Optimal intergroup contact unfolds through staged decategorization then recategorization

Evidence

One recategorization strategy, represented by our own work on the Common Ingroup Identity Model, involves interventions to change people’s conceptions of distinct group memberships to either a single, more inclusive group, or to subgroups within a more inclusive superordinate group (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000). Allport’s (1954/1979, p. 43) “circles of inclusion” diagram nicely depicts the idea that a person’s potential ingroups can vary hierarchically in inclusiveness, for example from one’s family to one’s neighborhood, to one’s city, to one’s nation, to all of humankind. With recategorization, perceptions of group boundaries of “us” and “them” are transformed into a more inclusive “we.” — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 564 (#expands, via linked claim)

Even if eliminating category salience can seem theoretically advantageous, group memberships are frequently both subjectively and collectively meaningful and emotionally significant, and in such cases group members are reluctant to surrender their identity and distinctiveness (Brewer, 1991). — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1817 (#complicates, via linked claim)

A dual identity refers to a state in which individuals simultaneously identify with membership in a subgroup as well as in a superordinate group. The dual identity concept was born out of the literature on intergroup contact (Brown & Hewstone, 2005; Dovidio et al., 2009; Gaertner et al., 1993) and combines the value that the maintenance of subgroups brings with the value that a more inclusive superordinate group brings to intergroup conflict reduction. The maintenance of subgroup boundaries allows individuals to value the differences that each group brings to the interaction (as described by the mutual intergroup differentiation model; Brown & Hewstone, 2005), and establishing a more inclusive group identity allows for cooperative interdependence (as described by the common in-group identity model; Gaertner et al., 1993). — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 695 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Decategorization predicts contact works when group salience is minimized — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1808; Decategorized contact reduces bias but fails to generalize beyond the individual — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 559; Allport’s contact conditions anticipated later decategorization and recategorization models (+8 more)

Broader Connections

• Recategorizing group boundaries can expand ingroup identity from us-them to we #expands (0.92) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 564
• Group members resist surrendering meaningful category identities during intergroup contact #complicates (0.84) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1817
• Simultaneous subgroup and superordinate identification reduces intergroup conflict #complicates (0.82) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 695
• People gravitate toward subgroup over superordinate identities in nested categories #complicates (0.75) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 683