these different processes may operate sequentially to reduce bias (Hewstone, 1996; Pettigrew, 1998). For instance, success in cooperative activities in which groups maintain their separate identities (mutual intergroup differentiation) may facilitate the groups’ subsequent acceptance of a common superordinate identity. The development of a common ingroup identity, in turn, may not only produce more positive attitudes toward people formerly perceived only as outgroup members but also may lead to more individuated perceptions of them, and encourage more selfdisclosing interactions. Even though the salience of a common ingroup identity may be relatively unstable because of contextual pressures or historical relations between the original groups (Hewstone, 1996), these personalized interactions may then create more enduring positive attitudes, orientations, and social networks between members of the groups, as well as the recognition and development of cross-cutting group identities. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 589

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the general Contact Hypothesis literature and Pettigrew’s integration model; also parallels the tension between decategorization and recategorization approaches familiar from social psychology course material.