Ingroup-favoritism mechanisms can be redirected to reduce outgroup bias

Evidence

In general, there is strong and consistent support for the basic hypothesis that, as a consequence of recategorization, the cognitive and motivational processes that initially produced ingroup favoritism can be harnessed to reduce intergroup bias and prejudice toward former outgroup members who now share the common, superordinate group identity (see Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000). These findings are consistent with, and extend both conceptually and empirically, Allport’s idea that group memberships vary in inclusiveness and intergroup relations can be improved by shifting from difference at one level (e.g., race) to commonality at another level (e.g., humankind). — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 571

In general, there is strong and consistent support for the basic hypothesis that, as a consequence of recategorization, the cognitive and motivational processes that initially produced ingroup favoritism can be harnessed to reduce intergroup bias and prejudice toward former outgroup members who now share the common, superordinate group identity (see Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000). These findings are consistent with, and extend both conceptually and empirically, Allport’s idea that group memberships vary in inclusiveness and intergroup relations can be improved by shifting from difference at one level (e.g., race) to commonality at another level (e.g., humankind). — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 571

In general, there is strong and consistent support for the basic hypothesis that, as a consequence of recategorization, the cognitive and motivational processes that initially produced ingroup favoritism can be harnessed to reduce intergroup bias and prejudice toward former outgroup members who now share the common, superordinate group identity (see Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000). These findings are consistent with, and extend both conceptually and empirically, Allport’s idea that group memberships vary in inclusiveness and intergroup relations can be improved by shifting from difference at one level (e.g., race) to commonality at another level (e.g., humankind). — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 571

Wilder & Thompson (1980) covaried contact with the ingroup and outgroup in a laboratory study. While it had no impact on ingroup ratings, less ingroup contact led to less bias toward the outgroup. This finding is consistent with meta-analytic results that show ingroup bias is positively related with ingroup salience (Mullen et al 1992). — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Intergroup Contact Theory, 59

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to contact hypothesis literature and the broader theme of prejudice reduction in this book; also resonates with superordinate goal research from Sherif’s Robbers Cave studies. — connects to: Misperceived outgroup extremity drives real polarization through a self-fulfilling spiral.
• QUESTION: Does this mean assimilationist pressure works partly by thinning ingroup ties rather than by changing outgroup views directly?
• STORYSTEM: A character whose bigotry fades not through friendship with outsiders but simply through drifting away from their own crowd.
• corroborated: 5 independent passages support this claim — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 571; , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 571; Thomas F. Pettigrew, Intergroup Contact Theory, 59